{"id":1558,"date":"2016-12-22T05:10:04","date_gmt":"2016-12-22T05:10:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/?p=1558"},"modified":"2021-08-16T19:46:20","modified_gmt":"2021-08-16T19:46:20","slug":"the-brotherhood-of-kelankhe-lankhe-lang","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/the-brotherhood-of-kelankhe-lankhe-lang\/","title":{"rendered":"The Brotherhood of Kelan \/ Khe-lan \/ Khe-lang"},"content":{"rendered":"

The \u201cbrotherhood of Khe-lan\u201d was first mentioned by H. P. Blavatsky in her 1877 book, Isis Unveiled<\/em>, saying that it \u201cwas famous throughout the land,\u201d presumably meaning Tibet (vol. 2, p. 618):<\/p>\n

\u201cWithin the cloisters of Dshashi-Lumbo and Si-Dzang, these powers, inherent in every man, called out by so few, are cultivated to their utmost perfection. Who, in India, has not heard of the Banda-Chan Ramboutchi, the Houtouktou<\/em> of the capital of Higher Thibet? His brotherhood of Khe-lan was famous throughout the land; and one of the most famous “brothers” was a Peh-ling<\/em> (an Englishman) who had arrived one day during the early part of this century, from the West, a thorough Buddhist, and after a month’s preparation was admitted among the Khe-lans.\u201d<\/p>\n

Probably very few people, in India or elsewhere, have heard of the Banda-Chan Ramboutchi and his brotherhood of Khe-lan, in these spellings. The Banda-Chan Ramboutchi is of course the Panchen Rinpoche; but while the brotherhood of Khe-lan may have been famous throughout Tibet, outside of Tibet it seems to have remained mysterious. The \u201cBrotherhood of Khe-lang\u201d (with added final \u201cg\u201d) was again mentioned by Blavatsky in her 1881 article, \u201cLamas and Druses,\u201d saying that it is a \u201cmysterious community of religionists, of which nothing, or next to nothing, is known by outsiders\u201d (The Theosophist<\/em>, vol. 2, no. 9, June 1881, p. 193):<\/p>\n

\u201cBut the two are still more closely related to a third and still more mysterious community of religionists, of which nothing, or next to nothing, is known by outsiders: we mean that fraternity of Tibetan Lamaists, known as the Brotherhood of Khe-lang, who mix but little with the rest. Even Csoma de Koros, who passed several years with the Lamas, learned hardly more of the religion of these Chakravartins<\/em> (wheel-turners) than what they<\/em> chose to let him know of their exoteric rites; and of the Khe-langs he learned positively nothing.\u201d<\/p>\n

The compiler of Blavatsky\u2019s Collected Writings<\/em>, Boris de Zirkoff, added a footnote regarding the \u201cBrotherhood of Khelang\u201d (printed there without a hyphen) when this article was reprinted therein (Blavatsky Collected Writings<\/em>, vol. 3, p. 177):<\/p>\n

\u201cThis Brotherhood has not been identified, in spite of considerable research. It is not definitely known what H.P.B. meant by this term, which she uses in several places, among them in Isis Unveiled<\/em>, Vol. I [typo for II], p. 618.\u2014Compiler.\u201d<\/p>\n

The problem in identifying this brotherhood is the spelling of the terms. As was so often the case, Blavatsky had adopted the spellings she used from previously published books. Those in her Isis Unveiled<\/em> paragraph were adopted from an 1850 book by Evariste Re\u0301gis Huc, Souvenirs d\u2019un Voyage dans la Tartarie, le Thibet et la Chine, <\/em>pendant les ann<\/em>e\u0301<\/em>es 1841, 1855 et 1846<\/em>, 2 volumes, or from its 1852 condensed English translation by Mrs. Percy Sinnett, Recollections of a Journey through Tartary, Thibet, and China, during the years 1844, 1845, and 1846<\/em>, 2 volumes:<\/p>\n

\u201cLes provinces sont divis\u00e9es en plusi\u00e9urs principaut\u00e9s, qui sont gouvern\u00e9es par des Lamas-Houtouktou. . . . Le plus puissant de ces Lamas souverains est le Bandchan-Remboutchi, il r\u00e9side \u00e0 Djachi-Loumbo<\/em>, capitale du Thibet ult\u00e9rieur.\u201d (vol. 2, p. 276). \u201cCeux qui font le p\u00e9lerinage de Djachi-Loumbo, s\u00e9culiers ou Lamas, hommes ou femmes, tout le monde se fait enroler dans la confr\u00e9rie des K\u00e9lans<\/em>, institu\u00e9e par le Bandchan-Remboutchi. Presque tous les Bouddhistes aspirent au bonheur de devenir membres de cette association, qui pourra fort bien un jour faire na\u00eetre dans la haute Asie quelque grave \u00e9v\u00e9nement.\u201d (p. 278).<\/p>\n

