UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Date:______

I, ______, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in:

It is entitled:

This work and its defense approved by:

Chair: ______

The Geography of Tibetan Buddhist Practice Centers in the : Where Can I Get Some Enlightenment?

A thesis submitted to the

Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

in the Department of Geography of the College of Arts and Sciences

2006

By Susan L. Jakubowski

B.A. Washington and Jefferson College, 1993

Committee: Dr. Roger Selya, Chair Dr. Howard Stafford Dr. Colleen McTague

Abstract

Tibetan has been classified as an ethnic branch of the universalizing Buddhist system. It is inextricably tied to the culture, politics and people of , where it has been practiced almost exclusively for centuries. It spread beyond this region on a large scale only after the political annexation of Tibet in 1959. As of 2006, there were approximately 608 Tibetan Buddhist practice centers in the contiguous United States. This study seeks to examine whether the motivation for the spread of in the United States is a result of a continued political agenda on part of Tibetans and their supporters or whether it is a cultural phenomenon related to the increasing popularity of non-traditional religions. An analysis of the current locations of the Tibetan Buddhist practice centers would suggest that its diffusion is a result of American demand rather than the result of any political agenda.

ii

iii

Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 3

1. INTRODUCTION 5 Statement of purpose and significance 6 Hypotheses 7 Chapter Layout 11

2. TIBETAN BUDDHISM 12 Tibetan Buddhism within the Buddhist System 12 Tibetan Buddhist Beliefs 13

3. CHARACTERISTICS OF TIBETAN BUDDHIST SYSTEM 15 Classification 15 Classification of Tibetan Buddhism 16 Tibetan Buddhism in Tibet 17 Transmission of Tibetan Buddhism to the US 18 Structure 22 Four Schools 22 In Tibet 26 In the United States 26 Authority Structure in the United States 28 Tibetan Buddhist Practitioners 29 Defining Buddhists 29 Typologies of Buddhists 31 Characteristics of American Buddhists 32

4. METHODOLOGY 34 Unit of analysis: Tibetan Buddhist Centers 34 Affiliations in the United States 38 Data Collection – TBC data 39 Limitations of TBC data 42 GIS 42 Statistical Analysis 42 Nearest Neighbor Analysis 43 Mean Center Statistic 44 Standard Deviation Ellipse Statistic 45 Visual Analysis 46

1

5. RESULTS 47 Nearest Neighbor / Visual Analysis 47 Mean Center 67 Standard Deviation Ellipse 75

6. DISCUSSION 83 Nearest Neighbor Statistic Reconsidered 83 Hypotheses Revisited 83 Questions Revisited 88

7. CONCLUSION 89 Future Research 89 Diffusion 89 Demand Side Factors 90 Exceptional Distributions 90

BIBLIOGRAPHY 92

APPENDIX A: Individual Affiliation Information 95

2

LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page 4.1 DGTL Practice Center 35 4.2 Practice Center 35 4.3 Shambhala Practice Center 35 4.4 Shambhala Practice Center 35 4.5 NKT Practice Center 36 4.6 Practice Center 36 4.7 Emaho Practice Center 36 4.8 Maitri Practice Center 36 4.9 Maitri Practice Center 36 4.10 KDK Practice Center 36 4.11 Maitri Practice Center 37 4.12 Palyul Practice Center 37 5.1 ALL TBC 48 5.2 Distribution 49 5.3 Distribution 49 5.4 Distribution 50 5.5 Distribution 50 5.6 No School Distribution 51 5.7 Affiliated Distribution 52 5.8 Non-Affiliated Distribution 52 5.9 Gelug Non-Affiliated Distribution 55 5.10 Gelug FPMT Distribution 56 5.11 Gelug Gaden for the West Distribution 56 5.12 Gelug Jewel Heart Distribution 57 5.13 Gelug DGTL Distribution 57 5.14 Gelug NKT Distribution 58 5.15 Kagyu Non-Affiliated Distribution 58 5.16 Kagyu Diamond Way Distribution 59 5.17 Kagyu Distribution 59 5.18 Kagyu Emaho Foundation Distribution 60 5.19 Kagyu KDK Distribution 60 5.20 Kagyu KTD Distribution 61 5.21 Kagyu Shambhala Distribution 61 5.22 Nyingma Non-Affiliated Distribution 62 5.23 Nyingma Aro Ter Distribution 62 5.24 Nyingma Chagdud Gonpa Distribution 63 5.25 Nyingma Palyul Distribution 63 5.26 Nyingma Dzogchen Distribution 64 5.27 Nyingma PBC Distribution 64 5.28 Nyingma Distribution 65 5.29 Sakya Non-Affiliated Distribution 65 5.30 Sakya TKL Distribution 66 5.31 Sakya Vikramasila Distribution 66

3

Figures Page 5.32 Mean Center – Schools 67 5.33 Mean Center – Affiliated/Non-Affiliated 68 5.34 Mean Center – Schools/Affiliated/Non-Affiliated 69 5.35 Mean Center – Affiliations 70 5.36 Mean Center – Gelug Affiliations 71 5.37 Mean Center - Kagyu Affiliations 72 5.38 Mean Center – Nyingma Affiliations 73 5.39 Mean Center – Sakya Affiliations 74 5.40 SDE – Schools 75 5.41 SDE – Affiliated/Non-Affiliated 76 5.42 SDE – ALL 77 5.43 SDE – Gelug Affiliations 79 5.44 SDE – Kagyu Affiliations 80 5.45 SDE – Nyingma Affiliations 81 5.46 SDE – Sakya Affiliations 82

LIST OF TABLES Tables Page 4.1 Affiliations in the United States 38 4.2 Sources for TBC data 41 5.1 Nearest Neighbor Analysis – All 47 5.2 Nearest Neighbor Analysis – Schools 48 5.3 Nearest Neighbor Analysis – Affiliated/Non-Affiliated 51 5.4 Nearest Neighbor Analysis – Affiliations 53 5.6 Distance from Mean Center of TBC All – Schools 68 5.7 Distance from Mean Center of TBC All – Affiliations 69 5.8 Standard Deviation Ellipse Data – Schools 75 5.9 Standard Deviation Ellipse Data – Affiliated/Non-Affiliated 76 5.10 Standard Deviation Ellipse Data – Affiliations 78 5.11 Standard Deviation Ellipse Data – Summary Statistics 79 6.1 TBCs per County 85

4

1. Introduction

“If the Dalai is this Supreme Enlightened Being, why does he have to wear glasses? Couldn’t he just correct his vision?” This joke, heard in various forms in different media outlets, from local radio stations including Cincinnati’s WEBN to national cable television channels such as Comedy Central, is significant to this study for several reasons. First, in order to be successful it assumes a basic knowledge of who the is. The ubiquity of this joke in outlets implies some degree of success and, thus, some recognition of the Dalai Lama.

Second, being the subject of a national joke implies the extent to which the Dalai Lama and the religious systems that he symbolizes, Buddhism in general and Tibetan Buddhism in particular, have become a part the American culture. Finally, the joke relies on misconceptions of what enlightenment is and what the role of the Dalai Lama is, implying that, although Buddhism has impressed itself upon the American psyche, there is much about it that is still unfamiliar.

Tibetan Buddhism probably should not be in the United States, nor in any country other than Tibet, save for some of its ethnically related neighbors. Tibetan Buddhism is a historically ethnic religious system, based on shamanic practices and esoteric beliefs, that is inextricably tied to the history, culture and politics of Tibet. It developed in and remained almost exclusively within Tibet for almost four centuries.

However, as of 2006, there are approximately 608 Tibetan Buddhist practice centers in the United States. The Tibetan Buddhist practice centers (TBCs), representative of the religion and of its practitioners, are perhaps the most visible manifestation of this foreign religion.

Tibetan Buddhism is the most recent form of Buddhism to take hold in the United States and it has, in a relatively short 30 years, become a noticeable part of the American Buddhist landscape, which has been developing for over 100 years.

5

How did an isolated, ethnic Eastern religion get to the United States and spread to the extent that it has? The answer to the first part of this question is found in a particular historical occurrence: the annexation of the nation of Tibet and the persecution of Tibetan people and culture at the hands of communist . These events lead directly to the mass ‘relocation’ of

Tibetan Buddhism beyond Tibet, including to the United States. Once in the United States, however, the explanation for the diffusion is not as clear.

Statement of purpose and significance

The research problem addressed in this study is to describe and explain the spatial variation of Tibetan Buddhist Center (TBC) locations in the United States. By examining the locations of the TBCs, it is hoped that some insight into the process of diffusion can be gained.

The current location of these centers represents a snapshot of a process that began with the arrival of the first Tibetan in the 1950s and which evolved as a result of the interaction between the religios system and the American culture. Among the questions to be addressed are:

At the national scale, where has Tibetan Buddhism made an imprint and where has it not? Can it be determined to what extent are the locations of these TBCs a result of receptivity to Tibetan

Buddhism and to what extent are they a reflection of an organized expansion strategy? Tibetan

Buddhism, as a religious system, is not a unified structure, in the nature of the Roman Catholic

Church, for example. Rather, it is comprised of many independent lineages and affiliations. To what extent, then, does the process of diffusion, represented here as a distribution, vary according to differences among organizations?

This study focuses specifically on Tibetan Buddhism, which differs greatly from other types of Buddhism as will be shown in Chapter 2, and, particularly, the diffusion of Tibetan

Buddhism in the United States and is significant for several reasons.

6

First, it addresses the limitation of applying the much more abundant general Buddhist literature to Tibetan Buddhism. The diffusion of non-Tibetan Buddhism to and throughout the

United States is primarily accounted for in the American academic literature with theories related to Asian immigration and subsequent interaction with the American society (Fields, 1981; Fields,

1998; Nattier, 1998; Prebish, 1999, Seager, 1999; Numrich, 2000). The focus of this literature is two-fold: first, it seeks to establish Buddhist practitioner typologies that can account for differences in Asian and American activities and second, it seeks to define a new emerging

American Buddhism. Because Tibetan Buddhism is not a traditional immigrant religion and because of its relatively short existence in the United States, much of the general Buddhist literature is irrelevant. This study attempts to add to the general literature by focusing primarily on Tibetan Buddhism and addressing its specific concerns, in terms of distribution.

Second, this study is significant because it attempts to take into account the internal variation within the broad system of Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism is often treated as a whole, unified system in American Buddhist literature and this treatment ignores potential differences based on and affiliation. This study, because it examines distribution patterns based on different classification schemes at a national scale, is able to provide insight into large- scale variations in distribution within Tibetan Buddhism.

Hypotheses

Because there is no existing literature that addresses the process by which Tibetan

Buddhism has spread in the United States, this study is intentionally broad in scale and in purpose. The hypotheses guiding this study were derived from several strains of literature, none of which address the research problem directly, with the intention of performing an exploratory analysis.

7

The broad question guiding this study is whether Tibetan Buddhism has spread as a result of supply factors, conscious missionary efforts by Tibetan lamas, or as a result of demand factors, from Americans seeking alternative forms of religion. Related to this issue is the following question: if Tibetan lamas have actively spread their religion as part of a missionary strategy, have they done so exclusively for religious purposes or as a political means to preserve their culture?

In order to link hypotheses about the various distributions to these notions of supply and demand, several expectations will now be presented. If Tibetan Buddhism has spread in the

United States at the initiation of Tibetan Lamas (“the suppliers”), it can be assumed, based on characteristics of the religion which will be discussed in Chapter 3, that it could be because of a political agenda rather than a purely religious one. This political agenda would best be served by proximity to relevant resources, including academic and governmental ones. Grass roots support for the causes behind the political agenda might be useful but would not necessarily require physical manifestations of Tibetan Buddhism. Supply side factors, then, can be assumed to manifest in limited, clustered and strategically significant areas.

Demand for Tibetan Buddhism by Americans as a religious alternative would likely be more widespread. Modern technology increases access to cultural innovations, including religious ones, and so the demand for this new religion could be expected to be spread relatively equally across the extent of the study area. This is particularly so given the very broad definition employed in this study of what constitutes a physical manifestation of the religion, as presented in Chapter 4. Demand side factors, then, can be assumed to lead to a distribution that fairly accurately reflects the underlying population distribution.

8

Based on this framework and these expectations, several hypotheses were derived that might spatially reflect these supply and demand side factors and which also take into account the historical development of the institution of Tibetan Buddhism.

The first hypothesis attempts to identify whether there is some underlying pattern to the distribution of Tibetan Buddhist Centers and therefore that there may be reasons for this pattern.

This hypothesis states

• The TBC locations will not be distributed randomly. It is assumed that either supply

side factors or demand side factors or some combination of both will have influenced

the location of TBCs and that, as a result, the pattern of the locations will not be

random.

The next set of hypotheses attempt to account for supply and demand side factors in terms of the characteristics of Tibetan Buddhism, and its component subdivisions, that could influence its diffusion in the United States. The TBCs being examined in this study can be classified at two distinct levels. The first level is that of the school and the second is the affiliation, each of which is defined and discussed in detail in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, respectively. The school classification is based on the traditional alliance with a monastery located currently or formerly in Tibet. It is relatively abstract, based primarily on beliefs and can reflect the manner in which those beliefs are practiced, for example, as in a monastic community or in a community dominated by lay practitioners. The affiliation classification is somewhat more concrete, in the sense that most of the organizations are legally recognized non-profit entities, but it is also based on beliefs and specific teachings and teachers. Affiliations tend to be based in the United States or in other non-Tibetan places. Both levels of classification account for the products and the provision of services, the supply side factors, to some extent.

9

The hypotheses in this category, based on the assumption that there is a receptive field in the United States for Tibetan Buddhism, are:

• There will be little overall spatial variation between the distribution patterns of the

four schools of Tibetan Buddhism and the distribution pattern for all TBCs, nor,

correspondingly, between each of the four schools themselves. The influence of the

school classification is primarily spiritual and so unlikely to influence location factors

at the individual center level. Further, the spiritual leaders of the schools are located

in monasteries in and represent Tibetan Buddhists dispersed throughout the

world. As such, it is unlikely that any location in the United States would offer any

particular advantage or disadvantage in terms of accessibility.

