Academia.eduAcademia.edu
HOW TO TAME A WILD MONASTIC ELEPHANT: DREPUNG MONASTERY ACCORDING TO THE GREAT FIFTH BERTHE JANSEN INTRODUCTION Drepung (’Bras spungs) was once the largest monastery in the world in terms of its population. This monastic institution was both influential and wealthy. The combination of masses, money, and influence, however also posed a potential threat to those in power in Central Tibet. The Fifth Dalai Lama, Ngawang Lobzang Gyatso (Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho, 1617–1682) attempted to manage the occasionally unruly Drepung by authoring a set of monastic guidelines (bca’ yig). Written in 1682, the year of the Fifth’s passing, the work paints a picture of a monastery that had to deal with a number of unwanted elements: infighting, immigration, corruption, and even the shooting dead of a monk. Rather than the esoteric contents of pure visions, familiar to us from many Tibetan Buddhist texts, this work offers us a vision of society. This vision of a large, ethnically diverse monastic society in the late 17th century, abounds with the “seamy realities” that Michael Aris lamented that were absent in the History of Drepung (’Bras spungs chos ’byung). According to him, this work, written by Geshe Gedün Lodrö in 1974, contained none of “the less savoury but fascinating aspects” of the monastery’s internal life (Aris 1978: 398). Rather than a history of Drepung monastery, this article is more of an addition to what is already known from various sources on this institution.1 Furthermore, I attempt to demonstrate the value of the genre of monastic guidelines to the study of social history of Tibet. The only scholar to have written on the bca’ yig in more general terms remains Ter Ellingson (1989: 205–29). To date this valuable article is the most comprehensive discussion of this genre of texts.2 Ellingson proposes 1 For George Dreyfus’ well-balanced overview of the monastery’s history see: http://www.thlib.org/places/monasteries/drepung/essays/# (viewed 09/04/2013). 112 BERTHE JANSEN that this genre derived from sources such as common law and traditional rights, in accordance with the way the larger polity was divided up. In light of the presumed origination in Tibetan traditional “secular” law, he translates bca’ yig with “monastic constitution” and with “a monastic constitutional document”. He explains: […] the Tibetan bca’ yig are “constitutions” in the sense that they are constitutional-documentary outlines of part of a more extensive body of documentary and traditional fundamentals of monastic government. (ibid.: 205) Ellingson does not give further information on this extensive body of sources, but mentions many of these may be oral (ibid.: 210). The translation of bca’ yig as “monastic constitution” has its problems. The word “constitution” communicates a sense of permanence, indicating that the rules are somehow fundamental. The bca’ yig texts in contrast usually explicitly state their provisional and contemporary nature. The translation is furthermore problematic because many texts called bca’ yig are not written for monastic communities. We know for example of bca’ yig written for hermitages (ri khrod)3 and for communities of tantric practitioners (sngags pa) that are not monks.4 Certain law codes in Bhutan are also called bca’ yig, although this is a more recent development. Another interesting use of the word is encountered in contemporary Amdo. In certain village communities in Amdo, people make use of what they themselves call bca’ yig, which usually take the shape of rules jotted down in a notebook. These bca’ yig consist of rules on lay religious gatherings (such as the recitation of mani mantras) and state the monetary punishments to be paid when one fails to attend, when one does not wear Tibetan dress and when one arrives late at the gathering.5 The name bca’ yig also crops up in the context of regulations for certain Himalayan communities. One such 2 I am currently in the process of writing my dissertation on pre-modern monastic organisation and social justice in Tibet, in which bca’ yig are taken as the main source. 3 Examples of this are the dBen gnas ’khyung rdzong ri khrod pa rnams kyi khrims su bca’ ba’i yi ge thar pa’i them skas, written by the Seventh Dalai Lama (bsKal bzang rgya mtsho: 434–45); the De mo srid skyong dang pos dar nor ri khrod la bstsal ba’i bca’ yig (1757), written by the first De mo srid skyong (1757: 151–55). 4 A very early example of this is a text by Rong zom chos bzang (1042–1136): Rong zom chos bzang gis rang slob dam tshig pa rnams la gsungs pa’i rwa ba brgyad pa’i bca’ yig: 399–414. 5 Personal communication with Ciulan Liu, June 2011. HOW TO TAME A WILD MONASTIC ELEPHANT 113 text is for the inhabitants of Pachakshiri, written by Lama Lodre Gyamtso (Bla ma Blo gros rgya mtsho) in the early 1930s and some years later completed by Sonam Gelek Rabtan Lhawang (bSod nams dge legs rab brtan lha dbang). It gives information on the migration of people to an area and the creation of a so-called Hidden Land (sbas yul). The text lays down rules on correct moral behaviour, the relationship between the ruler and his subjects, the establishment of law, and social and religious order. It also instructs on how to deal with newcomers or tribal neighbours, and it can be read as a justification of Pachakshiri’s inhabitants’ rights to inhabit that area (Grothmann 2012: 137–39). The word bca’ yig appears in yet another context, namely where it indicates a text that contains guidelines on issues such as aesthetics and punctuation for copyists of a bka’ ’gyur.6 The Fifth Dalai Lama himself also did not restrict his bca’ yig to monastics alone. In 1652, he wrote a set of guidelines for both monks and government officials consisting of rules on how to behave during travel and in the encampments (Cüppers 2007: 37–51). In 1679, he even addressed one such work to all beings under the sun, which was displayed at the top of the three flights of stairs at the Potala Palace.7 It is clear that the bca’ yig is a name for a genre of texts that address more audiences than merely the monastic ones. For these reasons both “constitution” and “monastic” are not necessarily correct as descriptors of texts that have “bca’ yig” in their names. However, in the particular context of my work here I choose to translate the word bca’ yig as “monastic guidelines”, because the text I treat below is limited to the monastic context. THE GUIDELINES The set of monastic guidelines by the Fifth Dalai Lama discussed here contains much information on life in the monastery, shining a light both on monastic organisation as well as on the shadier aspects of Drepung 6 Kun mkhyen rig pa ’dzin pa chos kyi grags pa (1595–1659) wrote the bKa’ ’gyur bzhengs dus dpon yig rnams kyi bca’ yig. (gSung ’bum vol. 2: 175–80). This text is briefly discussed in Schaeffer 2009: 31–33. He translates the title as “Guidelines for Chief scribes [sic] During the Production of a Kangyur”. 7 Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho 1679: 12–14. 114 BERTHE JANSEN monastery.8 Written in 1682, the work confirms later oral accounts of feuding and rogue semi-monks at the Three Seats (gdan sa gsum).9 At the same time the text shows us how the Great Fifth envisioned the future of his former residence. The full title of the work is Chos sde chen po dpal ldan ’bras dkar spungs pa’i dgon gyi bca’ yig tshul ’chal sa srung ’dul ba’i lcags kyo kun gsal me long. This can be roughly translated as “The monastic guidelines for the great religious centre, the glorious monastery of heaped up white rice, [called] the iron hook that tames the elephant (sa srung) of bad behaviour: the entirely clear mirror” (henceforth ’Bras spungs bca’ yig).10 It appears that this text—at least the original version—was thought to have certain special powers. The disciplinarian (dge skos) at Nechung (gNas chung) monastery, who used to live in Drepung in Tibet, remarked about this work: We call this text written by the Fifth Dalai lama the bca’ yig chen mo. It could only be kept by the general disciplinarian (tshogs chen zhal ngo). During the Great Prayer Festival (smon lam chen mo) the Drepung monastic guidelines would be “invited” (gdan ’dren zhu ba) to Lhasa. This disciplinarian would carry the text, accompanied by his assistants (chab ril) and phagdampa (’phags gdams pa), totalling about 20 people. There exists an oral account that this text could fly. When transported to Lhasa, the bca’ yig would not go underneath the stpa which is between the Potala and this one hill. Instead it would fly up and then circumambulate the Potala and land back into the disciplinarian’s hands. For twenty-one days, during the festival, everyone would abide by the rules of the Great Prayer Festival.11 On the way back, the text would again fly up. This is an anecdote (gsung rgyud), I have of course not seen this myself. I was told that before 1959 the original of this bca’ yig was kept safe at 8 This work and its contents have been previously briefly treated by Dakpa (2003: 172–74). 9 For an account of the life of a Sera “rogue monk” (ldob ldob) see Khedrup et al. 1986. 