\u201cThe provinces are divided into principalities, which are governed by Lamas (Houtouktou). . . . The most powerful of these minor sovereigns is the Bandchan Remboutchi<\/em>: he resides at Djachi-Loumbo, the capital of Further Thibet, . . .\u201d (vol. 2, p. 162). \u201cAll persons, without exception of rank or sex, who make the pilgrimage to Djachi-Loumbo, enrol themselves in the brotherhood of the Kelans<\/em>, an institution of the Bandchan Remboutchi, and which may one day become the instrument of some grave event.\u201d (p. 163).<\/p>\n

So the word Kelan, along with Houtouktou, Bandchan-Remboutchi, and Djachi-Loumbo, with slight variations in spelling, was adopted by Blavatsky from Huc. What word, then, did Huc\u2019s spelling \u201cK\u00e9lan\u201d represent? The answer to this was provided by Professor Paul Pelliot in a 1928 reprint of Huc\u2019s book, although in a circuitous way.<\/p>\n

Besides the 1852 condensed English translation of Huc\u2019s French book by Mrs. Percy Sinnett quoted above, there was an 1851-1852 English translation of it by William Hazlitt, Travels in Tartary, Thibet, and China, during the years 1844-5-6<\/em>, two volumes. It is this translation that was reprinted in 1928 with added material by Paul Pelliot. However, in Hazlitt\u2019s translation the word \u201cK\u00e9lan\u201d was changed to \u201cKalon\u201d:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe provinces are divided into several principalities, which are governed by Houtouktou Lamas. . . . The most potent of these Lama sovereigns is the Bandchan-Remboutchi. He resides at Djachi-Loumbo (mountain of oracles), capital of Further Thibet.\u201d (p. 156; 1928 ed. p. 193). \u201cThose who make the pilgrimage to Djachi-Loumbo, seculars or Lamas, men or women, all enrol themselves in the society of Kalons, instituted by the Bandchan-Bemboutchi. Almost all the Buddhists aspire to the happiness of becoming members of this association, which will give rise, some day, to some important event in Upper Asia.\u201d (pp. 157-158; 1928 ed. pp. 194-195).<\/p>\n

A \u201cKalon\u201d is different from a \u201cKelan.\u201d What a Kalon is can be seen in a passage of Huc\u2019s book that occurs shortly before the passage about the Kelans. Kalons are government ministers:<\/p>\n

\u201cToutes les affaires du gouvernement d\u00e9pendent du Nomekhan et de quatre ministres nomm\u00e9s Kalons<\/em>. Les Kalons sont choisis par le Tal\u00e9-Lama, sur une liste de candidats form\u00e9e par le Nomekhan : ils n\u2019appartiennent pas \u00e0 la tribu sacerdotale, et peuvent \u00eatre mari\u00e9s; la dur\u00e9e de leur pouvoir est illimit\u00e9e.\u201d (p. 276).<\/p>\n

\u201cAll the affairs of government are transacted by the Nomekhan and four ministers, called Kalons<\/em>. These Kalons are named by the Tal\u00e9 Lama, from a list furnished by the Nomekhan; they do not belong to the priestly class, and are at liberty to marry; their term of power is unlimited.\u201d (Sinnett trans., p. 161).<\/p>\n

\u201cAll the affairs of the government are managed by the Nomekhan, and four ministers called Kalons. The Kalons are chosen by the Tal\u00e9-Lama, from a list of candidates made out by the Nomekhan; they do not belong to the sacerdotal tribe, and may marry; the duration of their power is unlimited.\u201d (Hazlitt trans., p. 156).<\/p>\n

The word \u201cK\u00e9lan\u201d is used nine times in Huc\u2019s French book, all on pp. 278-281 of volume 2, while the word \u201cKalon\u201d is used about twenty-five times, on pages ranging from 276 to 471 of volume 2. Why the nine occurrences of K\u00e9lan were changed to Kalon in Hazlitt\u2019s English translation is unknown. So it was a translation that only had \u201cKalon\u201d to which Paul Pelliot added an introduction and index entries. For the index entry \u201cKalon,\u201d Pelliot wrote:<\/p>\n

\u201cKalon<\/em> [Gelong<\/em> (dge-slong<\/em>)], a clerical degree among Lamas, I 246; in all other places = Kalon<\/em> (bka\u2019-bha<\/em>)\u201d<\/p>\n

There are two errors, apparently typographical, in this index entry. The word \u201cKalon\u201d does not occur in vol. 1, p. 246, nor even in vol. 2 on that page. Thus we do not know where Pelliot thought that Kalon should mean Gelong. As we recall, there were nine occurrences of K\u00e9lan in Huc\u2019s French text. Then, for Kalon proper, a government minister, the Tibetan bka\u2019-bha<\/em> is undoubtedly a typographical error for the correct bka\u2019-blon<\/em>. Despite these errors, and despite the fact that K\u00e9lan is not found in this edition, Pelliot has provided us with the identification of Huc\u2019s term K\u00e9lan: the Tibetan word \u201cgelong,\u201d spelled dge-slong<\/em>.<\/p>\n

