Plant categories and types in Tibetan materia medica

ISSN 0970-5368

JOURNALTIBETTHE

a publication for the study of Tibet

Vol. XXX & Vol.XXXI, No.4 & No.1, Winter 2005 & Spring 2006

Th

e T

ibet

Jo

urn

al EDITORIAL BOARD

Geshe Lhakdor, Gyatsho Tshering, Tashi Tsering, Nathan Katz, Bikkhu Pasadika,Anne-Marie Blondeau, Per Kværne, Toni Huber

POLICIES

The Tibet Journal is a quarterly publication of the Library of Tibetan Works &Archives (LTWA) devoted to the presentation of scholarly and general interestarticles on Tibetan culture and civilization by Tibetans and non-Tibetans. Opin-ions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views or policies ofthe Editorial Board of The Tibet Journal or the LTWA. Responsibility for viewsexpressed and the accuracy of articles rests entirely with the authors.

EDITORIAL CORRESPONDENCE

The Tibet Journal welcomes submission of articles and research papers in En-glish, adequately substantiated or otherwise documented, with Wylie roman-isation system. Article should be typed and double-spaced. We request that allcontributions sent to the journal have both the print and diskette/CD copy (inMS Word). Contributors will receive a copy of the Journal, and up to 20 offprintsof the particular article. Unaccepted articles will be returned upon request. TheJournal encourages readers’ comments on articles published in recent issues. Ad-dress articles, rejoinders, editorial enquiries, and books for review to: ManagingEditor, The Tibet Journal, Library of Tibetan Works & Archives, GangchenKyishong, Dharamsala 176 215, H.P., INDIA Tel: +91-1892-222467, 226095,Fax: +91-1892-223723, Email: [email protected], visit <www.ltwa.net>

PRINT SUBSCRIPTION/DISTRIBUTION

We have appointed M/S Biblia Impex Pvt. Ltd. as the sole distributing andselling agent of The Tibet Journal in print form w.e.f. Vol.XII, 1987. Please sendall enquiries relating to subscriptions to: Biblia Impex Pvt. Ltd., 2/18, AnsariRoad, New Delhi 110 002, INDIA, Email: [email protected], Website:<www.bibliaimpex.com>

ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION RATES

Inland Rs. 350Single copy Rs. 100

Overseas US $ 45 (Air Mail)Single copy US $ 12 (Air Mail)

ELECTRONIC SUBSCRIPTION

Following an agreement, we have appointed EBSCO Publishing, USA, our soledistributing and selling agent for electronic publication w.e.f. Vol.XXVII, 2002. Forsubscription contact EBSCO Publishing, 10 Estes Street, Ipswich, Massachu-setts 01938-0682, USA, Email: [email protected], Website: <www.epnet.com>

COPYRIGHT

Except where otherwise declared, the entire contents of The Tibet Journal areunder the protection of the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, the Berne Conventionof 1956, and the Universal Copyright of 1952. In case of reprint usage, the Manag-ing Editor should be informed and source credit given to the authors of theindividual articles, as well as to The Tibet Journal.

The Tibet JournalA publication for the study of Tibet

Contributions to the study of Tibetan medicine

Alessandro Boesi & Francesca CardiGUEST EDITORS

Geshe Lhakdor Dhondup Tsering EDITOR-IN-CHIEF MANAGING EDITOR

WINTER & SPRING VOL.XXX, NO.4 & VOL.XXXI,NO.1 2005 & 2006

ARTICLES

sMan and Glud: Standard Tibetan Medicine and RitualMedicine in a Bon Medical School and Clinic in NepalColin Millard 3Tibetan Medicine in GyalthangDenise M. Glover 31Hybrid Methodologies in the Lhasa Mentsikhang: ASummary of Resources for Teaching about TibetanMedicineFrances Garrett 55Plant categories and types in Tibetan materia medicaAlessandro Boesi 65Principles and methods of assembling Tibetan medicamentsFrancesca Cardi 91Nyes pa: A brief review of its English translationYonten Gyatso 109“An excellent measure”: the battle against smallpoxin Tibet, 1904-47Alex McKay 119

Zurkharwa Lodro Gyalpo (1509-1579) on theControversy of the Indian Origin of the rGyud bzhiOlaf Czaja 131A Hitherto Unknown ‘Medical History’ of mTshosmad mkhan chen (b.16th cent.)Olaf Czaja 153

BOOK REVIEWS

Mahayanasutralamkara, The Universal Vehicle 173Discourse Literature edited by Prof. Robert ThurmanProf. Parmananda SharmaBritain and Tibet 1765-1947: A select annotated bibliography 174of British relations with Tibet and the Himalayan statesincluding Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan by Julie G. MarshallAlex MckayExile as Challenge: The Tibetan Diaspora, Bernstorff, Dagmar 174and Hubertus von Welck (eds.)Feminism, Nationalism and Exiled Tibetan Womenby Alex ButlerGeoff ChildsThe Autobiography of Jamgön Kongtrul: A Gem of Many 179Colors translated by Richard BarronMartin A. MillsThe Practice of Dzogchen by Longchen Rabjam 181translated by Tulku ThondupGeorgios HalkiasThe Life of Buddhism, Frank E. Reynolds and 182Jason A. Carbine (eds.)The Power of DenialÑBuddhism, Purity and 184Gender by Bernard FaureD.R. Chaudhry

OBITUARIES

Heinrich Harrer (1912 - 2006) 189Henry George Baker (1918 - 2006) 193Roger Croston

CONTRIBUTORS 197

Plant categories and types in Tibetan materia medica

Alessandro Boesi

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays as in the past medicinal substances represent an important resourcefor Tibetan people both for health and wealth. Tibetan medical institutes andindependent practitioners carry out activities related to drug identification,collection, and the compounding and administration of remedies. Tibetancommunities have been always relying as a source of income on the barteringand selling of several products taken from the natural environment such asrhubarbs, Fritillaria bulbs, caterpillar fungus and musk deer pods, sought afterby practitioners of Tibetan, ayurvedic and Chinese medicine and at present alsoby pharmaceutical and phyto-pharmaceutical companies.

The materia medica of Tibetan medicine, significantly influenced byAyurveda1 (as other aspects of the Tibetan medical science) after the translationinto Tibetan language of medical and tantric treatises of Indian origin, has beenenriched and modified during the centuries according to the needs of thepopulation and has been adapted to the environmental conditions of Tibetanregions. Even at the present time Tibetan traditional doctors try to find newdrugs. In addition, owing to the great extension of the area over which Tibetanmedicine is practised, the many substances of mineral, animal, and plant originof Tibetan pharmacopoeia may vary according to the region, climate andvegetation, medical schools, local traditions, and foreign influences.

Fundamental medical treatises, their commentaries, and several texts ofmateria medica are devoted to describing features, qualities and therapeuticproperties, time and methods of collection, and processing of medicinalsubstances. Yet when I decided to research into Tibetan medicinal plants and inparticular on their classification I realised that it was not possible to accomplishthis study only through the reading of the written sources because the informationon the different categories is for the most part too concise for grasping the criteriaupon which they have been devised. The explanation of the master is absolutelycrucial to completely understand plant actual features, classifications, properties,and ways of exploitation. Therefore I decided to ask directly to Tibetan traditionaldoctors about these categorisations. The research fieldwork has been conductedwith practitioners from different Tibetan regions focusing on those who collectand process medicinal substances and know fundamental medical texts andpharmacopoeias. Participant observation and open-ended conversations havebeen mostly used as methods of investigation. Semi-structured interviews havealso been conducted with other Tibetan doctors who do not perform the aboveactivities2.

Some systems of medicinal substance categorisation are described in classicalliterary sources. The classification may be devised on the basis of medicinalsubstance morphological, biological and ecological features (particularly forplants), taste (ro)3, potency (nus pa)4, and on the basis of the disease (nad) cured.For example, medicinal substances may be separated into two groups: the former

66 TIBET JOURNAL

includes drugs that cure hot diseases (tsha nad) whereas the latter consists of drugsthat cure cold diseases (grang nad). Some classifications are mainly practical suchas the one proposed by some practitioners from Baragaon (central Nepal) whodistinguish two types of medicinal plants: the ones growing at high altitude, namedmtho sa sman, “medicines of high altitude areas”, and the ones growing at lowaltitude, named dma’ sa sman, “medicines of low altitude areas”.

The principal aim of this article is to examine that traditional classification whichseparates Tibetan medicinal plants into categories, sub-categories and “types”5 andin particular to try to explain the criteria upon which they have been worked out.The analysis does not concern the categories including the medicines of mineral andanimal origin. The first part of the article is devoted to introducing the categories ofmedicinal substances, in the following part the different categories of medicinalplants are thoroughly examined. The last section is devoted to analysing theclassification of medicinal plants in “types”. Each category has been examined initiallyon the basis of the information available on written sources. After I have tried toexplain this information according to the elucidations given by the informants, thedata concerning the botanical identification of the plant specimens gathered duringmy fieldwork and the identification proposed in modern pharmacopoeias.

The classification of Tibetan materia medica in its entirety has been dealt withby Francesca Cardi6 in her dissertation work on Tibetan pharmacopoeia andpreparation of the remedies. Meyer7 in his book devoted to Tibetan medicine hasbriefly dealt with the categories of medicines.

CATEGORIES OF MEDICINES

In Tibetan medicine medicinal substances (sman)8, natural and non-natural, areclassified in several categories and sub-categories.

Although the classical classification described in fundamental treatises is acceptedby all practitioners, I emphasise the discrepancy in the conception of certaincategories, and in particular of the categories of thang sman, “medicines of theplains”, and sngo sman, “herbaceous medicines”. The cause of this disparity dependson the practitioners’ level of education, and on the influence of the modern treatisesof Tibetan medicine, which introduce new concepts and systems of classifyingmedicinal substances. This recent phenomenon is enhanced also because thetraditional classification of medicinal plants in categories, according to fieldworkobservations and to the opinion of the informants, has little practical relevance andin this way it may be easily substituted by a simpler one.

As far as the level of knowledge of Tibetan materia medica is concerned, therecent standardisation and industrialisation of the process of medicament productionin the biggest medical institutes, the specialisation of practitioners and the capillarydistribution of the medicines to the dispensaries (for example to the ones whichdepend on the Tibetan Medical & Astro Institute of Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh,India) in many regions, imply that only a portion of practitioners has an in-depthknowledge of medicinal substances. In spite of that other traditional doctors in allTibetan regions have been carrying on practising Tibetan medicine in a traditionalway and know very well its pharmacopoeia.

