Plant Categories and Types in Tibetan Ma

ISSN 0970-5368
THE Vol. XXX & Vol.XXXI, No.4 & No.1, Winter 2005
& Spring 2006
TIBET
JOURNAL
a publication for the study of Tibet

EDITORIAL BOARD
Geshe Lhakdor, Gyatsho Tshering, Tashi Tsering, Nathan Katz, Bikkhu Pasadika,
The Tibet Journal
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 interest
articles on Tibetan culture and civilization by Tibetans and non-Tibetans. Opin-
ions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of
the Editorial Board of The Tibet Journal or the LTWA. Responsibility for views
expressed 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 all
contributions sent to the journal have both the print and diskette/CD copy (in
MS Word). Contributors will receive a copy of the Journal, and up to 20 offprints
of the particular article. Unaccepted articles will be returned upon request. The
Journal encourages readers’ comments on articles published in recent issues. Ad-
dress articles, rejoinders, editorial enquiries, and books for review to: Managing
Editor, The Tibet Journal, Library of Tibetan Works & Archives, Gangchen
Kyishong, Dharamsala 176 215, H.P., INDIA Tel: +91-1892-222467, 226095,
Fax: +91-1892-223723, Email: tjeditor@ltwa.net, visit <www.ltwa.net>
PRINT SUBSCRIPTION/DISTRIBUTION
We have appointed M/S Biblia Impex Pvt. Ltd. as the sole distributing and
selling agent of The Tibet Journal in print form w.e.f. Vol.XII, 1987. Please send
all enquiries relating to subscriptions to: Biblia Impex Pvt. Ltd., 2/18, Ansari
Road, New Delhi 110 002, INDIA, Email: contact@bibliaimpex.com, Website:
<www.bibliaimpex.com>
ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION RATES
Inland Rs. 350
Single 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 sole
distributing and selling agent for electronic publication w.e.f. Vol.XXVII, 2002. For
subscription contact EBSCO Publishing, 10 Estes Street, Ipswich, Massachu-
setts 01938-0682, USA, Email: ep@epnet.com, Website: <www.epnet.com>
COPYRIGHT
Except where otherwise declared, the entire contents of The Tibet Journal are
under the protection of the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, the Berne Convention
of 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 the
individual articles, as well as to The Tibet Journal.
The Tibet Journal
A publication for the study of Tibet
Contributions to the study of Tibetan medicine

Alessandro Boesi & Francesca Cardi
GUEST 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 Ritual

Medicine in a Bon Medical School and Clinic in Nepal
Colin Millard 3
Tibetan Medicine in Gyalthang
Denise M. Glover 31
Hybrid Methodologies in the Lhasa Mentsikhang: A
Summary of Resources for Teaching about Tibetan
Medicine
Frances Garrett 55
Plant categories and types in Tibetan materia medica
Alessandro Boesi 65
Principles and methods of assembling Tibetan medicaments
Francesca Cardi 91
Nyes pa: A brief review of its English translation
Yonten Gyatso 109
“An excellent measure”: the battle against smallpox
in Tibet, 1904-47
Alex McKay 119
Zurkharwa Lodro Gyalpo (1509-1579) on the
Controversy of the Indian Origin of the rGyud bzhi
Olaf Czaja 131
A Hitherto Unknown ‘Medical History’ of mTsho
smad mkhan chen (b.16th cent.)
Olaf Czaja 153
BOOK REVIEWS
Mahayanasutralamkara, The Universal Vehicle 173
Discourse Literature edited by Prof. Robert Thurman
Prof. Parmananda Sharma
Britain and Tibet 1765-1947: A select annotated bibliography 174
of British relations with Tibet and the Himalayan states
including Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan by Julie G. Marshall
Alex Mckay
Exile as Challenge: The Tibetan Diaspora, Bernstorff, Dagmar 174
and Hubertus von Welck (eds.)
Feminism, Nationalism and Exiled Tibetan Women
by Alex Butler
Geoff Childs
The Autobiography of Jamgön Kongtrul: A Gem of Many 179
Colors translated by Richard Barron
Martin A. Mills
The Practice of Dzogchen by Longchen Rabjam 181
translated by Tulku Thondup
Georgios Halkias
The Life of Buddhism, Frank E. Reynolds and 182
Jason A. Carbine (eds.)
The Power of DenialÑBuddhism, Purity and 184
Gender by Bernard Faure
D.R. Chaudhry
OBITUARIES
Heinrich Harrer (1912 - 2006) 189
Henry George Baker (1918 - 2006) 193
Roger Croston
CONTRIBUTORS 197
Plant categories and types in Tibetan materia medica
Alessandro Boesi
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays as in the past medicinal substances represent an important resource
for Tibetan people both for health and wealth. Tibetan medical institutes and
independent practitioners carry out activities related to drug identification,
collection, and the compounding and administration of remedies. Tibetan
communities have been always relying as a source of income on the bartering
and selling of several products taken from the natural environment such as
rhubarbs, Fritillaria bulbs, caterpillar fungus and musk deer pods, sought after
by practitioners of Tibetan, ayurvedic and Chinese medicine and at present also
by pharmaceutical and phyto-pharmaceutical companies.
The materia medica of Tibetan medicine, significantly influenced by
Ayurveda1 (as other aspects of the Tibetan medical science) after the translation
into Tibetan language of medical and tantric treatises of Indian origin, has been
enriched and modified during the centuries according to the needs of the
population and has been adapted to the environmental conditions of Tibetan
regions. Even at the present time Tibetan traditional doctors try to find new
drugs. In addition, owing to the great extension of the area over which Tibetan
medicine is practised, the many substances of mineral, animal, and plant origin
of Tibetan pharmacopoeia may vary according to the region, climate and
vegetation, medical schools, local traditions, and foreign influences.
Fundamental medical treatises, their commentaries, and several texts of
materia medica are devoted to describing features, qualities and therapeutic
properties, time and methods of collection, and processing of medicinal
substances. Yet when I decided to research into Tibetan medicinal plants and in
particular on their classification I realised that it was not possible to accomplish
this study only through the reading of the written sources because the information
on the different categories is for the most part too concise for grasping the criteria
upon which they have been devised. The explanation of the master is absolutely
crucial to completely understand plant actual features, classifications, properties,
and ways of exploitation. Therefore I decided to ask directly to Tibetan traditional
doctors about these categorisations. The research fieldwork has been conducted
with practitioners from different Tibetan regions focusing on those who collect
and process medicinal substances and know fundamental medical texts and
pharmacopoeias. Participant observation and open-ended conversations have
been mostly used as methods of investigation. Semi-structured interviews have
also been conducted with other Tibetan doctors who do not perform the above
activities2.
Some systems of medicinal substance categorisation are described in classical
literary sources. The classification may be devised on the basis of medicinal
substance morphological, biological and ecological features (particularly for
plants), 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 drugs
that cure cold diseases (grang nad). Some classifications are mainly practical such
as the one proposed by some practitioners from Baragaon (central Nepal) who
distinguish two types of medicinal plants: the ones growing at high altitude, named
mtho sa sman, “medicines of high altitude areas”, and the ones growing at low
altitude, named dma’ sa sman, “medicines of low altitude areas”.
The principal aim of this article is to examine that traditional classification which
separates Tibetan medicinal plants into categories, sub-categories and “types”5 and
in 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 and
animal origin. The first part of the article is devoted to introducing the categories of
medicinal substances, in the following part the different categories of medicinal
plants are thoroughly examined. The last section is devoted to analysing the
classification of medicinal plants in “types”. Each category has been examined initially
on the basis of the information available on written sources. After I have tried to
explain this information according to the elucidations given by the informants, the
data concerning the botanical identification of the plant specimens gathered during
my fieldwork and the identification proposed in modern pharmacopoeias.
The classification of Tibetan materia medica in its entirety has been dealt with
by Francesca Cardi6 in her dissertation work on Tibetan pharmacopoeia and
preparation of the remedies. Meyer7 in his book devoted to Tibetan medicine has
briefly dealt with the categories of medicines.
CATEGORIES OF MEDICINES
In Tibetan medicine medicinal substances (sman)8, natural and non-natural, are
classified in several categories and sub-categories.
Although the classical classification described in fundamental treatises is accepted
by all practitioners, I emphasise the discrepancy in the conception of certain
categories, and in particular of the categories of thang sman, “medicines of the
plains”, and sngo sman, “herbaceous medicines”. The cause of this disparity depends
on the practitioners’ level of education, and on the influence of the modern treatises
of Tibetan medicine, which introduce new concepts and systems of classifying
medicinal substances. This recent phenomenon is enhanced also because the
traditional classification of medicinal plants in categories, according to fieldwork
observations and to the opinion of the informants, has little practical relevance and
in this way it may be easily substituted by a simpler one.
As far as the level of knowledge of Tibetan materia medica is concerned, the
recent standardisation and industrialisation of the process of medicament production
in the biggest medical institutes, the specialisation of practitioners and the capillary
distribution of the medicines to the dispensaries (for example to the ones which
depend on the Tibetan Medical & Astro Institute of Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh,
India) in many regions, imply that only a portion of practitioners has an in-depth
knowledge of medicinal substances. In spite of that other traditional doctors in all
Tibetan regions have been carrying on practising Tibetan medicine in a traditional
way and know very well its pharmacopoeia.
The types of substances included in each category may be heterogeneous. As it
will be shown in the next sections, some categories consist of medicines coming
exclusively 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 different
types of substances, another includes only mineral substances except for one that is
a 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 po
che’i sman (precious medicines), rdo’i sman (stone medicines), sa’i sman (earth
medicines), rtsi sman9 (essence medicines), shing sman (medicines coming from
woody plants), thang sman (medicines of the plains), sngo sman (herbaceous
medicines), srog chags sman (medicines coming from living beings), and lo thog gi
sman (crop medicines). The expressions properly designating each category are not
commonly employed by the practitioners in their practical activities, but only during
theoretical 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’i
sman (fire medicines), and gdus pa’i sman (concentrated medicines).
I point out that in The Four Tantras and consequently in The Blue Beryl the
different groups of medicinal substances are described in a chapter whose aim is to
describe their potencies10.
Plants are included in five among the eight categories above mentioned: rdo’i
sman (or sa sman according to the text), rtsi sman, shing sman, thang sman, sngo
sman, and lo thog gi sman. The three categories that include the majority of medicinal
plants (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\or
employed as medicines such as leaves, flowers, and stems. According to the The
Four Tantras11 and The Blue Beryl12 shing sman and thang sman are divided into
sub-groupings whereas the category sngo sman is not. I emphasise that in these texts
the drugs that belong to rtsi sman, shing sman, and thang sman are listed together
without setting any limit between the categories and between their sub-groupings
and, as far as the categories shing sman and thang sman are concerned, their
constituents are listed together without any order. Thus it is very difficult to distinguish
them. This might suggest that it is not very important to know to which of the above
categories a drug belongs probably because this does not have significant implications
on its potency. Yet the drugs that belong to the category rtsi sman can be distinguished
more easily since they are listed together and because of the indications given in The
Blue 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 describes
several sub-groupings also in the category sngo sman and he clearly differentiates
the shing sman category by enumerating the constituents according to their sub-
groupings13. The thang sman medicines are listed without distinguishing their
sub-groupings 14 as in The Four Tantras and The Blue Beryl.
According to the authors of the two texts above on one side and to De’u
dmar dge bshes on the other one, the categories shing sman, thang sman, and
sngo sman exhibit a significant disparity in their content. In The Four Tantras
and The Blue Beryl many plants included amongst the sngo sman such as thang
phrom 15, 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 shug
pa tsher can (Juniperus spp.), mdzo mo (Caragana spp.), skyi ba (Sophora
68 TIBET JOURNAL
moorcroftiana) 17 , dbyi mong, (Clematis spp.), and ba lu (Rhododendron