10 This text has been reprinted in (at least) two volumes: Bod kyi snga rabs khrims srol yig cha bdams bsgrigs (1989: 275–323) and in bCa’ yig phyogs sgrig: gangs can rig brgya’i sgo ’byed lde mig ces bya ba 11 (1989: 169–213) (henceforth ’Bras spungs bca’ yig 2). It can also be found in the Fifth’s Dalai Lama’s gsung ’bum, vol. 20, in ’Phags bal bod dang bod chen rgya hor sog pos mtshon mchod dman bar ma mtha’ dag gi spyi bye brag legs nyes ’byed pa’i bca’ yig bsko ’ja’ sogs bkod pa khrims gnyis gser shing phun tshogs ’dod ’jo: 106b–132a (henceforth ’Bras spungs bca’ yig 3). Here the first version is mainly used. 11 The whole city of Lhasa would be under the rule of Drepung monastery during that festival. The general disciplinarian would have final authority over the population of monks and lay-people at that time. For an eyewitness account see Bell (1998 [1946]: 58). HOW TO TAME A WILD MONASTIC ELEPHANT 115 the monastery and a copy of it was being used for general purposes. All the versions of the text present there must have been destroyed because when I became a monk at Drepung there were no monastic guidelines there at all.12 Not only is this set of monastic guidelines seen as significant in the way described above, it seems that some still see the relevance of this text for Tibetan monasticism today. gShes gnyen tshul khrims, in an article about this work, devotes a section on the value of the ’Bras spungs bca’ yig to the organisation of monasteries in Tibet today.13 The article further examines the text as a whole, enumerating the various points that he sees as important, unfortunately without attempting to put these monastic guidelines into their historical context. Compared to other monastic guidelines—the shortest of which may consist of just one folio—the ’Bras spungs bca’ yig is a long text that starts with a rather lengthy semi-historical introduction, beginning with a discussion of the different world-systems. After describing various previous Buddhas, the author goes on to relate the origins of the Buddhist teachings and their introduction to Tibet. It comes as no surprise that, after having praised the various Dharma-kings and the great Tsongkhapa (Tsong kha pa), he relates the life of one of his disciples and the founder of Drepung ’Jam dbyangs bkra shis dpal ldan (1379–1449, also known as ’Jam dbyangs chos rje) and the history of the monastery itself. Some general points on the nature of the monkhood follow, which he supports by citing both Vinaya and stra material (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 294–99). Citing the *Bhikupriya-stra (dGe slong la rab tu gces pa’i mdo), he stresses the pivotal role of ethical discipline: “The ethical discipline of some [leads to] happiness, while the ethical discipline of others [leads to] suffering. The one who has ethical discipline [will have] happiness, the one who has faulty ethical discipline [will have] suffering”.14 In this stra, the person who does not keep the vows, but 12 Personal communication with Ngag dbang dpal sbyin, August, 2012. This section is called: “bca’ yig gi nang don ’ga’ zhig la dgon pa’i da yod kyi sgril srol khag ’thus sgo tshang du gtong rgyur dpyad gzhi rin thang yod pa’i skor” (bShes gnyen tshul khrims 2006: 46). 14 “la la’i tshul khrims bde ba ste/ la la’i tshul khrims sdug bsngal yin/ tshul khrims ldan pa bde ba ste/ tshul khrims ’chal ba sdug bsngal yin” (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 299). The version in the Derge Kangyur reads for the third line “tshul khrims ldan pa bde ba’i mchog” (D. 302, vol. 72): 126b. 13 116 BERTHE JANSEN still claims to be a bhiku, is compared to a crazed elephant drunk on wine. It appears that the Great Fifth had this analogy in mind when he created the title of this set of monastic guidelines. He then addresses the issue of dkor: the using or abusing of the Sangha’s possessions (ibid.: 299). The Vinayavibhagha is cited: “It is preferable for one who does not have proper vows [or] whose discipline is faulty, to eat iron balls that are ablaze with fire than to eat the alms from [people] in the vicinity”.15 The Dalai Lama explains this by stating that there will be heavy karmic repercussions for a person who does not abide in the trainings or for a layperson who uses dkor.16 And again he cites canonical material, this time the Sryagarbhastra, which warns that for those who have become householders, it would be easier to take on a fire equal in size to mount Meru than to use that which is the Sangha’s.17 Out of context, what the Fifth Dalai Lama addresses here may be read as a discussion on Buddhist ethics. However, it is clear that what is addressed and carefully supported by canonical quotations is a very topical and local problem, namely the exponential growth of the monastic population and the questionable motives and behaviour of some of the inhabitants of Drepung monastery during the late 17th century. Like other bca’ yig in the Gelug (dge lugs) tradition it is likely that this text was read out to everyone at Drepung by the general disciplinarian at important occasions.18 The dangers of the misappropriation of monastic goods was thus something the Dalai Lama wanted everyone to be aware of. Later references in the text demonstrate the reason for this: there appeared to have been a significant number of inhabitants of Drepung who were not exactly monks. One such reference concerns the issue of farming, in which the Fifth forbids monks to work in the fields in spring and autumn, unless there are: among the residents (gzhi ba), those without vows and who are after dkor who want to do this, then they need to be given lay-clothes for which the 15 “lung rnam ’byed du/ lcags gong me lce ’bar ba dag/ zos par gyur pa mchog yin gyi/ tshul ’chal yang dag mi sdom pas/ yul ’khor bsod snyoms za ba min” (ibid.). 16 “[...] bslab pa dang mi ldan pa’i gang zag gis dkor la longs spyod pa dang der ma zad khyim pas spyad kyang de dang cha ’dra ba’i nyes dmigs bzod par dka’ zhing […]” (ibid.). 17 “nyi ma’i snying po’ mdor/ lhun po dang ni ’dra ba’i me/ blang bar bya ste bzod pa sla’i/ khyim par gyur pas dge ’dun gyi/ longs spyad par ni mi bya’o” (ibid.). 18 There are no agreed upon times or religious festivals during which they were read out. Each monastery had its own customs. HOW TO TAME A WILD MONASTIC ELEPHANT 117 permission of the disciplinarian (dge skos) has been asked. They are not allowed to do this in monastic robes.19 This shows that there were people living in Drepung—who would normally be wearing monastic robes—but who in fact had no vows. Furthermore, these people clearly fell under the “jurisdiction” of the disciplinarians at Drepung. At the same time they were, apparently, accepted as residents of the monastery. Perhaps a parallel can be found with the ban log, the “monk rebels” Ekvall encountered during his fieldwork in Amdo between 1925 and 1941. These were “debarred from being monks”, because they had broken one of the root vows, but who for various reasons continued to live in their quarters in the monastery, wore the robes, and were still in high standing outside the monastery. A ban log often found alternative means to support himself and was regularly engaged in business both for his own sake as well as for the monastery’s (Ekvall 1959/60: 210). Elsewhere the issue of questionable monks comes up in a discussion of the seating arrangements during the assembly. As is common, the educated monks sit at the front (gral stod) according to seniority, the intermediate ones sit in the middle (gral rked), while the “riffraff that is after dkor” sits at the back (gral gsham). The phrase used to express this is dkor phyir ’breng mi ’bags rengs rnams, which is not entirely clear but is most definitely very pejorative, which my translation tries to convey. ’bags means polluted or degenerated, while rengs can mean stiff or obstinate. Whatever the exact meaning, it is clear that the author here speaks of the presence of people who were not in pursuit of higher goals in the monastery (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 300, 1). He uses the above idiom again and writes: Previously, according to the speeches made by earlier honourable monks that concern examinations, there was no custom of restricting the riffraff who are after dkor. However, nowadays, if all are allowed in, then the junior monks who are involved in study will not be able to enter [the assembly hall]. Therefore of course not all monks [can enter], and the riffraff, who have not been there beyond eight years or those who have not passed the five higher exams, should not be let in.20 19 “gzhi ba’i khrod nas sdom ldan min pa’i dkor phyir ’brang mkhan gyis byed pa shar na dge skos la gnang ba zhus pa’i skya chas sprad nas byed pa ma gtogs btsun chas kyis byas mi chog” (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 312). 