The types of substances included in each category may be heterogeneous. As itwill be shown in the next sections, some categories consist of medicines comingexclusively from minerals, others include only medicines coming from plants, one

PLANT CATEGORIES AND TYPES ... 67

category includes medicines from living beings, one category consists of differenttypes of substances, another includes only mineral substances except for one that isa plant.

The following categories (rigs) of medicines are described in The Four Tantras(rGyud bzhi) and in its commentary The Blue Beryl (Vaidurya sngon po): rin poche’i sman (precious medicines), rdo’i sman (stone medicines), sa’i sman (earthmedicines), rtsi sman9 (essence medicines), shing sman (medicines coming fromwoody plants), thang sman (medicines of the plains), sngo sman (herbaceousmedicines), srog chags sman (medicines coming from living beings), and lo thog gisman (crop medicines). The expressions properly designating each category are notcommonly employed by the practitioners in their practical activities, but only duringtheoretical discussions on the materia medica.

Differently some other categories of medicines are described in the Crystal Rosary(Shel phreng): tshwa sman (salt medicines), chu’i sman (water medicines), me’isman (fire medicines), and gdus pa’i sman (concentrated medicines).

I point out that in The Four Tantras and consequently in The Blue Beryl thedifferent groups of medicinal substances are described in a chapter whose aim is todescribe their potencies10.

Plants are included in five among the eight categories above mentioned: rdo’isman (or sa sman according to the text), rtsi sman, shing sman, thang sman, sngosman, and lo thog gi sman. The three categories that include the majority of medicinalplants (shing sman, thang sman, sngo sman) may be separated into some sub-groupings worked out on the basis of the plant organs that are gathered and\oremployed as medicines such as leaves, flowers, and stems. According to the TheFour Tantras11 and The Blue Beryl12 shing sman and thang sman are divided intosub-groupings whereas the category sngo sman is not. I emphasise that in these textsthe drugs that belong to rtsi sman, shing sman, and thang sman are listed togetherwithout setting any limit between the categories and between their sub-groupingsand, as far as the categories shing sman and thang sman are concerned, theirconstituents are listed together without any order. Thus it is very difficult to distinguishthem. This might suggest that it is not very important to know to which of the abovecategories a drug belongs probably because this does not have significant implicationson its potency. Yet the drugs that belong to the category rtsi sman can be distinguishedmore easily since they are listed together and because of the indications given in TheBlue Beryl, as it will be explained in the section devoted to this category.

Differently from the two texts above, the author of The Crystal Rosary describesseveral sub-groupings also in the category sngo sman and he clearly differentiatesthe shing sman category by enumerating the constituents according to their sub-groupings13. The thang sman medicines are listed without distinguishing theirsub-groupings14 as in The Four Tantras and The Blue Beryl.

According to the authors of the two texts above on one side and to De’udmar dge bshes on the other one, the categories shing sman, thang sman, andsngo sman exhibit a significant disparity in their content. In The Four Tantrasand The Blue Beryl many plants included amongst the sngo sman such as thangphrom15, dres ma (Iris spp.)16, dwa ba (Arisaema spp.), and mtshe ldum(Ephedra spp.), are considered in the Shel phreng as thang sman. Moreover,according to The Four Tantras and The Blue Beryl, woody plants such as shugpa tsher can (Juniperus spp.), mdzo mo (Caragana spp.), skyi ba (Sophora

68 TIBET JOURNAL

moorcroftiana)17, dbyi mong, (Clematis spp.), and ba lu (Rhododendronanthopogon)18 are included in the category sngo sman, “herbaceous medicines”.These drugs are considered—probably more correctly considering theirbiological and morphological features—as shing sman in the Shel phreng.Curiously in The Four Tantras, se rgod (Rosa spp.) and skyer pa (Berberisspp.) are mentioned twice: firstly when the shing sman, rtsi sman, and thangsman medicines are listed and secondly among the sngo sman medicines inthe same chapter19. Medicinal salts (tshwa sman), which are placed in a categoryof its own in the Shel phreng20, in The Four Tantras and The Blue Beryl arelisted amongst the shing sman and the thang sman medicines.

The author of The Four Tantras describes only a part of the actual plantsthat belong to each category of medicines probably with the intention of givingsome examples. As a matter of fact many other plants (and other medicinalsubstances of mineral and animal origin) are mentioned in the other parts ofThe Four Tantras. sDe srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho has systematized thesemedicines in The Blue Beryl21 and in the Tibetan Thankas22 he hascommissioned, where they are described as supplementary materia medica(kha skong gras, “supplementary class”).

Medicinal substances have been organized more properly in relation totheir features in the Shel phreng where the categories and sub-categories (exceptfor the thang sman) are neatly separated and the number of medicinal substancesdescribed is exhaustive. I have chosen this text as the main classical referencealso because of its frequent use by the informants and the relatively detailedplant descriptions (concerning both morphological and ecological plantfeatures) given by the author and since it constitutes the main reference sourcefor the recently published modern texts of Tibetan materia medica.

An interesting aspect of the classification of medicinal plants (and in generalof all kinds of medicinal substances) in Tibetan medicine is the disparity inthe criteria employed to group the plant together in the different categories.The constituents of the category rtsi sman are assembled on the basis of theirpeculiar therapeutic properties and fragrance, the category shing sman isworked out on the basis of the plant features from which its components comeand the categories thang sman and sngo sman are devised on the basis of plantmorphological, biological features, and environment of growth.

I note that in The Four Tantras23 the term rtswa is employed to indicatethang and sngo medicinal plants at the same time. Actually several traditionaldoctors from the regions of Litang, Baragaon, and Ladakh include in a singlegroup called sman rtswa, “medicinal herbaceous plants”, and rtswa sman,“herbaceous medicines”, all medicinal herbaceous plants. This classificationis probably used for convenience.

In all Tibetan cultural regions the new designations and categorisationsystems introduced in the modern Tibetan pharmacopoeias certainly underChinese influence are seldom used although they are known by the newgenerations of practitioners and also by some traditional doctors from isolatedregions because of the rapid diffusion of the above texts. Karma chos ’phel(1993) presents three new categories of medicinal substances: gter dngos kyisman rdzas, “mineral medicinal substances”; skye dngos kyi sman rdzas,“medicinal substances which grow”, that includes medicinal plants; srog chags


kyi sman rdzas, “medicinal substances of living beings”. The author’s intentionis probably to work out a classification that reflects the one of modern sciencein three kingdoms: mineral, plant, and animal. Yet it is not possible to adaptthe drug traditional classification to the classification system of modern sciencebecause the criteria upon which they are based are different. For example, it isdoubtful whether the traditional category of the “essence medicines” (rtsi sman)can be included in the so-called skye dngos kyi sman rdzas group, “medicinalsubstances which grow”, as proposed by Karma chos ’phel, because besides afew medicinal plants some substances of animal and mineral origin such asgla rtsi (musk) and brag zhun (bitumen)24 are also listed in this category.

Categories of medicines that include plants

STONE MEDICINES AND EARTH MEDICINES

The medicine called rdo dreg (Parmelia tinctorum25) is included in the categoryof stone medicines (rdo’i sman)26 according to the pharmacopoeia Shel phreng27

whereas according to The Four Tantras (bShad rgyud28) it is included in thecategory of earth medicines (sa sman)29. The expression rdo dreg may betranslated as “stone incrustation”. Although considered as a plant by allinformants, it has probably been included among the medicines coming fromthe stones because it appears to be growing directly from the rocks, as somepractitioners from Litang and Baragaon assert.

In the modern treatises of Tibetan materia medica, rdo dreg has beenincluded either in a new-devised category including stone medicines and earthmedicines, called sa rdo’i sman30, or amongst the herbaceous medicines (sngosman)31 reflecting a recent adjustment of the classification according to theone of modern botany certainly under Chinese influence.

ESSENCE MEDICINES

The essence medicines (rtsi sman)32 represent a peculiar category that consistsof heterogeneous components. According to written sources, these medicinalsubstances may come from sentient beings as in the case of gla rtsi (musk)33

and dom mkhris (bear bile)34, from stones as brag zhun (bitumen)35, and fromplants (see below).

Here follows the description of this category according to The FourTantras36 (the same is given in the Blue Beryl): “the rtsi sman originate fromherbaceous plants (rtswa), woody plants (shing), and sentient beings (srogchags).” Differently, according to the Shel phreng37, the rtsi sman “originatefrom woody plants (shing), from the plants of ldum type, from the plants ofsngo type38, from sentient beings (srog chags), and from stones (rdo)…” Herethe essence medicines also include a substance (brag zhun) that comes fromthe stones and the two distinct expressions ldum and sngo are employed in theplace of the term rtswa to indicate herbaceous plants.

The author of the rGyud bzhi does not give any indication about whichsubstances belong to the essence medicines: all the substances included in theshing sman, rtsi sman, and thang sman are listed without setting any limitbetween them. Nonetheless in the Vaidurya sngon po39, when commenting this

70 TIBET JOURNAL

category, it is stated that some practitioners affirm that all the medicines listedbetween gi wang (liver and gall-bladder bezoars) and utpala (Meconopsis spp.)belong to the rtsi sman. The above medicines are gi wang, cu gang, gur gum,sug smel, dzwa ti, li shi, ka ko la40, gla rtsi, dom mkhris, and utpala. Thus inthis text, essence medicines consist of ten substances.

Differently in the Shel phreng De’u dmar dge bshes41 lists 12 different rtsimedicines: ga bur42, dzwa ti, li shi, sug smel, cu gang, gur kum, gi wang, glartsi, dom mkhris, dbang po ril bu (intestinal bezoars), and brag zhun. In thistext, among the rtsi sman of plant origin, in the place of utpala, which here isincluded in the category sngo sman43, there is ga bur, which is assigned to thecategory shing sman in The Four Tantras. The medicine of animal origin dbangpo ril bu and the one of mineral origin brag zhun have been added. In therGyud bzhi brag zhun is placed in the category of earth medicines (sa sman).

As far as utpala44 is concerned, it might be speculated that in ancient timesit corresponded to the imported Indian blue lotus (Nymphaea nouchali)45 andtherefore was included in the rtsi sman category as described in the FourTantras owing probably to its fragrant perfume and the lotus being a symbol ofpurity, perfection, and compassion. Later on, when some species of Himalayanpoppy (Meconopsis spp.) were selected as local substitutes, the drug wasreallocated in the category of the herbaceous medicines sngo sman, as shownin more recent classical pharmacopoeias as the Shel phreng46 and the materiamedica of ’Jam dpal rdo rje47.