• There will be significant spatial variation in the distribution patterns of the individual

affiliations of Tibetan Buddhism. Each affiliation has a distinct power structure,

statement of purpose and administrative plan, all of which are bound by practical

considerations. Affiliations are often based on a particular lineage of teachings and

often have a spiritual leader who is more directly involved than the spiritual leader of

a school would be. Affiliations often have leaders who tour the centers, providing

assistance in rituals or teaching. This type of organization may benefit from one type

of distribution, for example a clustered one, over another, such as a nationally

dispersed distribution, in terms of cost or convenience. Also, assuming organizations

depend on members to survive, the affiliations may seek out underserved or untapped

markets.

• There will be significant spatial variation in the distribution patterns of the individual

affiliations within each of the individual schools. As indicated in the previous

10

hypothesis, it is expected that variation in spatial patterns will occur at the affiliation

level of classification. It is also expected that the distribution of TBCs at the school

level of classification will resemble the overall distribution, as stated in the first

hypothesis. Therefore, it is expected that there will be great variation among the

affiliations within each school.

These hypotheses are constructed to explore the factors that potentially influence the distribution patterns of Tibetan Buddhism but they should also allow for conclusions to be made on the broader picture of the diffusion process in general.

Chapter Layout

Chapter 1 has focused on the reason this topic has been chosen for study, the research question and significance of the problem and the hypotheses guiding the research. Chapter 2 presents some fundamental concepts of Tibetan Buddhism, including its place in the Buddhist system and its basic tenets. Chapter 3 examines Tibetan Buddhism within the context of its classification and structure, characteristics described in geography of religion literature as influential to the diffusion and evolution of a religious system. The next chapter, Chapter 4, describes the methodology and statistical procedures employed, the results of which are presented in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 contains an analysis of the results and a determination on the legitimacy of each hypothesis. The final chapter, Chapter 7, presents some conclusions about the study as well as ideas for future research.

11

2. Tibetan Buddhism

This chapter places Tibetan Buddhism within the larger Buddhist religious system and describes some of the basic tenets of Tibetan Buddhism. The four schools of Tibetan Buddhism are described

Tibetan Buddhism within the Buddhist System

The Buddhist religion is divided into three major vehicles or traditions, each based on a set of teachings given by the Buddha. The three vehicles, , and , each became popular at different times and in different locations.

Theravada Buddhism, also known as or ‘the Lesser Vehicle,’ flourished initially in India in the 1st Century BCE. This tradition presents a practical path to liberation from suffering, which is considered a real, rather than philosophical phenomenon. According to this tradition, only monks can achieve enlightenment, and they are guided through a disciplinary set of rules. The teachings of the Theravada tradition are based on the , words attributed directly to Buddha, which are considered the Buddha’s original and pure teachings. Practice of this tradition is primarily through the eightfold path, a series of instructions for achieving enlightenment, based on the final of the , which states that there is a means by which suffering can end. The goal of this tradition is individual enlightenment. Buddha is considered a historical man, not a transcendental being. Theravada is commonly found in

Southern Asian countries such as Sri Lanka, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Myanmar.

Mahayana Buddhism, ‘the Greater Vehicle,’ developed in the 1st Century CE and is based on the ideal, in which an individual seeks to achieve enlightenment for the sake of all other beings, rather than for personal liberation. The teachings of this tradition are similar to those of the Theravada and are found in the Sutras but different aspects of these teachings are

12

emphasized. , the notion that Buddha-nature is immanent in all beings, is more

important to this tradition than the notion of a historical man, Buddha. This tradition developed

in India and spread to Tibet, China, Korea and Japan.

Vajrayana Buddhism, ‘the Diamond Vehicle,’ developed in northern India around the 6th

Century CE. It developed out of the teachings of the Mahayana but went on to incorporate psychological practices based on highly developed rituals. Vajrayana spread to China, Japan and

Tibet. It is also referred to as ‘Esoteric’ or ‘Tantric’ Buddhism, in reference to the mystical teachings upon which it is based, the , and in the past few centuries it has been practiced exclusively in Tibet and some parts of Mongolia, and Bhutan. Few other forms of

Vajrayana continue to be practiced; it essentially evolved into Tibetan Buddhism and the details of this religion will be discussed below and in the next chapter.

Tibetan Buddhist Beliefs

Before discussing any other characteristics of Tibetan Buddhism it may be useful to

describe some of the basic beliefs. Identifying the beliefs of Tibetan Buddhism at the outset is

important because it establishes immediately a sense of how foreign the religion is in contrast to

typical American culture and religions and therefore how potentially unlikely it is to diffuse

widely in the United States.

Like other forms of Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism denies the existence of the concept of

“soul” (Nattier, 1998). In contrast to Theravada Buddhism which is atheistic, Tibetan Buddhism

is polytheistic and recognizes the existence of an entire pantheon of protector gods and

goddesses, as well as the presence of demons and spirits. The Dalai Lama is considered an

embodiment of the god Chenrezig. The concept of reincarnation is essential to both Tibetan

Buddhist belief and to the structure of Tibetan Buddhist society (Dorjee, 2005). Reincarnation

13

provides the setting within which , a non-mutable energy, can function. Lavine (1998) emphasizes the difficulty that the average, well-educated American has in accepting these beliefs.

Tibetan Buddhist practice is distinct from other forms of Buddhist practice primarily because it espouses the notion that enlightenment is achieved through the transmutation of the of passion, aggression and ignorance directly into wisdom, rather than through the destruction of the poisons (Kornman, 1998). The tools used to complete the transmutation are found in the tantric texts and the texts are believed by Tibetans to be both psychologically and magically effective, as well as extremely dangerous and destructive if misused (Kornman, 1998).

Tibetan Buddhism also offers to the practitioner, unlike other forms of Buddhism, the possibility to achieve enlightenment and total liberation from the cyclical nature of existence within one lifetime.

Tibetan Buddhism’s allure in the United States may be helped as much as hurt by its mystical basis. Baumann (2002) states that “it is the exoticism and the motive to re-enchant the world , perceived as cold, rational, and (in Max Weber’s words) deprived of all mystique that attracts Westerners” to Buddhism. Considered the ‘Quick Path to Enlightenment’ because enlightenment can be achieved within one lifetime, with promises of potential danger and exotic experiences, Tibetan Buddhism may be the most appealing to those seeking a new and exciting path. At the same time, however, its mysticism may exclude a large portion of the American population from considering it a valid religious system.

The next chapter examines Tibetan Buddhism in more detail, but it does so within a context of two fundamental elements of the geography of religion: classification and structure.

14

3. Characteristics of Tibetan Buddhism

In Geography of Religion (1967), David Sopher identified two characteristics of religious systems that are essential to the evolutionary processes, such as diffusion or expansion, in which religious systems may be involved; they are classification and structure. This study uses those characteristics to contextualize the research as well as to structure this chapter.

Classification

Sopher (1967) classifies religious systems into two broad categories, universalizing and ethnic, and states that the characteristics upon which these categorizations are made have implications for the development, growth and diffusion of religious systems. Tibetan Buddhism, particularly in light of its diffusion to and throughout the United States, is not easily defined according to this classification system and this leads to uncertainty about its processes. In this section, the two categories will be described and then Tibetan Buddhism will be examined within this context.

Universalizing systems such as , Buddhism and are religions that are considered proper for and open to all people. These systems inherently include a method or technique for simple conversion to ensure the rapid expansion of the system (Sopher, 1967).

This conversion method usually involves individual symbolic acts of commitment rather than elaborate communal displays (Park, 1994). Park (1994) states that universalizing systems, with their expansionist agenda, command believers, to varying degrees, to share their beliefs through various missionary activities.

Ethnic religious systems, conversely, do not seek converts. They are almost exclusively identified with a particular tribal or ethnic group (Park, 1994). Sopher (1967) identifies a complex ethnic religious system, peculiar to a nation or state, so enmeshed in place that it

15

reflects the economic and political organization of the place. Admittance to these ethnic

religions occurs only through naturalization or acculturation and members do not recruit.

Though seemingly static categories, universal and ethnic systems are subject to

modification over time. In fact, each of the major universalizing religions began as local ethnic

religions that for some reason have “broken through the restrictions of a special relationship to

place or particular social group” (Sopher, 1967). In the other direction, universalizing systems

are subject to isolating influences that threaten to localize them. Systems such as Christianity

and Buddhism “have been continually threatened by local ethnicizing processes particularly in

their spatial organization” (Sopher, 1967). Sopher (1967) describes the process by which

“subsystems of the universalizing religions may acquire an increasingly ethnic character…under

conditions of continuing geographic isolation or loss of internal dynamism.”

Tibetan Buddhism may be an example of a religious system that has moved more than

once along the classification continuum.

Classification of Tibetan Buddhism

The separate branches of Buddhism have normally functioned as independent universalizing systems (Sopher, 1967). As Buddhism spread, it developed many regional forms, most of which were acculturated enough to survive but not enough to create a separate identity

(Park, 1994). Unlike the majority of these regional forms, Tibetan Buddhism evolved into what may be considered an ethnic or “quasi-ethnic” subsystem of the universalizing Buddhist system.

The Tibetan nation developed as a theocracy based on Buddhism and this process reinforced the geographically defined differences, ultimately transforming that specific form of Buddhism into an ethnic system (Sopher, 1967). A detailed account of the process by which Tibetan Buddhism evolved into a separate branch of Buddhism will be described next.

16

Tibetan Buddhism and Tibet

The term ‘Tibet’ was first used to refer to the geographic area where people shared a belief in this distinct form of Buddhism. The terms ‘Tibetan’ and ‘Non-Tibetan’ were used originally as religious distinctions, and made no reference to place of birth or nationality (Norbu,

1992).

As Tibet became an institutionalized political unit, it maintained its identity as a religious land based on and legitimized by religion, through the concepts of chos srid gnyis idan, a form of

government that incorporates both the religious and secular, and chos rgyal, which identifies the

king of the nation as the protector and patron of the religion (Kolas, 1996). In modern history,

the unity of the religious and the political is expressed in symbols such as the national flag and in

the national leader, the Dalai Lama. Nicholas (1977, as quoted in Kolas, 1996) points out that

the dichotomy between the political and the religious is a western ideal that was not a part of

Tibetan history.

Though Buddhism was not introduced to the area that became Tibet until the first half of

the 7th century by the king Songtsän Gampo, it became, in retrospect, part of the national myths

of origin which claim that the Tibetan people are descendants of the Buddhist protector god

Chenrezig and the Buddhist goddess .

Tibetan Buddhism pervades the Tibetan culture as much as it does the political structure.

The cultural identity is derived from Tibetan Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism influences all

aspects of life including language, literature, arts and architecture (Shakabpa, 1967; Norbu, 1985;

Dorjee, 2005). Tibetan literature is considered one of the great Asian literary traditions in terms

of size and range of influence and it is almost entirely Buddhist (Thurman, 1995; Dorjee, 2005).

17

This relationship between Tibetan Buddhism and Tibetan identity is significant to the spread of Buddhism to the United States for three reasons. First, the political turmoil and ultimate loss of sovereignty of the nation of Tibet in the mid-20th century at the hands of communist China provided the impetus for the major transmission of Tibetan Buddhist beliefs beyond Tibet. Second, it has dictated the focus of this transmission towards the preservation of the traditional form of the religion, rather than an acculturated form. Finally, it raises questions about why it spread to the extent that it did in the United States, manifesting itself in over 600 locations. The next section examines the process by which Tibetan Buddhism arrived in the

United States and spread throughout. Understanding this process, unique from all other Buddhist forms, is essential to understanding the difficulty in accurately characterizing Tibetan Buddhism in the United States.

Transmission of Tibetan Buddhism to the United States

Thousands of Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, fled from Tibet and in 1959 a Tibetan government-in-exile was established with the following priorities: care for Tibetan refugees; provide education and training for Tibetan children; preserve the Tibetan culture, religion and language; and maintain the cultural and national identity (Thurman, 2005). For the first time,

Tibetan Buddhism was spread beyond the borders of Tibet on a massive scale. While the majority of monasteries and government offices were reestablished in India, many lamas traveled to western nations to seek the resources and support available there.

The mass transmission of Tibetan Buddhism to the United States was different from the transmission of other forms of Buddhism both in its speed and its motivation. Tibetan Buddhism was known, studied and practiced in the United States, as in other Western nations, on a small scale prior to the invasion of Tibet. However, most scholars agree, it was the sudden and brutal

18

campaign to destroy the Tibetan culture, particularly through the destruction of temples, monasteries and religious texts, that led to the relatively rapid proliferation of Tibetan Buddhism

(Lavine, 1998; Seager, 1999) . Because it was essentially lifted from Tibet and transplanted without any modernization process, as happened in some forms of Japanese Buddhism before they were carried to America, much of the religious activity had and continues to have a traditional, conservative slant (Seager, 1999). Because there was no process of assimilation through an ethnic community or through time, typically non-western beliefs and practices were thrust in their entirety into the American context (Kornman, 1998). In other words, “elements of an entire civilization that was suddenly shattered were selectively transplanted into the vastly different society and culture of the United States” (Seager, 1999). As a result, Tibetan

Buddhism, more than any other branch in the United States, retains much of its historical character.

Seager (1999) describes three forces, all of which emerged in the 1960s and continue into the present, that established Tibetan Buddhism in the United States: the preservation and dissemination of Tibetan texts; the establishment of an “extensive network of practice centers by lamas and students”; and the political activities of the Campaign for Free Tibet.

The first two forces began in the United States in the mid- to late 1960s, almost a decade after the arrival of the first lamas in the late 1950s. Tibetan lamas, upon arriving in the United

States often sought teaching positions at universities, in religious studies or language departments (Lavine, 1998). The lamas also encouraged their Tibetan students to seek advanced academic degrees in fields related to Buddhism and Tibet and to pursue jobs in academia upon their arrival in the United States (Seager, 1999). Once installed in academic positions, the primary concern of these first Tibetan lamas and their students was the preservation of Tibetan

19

texts by copying and translating them. By the 1970s, publishers began distributing the Tibetan

Buddhist texts on the open market and eventually publishing houses developed, such as Snow

Lion and Shambhala Publications, devoted solely to Tibetan Buddhist material. This is significant in the development of the Tibetan Buddhist landscape for several reasons. First, it established Tibetan Buddhism as an intellectual tradition in the United States and this gave it the necessary to counter the previously held American that Tibetan Buddhism, because of its incorporation of mystical beliefs and practices, was a corrupt form of the (Seager,

1999). Second, it set the stage for the development of more and larger Asian/ programs in American universities; third, it introduced to the West for the first time the essential texts of Tibetan Buddhism.