20 “sngar lha btsun cha bas rgyug tshad mdzad pa’i gtam tsam las dkor phyir ’breng mkhan gyi ’bags rengs bkag srol med kyang da cha tshang mar byas na chos grwa 118 BERTHE JANSEN The implications of effectively banning certain people from attending the assembly only become clear when one is aware that, generally speaking, the larger monasteries in pre-modern Tibet did not sponsor monks, nor provide (sufficient) food (Dreyfus 2003: 68). However, tea was served and monetary donations were handed out mainly during assemblies. Therefore to deny the riffraff entry to the assembly-hall was paramount to denying them a means of income, which served to disincentivise the less sincere renunciates from crowding the monastery. The presence of people who were not quite monks highlights the complexity of the monastic institution, in which people who abided by different rules lived alongside each other. For the Fifth Dalai Lama the problem lay not in the mere presence of these “vow-less” men—for they were tolerated—but in the possibility of them misappropriating the property of the Sangha, and giving the monastery (and consequently the Sangha as a whole) a bad name. For that reason he also created guidelines that restricted the distribution of monastic goods to those monks who were involved in either studies or in monastic governance. Throughout the text, the Fifth Dalai Lama emphasises and encourages the quality of the monks and not their quantity. This, in part, was due to the rapid increase of population at Drepung in the period after the founding of the dGa’ ldan pho brang in 1642. Unfortunately, we do not exactly know the ratio of monks and non-monks present at Drepung during the late 17th century. We do however have a rough idea of the total number of Drepung’s inhabitants at that time. OVERPOPULATION AND MASS MONASTICISM Any claims concerning the number of monks at Drepung are largely based on speculation. When the Great Prayer Festival was reinstated in 1517, around 1500 Drepung monks were said to be present (dGa’ ldan chos ’byung: 115). This means that possibly there were around 2000 monks at that time. According to the author of the dGa’ ldan chos ’byung, sDe srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho (1653–1705), the monastery ’grim mkhan gyi btsun chung mi tshud ’dug pas grwa pa gang yin brjod med dang ’bags rengs kyi rigs lo brgyad dang rgyug tshad mtho lnga ma longs na mi gtong” (ibid.: 301). HOW TO TAME A WILD MONASTIC ELEPHANT 119 of Drepung under the auspices of the Dalai Lama grew “like a lake in summer or a waxing moon”, and it therefore was difficult to calculate an exact number. The regent nevertheless estimated that the monk-population consisted of over 4200 monks and was still growing.21 Later on, 4400 became the traditionally known number of monks. Before the middle of the 20th century the estimate was 10000: when the Fourteenth Dalai Lama went to Drepung in 1958 the official count was 9980, but not all monks can have been counted (Lodrö 1974: 192). Melvin Goldstein theorises that size, not quality, was crucial to monasticism in traditional Tibet, and that Tibetans believed that all monks, even the bad ones, were better than lay-people. He cites the proverb “’jig rten rab la chos ba’i [sic: pa’i] mtha’ skyes”: the worst religious practitioner is better than the best of the worldly ones (Goldstein 2009: 2). From this apparent emphasis on the number of monks, Goldstein proposes that there was a “mass monastic ideology” in place which “gave equivalence to all monks regardless of their knowledge or spirituality”(ibid.: 14) and that “[...] monasticism was pursued with an implicit ideology of mass monasticism, in that it enrolled as many monks as sought entrance and expelled very few” (Goldstein 1998: 15). He uses the monastery of Drepung as an example for his argument. It cannot be denied that over the centuries Drepung sustained large amounts of monks who were not directly involved in education or formal religious practice. But was to have as many monks as possible really seen as a desideratum by the monastic authorities? Surely, ideology, however implicit, will only become apparent when studying rules developed by monastic policy-makers themselves. The Fifth Dalai Lama, who was for many obvious reasons heavily invested in Drepung monastery, clearly sees the overpopulation as a big problem. The monastic guidelines give the sense of a monastery bursting at the seams. The unchecked population growth meant that the monastery attracted all types of people from a wide range of social and ethnic backgrounds. This picture of monastic growth that the Great Fifth sketches in his bca’ yig is confirmed by other historical sources. Stein, for example, suggests that the general population of monks appears to have increased since the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama. He 21 “de yang chos grwa chen po ’di nyid rje bla ma phyag na padma’i ’phrin las kyi dbang gis dbyar mtsho’am yang zla’i cha shas ltar je ’phel la tshad bzung dka’ na’ang/ da lta dge dgon gyi yang rtse ang med dge ’dun bzhi stong nyis brgya lhag bcas ’du’o” (ibid.: 137). 120 BERTHE JANSEN mentions a census of 1663, but gives no source (Stein 1972 [1962]: 139–40). As is well known, during the start of the Fifth Dalai Lama’s reign, some decades before these monastic guidelines were written, the contact with the Mongols became more enduring. This also meant that Mongolian monks increasingly went to Tibetan monasteries to study. As the monastery was directly connected to the Dalai Lama, many of them entered Drepung (Snellgrove and Richardson 1986 [1968]: 199). At the same time, numerous new Gelug monasteries were founded in Khams and Amdo, while other existing monasteries were “converted” to the Gelug school. Most of these new monasteries were branches (yan lag) of one of the Three Seats. This established networks between Central Tibet and the outer regions, the importance of which historians of Tibet have not yet fully appreciated.22 Monks were sent out from Sera, Ganden, and Drepung to populate and educate these monasteries (dGa’ ldan chos ’byung: 457), but presumably a fair number of monks from those faraway monasteries went to one of the Three Seats to further their studies. Although no exact numbers are known, the influx of a considerable number of East-Tibetan and foreign monks must have put a strain on the monastery. The section of the ’Bras spungs bca’ yig cited earlier shows just one example of how having a large number of monks in the monastery was not seen as something desirable for pragmatic reasons. In addition to the objections that are of a practical nature, the Fifth Dalai Lama’s position challenges Goldstein’s claim that there was an implicit ideology of mass-monasticism, which favoured quantity over quality. This is because the Fifth Dalai Lama explicitly states the exact opposite of Goldstein’s assertion: If, due to a specific condition, one cannot keep the vows, it is more beneficial to give them up than to keep them hypocritically. For [the *Bhikupriya-stra] says: “It is better to physically be a lay-person who has never for a moment kept the trainings, than to be someone who holds 22 The interrelatedness of monasteries has been briefly treated by Miller (1961: 197–203). The monastic guidelines that were written for the new or converted monasteries at that time are valuable sources that help us understand the position of these branches in relation to their mother monasteries (ma dgon) and the way these networks functioned. In addition, they can be read as tools employed by the dGa’ ldan pho brang government to exert greater power over the regions that were in many ways still out of its reach. HOW TO TAME A WILD MONASTIC ELEPHANT 121 the banner of the Sugata23 who does not keep to the trainings, [if only] for one moment”.24 It appears then that one cannot simply uncritically accept an a-historical and essentialist phrase such as “the ideology of mass monasticism”. Although there were at times masses of monks occupying the Tibetan monasteries, this does not mean that having great numbers of monks was ever seen as an objective, even implicitly. In fact, the claim that the Tibetan monastic system “enrolled as many monks as sought entrance” (Goldstein 1998: 15) cannot possibly hold true, for there exist numerous monastic guidelines that expressly state limitations to the entrance of the monastery. These monastic guidelines both exclude monks-to-be on the basis of their social background as well as based on worries about overpopulation.25 Although it is true that entry to the monastery did not necessarily depend upon a certain level of education or the heartfelt wish of the individual to devote the rest of his life to religion, which may have been the case in other Asian countries where monastic Buddhism existed, the reasons for the large numbers of monks should not be sought in ideology but in the social, economic, and political historical processes of which monasticism was a part. For Drepung monastery, the founding of the dGa’ ldan pho brang, a wider pool of lay-donors, the personal involvement of the Dalai Lama, and the widening network of Gelug monasteries are just a few possible explanations for Drepung monastery’s sudden growth. The broader issue of why, compared to other countries where Buddhist monasticism throve, the numbers of monks were so much higher in Tibet, has thus not yet been answered satisfactorily. Various sources give percentages of the monastic population that range from 10 to as high as 25 percent of the population. I suspect that while these numbers may have been accurate at certain times, from a statistical point of view they are still open to misinterpretation. This is 23 “Holding the banner of the Sugata” means wearing the Buddhist monastic robes. “sgos dbang gis bsrung ma nus na chab [sic: ’chab, see ’Bras spungs bca’ yig 2: 191] sems kyis gnas pa las sdom pa phul ba phan yon che ste/ de nyid las/ gang zhig bslab pa mi gnas pas/ bde bzhin gshegs rgyal mtshan ’dzin pa las/ bslab pa mi gnad skad cig la/ gzugs por khyim par gnas pa bzang” (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 299). 25 For a discussion of the limitations of entrance to the monastery according to the bca’ yig and its broader implications for Tibet’s social history see my forthcoming article to be published in the Proceedings of the 2012 Kobe ISYT Conference (Jansen forthcoming). 