A few modern Tibetan pharmacopoeias, most probably under Chineseinfluence, introduce new elements among the essence medicines. In the materiamedica of dGa’ ba’i rdo rje dbyar rtswa dgun ’bu (Cordyceps sinensis), aparasite mushroom traditionally considered as a herbaceous plant by Tibetanpeople48, is included among the rtsi sman and designated with the recently-devised name rtswa da byid49. Yet another modern pharmacopoeia50 publishedat Lhasa regards the same medicine as belonging to the category ldum bu thangsman that mainly includes herbaceous plants. The dbyar rtswa dgun ’bu is notmentioned in the fundamental treatises of Tibetan medicine as rGyud bzhi andVaidurya sngon po and in the classical pharmacopoeia Shel gong and in itscommentary Shel phreng, but it is described in the illustrated materia medicawritten in the XIX century by ’Jam dpal rdo rje51, a practitioner from Mongolia,where it is included in the category of herbaceous medicine (sngo sman)52.

The analysis of the expression rtsi is significant to assess the features ofthe essence medicines. The Tibetan-English dictionary of Chandra Das53

proposes the following definitions: “varnish, paint”, “all fluids of a certainconsistency, such the juice of some fruits, certain secretions, etc.”. Thesedefinitions cannot be employed for the term rtsi according to its use in Tibetanmedicine. Also Meyer54 has stated that the expression rtsi “ne peut pas êtretraduit par comme cela a été fait dans la table des matières de “An IllustratedTibeto-Mongolian Materia Medica of Ayurveda”55, car ce groupe de droguescomprend des produits aussi divers que la bile d’ours, le camphre et les clousde girofle”.

In order to understand the nature of the essence medicines, I have askedthe informants the following questions: what is the reason for assemblingtogether these drugs that apparently seem to be so different? Which are the


parameters that justify this classification? The first answer given by manypractitioners from different regions has been that the attribution of the termrtsi to certain substances indicates that they have strong therapeutic properties.In particular the fact that even a small amount (sman nyung nyung) of any rtsimedicine has strong potency (nus pa chen po) has often been emphasized asthe fundamental feature. Hence, according to the informants, a little amountof them is enough to prepare medicaments.

A traditional doctor from Baragaon states that the presence of fragrance isan important feature of the essence medicines as well: “when fragrance (drima) is absent—he says—there is no potency, even if the taste of the plantcorresponds to the one described in medical texts.” Actually the majority ofinformants agree that the drugs included in the category of essence medicineshave good fragrance (dri bzang) and that this scent denotes their curativeproperties56. Almost all the drugs of this category actually have a strongfragrance and also in the Shel phreng57 the good fragrance dri bzang (and drizhim) is attributed to the majority of them. A practitioner from Litang assignsto essence medicines the property of being “good medicines” (sman bzangpo). He affirms that these drugs possess outstanding and long-lasting therapeuticproperties.

It may therefore be assumed that the expression rtsi mainly refers to thefollowing conception: good fragrance—strong and concentrated medicine. Inthis way the definition of rtsi proposed by the Dharma Dictionary58, “essence”,“elixir”, “nectar”, seems more appropriate in Tibetan medicine.

The modern pharmacopoeia of dGa’ ba’i rdo rje59 mentions a treatise namedg.Yu thog dgongs rgyan where this category of medicines is defined as follows:“name of a class of medicines that are endowed with the essence (rtsi bcud)that provides sustenance to the bodily constituents and defeats the diseases”.After that60 it is also explained that the substances included in the category ofrtsi sman have, among the others, the property of “increasing strength” (zungsskyed). Therefore the introduction of the dbyar rtswa dgun ’bu in this groupmay be ascribed to its properties as a tonic and aphrodisiac and to its greatimportance in Chinese medicine. Another drug recently introduced among theessence medicines is the horn of rhino (bse ru)61 which, like dbyar rtswa dgun’bu, is a well-known product in China. Traditionally bSe ru is placed in themedicines of animal origin as reported in the Shel phreng62 and in the rGyudbzhi63.

THE MEDICINES COMING FROM WOODY PLANTS

The medicines named shing sman consist of drugs which come from woodyplants (shing sdong). According to the rGyud bzhi64 the divisions of the shingsman are ten. Each of them is devised by assembling the plants of which thesame organs are employed in medicine: fruits and seeds (’bras bu), flowers(me tog), leaves (lo ma), trunks (sdong po), branches (yal ga), skins (shunpa), resins (tshi ba), roots (rtsa ba), shoots (ldum bu) and marrow (rkang). Iemphasise that several practitioners from Litang and Baragaon have statedthat the meaning of the term ldum bu, usually employed to designate a categoryof medicines65 or generally herbaceous plants by common people, correspondshere to the expression gsar skyes66: “fresh shoots and leaves”.

72 TIBET JOURNAL

Differently in the Shel phreng67 the divisions of the shing sman are eight68,the two divisions shoots (ldum bu) and marrow (rkang) are lacking.

Although in the Shel gong69 the division of roots (rtsa ba) is mentioned atthe beginning of the section devoted to shing sman, it is omitted in the followingpages where the plants that belong to each division are described. The authorgives the reason for the omission in the Shel phreng70 where he explains that,even if a group of shing sman designated rtsa ba exists, this division has notbeen dealt with independently owing to the fact that only the root of bra ma(Caragana spp.) is evocated during practical activities. Bra ma has been placedhere in the sub-group of branches71.

The same woody plant may be included in more than one division at thesame time according to the plant organ used as medicine. For example,according to the Shel phreng, se ba72 (Rosa spp.) belongs to three divisions: 1)fruits and seeds (’bras bu), with the name of se rgod ’bras bu73; 2) flowers (metog) as se ba’i me tog74; 3) skins (pags pa) as se rgod75. Similarly skyer pa(Berberis spp.) is included in the division of flowers as skyer pa’i me tog76 aswell as in the division of skins as skyer pa77.

In The Blue Beryl78 it is stated that some practitioners affirm that all themedicines listed in this text between ga bur and a ga ru are shing sman,particularly ga bur, tsandan dmar po (Santalum album), tsandan dkar po(Pterocarpus santalinus), and a ga ru (Aquilaria sinensis)79. Yet the authoralso states that there are doubts on the above order because in the category ofshing sman there are ten sub-groupings and, according to the above statement,only four examples are given. Actually many plants commonly categorized asshing sman as a ru ra (Terminalia chebula), ba ru ra (Terminalia bellirica),and skyu ru ra (Phyllanthus emblica)80 are listed in the following pages.

According to the Shel phreng81, it seems that the sub-groups of shing smanand sngo sman (herbaceous medicines) are not seen by De’u dmar dge bshesexactly in the same way, because in the description of the sub-groups of shingsman he omits the term btu ba, “to gather”, which is employed in reference tosngo sman. The omission might suggest that the medicines coming from woodyplants are not gathered locally. This may be explained considering that severalof these medicines do not thrive on the Tibetan plateau and are bought onlocal markets already cut in parts. Nonetheless several medicinal woody plantsthrive in the region of origin of the author of this famous treatise (east Tibet)as I could also verify in the Litang County and adjacent regions. De’u dmardge bshes lists as example of shing sman some plants coming from the tropicaland sub-tropical regions of India and China as tsan dan dkar po, tsan dandmar po, and a ru ra (Terminalia chebula), but he also indicates se ba (Rosaspp.), a woody plant thriving in many Tibetan regions, as several other medicinescoming from woody plants that I have gathered for example in the LitangCounty82.

According to the descriptions of each medicine given in The Crystal Rosary,the majority of the plants included in the category shing sman come from thelow altitude regions of India, China and Nepal (nearly 40%) and from thedeep forested valleys at relatively low altitude (nearly 27 %) located in east,south Tibet, and at the fringe of the Tibetan plateau, which are called rong byTibetan people. The woody medicines gathered over the high areas of the


Tibetan plateau are fewer (nearly 33%). Although the above percentages arenot very indicative since in the Shel phreng the descriptions of the growingareas of each plant are not always precise and sometimes not even existing,they are similar to the data that can be obtained by analysing the plant botanicalidentifications proposed by Karma chos ’phel: 34.35% of the woody medicinescome from tropical and sub-tropical regions, 33.3% from the relatively lowerTibetan regions, and 32.35 % from the proper Tibetan plateau.

I note that sometimes in modern pharmacopoeias a medicine included inthis category may present some types which are herbaceous plants. For example,although the standard drug that corresponds to khyung sder83 is a woody plant(Uncaria scandens), there are some types which are herbaceous plants assuggested by the determinant sngo placed at the beginning of their names84: awhite type (sngo khyung sder dkar po, Saussurea katochaetoides)85 and apurple-brown type (sngo khyung sder smug po, S. stella)86.

THE MEDICINES OF THE PLAINS AND THE HERBACEOUS MEDICINES

These two categories of medicines have been dealt with in the same sectionsince their distinction is not clear according to both informants and writtensources, and because many practitioners tend to see them as a single group.

The category thang sman is commonly designated by employing a fewslightly different expressions according to the text considered and the informant.The rGyud bzhi87 mentions the term thang sman, “medicines of the plains”,whereas in the Shel gong88 this category is designated as ldum bu thang sman,“medicines of the plains and of ldum type”. In the Shel phreng89 three similarexpressions are mentioned: thang sman, ldum sman, “ldum medicines”, andldum bu’am thang sman, “medicines of the plains or of ldum type”.90 De’udmar dge bshes, in a chapter devoted to introducing the different categories ofmedicines, explains that the expressions thang and ldum are equivalent91 inthe sense that they indicate the same category. Practitioners from all the regionswhere the fieldwork has been carried out employ the designations thang smanand ldum bu thang sman indifferently. The expression ldum sman has beenseldom evoked.

The rGyud bzhi92 and the Shel phreng93 describe some sub-groupings ofthis category. They are worked out on the basis of the plant part which has tobe gathered and therefore that is employed in medicine. In the former text fivesub-groupings are described (rtsa ba, underground organs; ngar pa, stalk; loma, leaves; me tog, flowers; ’bras bu, fruits and seeds) whilst in the latter onlyfour, the sub-group ngar pa not being mentioned.