While preserving the texts and making them accessible to interested parties, the large scale translation and publication also made public for the first time in centuries some of the secret teachings previously known only to the most advanced lamas. Because Tibetan Buddhists believe in the mind-altering capabilities of some of these texts, the texts were presented to students only after they had achieved a certain level of advanced knowledge, usually the result of years of study. The tools of Tibetan Buddhism, if used improperly, are considered dangerous.

Historically, the dissemination of texts to students at the proper time was one of the primary roles of the lama. Tibetan Buddhism was also known as “Esoteric Buddhism” because the majority of its advanced texts were secret (Kornman, 1988). As a result of the complete accessibility to the texts in the United States, the long-term, faith-based relationship between teacher and student, upon which the solidity of each lineage was based, was potentially altered.

The hierarchy of knowledge that guided Tibetan Buddhist studies and practice for centuries was

20

no longer the only possible route to enlightenment and this forced the Tibetan Buddhist structure in the United States to respond.

The establishment of permanent practice centers by Tibetan lamas began in earnest in the

1970s with an urgency brought on by the realization that the political situation in Tibet was not getting better and by the continued destruction of Tibetan cultural symbols (Lavine, 1998). The process by which the Tibetan Buddhist centers were established, according to Seager (1999), was similar to the process in American in the 1950s and 1960s. Lamas, often at the invitation of academics, would present dharma talks to any interested parties. As interest grew, it became necessary to first rent spaces in which to give the talks and then ultimately to purchase permanent spaces. Whether the dire political situation led directly to a Buddhist missionary agenda to convert Americans and, if so, whether this conversion was religiously or politically motivated, or whether it merely provided the impetus for the movement of Tibetan Buddhism and the subsequent unintentional interest on the part of Americans are interesting but unanswered questions (Lavine, 1998; Obadia, 2001). Regardless of the reasons, a network of practice centers was established by Tibetan lamas for the use of almost exclusively American practitioners.

Political support for Tibet, in existence in various forms from student groups to human rights activists to cultural centers and art galleries, became a part of the mainstream American popular culture in the 1990s due to the attention the political group “Campaign for a Free Tibet” received from both the American film and music industries. Hollywood actor Richard Gere’s friendship with the Dalai Lama, the release of movies such as Kundun and Seven Years in Tibet, the hip-hop recording of the by the Beastie Boys and their organization of the

Concerts for a Free Tibet all brought unprecedented attention to Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism.

21

The most popular student organization, Students for a Free Tibet, grew from 45 chapters in 1994 to 350 chapters in 1997 by harnessing the wave of activism begun by the movement to end apartheid in the 1980s (Seager, 1999). Seager (1999) also compares this round of attention and popular support to that provided by the Beat Poets, Allan Watts and D.T. Suzuki for Zen

Buddhism in the 1950s, propelling it to the national attention. He describes this melding of ancient Asian religion to pop culture as “a peculiarly American moment in the history of the cross-cultural translation of the dharma” (Seager, 1999). The political campaign raised awareness of all things Tibetan and, though for the most part, it’s activities and agenda remained separate from the activities and agenda of the religious community, it did inevitably provide a great deal of free advertising for Tibetan Buddhism in the American religious market.

Structure

Structure, or the way in which a religious system is organized to convey rituals, order or authority, is the second influential characteristic identified by Sopher (1967). In this section, first the main structural components of Tibetan Buddhism, the four schools, are described in detail. Next, the evolution of the Tibetan Buddhist structure as it developed in Tibet and then moved to and throughout the United States is described. Finally, the American practitioners of

Tibetan Buddhism, who are being integrated into the Tibetan Buddhist structure as the religion grows in the United States, are described.

Four Schools

The first and main organizational division in Tibetan Buddhism is the school. There are four current schools which are a result of an evolutionary process in which various doctrines, methods and practices have coalesced into formal, traditional structures and which has at various times included as many as six distinct schools (Coleman, 1993; Thurman, 1995). Each of the

22

traditions shares the same goal of developing “an enlightened insight into the nature of mind and phenomena, based on the compassionate motivation to benefit all beings” (Coleman, 1993).

Thurman (1995) claims that there is no essential differences between the four schools and that they agree upon the following basic precepts and foundations: that Shakyamuni is the main

Buddha; that a Buddha is a superhuman, super-divine being that has transformed from a human state into an omniscient one; that there are and have been many Buddhas on earth; and that each cycle of human life is an opportunity to join the state of Buddhahood. Other features common to all of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism are the inclusion of both lay and monastic traditions; the combined study and use of Sutras, discourses derived directly from the Buddha, and Tantras, systems of activity that describe spiritual development in terms of the ground (practitioner), the path () and the fruit (the enlightened state); the reliance on meditation techniques; the use of common rituals and artistic expressions; and the (lineage) system of reincarnation by which of lamas are maintained (Thurman, 2005).

Differences between the schools are derived from the distinct methods prescribed for achieving the goal of Buddhahood (Thurman, 1995). These methods are historically grounded, passed unbroken from generation to generation, through distinct lines of oral, literary and artistic expressions (Coleman, 1993). In addition to the association with different methods, each lineage is also associated with different Buddhas, (beings who work for the enlightenment of other beings), demon protectors and guardian spirits (Seager, 1999).

The oldest of the four current schools, the Nyingma, whose name translates to “school of the ancients”, was formally established in the 15th century, though its teachings were first introduced to Tibet in the 8th century and formally institutionalized in the 11th century. This school, the most thoroughly mixed with Bon (see page 22), is also the most mystical, relying on

23

“magical spells, special hand gestures and mystical diagrams” (Buddhanet.net, 2006). The

supreme doctrine of this school, considered to be among the most secretive of Buddha, is the

Dzogchen, a Tibetan name meaning “great perfection” and referring to the concept that no other

doctrine is more sublime or more complete (Shambhala, 1991). The Nyingma school had the

second largest population of practitioners in Tibet. Since the communist invasion of Tibet, many

of the Nyingma monasteries have been rebuilt in Tibet while others have established monasteries

in India, Nepal and Bhutan.

The Gelug school, the largest community in Tibet, was the most recent school to be

established. The name of the school means “school of the virtuous” and it was established by

Tsong-kha-pa in the 13th century as a reform movement. Emphasis is placed on strict monastic discipline and the importance of the bodhisattva. This school also places emphasis on intellectual analysis and scholarship, with a focus on training in debate. The Gelug tradition became entrenched in Tibetan politics in the 17th century when the Dalai Lama, a high ranking lama in the Gelug school, was established as the Tibetan head of state. All of the major Gelug monasteries and academies have been rebuilt in India.

The Kagyu school, whose name means “oral transmission lineage”, was established in

Tibet in the 11th century and places strong emphasis on the direct transmission of instruction from a teacher to a student. One feature of this school is that before the teachings are transmitted, the teacher clears away ‘defects’ related to intellectual understanding and experience

(Coleman, 1993). The main doctrine of the school is the , which emphasizes the realization of shunyata (emptiness), freedom from samsara (the cyclical nature of existence) and

the inseparability of shunyata and samsara. The Mahamudra pertains to three aspects of

practice: view, mediation and action. Like the Nyingma school, many of the Kagyu monasteries

24

have been rebuilt in Tibet or relocated to India, Nepal and Bhutan. The Kagyu school was the

second smallest in Tibet in terms of number of practitioners. , the lama who

brought the Sakya school from India to Tibet, had prophesized in the 11th century that the Kagyu

school would eventually spread throughout the world.

The fourth school, Sakya, was the smallest community in Tibet. It was founded in 1073

by the Khon family to follow a set of teachings called . These teachings emphasize the

non-differentiation between samsara and (extinction or enlightenment) and between luminosity and emptiness (Coleman, 1993). Lamdre teachings are unique also in that they combine exoteric texts. This school, whose name means “gray earth” and comes from the description of the location of the first monastery, has the distinction of being closely intertwined with each of the three other schools, overlapping with each on several aspects (Coleman, 1993).

There are three main lineages within the Sakya school: Sakya, Ngorpa, and Tsaka. Most of the

Sakya monasteries have been rebuilt in India and Nepal.

Bon, a shamanic religion indigenous to Tibet, is sometimes considered a fifth school of

Tibetan Buddhism. The current Tibetan Government-in-exile recognizes Bon as a school, though the reasons for this may be more politically based than religiously. Most scholars, based on historical texts and lineages, consider Bon to be the religious foundation upon which the other four traditional schools are based (Thurman, 1995). Bon continued to be practiced in Tibet, influencing and being influenced by the Buddhist teachings, and it shares many of the same texts found in the Nyingma school. Though there are a few Bon oriented practice centers in the

United States, because it is not a traditional school, Bon is not included in this study.

Tibetan Buddhism is further divisible into distinct lineages, each of which is based upon the transmission of particular texts, teachings or spiritual leaders. These lineages are often

25

formalized into distinct groups who practice together, with rituals and teachings administered by a specific teacher. The lineages are too numerous to describe individually. For the purpose of this study, lineages will be accounted for in terms of the affiliation organizations, and those organizations relevant to the study of Tibetan Buddhists in the United States will be described in

Chapter 4. The next section examines the development of the Tibetan Buddhist structure.

In Tibet

In Tibet, schools and lineages were often affiliated with one of the major monasteries.

There was very little interaction between schools and lineages and one often practiced the school or lineage that was geographically closest. There was no central authority uniting or governing the schools and lineages and “remoteness of the monasteries, huge distances between them and difficulties in travel and communication have reinforced the tendency towards decentralization”

(Thurman, 2005). Though there was no central authority, there was a strong hierarchical structure among the branches. In fact, Tibetan Buddhism differs from the majority of Oriental religions, and particularly from the other branches of Buddhism, because it has a highly developed, rigid hierarchy and it resulted, most likely, from the ethnicizing process.

“An elaborate vertical and territorial hierarchy occurs in certain ethnicized or segmented

religions, apparently as a defense mechanism against change or competition form more

powerful religious systems” (Sopher, 1967 p.63).

The individual hierarchical structures are what united to form what it known as Tibetan

Buddhism.

In the United States

The distinction between the various schools and lineages in Tibetan Buddhism has remained in tact in religious practice in the United States, though the distinct groups are united

26

now more than ever by the political situation and their representation in the Tibetan Government- in-exile (Seager, 1999). In the United States there does exist a relatively new conception of a

‘Tibet’ and a ‘Tibetan Buddhism’ unified under the leadership of the Dalai Lama that did not exist prior to the threat of cultural extinction (Houston and Wright, 2003). Historically, Tibetan

Buddhism referred to all of the disparate lineages that developed within Tibet and distinguished

Tibetans from non-Tibetans but it never implied any organizational unity. In the United States, the term is used popularly to represent all Tibetan Buddhists. What this generalized term masks however, is a Tibetan Buddhism described as the most internally diverse branch of Buddhism in terms of “views, meditative practices and lifestyles” in the United States (Wallace, 2002) .

Seager (1999) describes the Tibetan Buddhist landscape as “an extensive web or network of monasteries, temples and centers cross cut by lines of affiliation that are often difficult to trace clearly” and alternately as “a patchwork of small sub-communities often quite separate from each other.”

There is virtually no horizontal interaction among different Tibetan Buddhist groups in the United States. Numrich (2000) found that in Chicago centers of the same lineage would sometimes cooperate to bring a foreign lama to town but that more often than not there was no interaction. A significant result of the lack of horizontal interaction is the proliferation of

Buddhist centers in certain areas (Numrich, 2000).

The vertical affiliation of Tibetan Buddhist centers in the United States is strong.

Numrich (2000) found that two out of three Buddhists groups in Chicago were “affiliated with extra-local networks specific to religious identity” and that these affiliates, both national and international, “exerted a certain amount of institutional authority over the local affiliates.” It is not uncommon for a center to be more aware of happenings in its parent monastery in India than

27

in its local neighbors’ activities (Seager, 1999). This vertical interaction provides a hierarchical structure of authority as well as a connection to the diasporic Tibetan community (Seager 1999;

Houston and Wright, 2003).

Authority Structure in the United States

As noted, the Dalai Lama serves as the symbolic head of Tibetan Buddhism but his power is more conceptual than practical. With no central organization, each monastery acts independently in affairs such as monastic ordination and lineage propagation. Senior lamas, often residing in the monasteries (re-established in India) or in established affiliate headquarters in other parts of the world, supervise the administrative decisions.

In Tibet, lamas in monasteries were sustained primarily by the community of monks and nuns who perpetuated a monastic tradition; in the United States they are sustained primarily by

American lay people with various levels of commitment to Buddhist practice (Seager, 1999).

This “inverted style of monasticism,” characterized by the lack of a large monastic community, as Lavine (1998) describes it, has altered the traditional hierarchical structure of power in the

Tibetan Buddhist community.

Though relatively few Tibetan lamas reside permanently in the United States they are essential to the practice of Tibetan Buddhism there (Seager, 1999). In order to maintain the traditional sacredness of Tibetan Buddhism and at the same time allow for its success in the

American culture, many Tibetan lamas enacted a process by which they would consecrate each practice center that was established in their lineage, thus securing the sanctity of the center and establishing its place in the hierarchy, and then they would turn control of the center over to the

American practitioners (Lavine, 1998). Once the students become responsible for the maintenance upkeep and administration of the centers, according to Lavine (1998), this leads to

28

the creation of “boards of directors which determine the vision and policies for the center” and which “always involves fund-raising.”

As Tibetan Buddhism becomes more and more popular and as little progress is made in reestablishing Tibet as an independent nation, Tibetan lamas have made even greater efforts to integrate into the American landscape. In addition to their role in the administrative hierarchy,

Americans are now being admitted into the hierarchy of knowledge through the “freer use of traditional Tibetan titles for religious specialists” in the American context (Lavine, 1998). Even more significant is the recognition of reincarnations of Tibetan lamas in Westerners (Lavine,

1998). The continuation of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, and similarly the Tibetan culture, at least through its rituals and practice, is ensured through the integration of Americans into the very structure of it, especially because of the strict traditional nature of the initial diffusion.