anthopogon)18 are included in the category sngo sman, “herbaceous medicines”.
These drugs are considered—probably more correctly considering their
biological and morphological features—as shing sman in the Shel phreng.
Curiously in The Four Tantras, se rgod (Rosa spp.) and skyer pa (Berberis
spp.) are mentioned twice: firstly when the shing sman, rtsi sman, and thang
sman medicines are listed and secondly among the sngo sman medicines in
the same chapter19. Medicinal salts (tshwa sman), which are placed in a category
of its own in the Shel phreng20, in The Four Tantras and The Blue Beryl are
listed amongst the shing sman and the thang sman medicines.
The author of The Four Tantras describes only a part of the actual plants
that belong to each category of medicines probably with the intention of giving
some examples. As a matter of fact many other plants (and other medicinal
substances of mineral and animal origin) are mentioned in the other parts of
The Four Tantras. sDe srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho has systematized these
medicines in The Blue Beryl 21 and in the Tibetan Thankas 22 he has
commissioned, where they are described as supplementary materia medica
(kha skong gras, “supplementary class”).
Medicinal substances have been organized more properly in relation to
their features in the Shel phreng where the categories and sub-categories (except
for the thang sman) are neatly separated and the number of medicinal substances
described is exhaustive. I have chosen this text as the main classical reference
also because of its frequent use by the informants and the relatively detailed
plant descriptions (concerning both morphological and ecological plant
features) given by the author and since it constitutes the main reference source
for the recently published modern texts of Tibetan materia medica.
An interesting aspect of the classification of medicinal plants (and in general
of all kinds of medicinal substances) in Tibetan medicine is the disparity in
the criteria employed to group the plant together in the different categories.
The constituents of the category rtsi sman are assembled on the basis of their
peculiar therapeutic properties and fragrance, the category shing sman is
worked out on the basis of the plant features from which its components come
and the categories thang sman and sngo sman are devised on the basis of plant
morphological, biological features, and environment of growth.
I note that in The Four Tantras23 the term rtswa is employed to indicate
thang and sngo medicinal plants at the same time. Actually several traditional
doctors from the regions of Litang, Baragaon, and Ladakh include in a single
group called sman rtswa, “medicinal herbaceous plants”, and rtswa sman,
“herbaceous medicines”, all medicinal herbaceous plants. This classification
is probably used for convenience.
In all Tibetan cultural regions the new designations and categorisation
systems introduced in the modern Tibetan pharmacopoeias certainly under
Chinese influence are seldom used although they are known by the new
generations of practitioners and also by some traditional doctors from isolated
regions because of the rapid diffusion of the above texts. Karma chos ’phel
(1993) presents three new categories of medicinal substances: gter dngos kyi
sman 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 intention
is probably to work out a classification that reflects the one of modern science
in three kingdoms: mineral, plant, and animal. Yet it is not possible to adapt
the drug traditional classification to the classification system of modern science
because the criteria upon which they are based are different. For example, it is
doubtful whether the traditional category of the “essence medicines” (rtsi sman)
can be included in the so-called skye dngos kyi sman rdzas group, “medicinal
substances which grow”, as proposed by Karma chos ’phel, because besides a
few medicinal plants some substances of animal and mineral origin such as
gla 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 category
of stone medicines (rdo’i sman)26 according to the pharmacopoeia Shel phreng27
whereas according to The Four Tantras (bShad rgyud 28) it is included in the
category of earth medicines (sa sman)29. The expression rdo dreg may be
translated as “stone incrustation”. Although considered as a plant by all
informants, it has probably been included among the medicines coming from
the stones because it appears to be growing directly from the rocks, as some
practitioners from Litang and Baragaon assert.
In the modern treatises of Tibetan materia medica, rdo dreg has been
included either in a new-devised category including stone medicines and earth
medicines, called sa rdo’i sman30, or amongst the herbaceous medicines (sngo
sman)31 reflecting a recent adjustment of the classification according to the
one of modern botany certainly under Chinese influence.
ESSENCE MEDICINES
The essence medicines (rtsi sman)32 represent a peculiar category that consists
of heterogeneous components. According to written sources, these medicinal
substances 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 from
plants (see below).
Here follows the description of this category according to The Four
Tantras36 (the same is given in the Blue Beryl): “the rtsi sman originate from
herbaceous plants (rtswa), woody plants (shing), and sentient beings (srog
chags).” Differently, according to the Shel phreng37, the rtsi sman “originate
from woody plants (shing), from the plants of ldum type, from the plants of
sngo type38, from sentient beings (srog chags), and from stones (rdo)…” Here
the essence medicines also include a substance (brag zhun) that comes from
the stones and the two distinct expressions ldum and sngo are employed in the
place of the term rtswa to indicate herbaceous plants.
The author of the rGyud bzhi does not give any indication about which
substances belong to the essence medicines: all the substances included in the
shing sman, rtsi sman, and thang sman are listed without setting any limit
between 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 listed
between 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 in
this text, essence medicines consist of ten substances.
Differently in the Shel phreng De’u dmar dge bshes41 lists 12 different rtsi
medicines: ga bur42, dzwa ti, li shi, sug smel, cu gang, gur kum, gi wang, gla
rtsi, dom mkhris, dbang po ril bu (intestinal bezoars), and brag zhun. In this
text, among the rtsi sman of plant origin, in the place of utpala, which here is
included in the category sngo sman43, there is ga bur, which is assigned to the
category shing sman in The Four Tantras. The medicine of animal origin dbang
po ril bu and the one of mineral origin brag zhun have been added. In the
rGyud 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 times
it corresponded to the imported Indian blue lotus (Nymphaea nouchali)45 and
therefore was included in the rtsi sman category as described in the Four
Tantras owing probably to its fragrant perfume and the lotus being a symbol of
purity, perfection, and compassion. Later on, when some species of Himalayan
poppy (Meconopsis spp.) were selected as local substitutes, the drug was
reallocated in the category of the herbaceous medicines sngo sman, as shown
in more recent classical pharmacopoeias as the Shel phreng46 and the materia
medica of ’Jam dpal rdo rje47.
A few modern Tibetan pharmacopoeias, most probably under Chinese
influence, introduce new elements among the essence medicines. In the materia
medica of dGa’ ba’i rdo rje dbyar rtswa dgun ’bu (Cordyceps sinensis), a
parasite mushroom traditionally considered as a herbaceous plant by Tibetan
people48, is included among the rtsi sman and designated with the recently-
devised name rtswa da byid49. Yet another modern pharmacopoeia 50 published
at Lhasa regards the same medicine as belonging to the category ldum bu thang
sman that mainly includes herbaceous plants. The dbyar rtswa dgun ’bu is not
mentioned in the fundamental treatises of Tibetan medicine as rGyud bzhi and
Vaidurya sngon po and in the classical pharmacopoeia Shel gong and in its
commentary Shel phreng, but it is described in the illustrated materia medica
written 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 of
the essence medicines. The Tibetan-English dictionary of Chandra Das 53
proposes the following definitions: “varnish, paint”, “all fluids of a certain
consistency, such the juice of some fruits, certain secretions, etc.”. These
definitions cannot be employed for the term rtsi according to its use in Tibetan
medicine. Also Meyer54 has stated that the expression rtsi “ne peut pas être
traduit par comme cela a été fait dans la table des matières de “An Illustrated
Tibeto-Mongolian Materia Medica of Ayurveda”55, car ce groupe de drogues
comprend des produits aussi divers que la bile d’ours, le camphre et les clous
de girofle”.
In order to understand the nature of the essence medicines, I have asked
the informants the following questions: what is the reason for assembling
together these drugs that apparently seem to be so different? Which are the
parameters that justify this classification? The first answer given by many
practitioners from different regions has been that the attribution of the term
rtsi to certain substances indicates that they have strong therapeutic properties.
In particular the fact that even a small amount (sman nyung nyung) of any rtsi
medicine has strong potency (nus pa chen po) has often been emphasized as
the fundamental feature. Hence, according to the informants, a little amount
of them is enough to prepare medicaments.
A traditional doctor from Baragaon states that the presence of fragrance is
an important feature of the essence medicines as well: “when fragrance (dri
ma) is absent—he says—there is no potency, even if the taste of the plant
corresponds to the one described in medical texts.” Actually the majority of
informants agree that the drugs included in the category of essence medicines
have good fragrance (dri bzang) and that this scent denotes their curative
properties 56. Almost all the drugs of this category actually have a strong
fragrance and also in the Shel phreng57 the good fragrance dri bzang (and dri
zhim) is attributed to the majority of them. A practitioner from Litang assigns
to essence medicines the property of being “good medicines” (sman bzang
po). He affirms that these drugs possess outstanding and long-lasting therapeutic
properties.
It may therefore be assumed that the expression rtsi mainly refers to the
following conception: good fragrance—strong and concentrated medicine. In
this 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 named
g.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 of
rtsi sman have, among the others, the property of “increasing strength” (zungs
skyed). Therefore the introduction of the dbyar rtswa dgun ’bu in this group
may be ascribed to its properties as a tonic and aphrodisiac and to its great
importance in Chinese medicine. Another drug recently introduced among the
essence 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 the
medicines of animal origin as reported in the Shel phreng62 and in the rGyud
bzhi63.
THE MEDICINES COMING FROM WOODY PLANTS