Curiously De’u dmar dge bshes does not list the medicines included in thiscategory according to their sub-groupings, as he does with the other maincategories of medicinal plants (shing sman et sngo sman), but all the medicinesof the plains are presented together as it happens in the Four Tantras. As wehave already explained in the section devoted to essence medicines, in theFour Tantras and in The Blue Beryl it is not possible to discern the drugsincluded in the category thang sman clearly, since all the shing sman, rtsisman, and thang sman medicines are listed without setting any limit betweenthem.

74 TIBET JOURNAL

As concerns the category sngo sman, “herbaceous medicines”, it is alsocategorised in several sub-groupings devised on the basis of the plant partwhich has to be collected, as it is explained in the Shel phreng94 where six sub-groupings are described: the one whose underground organs (rtsa ba) arecollected, the one whose leaves (lo ma) are gathered, the one whose flowers(me tog) are collected, the one whose fruits and seeds (bras ’bu) are collected,the one whose aerial portion of the plant along with fruits (lo sdong me ’bras)are gathered, and the one whose the entire plant without the stalk (rtsa lo me’bras) is collected. This distinction is not mentioned in The Four Tantras andin The Blue Beryl.

Most informants from different regions do not have precise ideas of whatthe real nature of the medicines that belong to the thang sman and sngo smancategories is and even learned practitioners do not clearly elucidate thedifferences between them. This phenomenon might be explained consideringthat the classification of medicinal plants in thang sman and sngo sman doesnot seem to have any practical utility according to informants. Actually apractitioner from Dhorpatan and some practitioners from Litang have affirmedthat the plants included in these two categories share the same characteristics(mtshan nyid), the same particular qualities (khyad chos) and the same modeof use (lag len). Traditional classification may therefore be substituted, as wehave shown in the above sections, with other usually simpler classificationsystems. This phenomenon is very common and many traditional doctors indifferent regions adopt a classification which does not differentiate thang smanand sngo sman, but they consider a category seen as including medicinalherbaceous plants. Other than using the term rtswa sman (herbaceousmedicines), the tendency towards employing the expression sngo ldum sman(sngo and ldum medicines), as proposed by the authors of some modern treatisesof Tibetan materia medica95 that have been recently spreading over all Tibetanregions, is not so common. This expression connotes medicinal herbaceousplants. Other practitioners employ the term sngo sman to indicate all medicinalherbaceous plants.

In order to explain the real nature of the plants included in the categorythang sman, the term thang will be analysed below. The common sense of thisword is “plain”, “flatlands”96. However in Tibetan medicine it may alsodesignate a type of medicinal preparation, notably decoctions. Actually manyinformants from different regions have wrongly affirmed that the term thang97

sman exclusively indicates decoctions and not also a category of medicinalsubstances. A few other informants have also incorrectly asserted that the thangsman include drugs of plant origin, which are used to prepare decoctions.Meyer98 has given similar explanations in his book devoted to Tibetan medicine.

A small number of practitioners from different regions have suggested moreinteresting definitions of the thang sman. They affirm that the medicines ofthe plains grow on flatlands (thang) in opposition to the herbaceous medicines(sngo sman) which thrive on the mountains (ri la). However it is important topoint out what is here the meaning of the expression thang according to theinformants: it does not generally specify the flatlands located at low altitudesas the ones of India and China, but it also designates the localities of Tibetanregions that are endowed with bde mo and snyoms po99 qualities. The attribute


bde mo is assigned to comfortable and pleasant areas and the attribute snyomspo to the localities that are uniform and evenly balanced as far as altitude,climate, and conformation of the ground are concerned. These features maycertainly be ascribed to some Tibetan localities. In particular the informantshave mentioned flatlands and valleys which are not situated at high altitudes.Tibetan people see high altitude areas as uninhabited high mountains, and asplateaus where, owing to the harsh climate, there are no villages and onlynomads can live.

A few traditional doctors from Baragaon, Litang, and Dharamsala havesuggested a definition of the category thang sman, which is also mentioned inthe medical dictionary gSo ba rig pa’i tshig mdzod g.yu thog dgongs rgyan100,that describes the ecological setting of the plants belonging to this category:“Category of medicines that thrive in the flatlands and not in the elevatedareas as stony mountains, slate mountains101 and snowy mountains”.

The same source also mentions a commentary to the rGyud bzhi written bydPal spungs dbon Karma bstan ’dzin ’phrin las rab rgyas where it is stated that“As with the thang sman, they are medicines that do not grow in high areasand grow in flatlands like tig ta and ba sha ka.” Tig ta (Swertia chirayita)102

mostly grows on the southern slopes of the Himalayan Range between 1,000and 2,500 metres and ba sha ka (Adhatoda vasica)103 thrives until 1,500 metresfor example in India and in the Chinese province of Yunnan. The term thang ishere employed with a sense that is opposite to the one of the term mtho sarand indicates relatively low and low altitude mountains areas.

The two above definitions are similar to the ones given by our informants:the thang sman category consists of medicinal plants that do not thrive overhigh mountains and plateaus, but in low flatlands and in low and relativelylow mountain areas. Therefore the translation “plateau medicines” of theexpression thang sman given by some authors104 does not seem to be veryaccurate because the term plateau may connote either the entire Tibetan plateauor the high-cold flatlands of Tibet. According to practitioners and writtensources, the herbaceous medicines (sngo sman) and not the medicines of theplains (thang sman) thrive in these areas.

De’u dmar dge bshes105 has described the medicines of the plains accordingto their morphological and biological features: “Thang sman represent theplants whose underground organs are developed and whose aerial organs groweach year as the ones of woody plants, but which, except for the undergroundorgans, perish in winter as the plants of the sngo type, and therefore are replacedeach year. For example ma nu (Inula racemosa)106, lcum (Rheum palmatum)107,and according to The Four Tantras, the main thang sman are: tig ta (Swertiachirayita) and ba sha ka (Adhatoda vasica). Their underground organs havethe essential nature of woody plants (shing), their stalks the one of the ldumtype, their leaves and flowers the “green and tender” (sngo) one of herbaceousplants.”108

According to my fieldwork data and the botanical identifications of modernTibetan materia medica109, the underground organs of the majority of thangsman are stout and thick, just as stated in the definition and in line with theexamples proposed by De’u dmar dge bshes.

76 TIBET JOURNAL

In the definition above, the three expressions shing, ldum and sngo areemployed to describe the essential nature (rang bzhin) of the three differentorgans of plants belonging to the thang sman group and they clearly point outto different morphological traits. The only difficulty consists in theinterpretation of the term ldum110 which indicates the features of stalks that areneither like the ones of woody plants (shing) nor as the ones of green-tenderherbaceous plants (sngo). The examination of features and vegetative cycle ofthe plants taken as example by De’u dmar dge bshes may help us to ascertainto which kind of plant and plant traits the term ldum refers. Inula racemosaand Rheum palmatum are herbaceous plants that have a stout herbaceous stalk.The Indian tig ta111 seems, according to De’u dmar dge bshes112, a small woodyplant (shing phran). Actually it is a robust herbaceous plant. Interestingly somepractitioners from Litang designate ldum the stalk of some types of rhubarbsas lcum (Rheum palmatum) and chu skyur (Rheum alexandrae) in the sameway as in the example proposed by the author of the Shel phreng. Accordingto the informants, these two plants have a hard-rigid (’khregs pa) green stalk,which is endowed neither with an essential nature of sngo type nor of shingtype. Ba sha ka (Adhatoda vasica) is a woody plant, according to the Shelphreng113. It should therefore not be included in the thang sman category alsobecause its aerial organs survive in winter. Yet this plant, being imported fromthe hot regions of India, Nepal, and China and sold on local markets, mighthave not been observed directly on the field by Tibetan doctors who thereforedo not know its vegetative cycle and have only seen stems and branches. Inthis reference some traditional doctors from Baragaon and Dharamsala havestated that some medicines of the plains may have a woody stem, but that itdries up at the beginning of the cold season.

I will now examine the meaning of the term ldum bu which, according tothe medical dictionary gSo ba rig pa’i tshig mdzod g.yu thog dgongs rgyan, isthe following: “name of the herbaceous plants (sngo) that, as re ral114, dwa ba(Arisaema spp), and snya lo (Polygonum polystachyum)115, are not cultivatedplants, naturally grown green grass (rtswa) and flowers planted in a garden,but that grow together with these.”116 The same source also mentions an almostidentical definition ascribed to De’u dmar dge bshes117: “lDum bu are notcultivated plants, green grass and garden flowers, but the name of theherbaceous plants that grow together with these.” The three plants taken asexamples in the above definitions are included in the category thang sman inthe Shel phreng118. They exhibit morphological and ecological features thatcorrespond to the ones described by De’u dmar dge bshes for the thang sman.Re ral, a stout plant having robust underground organs, and dwa ba withtuberous roots mostly grow in forests. sNya lo is a shrubby herbaceous plantwhich thrives between 2,000 and 4,000 metres.

We may therefore put forward that the plants designated ldum mainly includeherbaceous plants having robust underground organs and\or stout herbaceousstems. Only in some cases they are tiny shrubs. Thus thang medicines are alsonamed ldum medicines because they may exhibit the above morphologicalfeatures.

This assumption is supported by the data reported by informants and writtensources which attribute the category of herbaceous medicines (sngo sman) a


few distinctive morphological and ecological features opposite to the ones ofthang sman. Actually the majority of practitioners from different regionsassociate the expression sngo sman to medicinal herbaceous plants that aretiny, tender, that have small roots and grow mostly on the mountains (ri la).De’u dmar dge bshes corroborates these statements when in the Shel phreng119

writes that “the sngo [sman] are a type of herbaceous plants that have a type oftiny underground organs.” The analysis of the botanical identification of theplants belonging to this category, for example in the materia medica of Karmachos ’phel120, has shown that most botanical species consist of tiny herbaceousplants with slender underground organs. In the same treatise121 it is affirmedthat sngo sman are plants which grow anew each year but the plants includedin the thang sman category also share this feature.

Thus the parameters of distinction between the categories thang sman andsngo sman may be the following: as concerns the underground organs, the sizeis tiny and slender in the ngo sman and big and robust in the thang sman; asconcerns the stem, it is thin and green-tender in the former, stout and hard-rigid in the latter; as concerns the environment of growth, the sngo sman thriveon high mountains and plateaus and the thang sman at lower altitude. Accordingto some traditional doctors from Baragaon all these parameters need not to bepresent at the same time. After examining the plants included in the twocategories it seems that morphological features, in particular underground organsize, are more important than the environmental ones in defining the medicinesof the thang sman category. For example, chu rtsa is a stout herbaceous plantwith a thick root, which grows at high altitude (4,100-5,200 m.).