Because the American practitioner is becoming so important to the both the growth and structure of Tibetan Buddhism in the United States, the next section will examine the characteristics of these practitioners.

Tibetan Buddhist Practitioners

The basic unit of Tibetan Buddhist practice is the individual practitioner. Because there is virtually no literature focused specifically on defining who practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism are, it is necessary to draw from the larger body of literature on general Buddhists in the United

States and then describe the similarities and differences. Most scholarship on Buddhist practitioners in America is based on the simple question “Who is a Buddhist?”

Defining Buddhists

Common to most academic discussion of religious adherence regardless of denomination, most Buddhist literature begins by attempting to define how one comes to be defined as a

29

Buddhist. There is no standardized definition regarding practice or membership among Buddhist organizations in the United States (Nattier, 1998; Tweed, 1999; Numrich, 2000). Stark and

Bainbridge (2002) describe three types of Western practitioner: members of an audience for a

Buddhist teacher, those who enter into a student/teacher relationship and those who have a self conscious sense of conversion and who refer to themselves as Buddhist. Charles Prebish (1999) states that in many Buddhist Asian countries one is determined a Buddhist if one has taken the

Vows of in which one vows to honor the Buddha, the Buddhist teachings and the

Buddhist community, but that this informal definition is not sufficient in the United States or other countries where there are many religious options. Buddhism as an institution has no concept of chosen people and thus offers no barrier to conversion (Misra, 2003). At the same time, though, there is no standard set of requirements to say when one has converted. Tibetan

Buddhism, in fact, is the only tradition that at a certain level requires a conversion process

(Obadia, 2001). Even this process, however, as Tibetan Buddhism adapts to the American culture, is not without inconsistency. Rarely do Tibetan monks pressure students to convert or become committed members in any way (Lavine 1998). Seager describes the continuum along which one can engage in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition in the United States:

Some are casual visitors to culture and practice centers, where they partake of the spiritual aura of Tibetan Buddhism. Others take refuge and identify themselves with the community but limit their activities to basic meditative practices. Many hold Tibetan Lamas in the highest regard and find being in their presence both inspiring and edifying, a lay devotional attitude with a long history in Tibet. The disciplined core of the community in this country, however, is made up of those students and teachers who make a serious and sustained commitment to meditation…(Seager, 1999 p.128-9).

Another factor polluting the definition of who is a Buddhist is the fact that Buddhism is not an exclusivist religion and many Buddhists also claim membership in other religions.

30

Typologies of Buddhists

The literature attempting to define who is a Buddhist overwhelmingly focuses on identifying typologies, particularly those that are able to deal with issue such as: how one became a Buddhist, one’s nationality or ethnicity, and the role Buddhism plays in one’s life.

Prebish (1979) proposed the initial dichotomy between ‘Asians’ and ‘White’ to distinguish between relocated Asians and American converts but this dichotomy failed to account for many nuances, including racial diversity of Americans and 2nd and 3rd generation Asians. Nattier

(1998), in response to this limitation, proposed a 3 part typology that consisted of: ‘Elite’ (or

Import), ‘Evangelical’ (or Export) and ‘Ethnic’ Buddhists. Membership in a category is determined by how one came to be a Buddhist in the US: at the initiative of the convert who has the social and financial resources to seek a new spirituality, as a result of missionary activity on the part of the spiritual provider or as an immigrant who brought his religion with him (Nattier,

1998). Tweed (1999) proposed a distinction between practitioners who inherit Buddhism and those who choose it. Seager (1999) proposed a system similar to the initial dichotomy developed by Prebish, but added to it by assuring that it could account for variations within the immigrant group by distinguishing between immigrants from the initial wave of migration in the 1950s and from fourth and fifth generation Asian Americans. Prebish (2002) later redefined his categories of ‘Asian’ and ‘White’ to ‘traditionalist’ and ‘modernist.’ Numrich (1998) attempts to define

Buddhists with sociological determinants that focus on the function of Buddhism in one’s life and creates two categories: ‘Culture’ in which Buddhism serves a larger cultural purpose and

‘Convert’ where one chooses to practice Buddhism as a religion.

With only approximately 10,000 ethnic Tibetans in the United States, most of who arrived well after the establishment of a significant network of Tibetan Buddhist practice centers,

31

the discussions of the major dichotomy between Americans and immigrants is not particularly

relevant. By focusing on the descriptions of American practitioners of Buddhism, however,

some insight into American practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism may be found.

Characteristics of American Buddhists

Reflecting the ambiguity in even defining or identifying the group of American

Buddhists, Seager (1999) claims that there is no “Buddhist type” in America but instead that practitioners come from “a wide range of racial and ethnic backgrounds, and there are white collar Buddhists; Buddhist cab drivers, mechanics and chefs; and Buddhist artists and musicians”.

Based primarily on the premise that exploring alternative religions or spiritualities requires some degree of social and financial capital, may authors overwhelmingly agree that

American practitioners can be defined by their socioeconomic status. Because Tibetan Buddhism arrived in the United States essentially in tact, including all of the shamanic and mystical elements it acquired from the Bon religion as well as its practices of creative visualization, , and transmutation of energy, it may not be as accessible to the general public.

Nattier (1998) describes practitioners as middle-class or above with available money and leisure time. Prebish (1998) describes a Buddhist subculture that is “literate, urban, upwardly mobile, perhaps even elite in its life orientation.” In addition to this generalization, Prebish delineates several subgroups of American practitioners including: individuals from a Jewish background,

African Americans and people attracted to the “language of the wellness movement.” Baumann

(2002) describes a group that is “well educated, urban and economically well-off” many of whom have professions such as “teachers, doctors, journalists, lawyers, publishers, employers, translators, artists and the like” (p. 100). Wuthnow and Hackett (2003) describe non-Asian

32

Buddhists as more likely to earn high incomes and to be politically knowledgeable, both results of higher levels of educational attainment. Phillips and Aarons (2005) describe the need for

“cultural capital” in addition to financial to pursue a course of spiritual cultivation in the absence of community leaders.

The descriptions of and information available about Tibetan Buddhist practitioners are, at this point in time, both vague and ambiguous. However, it is important because Americans are becoming increasingly interwoven into the Tibetan Buddhist fabric.

33

4. Methodology

The goal of this study is to describe and explain the spatial variation in the locations of

Tibetan Buddhist Centers in the United States. In order to achieve this goal, the appropriate data was collected and a GIS was created within which statistical procedures were performed. Each of these processes is described in this chapter, as well as a definition of the unit of analysis, the

TBC, and the relevant affiliate organizations.

Unit of analysis - Tibetan Buddhist Centers

The Tibetan Buddhist Centers (TBC) was chosen as the unit of analysis for this study because it represents a collective, formalized interest in Tibetan Buddhism. As was discussed in

Chapter 3, there is a great deal of ambiguity in defining or even identifying who a practicing

Tibetan Buddhist is. Though there are ritualistic conversion processes, there is neither a formal commitment nor any formal requirements for practicing Tibetan Buddhism. It can be assumed that a level of stability greater than that of the individual is inherent to a physical practice center, defined at this point as a ‘space for meeting for meditation, teaching or ritual purposes,’ because, while individual commitment and practice may waver, a center exists as long as a certain (though as of yet undefined) threshold of collective interests exists within a certain (also currently undefined) area. As long as one or more people are interested enough in practice to manifest it in a physical space and then maintain that physical space, a center can exist.

No differentiation was made between regular practice spaces and retreat spaces, between urban and rural centers, nor between meditation centers and teaching centers. For the scale and purpose of this study, with the goal of identifying where Tibetan Buddhism has made an imprint in the United States, these divisions are unnecessary.

34

There are no formal requirements as to what physical characteristics a practice center

must have. As a result, centers can range from a room in a private residence to a converted

commercial space to a specially built structure. Figures 4.1-4.12 are images of the exteriors and

interiors of some examples of Tibetan Buddhist practice centers in the United States.

Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2

Source: www.ganden.org Source: www.shambhala.org

Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4

Source: www.shambhala.org Source: www.shambhala.org

35

Figure 4.5 Figure 4.6

Source: www.kadampa.org Source: www.dzogchen.org

Figure 4.7 Figure 4.8

Source: www.emahofoundation.org Source: www.maitrip.org

Figure 4.9 Figure 4.10

Source: www.matiripa.org Source: www.kdk.org

36

Figure 4.11 Figure 4.12

Source: www.maitrip.org Source: www.palyul.org

There are some elements that are commonly found in Tibetan Buddhist practice spaces, though, again, there are no formal requirements. A practice center is often richly decorated in vivid colors to indicate the vibrancy of life and usually contains on altar. Among the elements found on a proper altar are representations of the Buddha as three elements: enlightened body, speech and mind. These three elements serve to remind the student of the means by which he or she will benefit other beings and are usually represented as a statue or photo, a scripture or text and a , a type of monument, respectively. bowls, butter lamps, candles and , images painted on linen to represent teachings or Buddhas, are also often found on an altar.

There are some types of practices and rituals that are commonly performed in practice centers that may lend to practical considerations such as a minimal space requirements or preferred arrangements or orientations. Among the reasons for which a practice center is used are: to teach meditation, to present teachings, to present empowerment rituals, to provide quiet space, to provide retreats, to provide medical consultations, to do initiations, to provide religious debate forums, and to provide space for meditation (Morreale, 1998). None of these activities

37

necessarily dictates a specific form that a center must take and thus there is great variation in

what can constitute a practice center.

The next section examines the organizations, each usually representing a particular

lineage, of which the individual TBCs included in this study might be affiliate members.

Affiliations in the United States

Because these vertical affiliations are hypothesized to play such a significant role in the location of TBCs in the United States, it may be useful to examine briefly each of the organizations represented in this study. No contact was made with any of these organizations and only information obtained on the official website of each organization is presented. For this reason, the amount of relevant information for each organization may vary. The information included refers to mission and purpose statements and purposely excludes excessive details about particular textual or spiritual lineages, which are less relevant to the purpose of the study. Table

4.1 provides a summary of affiliation information.

TABLE 4.1 SCHOOL AFFILIATION # OF DATE MEMBER ESTABLISHE CENTERS D Gelug Foundation for the Preservation of the 28 1975 Mahayana Tradition (FPMT) Gelug Gaden for the West 3 1976 Gelug Jewel Heart 5 1989 Gelug Dagom Gaden Tensung Ling (DGTL) 3 1996 Gelug (NKT) 42 n/a Gelug Non-affiliated 65 n/a Kagyu Diamond Way 29 1994 Kagyu Drikung Kagyu 26 n/a Kagyu Emaho Foundation 2 2003 Kagyu Kagyu Droden Kunchab (KDK) 8 1974 Kagyu Karma Triyana (KTD) 88 n/a Kagyu Shambhala 89 n/a Kagyu Non-affiliated 46 n/a Nyingma Aro Ter 3 1977 Nyingma Chagdud Gonpa 28 1983 Nyingma Dzogchen 7 n/a

38

Nyingma Palyul 10 n/a Nyingma Buddhist Center (PBC) 15 1989 Nyingma Rigpa 15 1989 Nyingma Non-affiliated 52 n/a Sakya Tsechen Kunchab Ling (TKL) 2 2000 Sakya Vikramasila 6 1989 Sakya Non-affiliated 10 n/a

See Appendix B for information obtained from the website of each affiliation related to each affiliation’s establishment and development in the United States.

The affiliations included in this study vary along several dimensions, including size, extent and mission, and each of these aspects potentially has implications for the overall distribution of Tibetan Buddhist Centers being studied.

The next section describes the process by which the data was collected and used in a GIS.

Data Collection – TBC Data

All of the techniques used in this study rely on the development of a geocoded database of Tibetan Buddhist Centers (TBC). There is no comprehensive source that lists all Tibetan

Buddhist centers so one had to be created by combining and cross referencing several sources.

The decision was made to use an internet based source because of the knowledge that centers change relatively rapidly, in terms of opening and closing or relocating, and an internet database potentially has the capacity to be updated relatively frequently. Knowledge of the potential for quick change comes from personal observation of Buddhist Centers in the Cincinnati area.

There are a few published guides, such as Buddhist America Centers, Retreats, Practices

(1988) by Don Morreale and A Handbook of Tibetan Culture A Guide to Tibetan Centres and

Resources throughout the World (1993) edited by Graham Coleman. Useful for cross- referencing, published sources can quickly become out of date. Buddhist Magazines also provide a source for practice center information but they are generally very limited in the number of centers included. For example, in the July 2006 issue of Shambhala Sun magazine, 131

39

Buddhist centers were listed. In the Summer 2006 issue of Tricycle The Buddhist Review, 152

Buddhist Centers were listed. In the Summer 2006 issue of Buddhadharma The Practitioner’s

Quarterly, 70 Buddhist Centers were listed. It is obvious that none of these sources provides a comprehensive listing of Buddhist Centers.

The main source of data was found on the website “Buddhanet.net - Buddha Dharma

Education Association, Inc.” (www.buddhanet.net). Buddhanet.net is a non-profit, non-sectarian organization founded in 1992 with the purpose of linking the worldwide community of Buddhist practitioners through the internet. The site is run by Venerable Pannyavaro, an Australian

Buddhist monk, and a team of lay volunteers. This site provides the largest and most informative worldwide database of all of the websites found from searches of several internet search engines

(Yahoo, Google, Altavista and Lycos) using the following terms: “Buddhist Centers”, “Tibetan

Buddhist Centers”, and “Tibetan Buddhism”. The database found at Buddhanet.net provided the most entries and each entry included some or all of the following information: The Center name,

Address, Contact information, Tradition, Affiliation, Lineage, Teachers and Spiritual Master.

The information for each center is provided and updated by that center and so the amount of information varies. Information and updates can easily be submitted on a form provided on the website. Information is dependent upon submission by each center.

The initial TBC database was created using the Buddhanet.net source from July 30, 2004.