The medicines named shing sman consist of drugs which come from woody
plants (shing sdong). According to the rGyud bzhi64 the divisions of the shing
sman are ten. Each of them is devised by assembling the plants of which the
same organs are employed in medicine: fruits and seeds (’bras bu), flowers
(me tog), leaves (lo ma), trunks (sdong po), branches (yal ga), skins (shun
pa), resins (tshi ba), roots (rtsa ba), shoots (ldum bu) and marrow (rkang). I
emphasise that several practitioners from Litang and Baragaon have stated
that the meaning of the term ldum bu, usually employed to designate a category
of medicines65 or generally herbaceous plants by common people, corresponds
here 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 at
the beginning of the section devoted to shing sman, it is omitted in the following
pages where the plants that belong to each division are described. The author
gives 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 not
been 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 placed
here in the sub-group of branches71.
The same woody plant may be included in more than one division at the
same 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 (me
tog) 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 as
well as in the division of skins as skyer pa77.
In The Blue Beryl 78 it is stated that some practitioners affirm that all the
medicines 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 author
also states that there are doubts on the above order because in the category of
shing sman there are ten sub-groupings and, according to the above statement,
only four examples are given. Actually many plants commonly categorized as
shing 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 sman
and sngo sman (herbaceous medicines) are not seen by De’u dmar dge bshes
exactly in the same way, because in the description of the sub-groups of shing
sman he omits the term btu ba, “to gather”, which is employed in reference to
sngo sman. The omission might suggest that the medicines coming from woody
plants are not gathered locally. This may be explained considering that several
of these medicines do not thrive on the Tibetan plateau and are bought on
local markets already cut in parts. Nonetheless several medicinal woody plants
thrive 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 dmar
dge bshes lists as example of shing sman some plants coming from the tropical
and sub-tropical regions of India and China as tsan dan dkar po, tsan dan
dmar po, and a ru ra (Terminalia chebula), but he also indicates se ba (Rosa
spp.), a woody plant thriving in many Tibetan regions, as several other medicines
coming from woody plants that I have gathered for example in the Litang
County82.
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 the
low altitude regions of India, China and Nepal (nearly 40%) and from the
deep 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 by
Tibetan people. The woody medicines gathered over the high areas of the
Tibetan plateau are fewer (nearly 33%). Although the above percentages are
not very indicative since in the Shel phreng the descriptions of the growing
areas 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 botanical
identifications proposed by Karma chos ’phel: 34.35% of the woody medicines
come from tropical and sub-tropical regions, 33.3% from the relatively lower
Tibetan regions, and 32.35 % from the proper Tibetan plateau.
I note that sometimes in modern pharmacopoeias a medicine included in
this category may present some types which are herbaceous plants. For example,
although the standard drug that corresponds to khyung sder 83 is a woody plant
(Uncaria scandens), there are some types which are herbaceous plants as
suggested by the determinant sngo placed at the beginning of their names84: a
white type (sngo khyung sder dkar po, Saussurea katochaetoides)85 and a
purple-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 section
since their distinction is not clear according to both informants and written
sources, and because many practitioners tend to see them as a single group.
The category thang sman is commonly designated by employing a few
slightly 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 similar
expressions are mentioned: thang sman, ldum sman, “ldum medicines”, and
ldum bu’am thang sman, “medicines of the plains or of ldum type”.90 De’u
dmar dge bshes, in a chapter devoted to introducing the different categories of
medicines, explains that the expressions thang and ldum are equivalent 91 in
the sense that they indicate the same category. Practitioners from all the regions
where the fieldwork has been carried out employ the designations thang sman
and ldum bu thang sman indifferently. The expression ldum sman has been
seldom evoked.
The rGyud bzhi 92 and the Shel phreng93 describe some sub-groupings of
this category. They are worked out on the basis of the plant part which has to
be gathered and therefore that is employed in medicine. In the former text five
sub-groupings are described (rtsa ba, underground organs; ngar pa, stalk; lo
ma, leaves; me tog, flowers; ’bras bu, fruits and seeds) whilst in the latter only
four, the sub-group ngar pa not being mentioned.
Curiously De’u dmar dge bshes does not list the medicines included in this
category according to their sub-groupings, as he does with the other main
categories of medicinal plants (shing sman et sngo sman), but all the medicines
of the plains are presented together as it happens in the Four Tantras. As we
have already explained in the section devoted to essence medicines, in the
Four Tantras and in The Blue Beryl it is not possible to discern the drugs
included in the category thang sman clearly, since all the shing sman, rtsi
sman, and thang sman medicines are listed without setting any limit between
them.
74 TIBET JOURNAL
As concerns the category sngo sman, “herbaceous medicines”, it is also