24 122 BERTHE JANSEN because what tends to not be taken into account is that in the largest monasteries in Central Tibet (for usually the percentages of monks only pertain to that area) the number of “immigrant monks”, for example people from Mongolia, Kham and Amdo, must have been very high. Most of these monks were not permanently residing at those monasteries. Thus even though one in four males resident in Central Tibet may have been a monk, this does not mean that one in four boys born in Central Tibet would eventually be sent to the monastery. Immigration and semi-permanent residence are thus issues that need to be taken into account when making umbrella-statements about the state of Tibet’s societal composition. The Drepung monastic guidelines address these issues of immigration and the presence of foreign monks. THE ISSUE OF IMMIGRATION In connection to the problem of overpopulation, the issue of Mongolian and other monks from “outside” are specifically addressed on multiple occasions. The influx of a great number of foreign monks, who spoke different languages or dialects and had different habits, must have caused not just a few clashes. One of these clashes is actually mentioned in the Drepung monastic guidelines: apparently a Mongolian had fired a gun, thereby killing a monk who—judging by his appellation—must have been a scholar-monk (dpe cha ba). This episode seems to have occurred in the context of inter-collegial feuding, for the text states: Even though previously, when the monastic houses (khams tshan) fought over people and possessions, arrows and catapults (mda’ rdo sgyogs) used to be employed, other than the Mongolian dNgos grub rgya mtsho firing a gun and killing Glu ’bum rab ’byams pa, nothing else has occurred. Still, from now on firearms should not be used.26 The author goes on to warn that, in the case of illegal actions (khrims ’gal rigs) such as causing a rift in the Sangha and bringing down the teachings by, for example, colleges and houses fighting with each other, 26 “khams tshan rnams mi nor sogs kyi don du ’thab ’dzings kyi dus mda’ rdo sgyogs sogs kyi mtshon pa ni sngar nas byed srol ’dug kyang sog po dngos grub rgya mtsho me mda’ brgyab nas glu ’bum rab ’byams pa bsad pa tsam las ma byung ’dug pas slad nas kyang me mda’i srol mi byed” (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 311). HOW TO TAME A WILD MONASTIC ELEPHANT 123 the ringleaders together with their gang shall be punished according to state law (rgyal khrims).27 Monks generally speaking could only be tried according to state law in the case of serious crimes. In contrast, monastic guidelines regularly appear to be imposing judicial authority over lay-people who found themselves on monastic grounds.28 Although the above does not necessarily suggest that the violent feuds that were taking place at Drepung were motivated by xenophobia (or perhaps simply culture-clashes), the ’Bras spungs bca’ yig generally shows a bias against the newcomers and imposes a number of rules that were clearly prompted by the presence of foreigners. It appears that the food and shares of offerings that were handed out during occasions such as at the rigs grwa scholastic gathering29 were traditionally distributed via monastic societies (skyid sdug).30 These societies were organised on the basis of the monasteries the monks originally came from. The bca’ yig under examination here shows that not all monks were members of these societies, but that those who were not had to be under the supervision of the colleges. Later on, people entered the monastery without the general or the normal disciplinarians knowing about their background and intentions. The Fifth Dalai Lama mentions Indians and Newaris (bal po), who did not belong to an official monastic association (mi tshan) or house (khams tshan), as well as the Chinese, Hor, and Mongolians who were all unknown and arrived, one relying on the other, thereby “becoming each other’s accomplices”. He remarks: Thus people, who only have symbolically gained the external marks of a monk, are all filling up the assembly hall, both on the inside and the outside. And when all [these] kinds of people gather at a place like the Barkor, one cannot even be sure that arson will not take place.31 27 “grwa sa phan tshun dang khams tshan ’thab rtsod kyis mtshon dge ’dun gyi dbyen dang bstan gshig khrims ’gal byas rigs la gte po sde tshan dang bcas par rgyal khrims kyis tsa ra skabs thob byed pa ’dir gsal ma dgos” (ibid.). 28 This is evidenced in some of the monastic guidelines researched by Huber (2004: 127–52). 29 This was a yearly gathering at the start of the summer retreat during which the serving abbot gave each studying monk money and food (gtong sgo). See bShes gnyen tshul khrims 2006: 42. 30 Not much appears to be known about the function of these monastic societies. For the role of lay societies, which are also called skyid sdug, see Miller (1956: 157–70). 31 “[...] btsun pa’i rtags cha lugs tsam tshang ba rtags su bkod nas thams cad tshogs pa’i ’du khang gi phyi nang mdo sbugs thams cad khengs dkyin yod ’dug pa bar 124 BERTHE JANSEN He concludes that for that reason people who are not a member of a society should not be sent out (to the scholastic gathering). This informs us that the Dalai Lama felt that monks who were not connected to a society formed a security threat. The fact that those people were usually “foreigners”—which is to say, non-Central Tibetans—must have been a big factor in this. This statement is furthermore interesting because we do not often find information on the ethnic make-up of the monk-population in Tibet. It is safe to assume that Drepung during the late 17th century must have been one of the most ethnically diverse Tibetan Buddhist monasteries. It appears that the Fifth found the attitudes of the outside monks to be rather different. The text speaks of monks from Mongolia and Kham at the tantric college (sngags pa grwa tshang) who were unable to engage in the study of logic (mtshan nyid ma nus) and would only learn a bit of tantra (sngags chos phran bu re bslabs) and then return to their place of origin. This unrestricted coming and going, he mentions, is potentially harmful, because they, the outsiders (phyogs mi),32 are then not taken off the monk-register (grwa rgyun) at one place, but then end up living at another college or monastery. This may result in the tantric college ending up empty. He then suggests that the numbers of monks should be counted during festivals and formal sessions (dus thog), presumably as opposed to merely counting the names of monks listed in the register (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 313). In the context of sending monks out to other monastic centres, the Great Fifth warns against people who would go for the wrong reasons. Monks who go out to Sangphu (Gsang phu) needed to have passed the phar phyin (prajñpramit) exams, and to abide by the rules on how long to stay and teach for,33 as well as to make sure that the fixed number of “communal tea services” (mang ja) was implemented. This propskor lta bur mi sna tshogs bsdad na me mi brgyag pa’i nges pa’ang mi ’dugs pas skyid sdug then par mi phan pa rnams gtong sa med cing” (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 302). 32 In the vocabulary of the Fifth Dalai Lama, phyogs mi are people who were originally from another monastery but arrived at Drepung monastery later in life. It was thought that such people would go to Drepung to study, but this bca’ yig makes clear that they were at Drepung for a variety of reasons. The opposite of phyogs mi is gzhi ba: (permanent) residents. 33 Sangphu, originally a bka’ ’dams pa institution, was a large and important scholastic centre, to which monks from Drepung often went. Dreyfus mentions that monks travelled from Drepung to Sangphu quite freely, which changed after the civil war, which lasted until the midst of the seventeenth century. See: http://www.thlib.org/places/monasteries/drepung/essays/# (viewed 09/04/2013). HOW TO TAME A WILD MONASTIC ELEPHANT 125 er behaviour was unlike that of “some people from Kham and Mongolia (khams sog) who would do this for one of two days but were then known only to abuse their power. Thus from now on, rather than giving numerous endless explanations, one is not to behave as one pleases”.34 Here monks from Kham and Mongolia are singled out as being in the habit of abusing their power. It is perhaps fair to say that while there was a bias against outsiders, this bias was not limited to monks alone. In the monastic guidelines, the Fifth Dalai Lama addresses the issue of women visiting the monastery. The text appears to state that even though up until that time Tibetan women (bod mo) were, but Mongolian women (sog mo) were not given permission to stay overnight at the monastery, if the woman in question is a donor (sbyin bdag) she may stay for a limited number of days.35 Generally speaking, the reason the Fifth Dalai Lama wanted the monastery to be more restrictive with regards to its entry-policy may have been that he wanted Drepung’s population to be more respectable, as well as religiously homogeneous, this to avoid clashes but also to keep the tradition. He writes: Those who have come looking for protection from danger, such as people with other philosophical views, outcasts (g.yung po), escapees, thieves, those who are after food and clothes and the like should not be attended to (mi bsten). Because when the individual colleges and the houses give their prerogative (thob pa) as a reason, then this is [just] a minor consideration:36 this will eventually lead to disgraceful actions, due to the bad disposition [of these people].37 The Great Fifth clearly wanted to avoid the monastery becoming a safehaven for all sorts of people, most notably people with different views 34 “[...] khams sog la las nyi ma gcig gnyis brgyab nas log pa’i dbang gzhed kho na byas zer ba’ang da nas bzung kha grangs ma rdzogs par bshad pa rgyag pa las gang ’dod byed sa med” (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 310). 35 Admittedly, the language is not entirely clear here: “bar skabs nas bod mo ma gtogs sog mo’i rigs la zhag sdod sogs la’ang gnang ba par bkab zhu yin med ’dug kyang sbyin bdag bud med yin na gnang ba zhus pa’i zhag re tsam dang” (ibid.: 312). 