Cycle conférences SFEMT 2018 : 8 mars Lewis Doney

La SFEMT a le plaisir d’annoncer, dans le cadre du Cycle conférences SFEMT 2018, la tenue de la conférence suivante :

Lewis Doney, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn

Religious Masters and Royal Disciples: The Padmasambhava Paradigm

La conférence se tiendra le 8 mars à l’INALCO (65, rue des Grands Moulins, 75013 – Paris) dans la salle 3.12 à 17h00

**La conférence sera suivie par l’Assemblée Générale 2018 de la SFEMT**

Padmasambhava, Dance of the eight manifestations of Guru Rin po che, 21st century
(; Tibetan emperor, Mogao cave 159, imperial period (Marjo Alafouzo).


Résumé de la communication :

The importance of Padmasambhava in Tibet cannot be overstated; his popularity crosses both
sectarian and cultural boundaries and many Tibetans revere him as the “Second Buddha”
(sangs rgyas gnyis pa). However, his actual 8 th /9 th -century life is still shrouded in mystery. Early
scholars of Tibetan Studies sought to establish the “historical Padmasambhava,” but soon
turned their attention to more easily solvable historical problems. The twenty-first century has
seen a renewed interest in the character of Padmasambhava, but following the “narrative turn”
this research has interrogated the same sources from a literary perspective—mining them for
their importance to Tibetan religious identities and cultural practices changing over time. It has
become clear that what we know of the historical Padmasambhava is meagre compared to his
later impact on Tibetan historiography. Yet the symbol of Padmasambhava, as a fully
enlightened religious master, has proved potent enough to place him prominently in unexpected
narratives of power, and allow him to act as a major inspiration for claiming the superiority of
religious figures over royalty. This presentation will chart the the growth of Padmasambhava
mythos through a broad array of sources, placed in their proper chronological order. It will show
how the influence of his life-story has helped open up the possibility that a Tibetan subject (at
least rhetorically) could outshine a divine ruler (be it Indic, Tibetan or Mongolian)—how a
Buddhist cleric could be superior to a king.