According to the descriptions given in The Crystal Rosary most of thesngo sman (nearly 90%) and the majority (roughly 75%) of thang sman comefrom Tibetan regions. These data are corroborated by the modern materiamedica of Karma chos ’phel122 that presents the plant botanical identifications.According to it, the 68.75% of the thang sman come directly from properTibetan plateau areas while the 18.75% from the Tibetan regions called rong,which are relatively low forested river valleys. The 12.5% come from abroad,particularly from the sub-tropical and tropical regions of India, Nepal, andChina. As to the sngo sman medicines, 78.41% come from proper Tibetanplateau regions, 15.41% from rong areas, and 6.18% from sub-tropical andtropical regions.

THE CROP MEDICINES

Several Tibetan pharmacopoeias as the Shel phreng123 describe a categoryincluding some vegetables and cereals and give it the name of lo tog gi sman,“crop medicines”, among which we find ’bras (Oriza sativa), sre da (Avenasativa), rgya sran (Vicia faba), yungs dkar (Brassica alba), la phug (Raphanussativus), and a sho pa tra (Zea mays)124.

This group is not described in The Four Tantras, where edible plants aredealt with in the three chapters devoted to dietetics125. In a modern Tibetanpharmacopoeia126 this category is designated ’bru’i sman, “grain medicines”.Although the meaning of the term ’bru is “a grain of anything”127, vegetablessuch as turnips (nyung ma, Brassica rapa) 128 and radish (la phug) are includedin it.

78 TIBET JOURNAL

THE TYPES

Each medicinal substance, notwithstanding the category to which it belongs,may exhibit some types (rigs). Relatively detailed descriptions of them arepresented in the Vaidurya sngon po129 and, furnishing interesting informationas concerns plant morphological and ecological features, in the Shel phreng.Modern Tibetan medical texts give in-depth descriptions of the different planttypes as well, most of which are based on the above classical treatises.

The plant classification in types as reported in written sources is probablythe most common categorisation, which however may not be accepted by allpractitioners. Since Tibetan medicine is practised over a huge area throughoutseveral countries130, its materia medica may show differences according tolocal vegetation, traditions, and foreign influences. All these factors may affectplant traditional identification and classification as our field data have shown.Thus Tibetan materia medica, as Tibetan medicine in general, is not to beconsidered as standard and static both in time and space, but as a tradition thathas been constantly evolving.

Plant types are usually differentiated and categorized on the basis of a smallnumber of features, whose recognition may be crucial because each plant typemay have peculiar therapeutic properties, a different time and method ofgathering, drying, and a dissimilar use. Some plant types may belong to differentplant forms131 as in the case of khyung sder, a woody plant that has twoherbaceous types: sngo khyung sder dkar po, and sngo khyung sder smug po132.Here follow the most frequent classification criteria.

Some plant may be categorised on the basis of their therapeutic propertiesin three (or two) types. In this case the following determinants are added tothe name of the plant: mchog, “superior”, which indicates the type having thebest therapeutic properties; ’bring, “intermediate”, which specifies intermediatetherapeutic properties; dman, “inferior”, designating the types having weakpotency133. Several types of well-known medicinal plants are categorizedaccording to the above criterion as below: hong len mchog (Picrorhizascrophulariiflora)134, hong len dman pa (Lagotis glauca)135; klu bdud rdo rjemchog (Codonopsis mollis)136, klu bdud rdo rje dman pa (Adenophoraliliifolia)137; ug chos mchog (Incarvillea grandiflora)138, ug chos dman pa(Incarvillea arguta)139; spra thog (Leontopodium dedekensii) and spra ga dmanpa (Gnaphalium strackeyi)140.

I met a traditional doctor from Litang that was used to distinguishing sub-types (or varieties) of a plant type on the basis of the same criterion, each sub-type having different therapeutic properties determined by the features of itsenvironment of growth. This practical classification has been worked out bythe practitioner for the area where he carries out the plant gathering. This isthe case of the well-known medicinal plant bong nga that consists of fourtypes141: amongst these, the type named bong nga nag po (Aconitum spp.),“black bong nga”, is a plant that has cold potency (nus pa bsil). Three sub-types of it are distinguished by the informant, each one having a differentpotency in relation to altitude and aspect142: bong nag143 mchog, “superior bongnag”, which thrives at high altitude on the shady side of the mountains andwhose cold potency is particularly strong; bong nag ’bring, “intermediate bong


nag”, which also grows on shady mountainsides, but at lower altitude, andthat is why its potency is less strong; bong nag dman, “inferior bong nag”,which thrives on the sunny mountainsides. In this case the power of the sundecreases the cold potency of the plant, which is gathered only in case of lackin the other sub-types.

The flower colour is a parameter frequently employed to distinguish andcategorise the different types of a plant, for example, as concerns shang shangdril bu, “bell of shang shang”144, a plant that belongs to the herbaceousmedicines (sngo sman). Traditional doctors from different regions describeseveral types (they all belong to the botanical genus Primula) of this medicinalplant, which are distinguished from their flower colour. A practitioner fromBaragaon recognizes three types: shang dril ser po (“yellow shang dril”,Primula sikkimensis), shang dril dkar po (“white shang dril”, P. atrodentata)and shang dril smug po (“purple-brown shang dril”, P. atrodentata)145.Practitioners from Litang County distinguish the following types: shang drilser po (P. sikkimensis), shang dril smug po (Primula sp.) and shang dril dmarpo (“red shang dril”, P. secundiflora).

A Tibetan doctor from Khyungpo (east Tibet) has reported that there arefive types of this plant: shang dril dkar po, shang dril dmar po, shang dril serpo (P. sikkimensis), shang dril smug po, and shang dril nag po (“black shangdril, P. atrodentata). The informant has affirmed that the designation shangdril nag po, only used in Khyungpo and in few other Tibetan regions, is asynonym for the more common shang dril sngon po, “blue shang dril”. Thename shang dril nag po is not mentioned in the classical and modernpharmacopoeias examined. Similarly, traditional doctors from the region ofDolpo use the expression shang dril sngon po as a synonym of shang dril nagpo (Primula macrophylla)146, thus corroborating the information reported bythe informant from Khyungpo.

De’u dmar dge bshes147 describes three different classifications: 1) in threetypes: dmar po, dkar po, ser po; 2) in four types: dkar po, dmar po, sngon po,ser po; 3) in four types: dkar po, dmar po, smug po148, ser po. In the lastclassification model the author presents the classification parameters: theprincipal is the flower colour, but it is also stated that the red and the yellowtypes thrive on wet soils (chu las skye, “to be born from water”) whereas whiteand purple-brown types “grow on dry soils” (skam sar skye).

The disparities between the classifications reported can be explainedreferring to changing ecological conditions and local traditions in the differentHimalayan and Tibetan regions.

Some classifications are devised according to the size of the plant or ofsome of its organs. In this case the determinant chen (big) may be added to thebig type and the determinant chung (small) to the small type. For example,thar nu includes two types that exhibit similar morphological features and thatare classified on the basis of the size of some of their organs: thar chen, “bigthar nu” (Euphorbia wallichii), has larger and thicker leaves and a stouterstalk than the type named thar chung, “small thar nu” (Euphorbia longifolia)149.

Three types of star bu (Hippophae spp.) are distinguished according totheir height: star bu gnam star, star bu bar star, star bu sa star. For each typea determinant which points out to the height of the plant is employed: gnam,

80 TIBET JOURNAL

“sky”, bar “intermediate space”, and sa, “ground”. The first designates thehighest type, the last the lowest one150.

Feminine (mo), masculine (pho) and, if necessary, hermaphrodite (ma ning)types of a plant may be distinguished in Tibetan medicine. The classificationis usually worked out on the basis of the following parameters: plant generalaspect, size of the entire plant or of one of its organs (usually flowers), otherminute morphological features. Plant size is the most frequent parameter ofclassification: masculine types usually have a big size while feminine ones aresmall. Hermaphrodite types may exhibit intermediate size between masculineand feminine plants or simultaneous masculine and feminine features. Thisclassification may also imply some inferences on the modalities ofadministration of each type. For example in the case of me tog glang sna151

masculine plants (pho glang, Pedicularis integrifolia) have to be administeredto feminine patients and feminine plants (mo glang, Pedicularis anas)152 tomale patients whereas hermaphrodite plants (ma ning glang) may beadministered to both.

Some plants are separated into types according to their environment ofgrowth. Medicinal plant types may thrive in the meadows (spang), betweenrocks (brag), and in forests (nags). A traditional doctor from Baragaoncategorises three types of mtshe ldum: brag mtshe, spang mtshe, and chu (water)mtshe, the last type thrives near streams and on wet grounds153.

A few plants are separated into two types: the former, designated g.yung(domestic), usually grows in areas that are not located at high altitude as inforested valleys (rong) and near villages and sometimes even in house gardens(ldum ra); the latter, named rgod (wild), usually thrives on the mountains (rila) at high altitude (sa cha mtho po) where the climate is harsh154. For example,De’u dmar dge bshes155 describes two types of dwa ba: the type designateddwa rgod grows on the mountains, the one named dwa g.yung thrives in thecultivated fields.

The classification may depend on the medical traditions Byang and Zur. Atthe end of the XV century two schools of Tibetan medicine were establishedby two famous traditional doctors: Byang pa, descendant of the king of Minyak(a region located in eastern Tibet), Se’u rgyal po, and Zur mkhar ba mNyamnyid rdo rje. The former established the Byang lugs medical tradition, thelatter the Zur lugs one. These traditions, which exhibit little differences156,formally survived until the reign of the Fifth Dalai Lama (1617-1682) in theseventeenth century. Some practitioners have stated that they may follow oneof the two medical schools in the case of the classification and identificationof certain medicinal plants. For example according to two informants fromKhyungpo and Baragaon there is a type of dug mo nyung (Holarrhenaantidysenterica) designated sngo dug mo nyung (Cynanchum vincetoxicum)157

that has been categorized and identified by the Byang school. Similarly theyhave affirmed that the identification of ut pal sngon po differs in relation toByang and Zur schools: the former recognises it as an aster (Astertricephalus)158, the latter as a blue poppy (Meconopsis spp.). The majority ofpractitioners over Tibetan regions adhere to the identification of the Zurtradition.