36 This implies that there is thought to be insufficient justification for letting those types of people in. I am indebted to Jonathan Samuels for this translation and gloss of the idiom dgos pa chung. 37 “[…] lta grub mi gcig pa’i mi dang g.yung po dang bros po’i rigs dang rkun po dang lto gos tshol thabs sogs ’jigs skyabs kyis yong ba rnams grwa tshang dang khams tshan so sos thob pa rgyu mtshan du byas te ngan mtshang phyir skyel gyi phugs zhabs ’dren las spros pa’i dgos pa chung nges su ’dug pas mi bsten” (ibid.: 312). 126 BERTHE JANSEN (lta grub mi gcig pa’i mi), which probably refers to adherents to other schools. Later he also states that only the prayers and rituals of the Gelug, in combination with the general teachings (bstan pa spyi) should be used within the monastic compound. This section was paraphrased in a work by Pabongkha rinpoche (also known as bDe chen snying po, 1878–1941), in which the author appears to have used it to show that there was historical precedent for expelling monastics on the basis of their views.38 While he edited out the section that deals with outcastes and the like, Phabongkha rinpoche probably employed the Fifth’s unambivalent statement on keeping the various schools and their practices separated to suit his own religio-political agenda. What the Fifth Dalai Lama seems to have attempted, as is apparent in the above statement but also throughout the text, is to prevent the colleges from becoming too independent. His concern stemmed from the danger that with the influx of new monks certain colleges would change, culturally, religiously, and politically. One of his concerns was then to maintain the unity and relative homogeneity of Drepung. A HEALTHY MONASTIC ECONOMY The increase in the monastic population is an indication that the monastery was prospering. The late 17th century must have been a time of abundance for Drepung monastery. There was a stable government, to which it was intimately connected, and its popularity with the Mongolians must also have attracted new sponsors. It was perhaps due to the good economic situation of the monastery that so many people felt drawn to the monastery in the first place. The guidelines give a good idea of the amounts of offerings coming in and show concerns with regard to their correct distribution. Again, this is partly related to 38 mDo sngags skor gyi dris lan sna tshogs phyogs gcig tu bsgrigs pa 41a: “yang lnga ba chen pos dpal dlan ’bras spungs kyi bca’ yig sogs su’ang/ lta grub mi gcig pa re gnyis byung ba sngar nas ’bud bzhin pa yin pas/ zhes dang/ grub mtha’ ’gyur la re’i dgos dbang gis gzhan phyogs pa’i rigs ched gnyer bcug na min pa lta grub mi gcig pa’i mi sogs yongs pa rnams grwa tshang dang khams tshan so sos thob ba rgyu mtshan du byas te ngan mtshang phyir skyel gyis phugs zhabs ’dren las spros pa’i dgos pa chung nges su ’dug pas mi bsten/ zhes dang/ bstan pa spyi dang dge lugs kyi chos spyod ma gtogs grub mtha’ gzhan gyi gsol ’debs sogs chos spyod kyi rigs gling gseb tu ’don sa med cing/ zhes sogs” (bDe chen snying po, gSung ’bum vol. 6: 399–618). The underlined sections are taken from the ’Bras spungs bca’ yig. HOW TO TAME A WILD MONASTIC ELEPHANT 127 the concept of dkor, but of course also has to do with making sure the monastic colleges and houses more or less got an equal share, to prevent further resentment and feuding among the Drepung monks. At the same time, another issue that these guidelines negotiate—and this can be found in many other monastic guidelines—is that of benefactor satisfaction. That is, the monastic managers needed to be able to show the benefactors that their donations went to a worthy and “virtuous” cause. The correct allocation of gifts was important in this matter, as our author notes: These days it is increasingly the habit of the monastic houses or the teachers, when they have got their share of allowances (za sgo), to give handouts to all kinds of lowly drifters. Even the benefactors were dismayed at this, namely that the communal tea services (mang ja) and the donations (’gyed) would not get to each of the colleges and that they would go unrecorded. This is a very great wrong amounting to depriving the general Sangha of income.39 The set phrase that the Fifth Dalai Lama uses here, namely: “to deprive the general Sangha of income” (“spyi’i dge ’dun gyi ’du sgo ’phrogs pa”), is one of the five secondary acts of immediate consequence (nye ba’i mtshams med lnga) (Tshig mdzod: 961; Silk 2007: 265). This served to highlight the gravity of the matter: it appears that people in Drepung were giving away their donations rather randomly. This seems to have angered the donors and also went against certain rules on monastic economy that have proven to be problematic throughout the ages.40 Perhaps the recipients of these handouts were exactly the people the Fifth Dalai Lama wanted to deter from staying in the monastery: for the “lowly drifters” assumedly would be those unconnected to either a college or a society. The text goes on to explain exactly how certain donations are to be divided, demonstrating which positions were the better “paid” ones (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 304–306). 39 “dus phyis nye phyogs che zhing khams tshan dang dge rgan ci rigs kyis za sgo gtso bor bton nas mi khyams khungs med mtha’ dag la bdag rkyen sprad gshis/ sbyin bdag rnams kyang ha las te mang ja dang ’gyed so so’i grwa tshang la mi bsgyur tho med yong yod ’dug pa/ dge ’dun spyi’i ’du sgo ’phrogs pa’i gnod tshabs shin tu che ba ’dug pa […]” (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 304). 40 In Indic Vinaya texts a distinction between personal property and the property of the general Sangha was made. Sometimes these texts dealt with problems of the distribution of donations among the members of the monastic community. See for example Schopen (1995: 101–23). 128 BERTHE JANSEN It was not just that there were problems with the mere allocation of goods; there also appeared to have been a profusion of food at certain times. The author warns that if the monastic community had too much tea and soup, the leftovers needed to be made into fodder and nothing else.41 Presumably this means that the food scraps could not be given (or worse: sold) to beggars and other needy people in the surroundings. Again, the reason for this restriction is likely to be a “Vinayic” one: what is intended for the Sangha should not end up in the hands of “undeserving” lay-people. Interestingly, this is not entirely in line with the view of Lama Tsongkhapa, one of whose monastic guidelines is paraphrased by our author towards the end of the text (ibid.: 319–20). This work, which the Fifth claims as either Tsongkhapa’s or the first bca’ yig,42 was probably written in 1417 (bya lo) (Blo bzang grags pa’i dpal 1417a: 319). It has been a great source of inspiration for many later Gelug writers of monastic guidelines. However, in a bca’ yig for Byams pa gling monastery written in the same year,43 Lama Tsongkhapa takes a clear stance on the issue of redistributing goods beyond the monastic community. He instructs the monks not to let beggars into the monastic compounds, but instead to leave them waiting at the boundary-marker. Food can be given to them there by an upsaka (dge bsnyen) (Blo bzang grags pa’i dpal 1417b: 251a). This means that there clearly existed different ways to deal with the problems of redistributing monastic goods vis-à-vis helping those in need.44 The author addresses another issue to do with distribution, namely that while sometimes there was insufficient distribution, apparently on other occasions the dividing of the goods went too far: When donations that are not supposed to be divided up [and given] to the Sangha, are made into pieces, it renders the wealth (nor) unusable. Therefore, rather than dividing it, the benefit would be greater to the general community (spyi so)45 if it were to be deposited at the treasury of the general administration (spyi pa’i phyag mdzod).46 41 “ja thug kyang mang skyon gyis dge ’dun rnams kyis bzhes mi thub cing/ snod dpyad sogs la gzan pa las spros pa’i dgos pa gzhan mi ’dug gshis” (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 310). 42 The wording is ambiguous: “dge ’dun gyi khrims su bca’ ba dang por mdzad par”. 43 Versions of this text can be found in various places. An online version is here: http://www.asianclassics.org/release6/flat/S5275MC6_T.TXT 44 The issue of the level of social responsibility at the Tibetan monasteries and the extent to which this relates to certain aspects of Buddhist doctrine is something that I deal with extensively in my dissertation. 45 spyi so is generally understood to be the monastic main office where practical HOW TO TAME A WILD MONASTIC ELEPHANT 129 The above shows that attitudes with regard to reallocating monastic goods changed over time. Again, the reason may be sought in the unchecked population growth at Drepung monastery during the later half of the seventeenth century. A larger number of inhabitants simply calls for a different type of management. In any case, all of the above examples suggest that the large numbers of inmates at the monastery were, to a certain extent, counterbalanced by an abundance of benefactors and goods. The Fifth Dalai Lama even sets lower and upper limits for those benefactors in terms of the extent of offering to the monastic community.47 The minimum is paying for soup and tea served six times a day for thirteen days, the maximum is to do the same for twenty three days (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 310). The monastic guidelines show that it was not just the monastery that flourished under the attention of sponsors, but also certain areas were perceived to be rather wealthy: These days, there is a vast boundless income one can get when one, for example goes to faraway lands like Mongolia and Khams to collect offerings. As for those monks who were sent [here] by their home monasteries (gzhis dgon) as students, because they are sent shares (skal ba), they will need to take care of their own contribution (sham thabs khral)48 by means of doing rituals and the like.49 The above seems to suggest at least two things. First of all, Mongolia and Kham were seen as places that were wealthy and where it was easy matters were handled. It can also be a title, and the financial officers at Sera were so called. However, it appears to be that here the term speaks of the entire estate of Drepung monastery. 