categorised in several sub-groupings devised on the basis of the plant part
which has to be collected, as it is explained in the Shel phreng 94 where six sub-
groupings are described: the one whose underground organs (rtsa ba) are
collected, 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 and
in The Blue Beryl.
Most informants from different regions do not have precise ideas of what
the real nature of the medicines that belong to the thang sman and sngo sman
categories is and even learned practitioners do not clearly elucidate the
differences between them. This phenomenon might be explained considering
that the classification of medicinal plants in thang sman and sngo sman does
not seem to have any practical utility according to informants. Actually a
practitioner from Dhorpatan and some practitioners from Litang have affirmed
that the plants included in these two categories share the same characteristics
(mtshan nyid), the same particular qualities (khyad chos) and the same mode
of use (lag len). Traditional classification may therefore be substituted, as we
have shown in the above sections, with other usually simpler classification
systems. This phenomenon is very common and many traditional doctors in
different regions adopt a classification which does not differentiate thang sman
and sngo sman, but they consider a category seen as including medicinal
herbaceous plants. Other than using the term rtswa sman (herbaceous
medicines), the tendency towards employing the expression sngo ldum sman
(sngo and ldum medicines), as proposed by the authors of some modern treatises
of Tibetan materia medica95 that have been recently spreading over all Tibetan
regions, is not so common. This expression connotes medicinal herbaceous
plants. Other practitioners employ the term sngo sman to indicate all medicinal
herbaceous plants.
In order to explain the real nature of the plants included in the category
thang sman, the term thang will be analysed below. The common sense of this
word is “plain”, “flatlands” 96. However in Tibetan medicine it may also
designate a type of medicinal preparation, notably decoctions. Actually many
informants from different regions have wrongly affirmed that the term thang 97
sman exclusively indicates decoctions and not also a category of medicinal
substances. A few other informants have also incorrectly asserted that the thang
sman 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 more
interesting definitions of the thang sman. They affirm that the medicines of
the plains grow on flatlands (thang) in opposition to the herbaceous medicines
(sngo sman) which thrive on the mountains (ri la). However it is important to
point out what is here the meaning of the expression thang according to the
informants: it does not generally specify the flatlands located at low altitudes
as the ones of India and China, but it also designates the localities of Tibetan
regions that are endowed with bde mo and snyoms po99 qualities. The attribute
bde mo is assigned to comfortable and pleasant areas and the attribute snyoms
po to the localities that are uniform and evenly balanced as far as altitude,
climate, and conformation of the ground are concerned. These features may
certainly be ascribed to some Tibetan localities. In particular the informants
have mentioned flatlands and valleys which are not situated at high altitudes.
Tibetan people see high altitude areas as uninhabited high mountains, and as
plateaus where, owing to the harsh climate, there are no villages and only
nomads can live.
A few traditional doctors from Baragaon, Litang, and Dharamsala have
suggested a definition of the category thang sman, which is also mentioned in
the medical dictionary gSo ba rig pa’i tshig mdzod g.yu thog dgongs rgyan 100,
that describes the ecological setting of the plants belonging to this category:
“Category of medicines that thrive in the flatlands and not in the elevated
areas as stony mountains, slate mountains101 and snowy mountains”.
The same source also mentions a commentary to the rGyud bzhi written by
dPal 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 areas
and 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 1,000
and 2,500 metres and ba sha ka (Adhatoda vasica)103 thrives until 1,500 metres
for example in India and in the Chinese province of Yunnan. The term thang is
here employed with a sense that is opposite to the one of the term mtho sar
and 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 over
high mountains and plateaus, but in low flatlands and in low and relatively
low mountain areas. Therefore the translation “plateau medicines” of the
expression thang sman given by some authors104 does not seem to be very
accurate because the term plateau may connote either the entire Tibetan plateau
or the high-cold flatlands of Tibet. According to practitioners and written
sources, the herbaceous medicines (sngo sman) and not the medicines of the
plains (thang sman) thrive in these areas.
De’u dmar dge bshes105 has described the medicines of the plains according
to their morphological and biological features: “Thang sman represent the
plants whose underground organs are developed and whose aerial organs grow
each year as the ones of woody plants, but which, except for the underground
organs, perish in winter as the plants of the sngo type, and therefore are replaced
each 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 (Swertia
chirayita) and ba sha ka (Adhatoda vasica). Their underground organs have
the essential nature of woody plants (shing), their stalks the one of the ldum
type, their leaves and flowers the “green and tender” (sngo) one of herbaceous
plants.”108
According to my fieldwork data and the botanical identifications of modern
Tibetan materia medica109, the underground organs of the majority of thang
sman are stout and thick, just as stated in the definition and in line with the
examples proposed by De’u dmar dge bshes.
76 TIBET JOURNAL
In the definition above, the three expressions shing, ldum and sngo are
employed to describe the essential nature (rang bzhin) of the three different
organs of plants belonging to the thang sman group and they clearly point out
to different morphological traits. The only difficulty consists in the
interpretation of the term ldum110 which indicates the features of stalks that are
neither like the ones of woody plants (shing) nor as the ones of green-tender
herbaceous plants (sngo). The examination of features and vegetative cycle of
the plants taken as example by De’u dmar dge bshes may help us to ascertain
to which kind of plant and plant traits the term ldum refers. Inula racemosa
and Rheum palmatum are herbaceous plants that have a stout herbaceous stalk.
The Indian tig ta 111 seems, according to De’u dmar dge bshes 112, a small woody
plant (shing phran). Actually it is a robust herbaceous plant. Interestingly some
practitioners from Litang designate ldum the stalk of some types of rhubarbs
as lcum (Rheum palmatum) and chu skyur (Rheum alexandrae) in the same
way as in the example proposed by the author of the Shel phreng. According
to 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 shing
type. Ba sha ka (Adhatoda vasica) is a woody plant, according to the Shel
phreng113. It should therefore not be included in the thang sman category also
because its aerial organs survive in winter. Yet this plant, being imported from
the hot regions of India, Nepal, and China and sold on local markets, might
have not been observed directly on the field by Tibetan doctors who therefore
do not know its vegetative cycle and have only seen stems and branches. In
this reference some traditional doctors from Baragaon and Dharamsala have
stated that some medicines of the plains may have a woody stem, but that it
dries up at the beginning of the cold season.
I will now examine the meaning of the term ldum bu which, according to
the medical dictionary gSo ba rig pa’i tshig mdzod g.yu thog dgongs rgyan, is
the following: “name of the herbaceous plants (sngo) that, as re ral114, dwa ba
(Arisaema spp), and snya lo (Polygonum polystachyum)115, are not cultivated
plants, naturally grown green grass (rtswa) and flowers planted in a garden,
but that grow together with these.”116 The same source also mentions an almost
identical definition ascribed to De’u dmar dge bshes117: “lDum bu are not
cultivated plants, green grass and garden flowers, but the name of the
herbaceous plants that grow together with these.” The three plants taken as
examples in the above definitions are included in the category thang sman in
the Shel phreng118. They exhibit morphological and ecological features that
correspond 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 with
tuberous roots mostly grow in forests. sNya lo is a shrubby herbaceous plant
which thrives between 2,000 and 4,000 metres.
We may therefore put forward that the plants designated ldum mainly include
herbaceous plants having robust underground organs and\or stout herbaceous
stems. Only in some cases they are tiny shrubs. Thus thang medicines are also
named ldum medicines because they may exhibit the above morphological
features.
This assumption is supported by the data reported by informants and written
sources which attribute the category of herbaceous medicines (sngo sman) a
few distinctive morphological and ecological features opposite to the ones of