CONCLUSION

The classification of medicinal plants dealt with in this article is constant amongtraditional doctors from different Tibetan regions and almost corresponds tothe one described on classical texts of Tibetan materia medica. Yet I emphasisethe existence of a significant disparity of knowledge owing to the recent modernstandardisation of Tibetan medicine. Many practitioners practising indispensaries and clinics which depend on important medical institutes and whodo not carry out any more the gathering of medicinal plants and do not makethe remedies have an imprecise knowledge of the materia medica, of itsclassification and identification and of the criteria of attribution of curativeproperties to substances. Only a moderate number of informants, particularlyindependent practitioners, have a deep knowledge of medicinal plants and theiruse, based on a detailed knowledge of medical texts, an education with a learnedmaster, and a great field experience.

The recent introduction under Chinese influence of a new terminology andthe attempt of devising a new classification reflecting the one of modern scienceso far has had a slight impact on traditional classification.

Few medicinal substances have been shifted from one category to anotherowing either to their importance in Chinese medicine or to the attempt ofreallocating them according to the classification of modern science.

The classification of medicinal plants in types, although based on the samecriteria such as plant morphological traits, place of growth, and quality, mayvary significantly according to climatic conditions, local traditions and medicalschools. That is why the same Tibetan plant designation may correspond todifferent botanical species.

The peculiar botanical and medical knowledge of independent practitioners,in particular of the ones of family lineage, might disappear in the near futurebecause of the standardisation and modernisation of Tibetan medicine.

Notes 1. And probably to a lesser extent also by the pharmacopoeia of Chinese medicine. 2. The data have been obtained during a research project on the ethnobotany of Tibetan

speaking populations, undertaken by the author from 1998 to 2002 in different regionsof the Tibetan cultural area: the Litang County (Sichuan, China), the region ofBaragaon (Mustang District, Central Nepal), Dhorpatan (Baglung District, CentralNepal), and Ladakh (Jammu & Kashmir, India). Medicinal plant specimens gatheredon the field have been identified in collaboration with professor J. F. Dobremez(Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, Université de Savoie, France) and have been depositedat the Herbarium of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris, France.Classical texts of Tibetan medicine and some traditional and modern treatises ofTibetan materia medica have been employed to analyse medicinal plant classification:“The Four Tantras” (rGyud bzhi), the fundamental text of Tibetan medicine (g.Yuthog Yon tan mgon po, 1992), probably composed between the VIII and the XIIcentury; its famous commentary “The Blue Beryl” (Vaidurya sngon po), written bythe Regent sDe srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho (1982) in the XVII century; “The CrystalBlock” (Shel gong) and the commentary to it “The Crystal Rosary” (Shel phreng)(De’u dmar dge bshes bsTan ’dzin phun tshogs, 1994), two of the most importantclassical texts of Tibetan materia medica, both written in the first half of the XVIIIcentury; two modern Tibetan pharmacopoeias published at Lhasa (Karma chos ’phel,

82 TIBET JOURNAL

1993) and Chamdo (dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1998). I am grateful to the Museum ofArchaeology of the University of Cambridge (Frederick Williamson Memorial Fund)and Padma A. G. (Switzerland) for supporting part of the fieldwork.

3. Proper Tibetan spellings are given according to the Wylie (1959) system oftransliteration (minus the hyphen in between syllables).

4. The term “potency” (nus pa) points out to the action that a substance may originateby means of its features and qualities. In Tibetan medicine this expression designatesboth particular qualities of medicinal substances, which constitute their therapeuticproperties (the eight nus pa), and their therapeutic effect (Boesi, 2004: 48-50).

5. From the ethnobiological perspective the so-called plant “types” (rigs) correspondhere to the taxa designated by Berlin (1992: 22) “specific”, and “varietal”. Althoughthe meaning of the term rigs may be “type”, “class”, “category”, and “kind”, it ismainly used by Tibetan practitioners to indicate plant types and varieties. They usuallyshare their primary name (Ibidem: 27) (also designated “basic name” according toConklin, 1954) and are differentiated by adding a specific (or two in the case ofvarieties) determinant.

6. Cardi, 2004. 7. Meyer, 1983: 71. 8. The commonly employed expression sman, “medicine”, designates all substances

that have therapeutic properties and includes both medicinal plants and the othermedicinal substances of mineral and animal origin. This term also indicates medicinalpreparations.

9. Also written rtsi’i sman.10. sMan gyi nus pa bstan pa /, “Explanation of the medicine potency”. g.Yu thog Yon

tan mgon po, 1992, bShad pa’i rgyud (Explanatory Tantra), Chapter 20: 75.11. Ibidem: 68, 70.12. sDe srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, 1982, Commentary to the Explanatory Tantra (bShad

pa’i rgyud kyi rnam bshad), Chapter 20: 262.13. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 180-255, 305-395.14. Ibidem: 255-304.15. Over the Tibetan cultural regions, thang phrom exhibits some types that correspond

to several species of the botanical family of Solanaceae. For example, according tomy field data from the Litang County the white type (thang phrom dkar po)corresponds to Hyoscyamus niger whereas the black type (thang phrom nag po)corresponds to Anisodus tanguticus.

16. The botanical identifications presented in this article are mainly the ones reported inmodern Tibetan materia medica and the ones related to the specimens gathered onthe field by the author. I would like to point out that, because the botanical identificationof Tibetan materia medica may vary according to several factors as explained in thearticle, the identification presented may represent only one of the possible botanicalspecies to which a Tibetan designation corresponds.

17. Specimen gathered in the region of Baragaon.18. Specimen gathered in the region of Dhorpatan. The same botanical identification is

mentioned in the two modern pharmacopoeias used as reference (see note 4).19. g.Yu thog Yon tan mgon po, 1992, Explanatory Tantra (bShad pa’i rgyud), Chapter

20.20. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 396-409.21. sDe srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho: 1982, Commentary to the Explanatory Tantra (bShad

pa’i rgyud kyi rnam bshad), Chapter 20: 322.22. Parfionovich et al., 1992: 73.23. g.Yu thog Yon tan mgon po, 1992, Explanatory Tantra (bShad pa’i rgyud), Chapter

20: 68.


24. See the section devoted to essence medicines for the identification of these medicinalsubstances according to modern science.

25. dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1998: 66. Parmelia tinctorum is a lichen that grows in crust likeform on rocks and trees.

26. This category includes mineral substances such as hematite, calcite, and a few fossils.27. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 144.28. g.Yu thog Yon tan mgon po, 1992, Explanatory Tantra (bShad pa’i rgyud), Chapter

20: 67.29. This category consists of two groups of substances of mineral origin: natural (rang

byung pa, “self originated”) and non-natural (las kyi bcos bas gtsang par byas pa,“that have been purified with an artifical intervention”).

30. dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1998: 66.31. Karma chos ’phel, 1993: 303.32. Another suitable translation of the expression rtsi sman may be “nectarous medicines”

as proposed by Parfionovich et al. (1992: 63).33. The musk deer is well-known because of his musk pod, a small sac (6 cm. long)

situated in the inguinal region. The glands inside the pod produce the musk, a substancewith a very strong scent that is secreted by the males during the rut season. Severalspecies of musk deer exists over Tibetan regions: Moschus sifanicus lives in alpineareas, Moschus berezovskii in subalpine regions (Schaller G., personal communication,2001) whilst Moschus chrysogaster is common in Himalayan regions. In the regionof Khams (east Tibet) I have observed Tibetan people trying to sell the musk toTibetan medical institutes as the one in Dar rtse mdo, and to traders of medicinalplants.

34. According to the recent pharmacopoeias edited at Lhasa and Chamdo, this substancecorresponds to the bile of Selenarctos thibetanus. Karma chos ’phel, 1992: 19; dGa’ba’i rdo rje, 1998: 104.

35. Some informants from Ladakh affirm that this drug is an animal substance comingfrom the excreta of a bra (Ochotona spp.).

36. g.Yu thog Yon tan mgon po, 1992, Explanatory Tantra (bShad pa’i rgyud), Chapter20: 68.

37. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 154-155.38. The meaning of the expressions thang and sngo will be examined in the section

devoted to thang sman and sngo sman.39. sDe srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, 1982, Commentary to the Explanatory Tantra (bShad

pa’i rgyud kyi rnam bshad), Chapter 20: 262.40. According to dGa’ ba’i rdo rje (1998: 96-112), cu gang corresponds to silica secretion

from the stem of Schizostachyum chinense and Bambusa textilis; gur gum to Crocussativus; sug smel to Amomum compactum and to Elettaria cardamomum; dzwa ti toMyristica fragrans; li shi to Eugenia aromatica; ka ko la to Amomum tsao and to A.subulatum. According to Karma chos ’phel (1992: 5-16), cu gang corresponds tosilica secretion from the stem of Schizostachyum chinense; gur gum corresponds toCrocus sativus (kha che gur gum); sug smel to Elettaria cardamomum; dzwa ti toMyristica fragrans; li shi to Eugenia caryophyllata; ka ko la to Amomum tsao and toA. subulatum.

41. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 154-179.42. According to dGa’ ba’i rdo rje (1998: 97-98) and Karma chos ’phel (1993: 3) it

corresponds to Dryobalanops aromatica, Blumea balsamifera, and Cinammomumcamphora.

43. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 326.44. The Tibetan expression utpala is the transliteration of the Sanskrit word utpala that

points out to the blue lotus. Some plants thriving in Tibetan regions are the substitutes

84 TIBET JOURNAL

for plants that once were imported from India. Some of them have maintained theiroriginal Sanskrit designation as in this case.

45. See Sharma et al., 1993: 430-431; Nadkarni, 1999: 859-860.46. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 326.47. ’Jam dpal rdo rje, 1971: folio 173.48. “All Tibetans believe that during winter the dbyar rtswa dgun ’bu, “summer-grass

winter-worm”, lives as a worm and that, after a metamorphosis occurring at thebeginning of spring, it changes into a kind of grass (rtswa).” Boesi, 2003: 32.

49. dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1998: 109.50. Karma chos ’phel, 1993: 177.51. ’Jam dpal rdo rje, 1971: folio 168.52. To my knowledge, the oldest treatise of Tibetan medicine where dbyar rtswa dgun

’bu is mentioned is the Bye ba ring bsrel (Relics Empowered by Millions of OralInstructions), composed in the XV century by Zur mkhar mNyam nyid rdo rje (1439-1475) (Zur mkhar mNyam nyid rdo rje, 1985) (Acknowledgment to Olaf Czaja forindicating me this).