46 “dge ’dun tshor bgod rin mi chog pa’i ’gyed kyi rigs tshal par btang tshe nor mi nyan du ’gro bas bgod pa las spyi pa’i phyag mdzod du bzhag na spyi sor phan slebs che ba ’jog” (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 313). Instead of ’gyed, ’Bras spungs bca’ yig 3 reads za byed: food. 47 This may be a specific type of offering: the person who requests to do this is called ’gyed tshar gtong mi. I have not been able to assess the exact meaning of this phrase. 48 This phrase appears to suggest that the branch monasteries had to pay the main monastery a certain amount for letting their monks study there. A different use of the phrase is noted in Davidson (2005: 394, n. 68). Here it appears that it refers to the flow of money or contributions from subsidiary groups to the main temples in the 11th century. 49 “deng sang khams sog gis mtshon yul thag ring la ’bul sdud du song ba sogs la’ang skal ba len pa’i rgya che mu med yod ’dug cing/ gzhis dgon pa’i rigs nas grwa pa tshor bslab gnyer lta bur song ba la skal ba gtong ba ni tshul sgrub mchod kyis mtshon so so’i sham thabs khral sgrub dgos pa’i rgyu mtshan yin ’dug” (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 304). 130 BERTHE JANSEN to collect donations. Some monks may have been abusing the wealth and the locals’ willingness to give. Elsewhere in the text, the Dalai Lama forbids monks to go out on unofficial trips to these areas to collect “alms”. This is in fact a recurrent issue that gets addressed in other monastic guidelines. Secondly, the above citation indicates that monks coming from elsewhere were “sponsored” by their home monastery, and thus were not reliant upon the allowances (phogs) handed out by the government. It appears then that these monks, who were not financially dependent on Drepung, formed a potential threat to the reputation of the monastery, because the section cited above is immediately followed by this statement: Monks like this have no such scruples (srol med) and their characters and the example [they set] cannot be hidden. Because even when benefactors do service [to them] it may be harmful, they should not be sent out [to benefactors].50 As alluded to above, many monastic guidelines express concerns about monks going out and pressuring lay-people into giving donations, in particular when the sole beneficiary was the individual monk and not the monastic institution. This is in tension with the Vinayic ideal of the monk begging for alms, even though it seems as though this particular practice, so widespread in Theravda countries, has never been common in Tibet. Although the points on which monastic guidelines and Vinaya rules potentially clash are almost never remarked upon in bca’ yig, the Great Fifth makes something of an exception here: Because going on an alms-round in Tibet proper, during for example the autumn, is in accordance with the intent of the Vinaya, it does not need to be stopped. Except for people who collect offerings for the general good (spyi don) in China, Mongolia, and Khams, etc., one is not to go to ask for donations, on one’s own accord, without it being an exception [on behalf of] the officials and the general good.51 In the above statement the author sees the possible conflict, but somehow finds a way around it by using the Vinayic/stric term bsod snyoms brgyag pa, this is allowed. However, he limits the practice to Tibet and 50 “grwa pa ’di tshor ’de ’dra’i srol med gshis dpe mi khebs shing/ sbyin bdag rnams kyis zhabs tog byed pa la’ang gnod ’dug pas gtong sa med” (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 304). 51 “ston ka sogs bod rang du bsod snyoms brgyag pa ni ’dul ba’i ba’i dgongs pa dang yang mthun pas dgag mi dgos shing/ rgya sog khams sogs la grwa pa grwa tshang spyi don gyi slong mo byed mi ma gtogs las sne dang spyi don dmigs bsal med par kha mthun sdebs slong mo brgyag par mi ’gro” (ibid.: 313). HOW TO TAME A WILD MONASTIC ELEPHANT 131 employs a more pejorative term for the forbidden practice of collecting donations elsewhere, namely slong mo byed pa, which can simply be translated as “to beg”. Interestingly, this section was cited almost verbatim by the Seventh Dalai Lama bsKal bzang rgya mtsho (1708–1757) in a set of monastic guidelines for Sera monastery (1737).52 In this text, he merely seems to have adapted the language somewhat, conspicuously leaving out Kham as a place one cannot go to collect donations.53 This may have to do with the changed perception of what was seen to be “Bod”. In the mind of the Great Fifth, Kham perhaps did not belong to Bod, but some fifty years later it may have done in the opinion of his incarnation, the Seventh. Above, I referred to the allowances, which were handed out by the monastic office (spyi so). The Fifth stipulates who is entitled to this “salary” and the order in which people are to receive it: When the allowances of the monastic main office are given out, then liaising with a government representative (gzhung gi ngo tshab), one gives, according to the sealed document with allowances (phogs yig), first to the colleges and their studying monks (chos grwa ba), secondly to the residents who are not affiliated (ldebs ’byar med pa’i gzhi ba) and those from dGe ’phel54 and dNgul chu chos rdzong,55 thirdly, to the rest of the crowd who are in one way or the other affiliated, consisting of the riffraff (’bags rengs) such as the kitchen aids. Those who have not gone through three debate classes (chos grwa), those who now study medicine and astrology (gso dpyad rtsis), and the resident servants of the dbon chos mdzad56 are not taken up in the allowances-ledger (phogs deb) of the monastic main office.57 52 A partial, but conspicuously selective translation of this text can be found in Michael (1982: 183–88). 53 “bod rang du bsod snyoms byed pa ’dul ba’i dgongs pa dang mthun pas dgag bya mi dgos ’dra yang/ rgya sog gi yul khams sogs la spyi don gyi ’bul sdud slong mo byed mi ma gtogs/ spyi don med par kha mthun gyis slong mo mi byed” (rGyal mchog bdun pa chen po 1737: 111). 54 This is likely to be dGe ’phel hermitage (ri khrod), which is situated in the mountains above Drepung monastery. 55 Originally an early bka’ ’dams monastery in Tsang. 56 The Tshig mdzod explains this as “sngar gdan sa khag gi tshogs chen chos mdzad”: a chos mdzad of the big assembly at the monastic seats of the old days (Tshig mdzod: 1949). Not much is known of the exact nature of the chos mdzad. Cabezón notes that they were usually from aristocratic or wealthy families and that their families often donated a large sum to the monastery as monks, which would buy them a special status (Cabezón 1997: 348). 57 “spyi so’i phogs rgyag dus gzhung gi ngo tshab dang sbrel nas phogs yig dam ’byar gyi nang bzhin ang ki dang por chos grwa ba sogs grwa tshang khag gnyis par 132 BERTHE JANSEN This is an interesting account of who, according to the author, is and who is not deserving of a monastic stipend. It perhaps comes as a surprise that the lower stratum of inhabitants is included among the beneficiaries while the students of medicine are not. The allowances probably functioned to support those who were the most disadvantaged, who did not have the opportunity to do some business on the side. People who practised astrology, medicine, or served an aristocratic monk already received an income. BRIBES AND CORRUPTION The monastic economy appears to have been in a healthy state, a situation that attracted both serious monks and opportunists to Drepung. It therefore comes as no surprise that bribery became a problem at Drepung. Corruption is a recurrent theme in many monastic guidelines. It appears that the Fifth Dalai Lama was particularly concerned with corruption in the context of education. He laments that the level of education had gone down in comparison to previous times, during which people were much more motivated to study (ibid.: 307). It appeared that certain monks were even willing to pay to get a degree: It is well known that when taking the gling bsre [exam],58 one would be let off the hook without having one’s level of education examined, had the disciplinarian received a present (rngan pa).59 The dividing line between what constitutes as a bribe rather than an obligatory gift is of course fluid. Even in today’s spoken Tibetan the word rngan pa is used for both. Here it is clear that as the aim of this gift is to gain something that one otherwise would not have deserved, rngan pa can surely be thought of as equal to our concept of bribe, although the western connotation with unlawfulness would be stretching it too far. gzhan gyi ldebs ’byar med pa’i gzhi ba dang dge ’phel dang dngul chu chos rdzong pa sogs/ gsum par thab g.yog sogs ’bags rengs skor bab ’brel gang yod rnams la rgyag chos grwa la gsum tsam yang ma ’grim pa’i phyogs mi gso dpyad rtsis sogs bslab mkhan dang dbon chos mdzad lta bu’i g.yog gzhi bar bsnyed pa’i phogs deb tu mi skyel zhing” (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 306–307). 