thang sman. Actually the majority of practitioners from different regions
associate the expression sngo sman to medicinal herbaceous plants that are
tiny, 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 of
tiny underground organs.” The analysis of the botanical identification of the
plants belonging to this category, for example in the materia medica of Karma
chos ’phel120, has shown that most botanical species consist of tiny herbaceous
plants with slender underground organs. In the same treatise121 it is affirmed
that sngo sman are plants which grow anew each year but the plants included
in the thang sman category also share this feature.
Thus the parameters of distinction between the categories thang sman and
sngo sman may be the following: as concerns the underground organs, the size
is tiny and slender in the ngo sman and big and robust in the thang sman; as
concerns 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 thrive
on high mountains and plateaus and the thang sman at lower altitude. According
to some traditional doctors from Baragaon all these parameters need not to be
present at the same time. After examining the plants included in the two
categories it seems that morphological features, in particular underground organ
size, are more important than the environmental ones in defining the medicines
of the thang sman category. For example, chu rtsa is a stout herbaceous plant
with a thick root, which grows at high altitude (4,100-5,200 m.).
According to the descriptions given in The Crystal Rosary most of the
sngo sman (nearly 90%) and the majority (roughly 75%) of thang sman come
from Tibetan regions. These data are corroborated by the modern materia
medica of Karma chos ’phel122 that presents the plant botanical identifications.
According to it, the 68.75% of the thang sman come directly from proper
Tibetan 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, and
China. As to the sngo sman medicines, 78.41% come from proper Tibetan
plateau regions, 15.41% from rong areas, and 6.18% from sub-tropical and
tropical regions.
THE CROP MEDICINES