The TBC database included only those centers claiming to be Tibetan Buddhist or a school or lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. Of these centers, approximately four centers were eliminated because their primary function was not stated as meditation or practice oriented. All of the following information for the remaining centers was included, when available: Center Name,

Address, Branch (School), Lineage, Affiliation, and Spiritual Director. This database was then

40

cross referenced with an updated Buddhanet.net source from July 16, 2006. Updates were made to the TBC database including the revision of addresses, the addition of new centers and the elimination of centers no longer listed.

Since many of the TBCs listed in the database were affiliated with some organization, the individual affiliation websites were used to cross check the information. Though it was assumed that the Buddhanet.net source was relatively current, it was also assumed that the individual affiliation websites would be more current and more thorough and so these websites were used to update and supplement the center information. All affiliations were originally identified from the Buddhanet.net site, though additional centers may have been added to the TBC database from supplementary sites. See Table 4.2 for source listings.

TABLE 4.2 Buddhanet.net only 210 Buddhanet.net and 261 Affiliation website Affiliation website 137 only Total 608

Once the data was collected, the addresses were geocoded, a process by which latitude and longitude are assigned to street addresses. An internet based service, EZ Locate Interactive

(www.geocode.com), was used to perform the geocoding using the geodetic system, WGS84.

As noted, the amount of information available for each center varied. The least amount of information available for any center was a zip code. If only the zip code was available, the longitude and latitude were used for the centroid of that zip code area. Sixty of the 608 TBCs in the database contained only zip code information. The zip code centroid was also used for centers that listed Post Office Boxes as their address. Eighty-two of the 608 TBCs in the data base contained PO Box addresses. The PO Box addresses are often provided for contact

41

information if the practice center is located in a private residence. It is assumed that the PO Box locations would be in a relatively close proximity to the center location and that because of the scale of the study, slight variations would have negligible influence on the overall spatial pattern.

Limitations of TBC Data

A major concern related to this use of these data should be addressed. An attempt to increase accuracy was made by cross-checking the information with other sources, such as the affiliation websites, and also by accounting for change over time by comparing sources over approximately a tow year period. However, the data is only as current and correct as the source from which it was taken, which itself relies on self-identification, correction and participation.

Creation of GIS

All of the descriptive statistics analyses were performed using AcrGIS 9.1. In order to create the GIS, first a boundary file of the contiguous United States was added to the program and projected to U.S. Contiguous Equidistant Conic. This projection was chosen because as a conic projection it is suitable for land areas with an east-west orientation. Also, as an equidistant projection, it is suitable for performing distance calculations. Then the geocoded TBC DataBase

(.DBF) was loaded into the program using the ADD X/Y DATA tool, projected to the U.S

Contiguous Equidistant Conic projection and saved as a layer. This step was repeated until a separate, projected layer for TBCs for each of the four schools, TBCs for each of the 17 affiliations and the non affiliated TBCs was created.

Statistical Analysis

The hypotheses guiding this study deal with the distribution patterns of TBCs based on their classification according to school and affiliation. In order to be able to address differences in the distribution patterns of TBCs, the individual distributions needed to be appropriately

42

described and summarized. Several descriptive spatial statistics procedures were used to analyze the point patterns and provide summaries of them. The use of summary statistics can make the task of comparing the multiple point distributions more simple (Wong and Lee, 2005). The nearest neighbor statistic was used to define each of the distribution patterns, while the mean center statistic was used to describe their central tendency and the standard deviational ellipse was used to describe their dispersion direction and extent. A brief description of each procedure, including its purpose and any relevant formula, follows.

Nearest Neighbor Analysis

The calculation used to describe and classify the various distributions of the schools and affiliations is the Nearest Neighbor Statistic. This statistic examines the distances between each point and the point closest to it, and then compares these to expected values for a random sample of points. This statistic is used to assess whether a distribution corresponds to a recognizable pattern, specifically if it corresponds to a clustered, dispersed or random pattern (Wong and Lee,

2005). Nearest neighbor analysis is based on spacing, or area per point, as opposed to density calculations which are based on points per area (Wong and Lee, 2005). This procedure was performed using the extent of each point distribution as the reference extent, rather than using the extent of the entire study area as the reference extent. As such, the results appropriately reflect the distribution of each classification but they are not appropriate for comparing between different distributions (Wong and Lee, 2005).

This analysis uses the R statistic or R-score, which is the ratio of the observed average distance between nearest neighbors and expected average distance between nearest neighbors.

43

The formula for the R statistic is

robs R = r exp Once the R statistic is calculated it is compared to a random pattern. The R-score scale ranges from R=0 (completely clustered) to R=1 (random) to R=2.149 (the value for the most dispersed pattern theoretically possible) (Wong and Lee, 2005). Therefore, if R<1, the pattern is more clustered, if R>1, the pattern is more dispersed.

In order to asses the extent to which the observed distance differs from the expected average distance, the standard error (SEr) statistic is used. The magnitude of the SEr statistic

indicates the likelihood that the difference between the observed and the expected patterns is a

result of chance. Using a confidence level of 5%, the difference is significant only when its

standardized Z score is > 1.96 and < -1.96. The formula for the Z score is

robs − r exp Zr = SEr where A SEr = 0.26136 n * n where A= the area of the study region and n= the number of points in the distribution.

The Nearest Neighbor analysis was done using the Average Nearest Neighbor function

within the spatial statistic tools for analyzing patterns in ArcGIS 9.1. The unit of measurement

was meters and the statistic was calculated using Euclidean Distance.

Mean Center Statistic

The next procedure used, mean center, is a measure of central tendency based on the

mean statistic. The formula for determining this measure is based on the x and y coordinates

determined in the geocoding process and is determined from the mean of each of these

coordinates.

44

The mean center location is defined as:

 n n   ∑ xi ∑ yi   i=1 i=1  xmc, ymc = ,  n n      where xmc and ymc are the coordinates of the mean center, xi and yi are the coordinates of point I, and n is the number of points

As already noted, it is imperative to define the projection both for the point data and for the base map when using a GIS to calculate the mean center statistic.

Wong and Lee (2005) state that there are many ways to determine the mean center of spatial data and that none of them is absolute. Despite this, the statistic, if calculated consistently and interpreted within the context of a specific research agenda, provides a reliable means for comparison.

The mean center function within the tools for measuring geographic distributions in

ArcGIS8.1 was used to calculate and display the results of the mean center statistic. The projected geographic coordinates were used to determine the statistic.

Standard Deviation Ellipse Statistic

While the Mean Center statistic measures the central tendency of the distribution, the calculation of the Standard Deviation Ellipse describes how a set of points disperses around a mean center and if there is a locational direction that the distribution exhibits (Wong and Lee,

2005). In other words, it can be used to describe the magnitude of the spread of a set of points and the orientation of the spatial distribution. The ellipse is based on the classical statistic of standard deviation and is presented as a graphic representation.

45

The Standard Deviation Ellipse is determined by three components: the angle of rotation, the deviation along the major (long) axis and the deviation along the minor (short) axis. The major axis is in the direction in which there is the largest spread. The minor axis, perpendicular to the major axis, is in the direction of the smallest spread. The angle of rotation is the angle between north and the y axis rotated clockwise. The y-axis can be either the major or the minor axis. As with the other measures used in this study, the Standard Deviation Ellipse is most accurate when calculated with projected co-ordinates in a distance preserving projection.

The Directional Distribution Ellipse function within the tools for measuring geographic distributions in ArcGIS 9.1 was used to create and display the Standard Deviation Ellipse. The unit of measurement was miles and the calculations were done to 1 Standard Deviation, which is able to account for approximately 60% of the points in a distribution.

There were no Standard Deviation Ellipses created for two of the affiliations, the Emaho

Foundation and the TKL, because each of these groups has only two member centers and

ArcGIS 9.1 requires a minimum of three centers to run the statistic. A verbal description of the distributions for these two affiliations was substituted for the graphic display when possible.

Visual Analysis

Visual analysis of the maps created was also used to characterize and compare the distributions of the various classifications. This methodology proved useful also in verifying the results of the statistical procedures.

The results of each of the procedures are presented in the next chapter.

46

5. Results

The results for each statistic in the first stage of analysis will be presented in several contexts. The results include numeric statistical indicators as well as visual interpretations and comparisons. The mean center (MC) and standard deviation ellipse (SDE) for the distribution of all of the TBCs in the study area (ALL) was used as the reference for the evaluation of the MCs and SDEs of the individual school and affiliation distributions.

First, the four schools were compared to the overall distribution and to each other to determine if there was any spatial variation based on school classification. Second, the group of affiliated centers was compared to the group of non-affiliated centers, to determine if affiliation status influenced distribution. Third, the overall distributions of the individual affiliations were compared to determine if there was any spatial variation based on affiliation classification.

Finally, the affiliations were examined within the context of the schools of which they are members, to determine whether there is spatial variation within schools based on affiliation.

Nearest Neighbor / Visual Analysis Results

The nearest neighbor statistic for the distribution for all TBCs is presented in Table 5.1.

The R score of 0.286 indicates that the distribution is strongly clustered and the Z score indicates that the result is significant. The point pattern distribution of all TBCs is shown in Figure 5.1.

Table 5.1 CHANCE NEAREST MEAN NND EXPECTED THAT NEIGHBOR PATTERN Z SCORE (m) NND (m) PATTERN IS RATIO (R) RANDOM ALL 20366.63 71125.89 0.286 Clustered -33.66 <1%

47

FIGURE 5.1 All TBC

The distribution of the individual schools was examined next. Table 5.2 shows the results of the nearest neighbor analysis for the four schools and the group of TBCs that are not members of a school.

TABLE 5.2 NEAREST CHANCE THAT MEAN EXPECTED Z SCHOOL NEIGHBOR PATTERN PATTERN IS NND (m) NND (m) SCORE RATIO RANDOM Gelug 52398.40 137981.11 0.379 Clustered -14.34 <1% Kagyu 38505.80 103323.09 0.372 Clustered -20.37 <1% Nyingma 70292.07 142530.67 0.493 Clustered -11.06 <1% Sakya 204890.17 297852.46 0.688 Clustered -2.53 <5% No School 222142.82 314760.42 0.706 Clustered -2.87 <1%

The point distribution for each of the individual schools is displayed in Figures 5.2-5.6.

48

FIGURE 5.2 Gelug

FIGURE 5.3 Kagyu

49

FIGURE 5.4 Nyingma

FIGURE 5.5 Sakya

50

FIGURE 5.6 No School

All of the distributions based on school classification exhibit clustered patterns supported by significant statistics. The Gelug, Kagyu and Nyingma schools exhibit strong clustering, each having an R statistic below .50, while the Sakya and No school groups have R statistics above

0.50, indicating that they are clustered but not as strongly as the others.

Table 5.3 summarizes the results for the nearest neighbor analysis for TBCs classed according to their affiliation status. Figure 5.7 shows the distribution of the Affiliated centers and Figure 5.8 shows the distribution of Non-affiliated centers.

TABLE 5.3 NEAREST CHANCE THAT MEAN EXPECTED Z NEIGHBOR PATTERN PATTERN IS NND NND SCORE RATIO RANDOM Affiliated 26955.03 87362.86 0.309 Clustered -26.56 <1% Non- 5673.50 116760.10 0.486 Clustered -14.08 <1% affiliated

51

FIGURE 5.7 Affiliated

FIGURE 5.8 Non-affiliated

52

Like the school membership, the affiliation status does not produce evidence of spatial variation in the patterns of TBCs. Both the Affiliated and the Non-affiliated centers result in a significant

R statistic with a value of less than 0.50 indicating a relatively strongly clustered pattern.

The patterns for the individual affiliations were examined next. The results of the nearest neighbor analysis for the affiliations are presented in Table 5.4. Some variation in the spatial pattern becomes evident when examining the data for the individual affiliations.

TABLE 5.4 NEAREST Chance that BRANC MEAN NND EXPECTE Z AFFILIATION NEIGHBOR PATTERN pattern is H (m) D NND(m) SCORE RATIO random Gelug None 107403.30 205888.95 0.522 Clustered -7.38 <1% Gelug FPMT 200652.40 290644.84 0.690 Clustered -3.13 <1% Gaden for the 745115.17 434435.00 1.715 Gelug West Dispersed 2.37 <5% Gelug Jewel Heart 424499.96 147682.16 2.874 Dispersed 8.02 <1% Gelug DGTL 79278.07 31753.63 2.496 Dispersed 4.96 <1% Gelug NKT 137266.57 254803.41 0.538 Clustered -5.17 <1% Kagyu None 166174.65 223316.29 0.744 Clustered -3.32 <1% Kagyu Diamond Way 177151.68 298172.06 0.594 Clustered -4.18 <1% Kagyu Drikung Kagyu 219676.79 306146.51 0.717 Clustered -2.76 <1% Emaho 84063.96 34340.62 2.447 Kagyu Foundation Dispersed 3.92 <1% Kagyu KDK 469629.38 374766.09 1.253 Clustered 1.37 Random Kagyu KTD 88013.55 182406.92 0.482 Clustered -9.29 <1% Kagyu Shambhala 109755.04 173825.72 0.631 Clustered -6.65 <1% Nyingma None 125324.35 197283.46 0.635 Clustered -5.41 <1% Nyingma Aro Ter 1534326.30 560416.90 2.738 Dispersed 5.76 <1% Nyingma Chagdud Gonpa 177067.74 272895.49 0.649 Clustered -3.55 <1% Nyingma Dzogchen 472378.12 255484.55 2.095 Dispersed 5.54 <1% Nyingma Palyul 540993.91 385787.83 1.402 Dispersed 2.43 <5% Nyingma PBC 406171.224 395825.07 1.026 Random 0.19 Random Nyingma Rigpa 304403.07 327492.80 0.929 Random -0.52 Random Sakya None 262824.83 399611.01 0.658 Clustered -2.07 <5% Sakya TKL 711443.02 288884.17 2.463 Dispersed 3.96 <1% Sakya Vikramasila 125437.62 136233.94 0.921 Random -0.37 Random

53

Of the results for the 23 affiliations, 4 ( KDK, PBC, Rigpa, Vikramasila) are rejected because their Z scores do not fall within the 5% confidence level, 11 indicate clustered patterns and 8 indicate dispersed patterns. The range of the significant R statistics is 2.392, the minimum value is 0.482 and the maximum value is 2.874. The range for the results indicating a clustered pattern is 0.302, with the minimum value of 0.482 and a maximum of 0.784. Only 1 of the 11 R-scores indicating a clustered pattern is below 0.50, indicating a relatively weak tendency towards clustering for the other 10 affiliations. The range for the results indicating a dispersed pattern is

1.474, with the minimum value of 1.40 and a maximum of 2.874. Only 1 of the 8 R-scores indicating a dispersed pattern is below 1.50, indicating that the tendency towards dispersion is relatively strong. Six of the 8 R-scores are above 2.149, the value associated with the most dispersed pattern theoretically possible.