58 This is one of the lower level geshe degrees at Drepung (Tarab Tulku 2000: 17–18). 59 “gling bsre gtod [sic?: gtong] skabs dge skos kyi rngan pa blangs nas yon tan che chung la mi blta bar gtong ba yongs su bsrgags shing” (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 308). HOW TO TAME A WILD MONASTIC ELEPHANT 133 Our author further notes that up until the time of writing this practice had been going on with impunity, but that henceforth this degree should only be given to someone who has studied all the main topics, including Madhyamaka, Prajñpramit and the four topics that are singled out (zur bkol), and who knows how to interpret, and has received the transmissions of, the Pramavarttika. This degree, the Fifth Dalai Lama remarks, “should not be given to people who bribe (stod khrab pa),60 because it will harm the continuation of the teachings”.61 He then names what gifts can be given by the recipient of the degree, such as tea and soup to the monks of the college, for the two disciplinarians evening tea with molasses (dgongs [sic: dgong] ja bu ram) and if there happened to be a party (ston mo) one could hand out some coins (dngul srang) (ibid.: 309). It seems that limiting the quantity of gifts that the “graduate” can give served two purposes in this context. First of all, if the presents to the other monks were insignificant, they could not be perceived as bribes, and secondly, the gifts that a geshe (dge bshes) to be was expected to give often financially crippled the giver, so limiting the expenditure would allow the poorer monks to become a geshe. Even recently, this was an issue on which new rules had to be made at the Three Seats in India. Geshe Gedün Lodrö gives a list with the amounts of food the new geshe had to pay for (Lodrö 1974: 282). All in all, it must have been an expensive affair. Corruption did not just occur in the context of degrees. The Drepung monastic guidelines report that on occasions there had been: some greedy teachers (dge rgan ham pa can), like those who would go to Lhasa on official business (don gcod), not hiding the fact that they are of the Gelug school (dge ba pa), but who would pretend that what they got was only for their college. They would put a seal on the goods and their own living quarters would be full of them. [Since then] those things have turned up and it is obvious that they should wholly go to the big colleges. These things are a total embarrassment, and should thus not be carried out.62 60 I have not come across this expression anywhere else, so the translation is conjectural. 61 “de la ’dzem bag kyang cher mi byed pa zhig sngar nas da lta’i bar ’dug kyang/ dbu phar gnyis po’i thal phreng spyi don zur bkol bzhi cha tshang song ba/ rnam ’grel gyi rigs lung phogs pa rnams brda lan ’byor nges shes pa ma gtogs stod khrab pa’i rigs la slad nas gtad na bstan rgyun la gnod pas mi sprod cing” (ibid.: 308–309). 62 “dge ba par bkab mi byed par lha sar don gcod la yong ba lta bur dge rgan ham pa can la las khams tshan thob pa tsam rtags su bkod nas chas pa la rgya sdom byed cing/ gnas tshang du ’tshangs nas dngos po ’don pa sogs byung ’phros ’dug pa grwa 134 BERTHE JANSEN Even though the Dalai Lama had previously written a set of guidelines on how to behave during the Great Prayer Festival (smon lam chen mo) in 1675 (Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho 1675), he also addresses the issue of corruption during the festival in the Drepung guidelines. He finds it particularly important for Drepung monks to behave correctly because Drepung is the de facto ruler of the city at that time. The author points out that the number of participating monks has grown, and that it will grow even more if monks’ duties would stay as relaxed as they were before. The biggest problem that the Great Fifth sees is that monks in an official position, such as that of disciplinarian or disciplinarian’s assistant (dge g.yog), would abuse their office. This would be done by not properly dividing the donations, by forcing other monks to hand theirs over, and by settling old grudges. The position of disciplinarian’s assistant must have been a profitable one, because the Dalai Lama notes that the disciplinarians were in a habit of receiving bribes that would influence their choice of assistant.63 The appointed assistants then would go on to behave with impunity, carrying with them short sticks that they could hide under their armpits, which they used to force other monks to give up the donations they received (ibid.).64 The author goes on to forbid the disciplinarians from accepting bribes and soliciting visitors for alms (’grul pa sogs la slong mo) and prohibits their assistants from snatching goods away from others (dngos chas ’phrog pa) (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 315–16). This rogue behaviour that apparently was rife when monks from the Three Seats and beyond flooded Lhasa was not just a 17th century phenomenon. Charles Bell reports that, some 250 years later, during the Great Prayer Festival the Drepung monks would not just take over power in the city but that they would also loot, causing the wealthier people to flee the city along with their belongings (Bell 1998 [1946]: 58). sa chen po rnams rlabs kyis ’gro dgos gshis/ de rigs zhabs ’dren kho na yin ’dug pas byed sa med” (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 313–14). 63 “dge skos kyis dge g.yog lag nas rngan par bltas pa’i bsko lugs byas pa dang” (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 315). 64 This bca’ yig, as do all others I have come across so far, is silent about the “rogue” or ldob ldob monks, which were said to have had their own societies. The description of these unscrupulous disciplinarian’s assistants here somehow reminds one of them. HOW TO TAME A WILD MONASTIC ELEPHANT 135 THE EXTENT OF AUTHORITY Throughout this article, the Fifth Dalai Lama has been presented as the single author of this text. It is certainly true that it is more than highly likely, judging by the idiosyncrasies in the style of writing and choice of words, that he wrote the Drepung guidelines. However, the details concerning the contemporary goings on at Drepung are very intricate and it is unlikely that the Dalai Lama was personally aware of most of them. These monastic guidelines—and, for that matter, most monastic guidelines written by an author “from the outside”—have only come to be on the basis of careful communication with other highly placed and qualified Drepung monks. The Fifth names them all and meticulously describes the process of meeting with representatives from all the colleges and specifies that he sent out delegates to consult with those who were ill or in retreat about the new guidelines.65 He also gives the main reasons why he was requested to write new rules, namely that the original guidelines written by the founder ’Jam dbyangs chos rje had become lost, that the set that had been written later on was found to be too intricate by some and too long by others and that generally speaking, of late the behaviour of certain colleges had deteriorated gradually (’Bras spungs bca’ yig: 322). Even though, this text can be seen as a document that shows us the vision the Great Fifth had for Drepung, it does not mean that it was entirely his vision alone. He did not lay down the law like some theocratic despot, but wrote the work in consultation with many other experts and as well as other documents. The Dalai Lama did however hold the view that rules needed to be enforced, and that they could only be enforced by someone in religious authority, for otherwise the new rules would remain ignored.66 For the monks of the powerful Drepung monastery, the only author whose law they would be prepared to accept would be the person with the highest authority in the whole of Tibet, the Great Fifth. 65 The same procedure for compiling a new set of monastic guidelines is still followed at the monastic institutions in Tibet and in exile. 66 The language is rather cryptic here: “bgyis pa rnams kyang tshul bzhin ma byung tshe de lam du bzhag na ma mthus pas rim ’gyangs su lus pa yin rung sprul pa’i chos skyong chen po nas rta mdzos mtha’ brten pa’i bkag cha’i bcad brdar dang” (ibid.: 323). 136 BERTHE JANSEN GUIDELINES FOR TIBETAN SOCIAL HISTORY The text under discussion here, taken at face value, appears to be elitist, and therefore not to fit the subject matter of this volume, which deals with “historical blind spots” and “views from below”. This is because it was written by someone who had the highest authority at that time in Tibet. The topic of the text is a monastery that was wealthy and important. Furthermore, Drepung belongs to the Gelug school, a school that dominates the Western language research of Tibet’s cultural, political, religious, and social history, particularly where Buddhist monasticism is involved. This emphasis has, to a great extent, to do with our sources: there is simply more material written by Gelug masters around, and perhaps more Gelug teachers willing to explain the intricacies of the Tibetan texts. On the other hand, the fact that the Gelug school was so intimately involved in politics also makes it absolutely essential to understand Tibetan history through a wider lens. Thus, even though this set of monastic guidelines gives a perspective viewed from above, it most definitely grants us a view on what was below. In other words, even though social history is generally thought of as acting against “great man history”, there is no reason why a work written by a great man cannot form the basis for a social historical investigation. In this respect, it is perhaps surprising that a text on the wild monastic elephant that is the enormous Drepung monastery has