Several Tibetan pharmacopoeias as the Shel phreng123 describe a category
including 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 (Avena
sativa), rgya sran (Vicia faba), yungs dkar (Brassica alba), la phug (Raphanus
sativus), and a sho pa tra (Zea mays)124.
This group is not described in The Four Tantras, where edible plants are
dealt with in the three chapters devoted to dietetics125. In a modern Tibetan
pharmacopoeia126 this category is designated ’bru’i sman, “grain medicines”.
Although the meaning of the term ’bru is “a grain of anything”127, vegetables
such as turnips (nyung ma, Brassica rapa) 128 and radish (la phug) are included
in 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 are
presented in the Vaidurya sngon po129 and, furnishing interesting information
as concerns plant morphological and ecological features, in the Shel phreng.
Modern Tibetan medical texts give in-depth descriptions of the different plant
types as well, most of which are based on the above classical treatises.
The plant classification in types as reported in written sources is probably
the most common categorisation, which however may not be accepted by all
practitioners. Since Tibetan medicine is practised over a huge area throughout
several countries130, its materia medica may show differences according to
local vegetation, traditions, and foreign influences. All these factors may affect
plant traditional identification and classification as our field data have shown.
Thus Tibetan materia medica, as Tibetan medicine in general, is not to be
considered as standard and static both in time and space, but as a tradition that
has been constantly evolving.
Plant types are usually differentiated and categorized on the basis of a small
number of features, whose recognition may be crucial because each plant type
may have peculiar therapeutic properties, a different time and method of
gathering, drying, and a dissimilar use. Some plant types may belong to different
plant forms 131 as in the case of khyung sder, a woody plant that has two
herbaceous 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 properties
in three (or two) types. In this case the following determinants are added to
the name of the plant: mchog, “superior”, which indicates the type having the
best therapeutic properties; ’bring, “intermediate”, which specifies intermediate
therapeutic properties; dman, “inferior”, designating the types having weak
potency 133. Several types of well-known medicinal plants are categorized
according to the above criterion as below: hong len mchog (Picrorhiza
scrophulariiflora)134, hong len dman pa (Lagotis glauca)135; klu bdud rdo rje
mchog (Codonopsis mollis) 136 , klu bdud rdo rje dman pa (Adenophora
liliifolia)137; ug chos mchog (Incarvillea grandiflora)138, ug chos dman pa
(Incarvillea arguta)139; spra thog (Leontopodium dedekensii) and spra ga dman
pa (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 its
environment of growth. This practical classification has been worked out by
the practitioner for the area where he carries out the plant gathering. This is
the case of the well-known medicinal plant bong nga that consists of four
types141: 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 different
potency in relation to altitude and aspect142: bong nag143 mchog, “superior bong
nag”, which thrives at high altitude on the shady side of the mountains and
whose cold potency is particularly strong; bong nag ’bring, “intermediate bong
nag”, which also grows on shady mountainsides, but at lower altitude, and
that 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 sun
decreases the cold potency of the plant, which is gathered only in case of lack
in the other sub-types.
The flower colour is a parameter frequently employed to distinguish and
categorise the different types of a plant, for example, as concerns shang shang
dril bu, “bell of shang shang” 144, a plant that belongs to the herbaceous
medicines (sngo sman). Traditional doctors from different regions describe
several types (they all belong to the botanical genus Primula) of this medicinal
plant, which are distinguished from their flower colour. A practitioner from
Baragaon 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 dril
ser po (P. sikkimensis), shang dril smug po (Primula sp.) and shang dril dmar
po (“red shang dril”, P. secundiflora).
A Tibetan doctor from Khyungpo (east Tibet) has reported that there are
five types of this plant: shang dril dkar po, shang dril dmar po, shang dril ser
po (P. sikkimensis), shang dril smug po, and shang dril nag po (“black shang
dril, P. atrodentata). The informant has affirmed that the designation shang
dril nag po, only used in Khyungpo and in few other Tibetan regions, is a
synonym for the more common shang dril sngon po, “blue shang dril”. The
name shang dril nag po is not mentioned in the classical and modern
pharmacopoeias examined. Similarly, traditional doctors from the region of
Dolpo use the expression shang dril sngon po as a synonym of shang dril nag
po (Primula macrophylla)146, thus corroborating the information reported by
the informant from Khyungpo.
De’u dmar dge bshes147 describes three different classifications: 1) in three
types: 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 last
classification model the author presents the classification parameters: the
principal is the flower colour, but it is also stated that the red and the yellow
types thrive on wet soils (chu las skye, “to be born from water”) whereas white
and purple-brown types “grow on dry soils” (skam sar skye).
The disparities between the classifications reported can be explained
referring to changing ecological conditions and local traditions in the different
Himalayan and Tibetan regions.
Some classifications are devised according to the size of the plant or of
some of its organs. In this case the determinant chen (big) may be added to the
big type and the determinant chung (small) to the small type. For example,
thar nu includes two types that exhibit similar morphological features and that
are classified on the basis of the size of some of their organs: thar chen, “big
thar nu” (Euphorbia wallichii), has larger and thicker leaves and a stouter
stalk than the type named thar chung, “small thar nu” (Euphorbia longifolia)149.
Three types of star bu (Hippophae spp.) are distinguished according to
their height: star bu gnam star, star bu bar star, star bu sa star. For each type
a 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 the
highest 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 classification
is usually worked out on the basis of the following parameters: plant general
aspect, size of the entire plant or of one of its organs (usually flowers), other
minute morphological features. Plant size is the most frequent parameter of
classification: masculine types usually have a big size while feminine ones are
small. Hermaphrodite types may exhibit intermediate size between masculine
and feminine plants or simultaneous masculine and feminine features. This
classification may also imply some inferences on the modalities of
administration of each type. For example in the case of me tog glang sna151
masculine plants (pho glang, Pedicularis integrifolia) have to be administered
to feminine patients and feminine plants (mo glang, Pedicularis anas)152 to
male patients whereas hermaphrodite plants (ma ning glang) may be
administered to both.
Some plants are separated into types according to their environment of
growth. Medicinal plant types may thrive in the meadows (spang), between
rocks (brag), and in forests (nags). A traditional doctor from Baragaon
categorises 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 in
forested valleys (rong) and near villages and sometimes even in house gardens
(ldum ra); the latter, named rgod (wild), usually thrives on the mountains (ri
la) at high altitude (sa cha mtho po) where the climate is harsh154. For example,
De’u dmar dge bshes 155 describes two types of dwa ba: the type designated
dwa rgod grows on the mountains, the one named dwa g.yung thrives in the
cultivated fields.
The classification may depend on the medical traditions Byang and Zur. At
the end of the XV century two schools of Tibetan medicine were established
by 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 mNyam
nyid rdo rje. The former established the Byang lugs medical tradition, the
latter the Zur lugs one. These traditions, which exhibit little differences 156,
formally survived until the reign of the Fifth Dalai Lama (1617-1682) in the
seventeenth century. Some practitioners have stated that they may follow one
of the two medical schools in the case of the classification and identification
of certain medicinal plants. For example according to two informants from
Khyungpo and Baragaon there is a type of dug mo nyung (Holarrhena
antidysenterica) designated sngo dug mo nyung (Cynanchum vincetoxicum)157
that has been categorized and identified by the Byang school. Similarly they
have affirmed that the identification of ut pal sngon po differs in relation to
Byang and Zur schools: the former recognises it as an aster (Aster
tricephalus)158, the latter as a blue poppy (Meconopsis spp.). The majority of
practitioners over Tibetan regions adhere to the identification of the Zur
tradition.
CONCLUSION
The classification of medicinal plants dealt with in this article is constant among
traditional doctors from different Tibetan regions and almost corresponds to
the one described on classical texts of Tibetan materia medica. Yet I emphasise
the existence of a significant disparity of knowledge owing to the recent modern
standardisation of Tibetan medicine. Many practitioners practising in
dispensaries and clinics which depend on important medical institutes and who
do not carry out any more the gathering of medicinal plants and do not make
the remedies have an imprecise knowledge of the materia medica, of its
classification and identification and of the criteria of attribution of curative
properties to substances. Only a moderate number of informants, particularly
independent practitioners, have a deep knowledge of medicinal plants and their
use, based on a detailed knowledge of medical texts, an education with a learned
master, and a great field experience.
The recent introduction under Chinese influence of a new terminology and
the attempt of devising a new classification reflecting the one of modern science
so far has had a slight impact on traditional classification.
Few medicinal substances have been shifted from one category to another
owing either to their importance in Chinese medicine or to the attempt of
reallocating them according to the classification of modern science.
The classification of medicinal plants in types, although based on the same
criteria such as plant morphological traits, place of growth, and quality, may
vary significantly according to climatic conditions, local traditions and medical
schools. That is why the same Tibetan plant designation may correspond to
different botanical species.
The peculiar botanical and medical knowledge of independent practitioners,
in particular of the ones of family lineage, might disappear in the near future
because 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 regions
of the Tibetan cultural area: the Litang County (Sichuan, China), the region of
Baragaon (Mustang District, Central Nepal), Dhorpatan (Baglung District, Central
Nepal), and Ladakh (Jammu & Kashmir, India). Medicinal plant specimens gathered
on the field have been identified in collaboration with professor J. F. Dobremez
(Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, Université de Savoie, France) and have been deposited
at the Herbarium of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris, France.
Classical texts of Tibetan medicine and some traditional and modern treatises of
Tibetan materia medica have been employed to analyse medicinal plant classification:
“The Four Tantras” (rGyud bzhi), the fundamental text of Tibetan medicine (g.Yu
thog Yon tan mgon po, 1992), probably composed between the VIII and the XII
century; its famous commentary “The Blue Beryl” (Vaidurya sngon po), written by
the Regent sDe srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho (1982) in the XVII century; “The Crystal
Block” (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 important
classical texts of Tibetan materia medica, both written in the first half of the XVIII
century; 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 of
Archaeology 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 of
transliteration (minus the hyphen in between syllables).
4. The term “potency” (nus pa) points out to the action that a substance may originate
by means of its features and qualities. In Tibetan medicine this expression designates
both particular qualities of medicinal substances, which constitute their therapeutic
properties (the eight nus pa), and their therapeutic effect (Boesi, 2004: 48-50).
5. From the ethnobiological perspective the so-called plant “types” (rigs) correspond
here to the taxa designated by Berlin (1992: 22) “specific”, and “varietal”. Although
the meaning of the term rigs may be “type”, “class”, “category”, and “kind”, it is
mainly used by Tibetan practitioners to indicate plant types and varieties. They usually
share their primary name (Ibidem: 27) (also designated “basic name” according to
Conklin, 1954) and are differentiated by adding a specific (or two in the case of
varieties) 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 other
medicinal substances of mineral and animal origin. This term also indicates medicinal
preparations.
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 to
my 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 in
modern Tibetan materia medica and the ones related to the specimens gathered on
the field by the author. I would like to point out that, because the botanical identification
of Tibetan materia medica may vary according to several factors as explained in the
article, the identification presented may represent only one of the possible botanical
species 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
22. Parfionovich et al., 1992: 73.
20: 68.
24. See the section devoted to essence medicines for the identification of these medicinal
substances according to modern science.
25. dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1998: 66. Parmelia tinctorum is a lichen that grows in crust like
form 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.
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 substance
with a very strong scent that is secreted by the males during the rut season. Several
species of musk deer exists over Tibetan regions: Moschus sifanicus lives in alpine
areas, Moschus berezovskii in subalpine regions (Schaller G., personal communication,
2001) whilst Moschus chrysogaster is common in Himalayan regions. In the region
of Khams (east Tibet) I have observed Tibetan people trying to sell the musk to
Tibetan medical institutes as the one in Dar rtse mdo, and to traders of medicinal
plants.
34. According to the recent pharmacopoeias edited at Lhasa and Chamdo, this substance
corresponds 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 coming
from the excreta of a bra (Ochotona spp.).
20: 68.
38. The meaning of the expressions thang and sngo will be examined in the section
devoted to thang sman and sngo sman.
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 Crocus
sativus; sug smel to Amomum compactum and to Elettaria cardamomum; dzwa ti to
Myristica 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 to
silica secretion from the stem of Schizostachyum chinense; gur gum corresponds to
Crocus sativus (kha che gur gum); sug smel to Elettaria cardamomum; dzwa ti to
Myristica fragrans; li shi to Eugenia caryophyllata; ka ko la to Amomum tsao and to
A. subulatum.
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 Cinammomum
camphora.
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 their
original Sanskrit designation as in this case.
45. See Sharma et al., 1993: 430-431; Nadkarni, 1999: 859-860.
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 the
beginning 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 Oral
Instructions), 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 for
indicating 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 curative
properties in the case of some plants included in other categories. For example, tsan
dan dmar po (Pterocarpus santalinus) and tsan dan dkar po (Santalum album) that
belong 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).
58. Kunsang, 1996.
59. dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1998: 96.
60. Ibidem.
61. Ibidem: 112.
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 distinguished
according to morphological features.
73. Ibidem: 215.
74. Ibidem: 226.
75. Ibidem: 248.
76. Ibidem: 227.
77. Ibidem: 247.