Next, the results for each affiliation were grouped according to school and examined to determine if there are significant within-school variations in the spatial pattern. Figures 5.9 through 5.14 show the distribution of the TBCs for each of the Gelug affiliations. Of the 6 affiliations in the Gelug school, three are clustered and three are dispersed.

Figures 5.15 through 5.21 show the distribution for the seven affiliations of the Kagyu school. Of the 6 affiliations with significant results in the nearest neighbor analysis, 5 are clustered and 1, the Emaho Foundation, is dispersed.

Figures 5.22 through 5.28 show the distribution for the seven affiliations of the Nyingma school. Of the 5 affiliations with significant results in the nearest neighbor analysis, 2 are clustered and 3 are dispersed.

54

Figures 5.29 through 5.31 show the distribution for the 3 affiliations of the Sakya school.

Of the 2 affiliations with significant results in the nearest neighbor analysis, 1 is clustered and 1 is dispersed.

The results of the nearest neighbor analysis indicate that the distribution of TBCs is not random at any of the classification levels included in this study. The analysis also indicates that there is little statistical difference between the overall distribution of centers, the centers classified according to schools and the centers classified according to affiliation status, and that some variation in spatial patterns does occur at the affiliation level of classification.

FIGURE 5.9 Gelug Non-affiliated

55

FIGURE 5.10 Gelug FPMT

FIGURE 5.11 Gelug Gaden for the West

56

FIGURE 5.12 Gelug Jewel Heart

FIGURE 5.13 Gelug DGTL

57

FIGURE 5.14 Gelug NKT

FIGURE 5.15 Kagyu Non-affiliated

58

FIGURE 5.16 Kagyu Diamond Way

FIGURE 5.17 Kagyu Drikung Kagyu

59

FIGURE 5.18 Kagyu Emaho Foundation

FIGURE 5.19 Kagyu KDK

60

FIGURE 5.20 Kagyu KTD

FIGURE 5.21 Kagyu Shambhala

61

FIGURE 5.22 Nyingma Non-affiliated

FIGURE 5.23 Nyingma Aro Ter

62

FIGURE 5.24 Nyingma Chagdud Gonpa

FIGURE 5.25 Nyingma Palyul

63

FIGURE 5.26 Nyingma Dzogchen

FIGURE 5.27 Nyingma PBC

64

FIGURE 5.28 Nyingma Rigpa

FIGURE 5.29 Sakya Non-affiliated

65

FIGURE 5.30 Sakya TKL

FIGURE 5.31 Sakya Vikramasila

66

Mean Center Results

Figure 5.32 shows the mean center for each of the four schools and the reference group,

ALL. The Nyingma school, whose mean center is approximately 300 miles due west of the ALL mean center, has a slight western orientation, the Gelug and Kagyu schools, the mean centers of which are located close to one another at a distance of approximately 100 miles from the ALL mean center, exhibit a slightly eastern orientation while the Sakya school, with its mean center located approximately 300 miles northeast of the ALL mean center, shows the most pronounced deviation from the general distribution.

FIGURE 5.32 Mean Center – Schools

A summary of the results for each of the schools is presented in Table 5.6. Based on this statistic, the distribution of each of the schools is similar to the overall distribution of TBCs. As

Figure 5.32 and Table 5.6 show, all of the schools are within a 300 mile radius of the ALL mean center, indicating some relative conformity in the central tendency of their distributions.

67

TABLE 5.6 Distance from # of ALL MC(miles) School School MC 0-100 2 All Kagyu, All Gelugpa 101- 300 2 All Sakya, All Nyingma

Figure 5.33 shows the mean center for all affiliated centers and for all non-affiliated centers in reference to the overall distribution. There is very little spatial variation between the mean center of the affiliated centers and that of the non-affiliated centers. Nor is there much spatial variation between the mean centers of the affiliated and non-affiliated groups and the mean centers for the ALL group and the four schools.

FIGURE 5.33 Mean Center –Affiliated and Non-Affiliated

68

Figure 5.34 displays all of the mean centers together for comparison. The spatial distribution represented by the mean center statistic is similar for each of the schools, affiliated and non-affiliated groups and the overall distribution of TBCs. All of the mean centers are located within a 300 mile radius.

FIGURE 5.34 Mean Center -Schools, Affiliated and Non-affiliated

When the distributions of the individual affiliations were examined, a great deal of spatial variation became apparent, in both distance and direction. Table 5.7 provides a summary of the distances from the ALL mean center to each of the affiliation mean centers.

TABLE 5.7 Distance from # of AllTBC MC TBC Affiliation (School) (miles) MC 0-100 2 Palyul (N), NKT (G) 101- 300 7 Non-affiliated (N), Shambhala (K), KTD(K), Drikung (K), Non- affiliated (K) FPMT (G), Non-affiliated (G) 301- 500 4 Rigpa (N), PBC (N), Aro Ter (N), Diamond Way (K) 501- 700 4 TKL (S), Non-affiliated (S), DGTL(G), Jewel Heart (G)

69

700-1000 3 Chagdud (N), Emaho (K), Gaden for the West (G) > 1000 3 Vikra (S), Dzogchen (N), KDK (K),

Only two affiliations have their mean center located within 100 miles of the ALL mean center and seven more are located between 101 and 300 miles. The remaining 14 affiliation mean centers are located at a considerable distance from the ALL mean center, indicating a pronounced deviation from the general distribution in terms of central tendency.

Figure 5.35 shows that the shifts in mean center are primarily to the east, northeast, west and to the northwest of the ALL mean center. Though several of the mean centers are slightly to the south of the ALL mean center, only one affiliation (Emaho Foundation) has the center of its distribution located significantly to the south of it. Clearly the individual affiliations deviate from the overall distribution of TBCs in the study area.

FIGURE 5.35 Mean Center –Affiliations

Next, the mean centers of the affiliations were grouped according to school and examined to determine whether there is significant within-school spatial variation. Figure 5.36 shows the

70

locations of the mean centers for the six groups of Gelug TBC affiliations (including Non- affiliated), the mean center of the overall Gelug (GALL) distribution and the ALL mean center reference point.

FIGURE 5.36 Mean Center –Gelug affiliations

The mean centers for all of the Gelug affiliations are located along an east-west axis in the central region of the study area, with the exception of two locations situated north of this axis. Located within 300 miles of the ALL mean center reference point are the mean centers for

GALL, NKT and Non-affiliated to the east and FPMT to the west. NKT, FPMT and Non- affiliated are the largest affiliations within the Gelug school, with 42, 28 and 65 members respectively. The DGTL mean center is located to the east of the ALL mean center and at approximately the same distance but slightly more to the north is the mean center for Jewel

Heart. The mean center that deviates the most from the ALL and the GALL mean centers is the

Gaden for the West affiliation, located just over 700 miles to the north west.

71

The mean centers of the affiliate members of the Kagyu school, as seen in Figure 5.37, are located primarily on an east-west axis in the western central region of the study area. At approximately equal distances to the east and to the west of the ALL mean center are the mean centers for the overall Kagyu (KALL) and the Non-affiliated groups, respectively. In addition to the KALL mean center, three other affiliations have their mean centers located within a 300 mile distance, east of the reference ALL mean center.

FIGURE 5.37 Mean Center – Kagyu affiliations

Along the reference axis, approximately 450 miles to the west of the ALL mean center is the mean center for the Diamond Way affiliation and approximately 1100 miles west is the center of the KDK affiliation. The mean center for the KDK deviates significantly from the Kagyu affiliate mean centers and it is the second most western located mean center of all of the affiliations and all of the schools. The Emaho Foundation mean center is located approximately

1000 miles from the ALL mean center, but it is its southwestern location which distinguishes it

72

most. This mean center is the only one in the southern half of the study area, a significant deviation from the otherwise linearly distribution of Kagyu affiliates. It is significant to note that the mean centers that deviate the most, the KDK and the Emaho, are relatively smaller organizations in terms of member centers, with 8 and 2 centers respectively.

FIGURE 5.38 Mean Center –Nyingma affiliations

The mean centers of the Nyingma school, like the Kagyu, are located on an east-west axis at approximately the same latitude as the Kagyu. Figure 5.38 shows that only two affiliates have mean centers east of the reference mean center, Palyul, approximately 70 miles east, and PBC, approximately 500 miles to the east. It is interesting to note that the mean center for the distribution of the entire Nyingma school (NALL) is located west of the reference ALL mean center, the only school to do so. The affiliation with the mean center located furthest from the

ALL and the NALL reference centers is Dzogchen. Dzogchen has 7 member centers, making it about half the size of the next largest affiliate organizations, Rigpa and PBC, which have 15

73

members each. Aro Ter, with 3 member centers, deviates most from the reference axis, located north of the line.

The Sakya school, with only three affiliates, is the smallest of the schools in the United

States. Its mean center is approximately 280 miles north east of the reference mean center, making it the school mean center located furthest north and furthest east of the overall mean center. The affiliate mean centers run on an east-west axis located approximately 250 miles north of the AllTBC mean center, as seen in figure 5.39.

FIGURE 5.39 Mean Center –Sakya affiliations

It is interesting to note that the only mean center of the Sakya school located to the west of the reference ALL mean center is the Non-affiliated group, which is also the largest group with 10 centers. The Vikra school has the mean center located the furthest east of all of the centers for all of the schools.

74

Standard Deviation Ellipse Results

Next the standard deviation ellipses (SDE) were examined for each group. The SDE for the distribution of all TBCs (ALL) is used as a reference point. Figure 5.40 shows the SDEs for each of the individual schools. The orientation and extent of each is very similar to the orientation and extent of the overall distribution. The only obvious variance is the slightly more narrow extent of the distribution of the Sakya school. Table 5.8 provides the data for the SDEs for the schools including the length of the SDE axes and the angle of rotation.

FIGURE 5.40 SDE – Schools

TABLE 5.8 SCHOOL N X STANDARD Y STANDARD ANGLE OF DISTANCE DISTANCE ROTATION Gelug 146 1592209.75 579799.73 359.64 Kagyu 288 590853.95 1608481.83 271.42 Nyingma 130 1671120.47 546731.79 359.32 Sakya 18 1773481.14 411149.77 358.14 No school 26 1599842.27 543454.39 350.80

75

Figure 5.41 shows the SDEs for Affiliated and Non-Affiliated centers and there is no significant difference between them, nor between them and the reference SDE for ALL. Table

5.9 provides the data for the SDEs for affiliated and non-affiliated centers.

FIGURE 5.41 SDE – Affiliated and Non-affiliated

TABLE 5.9 N X STANDARD Y STANDARD ANGLE OF DISTANCE DISTANCE ROTATION Affiliated 409 1645196.73 597224.15 359.69 Non-affiliated 199 1627999.64 547998.87 359.88

Figure 5.42 displays all of the SDEs together for comparison. The spatial distribution represented by the SDE statistic is similar in orientation and extent for the overall distribution of

TBCs (ALL), for each of the schools, for the affiliated and non-affiliated groups and, most significantly, for most of the individual affiliations.

76

FIGURE 5.42 SDE – All Classifications

Though it is difficult to distinguish details of the SDEs in Figure 10, it is relatively easy to identify the SDEs that deviate most significantly from the others. In the western portion of the study area, the Dzogchen affiliation has an orientation almost perpendicular to the other SDEs and it has a much shorter and narrower extent. Drikung Kagyu, also in the west, has a visibly smaller extent. Gaden for the West, in the northwest portion of the study area, has a much narrower and highly angled SDE. In the east, notable exceptions with much smaller extents and varying angles of rotation are DGTL, Vikramasila and Jewel Heart.

As with the mean center statistic, significant deviation from the reference distribution occurs only at the individual affiliation level of classification. However, unlike the mean center statistic, there are fewer deviations from the reference ALL distribution among the affiliations.

77

Table 5.10 provides data for all of the SDEs for comparison purposes. Table 5.11 shows summary statistics for the information in Table 5.10.

TABLE 5.10

X STANDARD Y STANDARD BRANCH AFFILIATION N DISTANCE (m) DISTANCE (m) ROTATION all All 608 1640839.31 581127.06 359.75

Gelug All 146 1592209.75 579799.73 359.64

Gelug None 65 542421.58 1541561.18 272.37 Gelug FPMT 28 518654.55 1710748.84 272.78

Gelug Gaden for the West 3 1299307.31 41569.84 344.17

Gelug Jewel Heart 5 41458.01 622193.69 276.68 Gelug DGTL 3 78986.68 30136.17 353.76

Gelug NKT 42 1646832.57 663285.19 355.13

Kagyu All 288 590853.95 1608481.83 271.42 Kagyu None 46 544583.50 1602421.90 272.34

Kagyu Diamond Way 29 1454490.14 602285.74 356.92

Kagyu Drikung Kagyu 26 570247.11 1465883.42 272.88 Kagyu Emaho Foundation 2 N/A N/A N/A

Kagyu KDK 8 927789.25 408893.22 344.08

Kagyu KTD 88 614413.09 1636602.63 271.31 Kagyu Shambhala 89 590024.46 1470932.21 272.65

Nyingma All 130 1671120.47 546731.79 359.32

Nyingma None 52 487652.42 1667880.12 271.40 Nyingma Aro Ter 3 1751226.21 405501.37 359.20

Nyingma Chagdud Gonpa 28 552411.21 1402372.87 270.85

Nyingma Dzogchen 7 307751.82 514575.75 353.57 Nyingma Palyul 10 409575.15 1596797.06 275.05

Nyingma PBC 15 1364688.95 705629.62 351.39

Nyingma Rigpa 15 449412.31 1759073.60 274.44 Sakya All 18 1773481.14 411149.77 358.14

Sakya None 10 1770958.80 523701.97 358.33

Sakya TKL 2 N/A N/A N/A Sakya Vikramasila 6 81487.51 341985.88 296.48

NON None 26 1599842.27 543454.39 350.80

ALL Affiliated 409 1645196.73 597224.15 359.69 ALL Non-Affiliated 199 1627999.64 547998.87 359.88

78

TABLE 5.11 X Standard Axis Y Standard Axis Angle of Rotation Minimum 41458.01 30136.17 270.85 Maximum 1773481.14 1759073.60 359.88 Mean 970548.82 901034.48 319.12 Standard Deviation 612042.76 56913686 1697.48

Next, the SDEs of the affiliations were grouped according to school and examined to determine whether there is significant within-school spatial variation. Figure 5.43 shows the

SDEs for the groups affiliated with the Gelug school.