53. Chandra Das, 1992: 1010.54. Meyer, 1983: 171.55. The translation of the term rtsi sman in this text is “Exudates and secretions”. ’Jam

dpal rdo rje, 1971: 6.56. The potency (nus pa) of some drugs is determined by the presence and strength of

their fragrance. This property is designated dri’i nus pa “the potency of fragrance”.The presence of scent is also a crucial parameter for the attribution of curativeproperties in the case of some plants included in other categories. For example, tsandan dmar po (Pterocarpus santalinus) and tsan dan dkar po (Santalum album) thatbelong to the medicines coming from woody plants (shing sman) and spang spos(Nardostachys grandiflora) that is included in the category of herbaceous medicines(sngo sman).

57. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 154-179.58. Kunsang, 1996.59. dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1998: 96.60. Ibidem.61. Ibidem: 112.62. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 410.63. g.Yu thog Yon tan mgon po, 1992, Explanatory Tantra (bShad pa’i rgyud), Chapter

20: 73.64. Ibidem: 68.65. See the next section: ldum bu thang sman, ldum sman.66. Literally “new born”.67. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 180, 250. The author employs the term tshi ba as synonym

of thang chu.68. In the Shel phreng (Ibidem) the group including plant skins is named pags pa, the

one including branches yal phran and the one of plant exudates tshi ba thang chu.69. Ibidem: 10.70. Ibidem: 180.71. Ibidem: 245.72. I point out that De’u dmar dge bshes (1994: 226, 248) describes two types of se ba:

a wild type, se rgod, and a domestic one se g.yung, which are mainly distinguishedaccording to morphological features.

73. Ibidem: 215.74. Ibidem: 226.75. Ibidem: 248.76. Ibidem: 227.


77. Ibidem: 247.78. sDe srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, 1982, Commentary to the Explanatory Tantra (bShad

pa’i rgyud kyi rnam bshad), chapter 20: 262.79. For the botanical identification of the three last plants see dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1988:

148, 149, 164.80. For the botanical identification of the three last plants see Karma chos ’phel, 1993:

23-27.81. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 74-75.82. For example, khyi shing (Lonicera thibetica); dzo mo shing (Caragana ericacea);

sur dkar (Rhododendron sp.), sur nag (Rhododendron sp.); skyer pa (Berberis sp.);spen nag (Dasiphora fruticosa).

83. dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1988: 119.84. Differently, according to the Shel phreng (De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 278), khyung

sder belongs to the category of thang sman (medicines of the plains), which, as itwill be shown in the next section, includes the herbaceous plants and a few tinywoody plants.

85. dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1988: 119.86. Ibidem.87. g.Yu thog Yon tan mgon po, 1992, Explanatory Tantra (bShad pa’i rgyud), Chapter

20: 68.88. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 15.89. Ibidem: 72-75, 255.90. It is quite difficult to work out an appropriate translation in English of the Tibetan

term ldum according to its use in Tibetan medicine.91. Thang zhes pa dang ldum bu ni don gcig /. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 75.92. g.Yu thog Yon tan mgon po, 1992, Explanatory Tantra (bShad pa’i rgyud), Chapter

20: 68.93. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 255.94. Ibidem: 75.95. I point out to dGa’ ba’i rdo rje (1998).96. Chandra Das, 1992: 568; Krang dbyi sun, 1998: 1140.97. The term thang (soup) comes in this case from Chinese language and, in particular,

from the thang preparations of Chinese medicine.98. As far as the category thang sman is concerned Meyer maintains: “Il ne s’agit pas de

“médecine préparée par décoction à partir de différentes parties de plantes” commeon le trouve dans la table des matières de “An Illustrated Tibeto-Mongolian MateriaMedica of Ayurveda” [’Jam dpal rdo rje, 1971], mais du nom générique d’un groupede drogues végétales qui ne préjuge pas de leur technique de préparation. A l’écolede médecine de Dharamsala, le terme thang sman est interprété comme “médecinesde plaine”. En réalité ce groupe contient des plantes aux habitats très divers et nonlimités aux plaines” (Meyer, 1983: 171). The same incorrect interpretation of theexpression thang sman occurring in the edition of the materia medica of ’Jam dpalrdo rje has also been put forward by Dash (1994: XXIV).

99. Tibetan practitioners also employ the term snyoms po to designate the nature of amedicinal plant when it is neither hot nor cold.

100. rDza ri g.ya’ ri gangs ri lta bu mtho sar skyes pa ma yin par bde thang du skye ba’isman gyi rigs ming ste /. Byangs pa ’Phrin las, 1983: 216. The same definition isproposed in the dictionary Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo (Krang dbyi sun, 1998:1142-1143).

101. Most educated and non-educated informants from different regions have affirmedthat the expression g.ya’ ri connotes the mountains whose ground consists of manyflat stones (rdo leb) and earth (sa) and where to slide is easy. The dictionary Bod rgyatshig mdzod chen mo (Krang dbyi sun, 1998: 2617) proposes the following definition

86 TIBET JOURNAL

for the term g.ya’ ri: “mountains that consists of small flat stones and of stones ofbluish colour”.

102. Karma chos ’phel, 1993: 132.103. Ibidem: 143. The latest Latin binomial of this plant is Justicia adhatoda (Hara and

Williams, 1979: 141). It is a woody plant imported from sub-tropical regions of Indiaand Nepal. Yet there is also a type of this plant directly gathered in Tibetan regions,which is considered inferior (dman) as its quality is concerned. Three practitionersfrom Khyungbo, Baragaon, and Litang designate this plant sngo ba sha ka,“herbaceous ba sha ka”. Its botanical identification corresponds at Dhorpatan toCorydalis longipes, a herbaceous plant. dGa’ ba’i rdo rje (1998: 142) mentions atype named ldum ba sha ka, whose botanical identification correspond to Corydalisimpatiens.

104. See for example, Parfionovich et al., 1992: 63.105. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 75.106. dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1998: 260; Karma chos ’phel, 1993: 145.107. Botanical identification of the specimen gathered by the author in the Litang County.

According to dGa’ ba’i rdo rje (1998: 198) lcum corresponds to Rheum officinale.108. rTsa ba rgyas shing lo sdong sogs lo rer shing ltar skye yang dgun nas rtsa ba ma

gtogs sngo ltar rgas nas lo re bzhin brje bas ma nu dang lcum lta bu’i rigs la / rgyudlas / thang gi gtso bo tig ta ba sha ka / gsungs pas rtsa ba shing la sdong po ldum lome sngo’i rang bzhin can…/. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 75.

109. Karma chos ’phel, 1993; dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1998.110. The term ldum may be generally employed in the common language with a sense

similar to the one of the term sngo. Le dictionary Tshig mdzod chen mo (Krang dbyisun, 1998 : 1454) proposes the following definition: “general term equivalent to sngo.”

111. In Tibetan materia medica several type of tig ta are described. The standard tig taalso called rgya tig (rgya gar gyi tig ta, “Indian tig ta”) is the one which mainlythrives to the south of the Himalayan chain. This plant has been identified as Swertiachirayita (dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1998: 205; Karma chos ’phel, 1993: 132).

112. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 255.113. Ibidem: 258.114. Some types of re ral (or ldum bu re ral) have been described by my informants and in

written sources. For example, De’u dmar dge bshes (1994: 276) states that it may beclassified in three types: 1) rgyal po (king) re ral, 2) blon po (minister) re ral, 3)btsun mo (queen) re ral. He also quotes a text (‘khrung dpe) where three types of thisdrug are distinguished according to their place of growth: ldum bu re ral, be ljang reral, and g.yu ’brug ’khyil ba. Most informants report the latter classification. Inmodern Tibetan materia medica botanical identification of this plant may vary:according to dGa’ ba’i rdo rje (1998: 223) rgyal po re ral corresponds to Drynariasinica, be ljang re ral to D. propinqua, and g.yu ’brug ’khyil ba to Polystichumsquarrosum. According to Karma chos ‘phel (1993: 184-186) the above drugsrespectively correspond to Polistychum squarrosum, Drynaria baronii, and D.propinqua. According to the same author (1993: 187-189), blon po re ral is a synonymfor brag spos (Lepisorus waltonii), btsun mo re ral corresponds to Aleuritopterisargentea or it is a synonym for brag skya ha po (Corallodiscus kingianus).

115. I have collected this plant in the Litang County. Its botanical identification correspondsto the one reported in the materia medica of dGa’ ba’i rdo rje (1988: 203) and Karmachos ’phel (1993: 201).

116. Byangs pa ’phrin las, 1983: 277. So nam byas pa’i lo thog dang / rang bzhin skyespa’i rtswa ljang / ldum rar btsugs pa’i me tog bcas ma yin pa de dag dang mnyam duskyes pa’i re ral dang / dwa ba / snya lo lta bu sngo’i ming ste /.

117. Ibidem. lDum bu lo thog rtswa ljang dang / ldum ra’i me tog ma yin pa’i / de dagmnyam skyes sngo yi ming /. The dictionary quotes as source of this definition a


medical text composed by De’u dmar dge bshes: gSo rig skor gyi ming tshig nyermkho’i don gsal.

118. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 276, 283, 284.119. Ibidem: 75. sNgo ni rtsa ba phra ba’i rigs kyi rtswa’i rigs so /.120. Karma chos ’phel, 1993: 255-473. We have chosen this text because it is the only

modern pharmacopoeia that presents the drug botanical identification and maintainsthe correct traditional classification in categories.

121. Ibidem: 1993: 255.122. Karma chos ’phel, 1993.123. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 458. The complete name is zhing gi lo tog las byung ba’i

sman.124. As far as the botanical identification of these plants is concerned, see Karma chos

’phel, 1993: 474-491.125. g.Yu thog Yon tan mgon po, 1992, Explanatory Tantra (bShad pa’i rgyud), Chapters

16, 17, 18.126. dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1998: 323-331.127. Chandra Das, 1992: 931.128. dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1998: 325. According to Karma chos ’phel (1993: 487) this plant

corresponds to Raphanus sp.129. sDe srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, 1982, Commentary to the Explanatory Tantra (bShad

pa’i rgyud kyi rnam bshad), Chapter 20: 249-350.130. Tibetan medicine is practised over a vast area which covers all the regions inhabited

by populations of Tibetan language and culture and other areas: the northern states ofIndia (Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, West Bengal, and Sikkim); Bhutan; alarge part of the northern regions of Nepal; the following Chinese Provinces: TibetanAutonomous Region, Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan; Mongolia; Buryat(Russia); and other many countries where Tibetans have settled.