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.
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 it
will be shown in the next section, includes the herbaceous plants and a few tiny
woody plants.
85. dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1988: 119.
86. Ibidem.
20: 68.
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.
20: 68.
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” comme
on le trouve dans la table des matières de “An Illustrated Tibeto-Mongolian Materia
Medica of Ayurveda” [’Jam dpal rdo rje, 1971], mais du nom générique d’un groupe
de drogues végétales qui ne préjuge pas de leur technique de préparation. A l’école
de médecine de Dharamsala, le terme thang sman est interprété comme “médecines
de plaine”. En réalité ce groupe contient des plantes aux habitats très divers et non
limités aux plaines” (Meyer, 1983: 171). The same incorrect interpretation of the
expression thang sman occurring in the edition of the materia medica of ’Jam dpal
rdo rje has also been put forward by Dash (1994: XXIV).
99. Tibetan practitioners also employ the term snyoms po to designate the nature of a
medicinal 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’i
sman gyi rigs ming ste /. Byangs pa ’Phrin las, 1983: 216. The same definition is
proposed 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 affirmed
that the expression g.ya’ ri connotes the mountains whose ground consists of many
flat stones (rdo leb) and earth (sa) and where to slide is easy. The dictionary Bod rgya
tshig 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 of
bluish 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 India
and 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 practitioners
from Khyungbo, Baragaon, and Litang designate this plant sngo ba sha ka,
“herbaceous ba sha ka”. Its botanical identification corresponds at Dhorpatan to
Corydalis longipes, a herbaceous plant. dGa’ ba’i rdo rje (1998: 142) mentions a
type named ldum ba sha ka, whose botanical identification correspond to Corydalis
impatiens.
104. See for example, Parfionovich et al., 1992: 63.
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 / rgyud
las / thang gi gtso bo tig ta ba sha ka / gsungs pas rtsa ba shing la sdong po ldum lo
me 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 dbyi
sun, 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 ta
also called rgya tig (rgya gar gyi tig ta, “Indian tig ta”) is the one which mainly
thrives to the south of the Himalayan chain. This plant has been identified as Swertia
chirayita (dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1998: 205; Karma chos ’phel, 1993: 132).
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 be
classified 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 this
drug are distinguished according to their place of growth: ldum bu re ral, be ljang re
ral, and g.yu ’brug ’khyil ba. Most informants report the latter classification. In
modern 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 Drynaria
sinica, be ljang re ral to D. propinqua, and g.yu ’brug ’khyil ba to Polystichum
squarrosum. According to Karma chos ‘phel (1993: 184-186) the above drugs
respectively correspond to Polistychum squarrosum, Drynaria baronii, and D.
propinqua. According to the same author (1993: 187-189), blon po re ral is a synonym
for brag spos (Lepisorus waltonii), btsun mo re ral corresponds to Aleuritopteris
argentea 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 corresponds
to the one reported in the materia medica of dGa’ ba’i rdo rje (1988: 203) and Karma
chos ’phel (1993: 201).
116. Byangs pa ’phrin las, 1983: 277. So nam byas pa’i lo thog dang / rang bzhin skyes
pa’i rtswa ljang / ldum rar btsugs pa’i me tog bcas ma yin pa de dag dang mnyam du
skyes 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 dag
mnyam 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 nyer
mkho’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 maintains
the 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.
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 of
India (Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, West Bengal, and Sikkim); Bhutan; a
large part of the northern regions of Nepal; the following Chinese Provinces: Tibetan
Autonomous 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 classification
kingdom, forming a contrastive group of a small number of taxa of plants and
animals...While some groupings correspond rather closely to recognized scientific
higher-order taxa, most life-form taxa do not reflect biologically natural classes of
organisms....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 the
most common major life-form taxa found in folk systems of ethnobiological
classification (e.g. “tree”, “vine”, “herbaceous plant”), leads to grouping that often
violate natural biological taxa at the family level”. Tibetan people recognize five or
four plant forms, listed according to two different models. 1) The five plant forms are
mushrooms (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 four
taxa: mushrooms (sha mo), herbaceous plants (rtswa), woody plants (shing sdong),
and woody climbers (’khri shing). In this model the categories rtswa (herbs) and me
tog (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 drugs
according to modern botany.
133. Sometimes, in particular on written sources, the following determinants are also
employed: rab “excellent”, bzang “good”; dma’ “inferior”, ngan “bad”.
134. Karma chos ’phel, 1993: 255. The specimen gathered in the region of Baragaon
corresponds 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 byed
mountain, having [respectively] the power of the moon and of the sun, possess a
power 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) power
of 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 the
same botanical species.
146. Lama, Ghimire, Thomas, 2001: 106.
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 types
are equivalent.
149. The botanical identification of the two types refers to the specimens that have been
gathered in the region of Dhorpatan.
150. As far as the three types of star bu are concerned, it is difficult to find the exact
correspondence between their Tibetan designations and the botanical species. The
data given by the informants are often inconsistent. The cause of these differences is
determined by the difference of height that this plants may attain in ecological settings
that are sometimes contrasting. In particular, several informants have pointed out to
Hippophae rhamnoides subsp. turkestanica both as star bu sa star and star bu bar
star 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 also
be suggested that the latter plant, attaining nearly the height of 5 metres in very
favourable ecological conditions, is also designated star bu gnam star, as it has been
shown with the Nepalese regions of Dolpo (Lama, Ghimire, Thomas, 2001: 79). The
type star bu gnam star is usually described by the informants as a woody plant of big
size thriving at relatively low altitude in the so-called rong forested deep valleys. In
a recent Tibetan pharmacopoeia (dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1998: 131) star bu gnam star is
identified 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 sa
star corresponds to H. tibetana. The same identification is given in the two above
quoted 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 which
correspond to Ephedra: mtshe ldum (E. equisetina) and spang mtshe (“meadow
mtshe”) (E. gerardiana, E. minuta). Yet the third type, named chu mtshe (“water
mtshe”), corresponds to a species (Equisetum diffusum) that belongs to a different
botanical division and interestingly has different healing properties from the other
two.
154. The two determinants do not always imply this difference of growing area as in the
case of se rgod and se g.yung, as shown in the section devoted to describing medicines
coming from woody plants (shing sman).
155. De’u dmar dge bshes, 1994: 283-284. Dwa ba dag la rigs gnyis te / ri las skyes pa
dwa rgod yin / zhing las skyes pa dwa g.yung te /.
156. The difference concerns the localisation of some vital points, the identification of
some drugs and the preparation of some formulas. Meyer (1983: 81) affirms that
these differences also reflect dissimilar ecological and epidemiological conditions.
157. Holarrhena antidysenterica is a plant that thrives in the low regions of India, Nepal
and China. (dGa’ ba’i rdo rje, 1998: 219). In the same text (ibidem) the botanical
identification of sngo dug mo nyung corresponds to Cynanchum vincetoxicum. Also
the specimen sngo dug mo nyung collected in Litang County corresponds to the
genus Cynanchum and is the Tibetan substitute to H. antidysenterica.
158. Specimen gathered in the region of Dhorpatan.
References
Berlin 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 exploitation
des plantes sauvages. Thèse de Doctorat, Unité d’Anthropologie et Adaptabilité
Biologique, UMR 6578, CNRS-Université de la Méditerranée, Faculté de Médecine
de Marseille. Unpublished
Boesi A., 2005. Plant knowledge among Tibetan populations. In A. Boesi, F. Cardi Wildlife
and plants in traditional and modern Tibet: conceptions, exploitation, and
conservation, Memorie della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico
di 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 rigs
dpe skrun khang, Beijing.
Cardi F., 2004. De l’approvisionnement des substances médicinales à la production des
médicaments: l’évolution contemporaine de la pharmacopée tibétaine. Thèse de
Doctorat, 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. Thesis
Anthropology, 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 dmangs
dpe 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. Tibetan
Medical & 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. Trustees
of 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 phreng
mdzes. 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 Buddhist