been able to escape the historian’s net. I hope I have made clear that the work contains valuable material for the study of Tibet’s social history. The set of monastic guidelines that I have treated here is one single source that informs us about the social historical context of monastic life and beyond. This text represents just one case study that highlights certain issues to do with the more mundane aspects of Tibetan monastic life, such as overpopulation, immigration, monastic economy and corruption. The limitations of closely reading just one text should be obvious, and here we are restricted to Drepung monastery in the year 1682. However, there are many more of these types of texts, which almost all contain similar information on the social position of monasteries in pre-modern Tibet, spanning a number of centuries.67 These texts, most of which have not been studied in an academic context, address contemporary issues and tackle various monastic problems 67 So far, I have collected close to two hundred bca’ yig texts, which I am sure is just the tip of the iceberg. I am in the process of developing a database that will make the texts more accessible. HOW TO TAME A WILD MONASTIC ELEPHANT 137 thereby permitting us a candid view of the goings on at monastic institutions. By taking the monastic guidelines as a genre, and by studying these texts in a way that is both synchronic and diachronic, one will be able to see larger patterns emerge. Some of these patterns will have to do with the level of restrictions to the monastery: when the restrictions for becoming a monk imposed by a monastery were strict, it is more likely for it to have had a high population at that time; the more concern a set of monastic guidelines shows to its benefactors and its immediate surroundings, the more likely it is for the monastery to have been economically highly dependent on the neighbouring lay-population. When one then looks at the longue durée by means of these documents, one will be able to see the emergence of certain trends that shed light first of all on the changing position of the monastic communities, but second of all also on their relations and interactions with the lay communities and thereby on Tibetan society as a whole. BIBLIOGRAPHY Tibetan language works bDe chen snying po [Phabongkha rinpoche, 1878–1941]. mDo sngags skor gyi dris lan sna tshogs phyogs gcig tu bsgrigs pa. In gSung ’bum vol. 6, 399–618. Blo bzang grags pa’i dpal [Lama Tsongkhapa]. 1417a. dGe ’dun gyi khrims su bca’ ba. In gSung ’bum vol. 2, 295a–300a. —— 1417b. Byams pa gling na bzhugs pa’i spyi’i dge ’dun la khrims su bca’ ba’i yi ge. In gSung ’bum vol. 2, 300a–302a. bShes gnyen tshul khrims. 2006. Ta la’i bla ma sku phreng lnga pa mchog gis mdzad pa’i ’bras spungs dgon gyi bca’ yig <’tshul ’chal sa srung ’dul ba’i lcags kyo kun gsal me long> zhes par rags tsam dpyad pa. Bod ljongs zhib ’jug 99(2), 38–49. bsKal bzang rgya mtsho [the Seventh Dalai Lama, 1708–1757]. dBen gnas ’khyung rdzong ri khrod pa rnams kyi khrims su bca’ ba’i yi ge thar pa’i them skas. In bCa’ yig sde brgyad la springs yig lam yig sko ’ja’ sogs kyi rim pa phyogs gcig tu bsgrigs. gSung ’bum vol. 3, 434–45. —— 1737. rGyal mchog bdun pa chen pos se ra theg chen gling la stsal ba’i khrims su bca’ ba’i yi ge rab gsal nor bu’i me long zhes bya ba bzhugs so. In Bod rang skyong ljongs yig tshags khang (ed.) Bod sa gnas kyi lo rgyus dpe tshogs bca’ yig phyogs bsgrigs. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2001, 96–117. De mo srid skyong. 1757. De mo srid skyong dang pos dar nor ri khrod la bstsal ba’i bca’ yig. In Bod rang skyong ljongs yig tshags khang (ed.) Bod sa gnas kyi lo rgyus dpe tshogs bca’ yig phyogs bsgrigs. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2001, 151–55. dGa’ ldan chos ’byung sDe srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho [1653–1705]. 1991 [1938]. dGa’ ldan chos ’byung baiḍūrya ser po. Xining: Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang. 138 BERTHE JANSEN Kun mkhyen rig pa ’dzin pa Chos kyi grags pa [1595–1659]. bKa’ ’gyur bzhengs dus dpon yig rnams kyi bca’ yig. In gSung ’bum vol. 2, 175–80. Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho [the Fifth Dalai Lama]. 1675. lHa ldan smon lam chen mo’i gral ’dzin bca’ yig. In Tshe ring dpal ’byor et al. (eds.) Bod kyi snga rabs khrims srol yig cha bdams bsgrigs. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang,1989, 324–45. —— 1679. Pho brang po ta la’i sum skas mgo’i bca’ yig. In Bod rang skyong ljongs yig tshags khang (ed.) Bod sa gnas kyi lo rgyus dpe tshogs bca’ yig phyogs bsgrigs. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2001, 12–14. ’Bras spungs bca’ yig —— 1682. Chos sde chen po dpal ldan ’bras dkar spungs pa’i dgon gyi bca’ yig tshul ’chal sa srung ’dul ba’i lcags kyo kun gsal me long. In Tshe ring dpal ’byor et al. (eds) Bod kyi snga rabs khrims srol yig cha bdams bsgrigs. Lhasa, Bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 1989, 275–323. ’Bras spungs bca’ yig 2 bCa’ yig phyogs sgrig: gangs can rig brgya’i sgo ’byed lde mig ces bya ba 11. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1989, 169–213. ’Bras spungs bca’ yig 3 ’Phags bal bod dang bod chen rgya hor sog pos mtshon mchod dman bar ma mtha’ dag gi spyi bye brag legs nyes ’byed pa’i bca’ yig bsko ’ja’ sogs bkod pa khrims gnyis gser shing phun tshogs ’dod ’jo. In gSung ’bum vol. 20, 106b–132a. Rong zom chos bzang (1042–1136). Rong zom chos bzang gis rang slob dam tshig pa rnams la gsungs pa’i rwa ba brgyad pa’i bca’ yig. In gSung ’bum vol. 2. Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1999, 399–414. Tshig mdzod Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo. 1993. Zhang, Yisun, ed. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang. Works in other languages Aris, M. 1978. [Review of] Geschichte der Kloster-Universität Drepung, mit einem Abriss der Geistesgeschichte Tibets. 1. Teil: Tibetischer Text. BSOAS 41(2), 398–400. Bell, C.A. 1998 [1946]. Portrait of a Dalai Lama: the Life and Times of the Great Thirteenth. Delhi: Book Faith India. Cabezón, J.I. 1997. The regulations of a monastery. In D.S. Lopez (ed.) Religions of Tibet in Practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 335–51. Cüppers, C. 2007. Die Reise- und Zeltlagerordnung des Fünften Dalai Lama. In B. Kellner, H. Krasser, H. Lasic, M. Torsten Much, and H. Tauscher (eds) Pramakrtih: Papers Dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, 37–51. Dakpa, Ngawang. 2003. The hours and days of a great monastery: Drepung. In F. Pommaret (ed.) Lhasa in the Seventeenth Century: the Capital of the Dalai Lamas. Leiden: Brill, 167–78. Davidson, R.M. 2005. Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture. New York: Columbia University Press. Dreyfus, G. 2003. The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist Monk. Berkeley: California University Press. HOW TO TAME A WILD MONASTIC ELEPHANT 139 Ekvall, R.B. 1959/1960. Three categories of inmates within Tibetan monasteries: status and function. Central Asiatic Journal 5, 206–20. Ellingson, T. 1989. Tibetan monastic constitutions: the bca’ yig. In L. Epstein and R.F. Sherburne (eds) Reflections on Tibetan Culture: Essays in Memory of Turrell V. Wylie. Lewiston: The Edward Mellen Press, 205–29. Goldstein, M. 1998. The revival of monastic life in Drepung monastery. In M. Goldstein (ed.) Buddhism in Contemporary Tibet: Religious Revival and Cultural Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 15–52. —— 2009. Tibetan Buddhism and mass monasticism. In A. Herrou and G. Krauskopff (eds) Moines et moniales de par le monde: la vie monastique au miroir de la parenté. Paris: L’Harmattan. English version at: www.case.edu/affil/.../Tibetan_Buddhism_and_Mass_Monasticism.doc Grothmann, K. 2012. Migration narratives, official classifications, and local identities: the Memba of the hidden Land of Pachakshiri. In T. Huber and S.H. Blackburn (eds) Origins and Migrations in the Extended Eastern Himalayas. Leiden: Brill, 125–51. Huber, T. 2004. Territorial control by “sealing”: a religio-political practice in Tibet. Zentralasiatischen Studien 33, 127–52. Jansen, B. (forthcoming). Selection at the gate: admission to the monastery and social mobility in traditional Tibet. In Proceedings of the International Seminar of Young Tibetologists, 2012 Kobe. Khedrup, T., H. Richardson, and T. Skorupski. 1986. Adventures of a Tibetan Fighting Monk. Bangkok: Tamarind Press. Lodrö, Geshe Gedün. 1974. Geschichte der Kloster-Universität Drepung: mit einem Abriss der Geistesgeschichte Tibets. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Michael, F.H. 1982. Rule by Incarnation: Tibetan Buddhism and its Role in Society and State. Boulder: Westview Press. Miller, B.D. 1956. Ganye and kidu: two formalized systems of mutual aid among the Tibetans. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 12(2), 157–70. —— 1961. The web of Tibetan monasticism. The Journal of Asian Studies 20(2), 197–203. Schaeffer, K.R. 2009. The Culture of the Book in Tibet. New York: Columbia University Press. Schopen, G. 1995. Monastic law meets the real world: a monk’s continuing right to inherit family property in classical India. History of Religions 35(2), 101–23. Silk, J. 2007. Good and evil in Indian Buddhism: the five sins of immediate retribution. Journal of Indian Philosophy 35(3), 253–86. Snellgrove, D.L. and H. Richardson. 1986 [1968]. A Cultural History of Tibet. Boston: Shambhala. Stein, R.A. 1972 [1962]. Tibetan Civilization. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Tulku, Tarab. 2000. A Brief History of Tibetan Academic Degrees in Buddhist Philosophy. Copenhagen: NIAS, in association with the Royal Library.