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 stpa 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 stra material (’Bras spungs bca’
yig: 294–99). Citing the *Bhikupriya-stra (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 stra, 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 bhiku, 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 Vinayavibhagha 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 Sryagarbhastra, 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
*Bhikupriya-stra] 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 (prajñpramit) 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 upsaka (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 Theravda 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/stric 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, Prajñpramit and the four topics that are
singled out (zur bkol), and who knows how to interpret, and has
received the transmissions of, the Pramavarttika. 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)
Pramakrtih: 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.