Teachings & 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 commonly
known as “rGyud bzhi”, “The Four Tantras”).
Zur mkhar ba mNyam nyid rdo rje, 1985. Bye ba ring bsrel. Tibet House, Delhi.

Plant Categories and Types in Tibetan Ma

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plant Categories and Types in Tibetan Ma

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSN 0970-5368

a publication for the study of Tibet

Contributions to the study of Tibetan medicine

Geshe Lhakdor Dhondup Tsering

WINTER & SPRING VOL.XXX, NO.4 & VOL.XXXI,

sMan and Glud: Standard Tibetan Medicine and Ritual

moorcroftiana) 17 , dbyi mong, (Clematis spp.), and ba lu (Rhododendron

Categories of medicines that include plants

STONE MEDICINES AND EARTH MEDICINES

THE MEDICINES COMING FROM WOODY PLANTS

THE MEDICINES OF THE PLAINS AND THE HERBACEOUS MEDICINES

As concerns the category sngo sman, “herbaceous medicines”, it is also

few distinctive morphological and ecological features opposite to the ones of

THE CROP MEDICINES

77. Ibidem: 247.

138. Specimen gathered in the Litang County.

Kunsang E. P., 1996. The Dharma Dictionary. Tibetan-English Dictionary of Buddhist

You might also like