FIGURE 5.43 SDE Gelug Affiliations

The groups that deviate most from the others in the Gelug school were mentioned previously.

Gaden for the West has a significantly larger angle of rotation and a much more narrow extent than the other groups. Jewel Heart also has a significantly more narrow extent and also a shorter extent. DGTL, with only three very clustered centers, has the smallest extent of all members of the school. Of the 6 individual affiliations, three of them deviate significantly.

79

Figure 5.44 shows the SDEs for the affiliations of the Kagyu school. The Kagyu affiliations are fairly consistent in their extent and orientation with each other and with the over all distribution of TBCs. The only noticeable exception is the previously mentioned KDK affiliate group which has a significantly shorter extent. The SDE for the Emaho Foundation, with two member centers located within approximately 100 miles of each other, obviously would be very much smaller than the others and would differ significantly from the reference SDE.

Refer to Figure 5.18 for Emaho center locations. Of the 7 affiliations, 2 deviate significantly.

FIGURE 5.44 SDE Kagyu Affiliations

Figure 5.45 shows the SDEs of the affiliations of the Nyingma school. The Dzogchen affiliation is strikingly different from all of the other affiliations and schools because, in addition to having a shorter extent, it is the only one with a north-south orientation. The only other exception in this school is the slightly shorter and wider SDE of the PBC affiliation. Two of the

7 affiliations differ significantly.

80

FIGURE 5.45 SDE Nyingma Affiliations

Finally the SDEs of the affiliations of the Sakya school are presented in Figure 5.46.

Like the Emaho Foundation, no SDE is displayed for the TKL affiliation, due to too few reference points. Refer to Figure 5.30 for the locations of the two TKL centers. The extent of the TKL distribution would be relatively short, as the distance between the two member centers is approximately 1000 miles. The SDEs for the Non-affiliated and for overall Sakya distribution are slightly longer than the SDE for the distribution of all TBCs and the overall Sakya is slightly narrower than it. The Vikramasila affiliation has a very short and narrow extent, as well as a larger angle of rotation, relative to the reference SDE. Of the distributions of the 3 affiliations, two deviate significantly.

81

FIGURE 5.46 SDE Sakya Affiliations

The results presented in this chapter for each statistical procedure will be discussed in the next chapter. The results will be examined in the context of the hypotheses and the questions presented in Chapter 1.

82

6. Discussion

In this section, the usefulness of the nearest neighbor analysis will be reevaluated and then each of the hypotheses will be discussed in terms of the results of the statistical procedures.

These discussions will then be used to address questions presented in Chapter 1.

Nearest Neighbor Statistic Reconsidered

Before discussing the results in terms of the hypotheses, some qualifications should be made for the use of the nearest neighbor statistic. The results presented in Chapter 5 are valid for characterizing each of the distributions. However, because the statistic is calculated based on the extent of the point distribution, rather than the extent of the study area, it is not appropriate to use the results to compare the different distributions. Also, because it is a first order analysis, the nearest neighbor statistic cannot account for significant local variation. As a result, this broad analysis is reflective of little more than the underlying population. In order to make a more thorough analysis of the distributions, a higher order analysis should be performed to account for local variation. Visual analysis of the distributions proved a more appropriate method for determining the extent of each of the distributions for the purposes of this study.

Hypotheses Revisited

The first hypothesis, which states that TBC locations will not be distributed randomly, is supported by the results of the analyses. Based on these results, at the overall, school and affiliation status levels of classification, the distributions are not random. At the individual affiliation level, 19 of the 23 results indicated a significantly non-random pattern. A visual examination of the distribution patterns of the four affiliations that did result in statistically random results indicates that these results may warrant closer consideration before assuming that the patterns are truly random.

83

Each of the patterns indicating a random distribution consists of a concentration of centers with one or more outliers, centers not located near concentration, and these outliers inevitably influence the results of the statistic. The Kagyu KDK affiliation clearly has a concentration of its member centers along the western coast of the study area and then one outlier along the Illinois-Missouri border in the center of the study area (refer to Figure 5.19).

Similarly, the Sakya Vikramasila affiliation has a concentration of all of its member centers in the northeastern region. The outlier in this distribution is located at some distance from the cluster, in Ohio (refer to Figure 5.31). The Nyingma Rigpa affiliation has a concentration of 8 of its 15 centers along the western coast and another cluster of three centers in the northeastern corner of the study area (refer to Figure 5.28). Of the four outlier centers, three are located in cities with relatively large numbers of TBCs. One is located in Boulder, Colorado which has 11 total TBCs; one in Chicago, Illinois which has 10 total TBCs; and one in Washington DC which has 5 total TBCs. It is unlikely that these outliers to the Rigpa distribution are located in these cities by chance but this is something for which the nearest neighbor statistic cannot account.

Similarly, the Nyingma PBC affiliation is located in two main concentrations, one in the state of

Florida and one along the New York-New Jersey-Delaware coast (refer to Figure 5.27). The outliers in this affiliation are all located in cities with at least one other TBC, with the exception of two of the centers. Therefore, though the statistics indicate a random pattern, the centers that influence this result are unlikely to be a result of a random process. It can be claimed, therefore, that none of the distributions at any level of classification is completely random.

An examination of the overall distribution of TBCs in terms of the county in which each is located gives further evidence that this is not a random phenomenon. The 608 TBCs are located in only 243 of the 3110 counties included in the study area. Table 6.1 shows the numeric

84

breakdown of these TBCs within the 243 counties. One hundred twenty nine of the 243 counties with TBCs have only one TBC. The remaining 114 counties have clusters of two or more TBCs.

It can be concluded from this evidence that TBCs, for the most part, do not locate just anywhere but rather tend to locate in certain, more receptive areas.

TABLE 6.1 # of TBCs # of Counties # of TBCs # of Counties 1 129 10 2 2 49 11 2 3 22 12 2 4 13 13 1 5 8 14 1 6 4 15 1 7 4 16 1 8 2 22 1 9 1

The main implication of these results is that the distribution of the TBCs is not random, and as such, there must be an underlying explanation. The next section discusses the results of the classification-based supply-side hypotheses with the goal of deducing an explanation.

The second hypothesis, which states that there will be little overall spatial variation between the distribution patterns of the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism and the distribution pattern for all TBCs, nor between each of the four schools, is also supported by the statistical results. The mean center statistic for each of the distributions is relatively close to each of the others, indicating similarity in the central tendency of each of the distributions. The Standard

Deviation Ellipse also indicates similarity in the extent and magnitude of the distributions.

These summary statistics combined indicate, with the exception of slight east or west tendencies, that there is little spatial variation in the distributions at this level of classification.

The third hypothesis, stating that there will be significant spatial variation in the distribution patterns of the individual affiliations, is not supported by the statistical results.

85

Though individual statistical results indicate some variation among affiliations, when the results of all of the affiliations are examined together and if certain characteristics of each affiliation, such as size, are taken into consideration, the general distribution patterns at the national scale indicate very little spatial variation. Four affiliations do in fact differ significantly and these will be discussed in detail, however, overall there is not significant spatial variation. First, the results of the analyses will be discussed.

Consider the Mean Center and Standard Deviation Ellipse results. The affiliations with

SDEs that are notable exceptions to the common pattern are Gaden for the West, Jewel Heart,

DGTL, KDK, Diamond Way, Dzogchen, Aro Ter, Rigpa, PBC, and Vikramasila. For several of these exceptions (Gaden for the West, DGTL, Aro Ter) along with the affiliations for which the

GIS was unable to produce SDEs (Emaho Foundation, TKL), this variation in the magnitude and extent may be related to the small number of member centers, each having three or less. Having a small number of member centers does not affect the SDE equally for all of the affiliations. It is worth noting that Gaden for the West, Aro Ter and TKL have large extents though each has only

2 or 3 members and DGTL and Emaho Foundation have very small extents with 3 and 2 member centers, respectively. If the patterns for the affiliations with few member centers are removed from consideration, because size itself seems to be an issue separate from its influence on distribution, the remaining patterns can present a sense of actual variations in distribution.

Of the remaining 7 exceptions, variations in the distributions of 3 of them are a result of the distribution being oriented, or more heavily weighted, primarily, but not exclusively, towards the east (PBC) or towards the west (Diamond Way, Rigpa). The remaining four affiliations

(Dzogchen, Jewel Heart, KDK, Vikramasila) differ significantly from the others and these differences will be addressed in the next chapter.

86

While there is spatial variation at the level of affiliation much of it can be explained by factors such as the size of the affiliation or the directional tendency, rather than by significant differences in distributional patterns. This conclusion is also supported by visual examination of the distributions. Though four affiliations do exhibit significantly different patterns, they are exceptions. Variation in distribution patterns is not characteristic of the majority of the affiliations; therefore, the third hypothesis is not supported.

The fourth hypothesis, stating that there will be significant spatial variation in the distribution patterns of the individual affiliations within each of the schools, is not supported.

Relying on the same evidence as the third hypothesis, this hypothesis is not supported because there is very little difference even among the affiliations and what little differences there are, are spread throughout each of the schools.

In the Gelug school, 3 of the 6 affiliation patterns are different, however, of those 2 have only three members, making it difficult to compare. One affiliation, Jewel Heart, is significantly different. In the Kagyu school, 2 of the 7 affiliations are different but, again one of them has only two members, and so only one affiliation, KDK, is considered significantly different. In the

Nyingma school, similarly, 2 of the 7 are different but one is too small to compare, leaving only

Dzogchen as significantly different. In the Sakya school, each of the 3 affiliations is different but one is too small to compare, making an overall conclusion about this school unreliable.

The significance of these results is that there is, based on these hypotheses, very little evidence to suggest that the distribution of TBCs in the United States is dictated or influenced by structural or organizational factors. The results indicate relatively homogenous patterns at the national scale, indicating that, for the most part, each of the groups of TBCs, whether classified

87

by school or affiliation, is locating in the same areas, or, in other words, serving the same markets.

Questions Revisited

One question in the introduction asked, where has Tibetan Buddhism made an imprint and where has it not? Examination of the distribution maps shows that Tibetan Buddhism is a national phenomenon, with at least one TBC located in every contiguous state except for West

Virginia, Mississippi, Arkansas, North Dakota and South Dakota. It is clear that almost all of the distributions are predominantly in an east west orientation. Though there are centers in the southeast region of the study area, none of the distribution patterns are oriented in that direction, indicating that it is not a dominant region for Tibetan Buddhism.

Another question asked to what extent does the process of diffusion, represented as the distribution, vary according to internal differences in organization? The results of this study indicate that there is very little variation according to any of the classification types included here and that the distributions are relatively similar.

While organization may not influence distribution, it is clear that the number of members of an affiliation has an impact on the overall distribution but that there is not necessarily a uniform relationship between size and distribution. Tibetan Buddhist affiliations seem to be diffusing in a similar pattern but this pattern is affected by how many centers there are. Because this study did not include time as a variable, it is impossible to define the relationship between size and distribution pattern.

Distribution patterns of Tibetan Buddhist Centers do not appear to be influenced at the national scale by factors specific to any internal classification. The next chapter summarizes the findings of this study and presents possible ideas for future research.

88

7. Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to describe the spatial variation in the distribution of

Tibetan Buddhist Centers in the United States in order to ascertain whether a conclusion could be drawn regarding the impetus behind the diffusion of Tibetan Buddhism. Based on the classification schemes used, the most significant result is that there is virtually no variation in distributions of TBCs at the national scale. The homogeneity of the various distributions, considered in reference to the expected patterns described in Chapter 1, indicates that demand side factors, which would have been expected to manifest in a distribution that is broad in extent and which mirrors the population, are most likely responsible for the current distribution of

Tibetan Buddhist Centers in the United States.

Though this study makes a conclusion about the current distribution, future studies, particularly ones that take into account temporal data, will likely show that the diffusion process occurred in stages, with both supply- and demand-factors influencing distributions. This will be discussed more fully in the next section.

Future Research

This section presents possible alternative methods for addressing the same research problem, as well as possible steps to continue the course of the current study.

Diffusion

A process such as diffusion inherently includes the notion of time. Because it was beyond the scope of this study to collect temporal data at the national scale, this study attempts to make an inference about a process from a static snapshot. A study that includes data such as date of establishment and length at present address would provide invaluable insight into the process.

89

In addition to including temporal data, a more thorough study of the diffusion process could be done by examining center location in relation to relevant places such as universities with Tibetan or Buddhist study programs.

Demand Side Factors

In order to more fully explore the influence of demand side factors, it would be useful to examine the demographic characteristics of the area in which a center is located. A study of this type would be further aided by considering factors such as the threshold for the number of members in a successful center, how the center is funded, the distance that one travels to practice, how many times a center has moved, whether one owns or rents the site, and by a more specific characterization of a center as, for example, a retreat center or a meditation center.

Exceptional Distributions

Four affiliations did exhibit patterns that differed significantly. Visual examination of these patterns indicates that these organizations have, for the most part, regional distributions.

KDK and Dzogchen are clearly regionalized in the west, with the exception of one KDK center in the middle of the study area. Similarly, Vikramasila is regionalized in the northeast with the exception of one center in Ohio. Jewel Heart is distributed along an axis beginning in the east coast and moving eastward along the southern shores of the Great Lakes until ending in eastern

Nebraska. Unlike the other distributions, these affiliations, for some reason, have limited geographic areas.