131. As Berlin (1992: 166-167) reports “...such broadly inclusive classes [plant forms]generally occur as the first major groupings within each ethnobiological classificationkingdom, forming a contrastive group of a small number of taxa of plants andanimals...While some groupings correspond rather closely to recognized scientifichigher-order taxa, most life-form taxa do not reflect biologically natural classes oforganisms....In the plant world, the focus of major differences based on stem habit,probably one of the primary perceptual features leading to the recognition of themost common major life-form taxa found in folk systems of ethnobiologicalclassification (e.g. “tree”, “vine”, “herbaceous plant”), leads to grouping that oftenviolate natural biological taxa at the family level”. Tibetan people recognize five orfour plant forms, listed according to two different models. 1) The five plant forms aremushrooms (sha mo), grasses (rtswa), flowers (me tog), woody plants (shing sdong),and woody climbers (’khri shing). 2) In the second model plant forms consist of fourtaxa: mushrooms (sha mo), herbaceous plants (rtswa), woody plants (shing sdong),and woody climbers (’khri shing). In this model the categories rtswa (herbs) and metog (flowers) of the first model are included in a single taxon named rtswa (Boesi,2005: 45-46).

132. See the section devoted to shing sman for the identification of these two drugsaccording to modern botany.

133. Sometimes, in particular on written sources, the following determinants are alsoemployed: rab “excellent”, bzang “good”; dma’ “inferior”, ngan “bad”.

134. Karma chos ’phel, 1993: 255. The specimen gathered in the region of Baragaoncorresponds to the same botanical species.

135. Ibidem: 257.136. Ibidem: 396.137. Ibidem: 398.

88 TIBET JOURNAL

138. Specimen gathered in the Litang County.139. Specimen gathered in the region of Baragaon.140. The two last specimens have been gathered in the Litang County.141. The four types are the following: black (bong nga nag po), white (bong nga dkar

po), red (bong nga dmar po), and yellow (bong nga ser po).142. As it is described in the rGyud bzhi (g.Yu thog Yon tan mgon po, 1992, Explanatory

Tantra (bShad pa’i rgyud), Chapter 20: 65): “the snowy mountain and the ’bigs byedmountain, having [respectively] the power of the moon and of the sun, possess apower which becomes increasingly cold or hot”. In particular, the hot (tsha) power(stobs) of the sun dominates on the sunny slopes (nyin), whilst the cold (bsil) powerof the moon prevails on the shady ones (srib).

143. Abbreviation of bong nga nag po.144. “Shang shang”: a mythological bird similar to a Garuda.145. Primula atrodentata has flowers whose colour may vary from purple to mauve-blue

or white. In this case, the two types “white” and “purple-brown” correspond to thesame botanical species.

146. Lama, Ghimire, Thomas, 2001: 106.147. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 338-339.148. De’u dmar dge bshes also states that the expressions shang dril smug po and shang

dril sngon po are synonyms. Thus the two classifications that differentiate four typesare equivalent.

149. The botanical identification of the two types refers to the specimens that have beengathered in the region of Dhorpatan.

150. As far as the three types of star bu are concerned, it is difficult to find the exactcorrespondence between their Tibetan designations and the botanical species. Thedata given by the informants are often inconsistent. The cause of these differences isdetermined by the difference of height that this plants may attain in ecological settingsthat are sometimes contrasting. In particular, several informants have pointed out toHippophae rhamnoides subsp. turkestanica both as star bu sa star and star bu barstar in the Indian region of Ladakh. The same appellations might be valid with H.salicifolia whose size may also vary in relation to climatic conditions. It might alsobe suggested that the latter plant, attaining nearly the height of 5 metres in veryfavourable ecological conditions, is also designated star bu gnam star, as it has beenshown with the Nepalese regions of Dolpo (Lama, Ghimire, Thomas, 2001: 79). Thetype star bu gnam star is usually described by the informants as a woody plant of bigsize thriving at relatively low altitude in the so-called rong forested deep valleys. Ina recent Tibetan pharmacopoeia (dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1998: 131) star bu gnam star isidentified as Hippophae rhamnoides and star bu bar star as Hippophae neurocarpa.According to my fieldwork data, in the region of Baragaon the type named star bu sastar corresponds to H. tibetana. The same identification is given in the two abovequoted texts.

151. Me tog glang sna includes several types belonging to the botanical genus Pedicularis.152. I have gathered these two medicinal plants in the Litang County.153. Brag mtshe (Ephedra gerardiana) is the type observed in the region of Baragaon.

dGa’ ba’i rdo rje (1998: 269) describes three types of this plant two of whichcorrespond to Ephedra: mtshe ldum (E. equisetina) and spang mtshe (“meadowmtshe”) (E. gerardiana, E. minuta). Yet the third type, named chu mtshe (“watermtshe”), corresponds to a species (Equisetum diffusum) that belongs to a differentbotanical division and interestingly has different healing properties from the othertwo.

154. The two determinants do not always imply this difference of growing area as in thecase of se rgod and se g.yung, as shown in the section devoted to describing medicinescoming from woody plants (shing sman).


155. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 283-284. Dwa ba dag la rigs gnyis te / ri las skyes padwa rgod yin / zhing las skyes pa dwa g.yung te /.

156. The difference concerns the localisation of some vital points, the identification ofsome drugs and the preparation of some formulas. Meyer (1983: 81) affirms thatthese differences also reflect dissimilar ecological and epidemiological conditions.

157. Holarrhena antidysenterica is a plant that thrives in the low regions of India, Nepaland China. (dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1998: 219). In the same text (ibidem) the botanicalidentification of sngo dug mo nyung corresponds to Cynanchum vincetoxicum. Alsothe specimen sngo dug mo nyung collected in Litang County corresponds to thegenus Cynanchum and is the Tibetan substitute to H. antidysenterica.

158. Specimen gathered in the region of Dhorpatan.

ReferencesBerlin B., 1992. Ethnobiological classification. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Boesi A., 2003. The dByar rtswa dgun ’bu (Cordyceps sinensis Berk.): An Important

Trade Item for the Tibetan Population of the Li thang District, Sichuan Province,China. The Tibet Journal, 28 (3): 29-42.

Boesi A., 2004. Le savoir botanique des Tibétains: perception, classification et exploitationdes plantes sauvages. Thèse de Doctorat, Unité d’Anthropologie et AdaptabilitéBiologique, UMR 6578, CNRS-Université de la Méditerranée, Faculté de Médecinede Marseille. Unpublished

Boesi A., 2005. Plant knowledge among Tibetan populations. In A. Boesi, F. Cardi Wildlifeand plants in traditional and modern Tibet: conceptions, exploitation, andconservation, Memorie della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civicodi Storia Naturale di Milano, 33 (1): 33-48.

Byangs pa ’phrin las, 1983. gSo ba rig pa’i tshig mdzod g.yu thog dgongs rgyan. Mi rigsdpe skrun khang, Beijing.

Cardi F., 2004. De l’approvisionnement des substances médicinales à la production desmédicaments: l’évolution contemporaine de la pharmacopée tibétaine. Thèse deDoctorat, Unité d’Anthropologie et Adaptabilité Biologique, UMR 6578, CNRS-Université de la Méditerranée, Faculté de Médecine de Marseille. Unpublished

Conklin H. C., 1954. The relation of Hanunóo culture to the plant world. ThesisAnthropology, Yale University, USA.

Das C., 1992. A Tibetan-English Dictionary. Book Faith India, Delhi.Dash B., 1994. Pharmacopoeia of Tibetan Medicine. Sri Satguru Publication, Delhi.sDe srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, 1982. gSo ba rig pa’i bstan bcos sman bla’i dgongs

rgyan rgyud bzhi’i gsal byed be daura sngon po’i malila ka. Bod ljongs mi dmangsdpe skrun khang, Lhasa (this text is known as Vaidurya sngon po).

De’u dmar dge bshes bsTan ’dzin phun tshogs, 1994. Shel gong shel phreng. TibetanMedical & Astro Institute, Dharamsala.

dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1998. ’Khrungs dpe dri med shel gyi me long. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang,Beijing.

Hara H., Williams L.H.J., 1979. An Enumeration of the Flowering Plants of Nepal. Trusteesof British Museum (Natural History), London.

’Jam dpal rdo rje, 1971. An Illustrated Tibeto-Mongolian Materia Medica of Ayurveda.Lokesh Chandra (ed.), International Academy of Indian Culture, New Delhi.

Karma chos ’phel, 1993. bDud rtsi sman gyi ’khrungs dpe legs bshad nor bu’i phrengmdzes. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lhasa.

Krang dbyi sun (ed.), 1998. Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo. Mi rigs dpe skrun khang,Beijing.

90 TIBET JOURNAL

Kunsang E. P., 1996. The Dharma Dictionary. Tibetan-English Dictionary of BuddhistTeachings & Practice. Rangjung Yeshe Translations & Publications, Kathmandu-Boulder.

Lama Y.C., Ghimire S.K., Thomas Y.A., 2001. Medicinal Plants of Dolpo. Amchis’Knowledge and Conservation. People and Plants Initiative, WWF Nepal Program,Kathmandu.

Meyer F., 1983. Gso-ba rig-pa, Le système médical tibétain. C.N.R.S., Paris.Nadkarni K. M. (ed.), 1999. Indian Materia Medica. Popular Prakashan, Bombay.Parfionovitch Y., Gyurme D., Meyer F., 1992. Tibetan medical paintings, illustrations of

the Blue Beryl of Sangye Gyamtso. Serindia Publications, London.Sharma B. D., Balakrishnan N. P., Rao R.R., and Hajra P.K., 1993. Flora of India. Volume

1. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta.Wylie T. V., 1959. A Standard System of Tibetan Transcription. Harvard Journal of Asiatic

Studies, 2: 261-67.g.Yu thog Yon tan mgon po, 1992. bDud rtsi snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man

ngag gi rgyud. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lhasa (This text is commonlyknown as “rGyud bzhi”, “The Four Tantras”).

Zur mkhar ba mNyam nyid rdo rje, 1985. Bye ba ring bsrel. Tibet House, Delhi.

Documents

Plant categories and types in Tibetan materia medica