A gelong is a Buddhist monk. It is the Tibetan translation of the Sanskrit bhik\u1e63u<\/em>, which is the same as the Pali bhikkhu<\/em>. The monastic order, consisting of Buddhist monks (and nuns in countries where nuns can be ordained), is called the sa\u1e45gha<\/em>, often translated as \u201ccommunity.\u201d So the \u201cbrotherhood of the Kelans\u201d is the order of Buddhist monks, the sa\u1e45gha of gelongs. They are indeed \u201cfamous throughout the land.\u201d<\/p>\n

Huc never got to Djachi-Loumbo, i.e., Tashi-Lhunpo; and like many of his statements based on incomplete or second-hand information, his statement that the brotherhood of the Kelans is \u201can institution of the Bandchan Remboutchi,\u201d i.e., the Panchen Rinpoche, is not quite right. Of course, it is possible to enroll oneself in the brotherhood of the Kelans, i.e., in the order of Buddhist monks, at Tashi-lhunpo. But this is also possible elsewhere in Buddhist lands, since this is a Buddhist institution, not limited to Tashi-lhunpo or the Panchen Rinpoche.<\/p>\n

Blavatsky referred to Khe-langs in two more places. We may note that her addition of final \u201cg\u201d is phonetically closer to gelong, and in these two places it seems that she knowingly used Khe-lang in the meaning gelong. A reference to \u201cKhe-lang missionaries\u201d was made by her in an 1882 editorial note, apparently meaning missionaries to the Khe-langs (The Theosophist<\/em>, vol. 3, no. 4, January 1882, p. 98):<\/p>\n

\u201cGenerally, little or no difference is made even by the Khe-lang missionaries who mix greatly with these people on the borders of British Lahoul\u2014and ought to know better\u2014between the Bhons and the two rival Buddhist sects, the Yellow Caps and the Red Caps.\u201d<\/p>\n

The fourth and last place that Blavatsky refers to \u201cKhe-langs\u201d is in an article written in Russian in late 1890 or early1891, shortly before her death in May, 1891, but not published until 1980 (\u201cNeo-Buddhism\u201d). Here she refers to Khe-langs as Lamaist-Buddhists, seemingly in general, and also as Mongolians, which place them far from Tashi-lhunpo and the Panchen Rinpoche. She is replying to a Russian critic, Vladimir Sergueyevich Solovyov, who had reviewed her book, The Key to Theosophy<\/em> (Blavatsky Collected Writings<\/em>, vol. 12, p. 337):<\/p>\n

\u201cI will devote but a word or two to the fact that our critic assures the public, as if in defense of \u2018Mrs. Blavazky,\u2019 that she could not have \u2018invented the Tibetan brotherhood or the spiritual order of the Khe-langs\u2019 (?!), as the missionary Huc furnishes \u2018positive and reliable information\u2019 about them in a book written by him \u2018more than thirty years before the formation of the Theosophical Society.\u2019 In answer to this, I will take the liberty to ask our critic where he has read or heard that Mongolian Khe-langs, Lamaist-Buddhists, have ever been referred to as \u2018Mah\u00e2tmans\u2019 by proud Br\u00e2hmanas? Have I not stated in my letters, From the Caves and Jungles of Hindostan<\/em>, that the one whom we recognize as our chief teacher (and whom Hindus recognize as a Mah\u00e2tman) is a R\u00e2jput by birth, and therefore belongs to the caste of Kshatriyas or warriors? There are other R\u00e2ja-Yogins known to us, Br\u00e2hmanas and Him\u00e2layan ascetics, mystics of various nations, among whom are some Mongolians, but of course they are not Khe-langs. How could, not only Khe-langs, but even Hutuktus and Hubilkhans (the incarnations of various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas) teach us anything else but Lamaist-Buddhism?\u201d<\/p>\n

In conclusion, to repeat, the \u201cbrotherhood of Khe-lan\u201d or Khe-langs is nothing more mysterious than the order of Buddhist monks, the sa\u1e45gha of gelongs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The \u201cbrotherhood of Khe-lan\u201d was first mentioned by H. P. Blavatsky in her 1877 book, Isis Unveiled, saying that it \u201cwas famous throughout the land,\u201d presumably meaning Tibet (vol. 2, p. 618): \u201cWithin the cloisters of Dshashi-Lumbo and Si-Dzang, these powers, inherent in every man, called out by so few, are cultivated to their utmost […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1558","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1558","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1558"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1558\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1940,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1558\/revisions\/1940"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1558"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1558"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1558"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}