Referring back to the affiliation information presented in Chapter 4, there is nothing significant in the description of these groups that would explain their regional distributions. The affiliations for which dates of establishment are available indicate that length of existence is not necessarily correlated to size or extent of the distribution. KDK was established in 1974; Jewel

90

Heart and Vikramasila were both established in 1989. KDK is one of the only affiliations that allow teachers of other lineages and organizations to teach in its centers, making it less dependent than other lineages on accessibility. Dzogchen is part of an international affiliation, making its regionalization even more interesting. Within the scope of this study, there are no factors available to explain the distributions of these affiliations. A closer examination of these particular affiliations would be an appealing course for future research.

91

Bibliography

Ahdar, Rex. 2006. “The idea of ‘religious markets.’” International Journal of Law in Context. 2(2): 49-65.

Baumann, Martin. 2002. “Protective Amulets and Awareness Techniques, or How to Make Sense of .” Westward Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Asia. Eds. Charles S. Prebish and Martin Baumann. Berkeley: University of Press. p.51- 66.

Coleman, Graham, ed. 1993. A Handbook of Tibetan Culture A Guide to Tibetan Centers and Resources throughout the World. London: Rider.

Dorjee, Tenzin and Howard Giles. 2005. “Cultural Identity in Tibetan Diaspora.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 36(2):138-157.

“Dzogchen.” Shambhala Dictionary of Buddhism and Zen. 1991. Boston: Shambhala Publications.

Fields, Rick. 1981. How the Swans Came to the Lake – A Narrative in America. Boulder: Shambhala.

Fields, Rick. 1998. “Divided Dharma: White Buddhists, Ethnic Buddhists, and Racism.” The Faces of Buddhism in America. Eds. Charles S. Prebish and Kenneth K. Tanaka. Berkeley: University of California Press. p.196-207.

Finke, Roger and Laurence R. Iannaccone. 1993. “Supply-Side Explanations for Religious Change.” Annals AAPSS. 527(May): 27-116.

Houston, Serin and Richard Wright. 2003. “Making and remaking Tibetan diasporic identities.” Social and Cultural Geography. 4(2): 217-232.

Iannaccone, Laurence R. 1992. “Sacrifice and Stigma: Reducing Free-riding in Cults, Communities, and other Collectives.” Journal of Political Economy. 100:271.

Iannaccone, Laurence R., Finke, Roger and Rodney Stark. 1997. “Deregulating Religion: The Economics of Church and State.” Economic Inquiry. 35:350.

Kolas, Ashild. “Tibetan Nationalism: The Politics of Religion.” Journal of Peace Research. 33(1): 51-66.

Kornman, Robin. 1998. “Vajrayana: The Path of Devotion.” in Buddhist America Centers, Retreats, Practices. Ed. Don Morreale. Santa Fe: John Muir Publications. p.191-202.

92

Lavine, Amy. 1998. “Tibetan Buddhism in America: The Development of American Vajrayana.” The Faces of Buddhism in America. Eds. Charles S. Prebish and Kenneth K. Tanaka. Berkeley: University of California Press. p.100-115.

Misra, Amalendu. 2003. “A Nation in Exile: Tibetan Diaspora and the Dynamics of Long Distance Nationalism.” Asian Ethnicity. 4(2):189-206.

Morreale, Don, ed. 1998. Buddhist America Centers, Retreats, Practices. Santa Fe: John Muir Publications.

Nattier, Jan. 1998. “Who Is a Buddhist? Charting the Landscape of Buddhist America.” in The Faces of Buddhism in America. Eds. Charles S. Prebish and Kenneth K. Tanaka. Berkeley: University of California Press. p.183-195. Norbu, Dawa. 1995. “Han Hegemony and Tibetan Ethnicity.” International Studies. 32(3):297- 314.

Numrich, Paul David. 2000. “How the Swans Came to Lake Michigan: The Social Organization of Buddhist Chicago.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 39(2): 189-203.

Obadia, Lionel. 2001. “Tibetan Buddhism in : A Missionary Religion?” Journal of Global Buddhism. 2:92.

Park, Chris. 1994. Sacred Worlds. London: Rutledge.

Phillips, Tim and Haydn Aarons. 2005. “Choosing Buddhism in : towards a traditional style of reflexive spiritual engagement.” The British Journal of Sociology. 56(2): 215- 232.

Prebish, Charles S. 1998. “Introduction.” The Faces of Buddhism in America. Eds. Charles S. Prebish and Kenneth K. Tanaka. Berkeley: University of California Press. p.1-10.

Prebish, Charles S. 1999. Luminous Passage The Practice and Study of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Prebish, Charles S. and Martin Baumann, eds. 2002. Westward Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Asia. Eds. Charles S. Prebish and Martin Baumann. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Seager, Richard Hughes. 1999. Buddhism in America. New York: Columbia University Press.

Seager, Richard Hughes. 2002. “American Buddhism in the Making.” Westward Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Asia. Eds. Charles S. Prebish and Martin Baumann. Berkeley: University of California Press. p.106-119.

Shakabpa, W.D. 1967. Tibet. A Political History. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sopher, David E. 1967. Geography of Religions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

93

Stark, Rodney and Roger Finke. 2000. Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion. Berkeley: University of California.

Thurman, Robert A.F. 1995. Essential Tibetan Buddhism. Edison, New Jersey: Castle Books.

Tweed, Thomas A. 1999. The American Encounter with Buddhism 1844-1912: Victorian Culture and the Limits of Dissent. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Wallace, B. Alan. 2002. “The Spectrum of Buddhist Practice in the West.” Westward Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Asia. Eds. Charles S. Prebish and Martin Baumann. Berkeley: University of California Press. p.34-50.

Wong, David W.S. and Jay Lee. 2005. Statistical Analysis of Geographic Information with Arcview GIS and ArcGIS. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.

Wuthnow, Robert and Conrad Hackett. 2003. “The Social Integration of Practitioners of Non- Western Religions in the United States.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 42(4): 651-667.

94

Appendix A: Individual Affiliation Information

Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition (FPMT) - Gelug - www.fpmt.org

The FPMT was founded in 1975 by Lama as an international non-profit organization. Lama Yeshe died in 1984, and his reincarnation, Lama Tenzin Osel, born in Spain in 1985, is preparing to become the director of the organization. The FPMT is an international organization, with its head quarters located in Portland, , USA. Its structure is composed of meditation groups, monasteries, retreat centers, publishing houses, businesses and individuals.

There are approximately 141 centers and study groups in 31 countries in North and South

America, Europe, Asia and the Pacific Region.

The goal of the organization is to transmit to the world the Mahayana Buddhist tradition and values through teaching, meditation and community service. Lama Thubten Yeshe stated the goal as the desire to lead sentient beings to higher education.

The FPMT is one of the few organizations to directly address the issue of diffusion. In a discussion of his vision for the FPMT in January 1983, Lama Thubten Yeshe stated:

“Now, the way we have evolved is not through you or me having said we want to do these things but through a natural process of development. Our organization has grown naturally, organically. It is not ‘Lama Yeshe wanted to do it.’ I’ve never said I want centers all over the world. Rather, I came into contact with students, who then wanted to do something, who expressed the wish to share their experience with others, and who then put together groups in various countries to share and grow with others….When we started establishing centers there was no overall plan – they just popped up randomly all over the world like mushrooms, because of the evolutionary process.” (www.fpmt.org/organization/advice.asp)

Lama Yeshe also addresses the important role that students, as opposed to lamas or teachers, have in establishing facilities for the transmission of the Dharma.

In addition to the statements of the founder, the website directly addresses the process by which new centers are established. It addresses such issues as initial contact with the particular

95

lineage, beginnings as ‘informal study groups’, support services available from the organization and from existing centers, trial test periods, and the strict policy that the center only invites teachers of its particular school or lineage and only uses educational material from its particular school, lineage and teacher. (www.fpmt.org/organization/faq.asp)

Gaden for the West - Gelug - www.gadenforthewest.org

Gaden for the West is an international organization founded by the Venerable

Zasep Tulku in 1999 created for the “express purpose of bringing, interpreting and integrating Gelug Tibetan Buddhism to the western world” and to make it “accessible to as many people as possible” (www.gadenforthewest.org/mission.html). The organization aims to make the teachings accessible and available to western lay students, not by creating a new lineage, but by revising and changing teaching methods. The organization has 14 centers in Canada, United

States, and Australia. The affiliation headquarters are located in Vancouver, British Columbia,

Canada.

Jewel Heart – Gelug – www.jewelheart.org

Jewel Heart was founded in 1989 by Kyabje Gehlek Rinpoche as a Tibetan Buddhist and

Cultural Learning Center. Kyabje Gehlek Rinpoche began teaching western students in the

1970s at the direction of his own teachers who were also the senior and junior teachers to the

Dalai Lama. The mission of the organization to serve as an educational and cultural institute open to all interested people, to transmit the essence of Tibetan Buddhism in an authentic and accessible way and to provide guidance and practical methods to those interested in spiritual

96

development (www.jewelheart.org/about_us/mission.html). There are five Jewel Heart Centers, all located in the United States. The main center is located in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Dagom Gaden Tensung Ling (DGTL) – Gelug – www.ganden.org

DGTL is a Buddhist Monastery founded in 1996 by Venerable Kyabje Dagom Rinpoche and Venerable Gonsar Rinpoche. The purpose for establishing the monastery is to preserve for the benefit of all sentient beings the Buddha’s teachings as transmitted by the Gelugpa lineage of

Tibetan Buddhism. The DGTL serves as a traditional monastery for monks of the lineage, it also provides religious, cultural and educational programs for lay people. Emphasis is placed on preservation with one of the listed purposes stating, “Forseeing the great danger of dilution and degeneration of this pure tradition at its source in the Tibetan community, giving special attention is seen as indispensable for its preservation for the sake of all beings” www.ganden.org/aboutus/ourpurpose/tabid/75/default.aspx Preservation of the monastic community and the distinction of this particular school and lineage are also emphasized in the statement of purpose. There are three members of this organization, located in Indianapolis and

Bloomington, Indiana and Cincinnati, Ohio.

New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) – Gelug – www.kadampa.org

NKT is based on the teachings of a school, the Kadampa or “oral instruction lineage,” that thrived in the 10th century but which was ultimately absorbed into the Gelug school. The

Kadampa school was based on the doctrine of lo-jong or “training of the mind.” The New

Kadampa movement occurred in Tibet in the 14th century at the impetus of , a

Buddhist master. The modern NKT movement was begun in the 1970s by the Venerable

97

Kelsang Gyatso and currently consists of approximately 1000 centers in 40 countries. The organization is non-profit and has its headquarters in London, England.

Diamond Way – Kagyu – www.diamondway.org

The Diamond Way USA organization was established in California in 1994 to “help conserve and further” the Buddhist teachings and mediation techniques of the lineage.

“The main purpose of this national organization it to help facilitate local, regional and national activities where needed and provide resources and expertise for organization of nationwide projects and activities….Among the activities are the organization and planning of teaching tours of Western and Tibetan teachers, the organization of national courses and retreats, as well as the publishing and distribution of practice texts, books and a bi-annual magazine....” (www.diamondway.org/usa/1about.php)

The national organization is part of an international network of approximately 400 centers founded by Lama , who directly oversees center activities and who visits the centers on a regular basis. Lama Ole Nydahl, along with his wife, were the first western students of the

16th Gyalwa , the head of the Kagyu school. Lama Ole Nydahl is one a the very few western fully qualified lamas in this tradition.

The organization gives some information on its development in the United States and, like the FPMT, emphasizes the important role of the students in spreading the lineage. The site states that the centers “developed through a grass roots movement of lay people” and have a

“democratic structure.” (www.diamondway.org/usa/1cntr_usa.php)

Drikung Kagyu – Kagyu – www.drikung.org

Drikung Kagyu is an international organization founded by the Venerable

Konchog Gyaltsen Rinpoche with the purpose of preserving and transmitting the sacred Drikung

98

texts, particularly the Gong Chik, to students in Tibet, India and the west. The organization states that “as a result of the Chinese invasion of Tibet and subsequent destruction of monasteries and sacred texts, the lack of teachings on the Gong Chik and the unavailability of printed texts endangers its very existence. To avoid this tragic loss, we are seeking your support to preserve and distribute this great text and further its study” (www.drikung.org/projects.html). The focus of this organization’s activities is preservation through western support. “Dharma study is just starting here in the West, so we must rely heavily on the monasteries in India and Tibet to preserve Buddhism's traditions and teachings. Then, in time, these teachings will be translated in

Western languages for the benefit of Western students (www.drikung.org/projects.html). Among the projects in which the organization is involved are an orphanage in Tibet, a support program for monks and nuns in Tibet and a residential project for nuns in Tibet. Founded in 1985, there are currently approximately 87 affiliated centers in 21 countries.

Emaho Foundation – Kagyu – www.emahofoundation.org

The Emaho Foundation was founded in 2003 in Scottsdale, Arizona by the Venerable

ZaChoeje Rinpoche. The organization is “dedicated to sharing Tibetan culture in the West, supporting humanitarian projects worldwide and assisting with personal spiritual development”

(www.emahofoundation.org/inde.hem). Establishment of the permanent site occurred after several years of informal teaching and mediation locations. Zachoeje Rinpoche teaches throughout the United States at various Kagyu centers.

99

Kagyu Droden Kunchab (KDK) – Kagyu – www.kdk.org

The KDK was established in 1974 by His Eminence in order to bring the

Dharma to the West. Unlike many other organizations, in addition to masters of its own lineage, the centers welcome lamas from other schools and lineages, such as the Dalai Lama (Gelug school) and Sakya Trichen Rinpoche (Sakya school).

Karma Triyana Dharmachakra (KTD) – Kagyu – www.kagyu.org

The KTD, like the Diamond Way, is an organization uniting western centers of the

Karma Kagyu lineage. The KTD is the official North American Seat, or headquarter, of the 17th

Gyalwa Karmapa, the spiritual leader of the entire Kagyu school. The KTD has approximately

40 affiliated centers in Canada, United States, , Colombia and Venezuela and is part of the worldwide Karma Kagyu network consisting of several hundred centers.

Shambhala – Kagyu - www.shambhala.org

Shambhala is a unique lineage within Tibetan Buddhism and though it is classified in this study as a branch within the Kagyu lineage, within which its founder, Chogyam Trungpa

Rinpoche, was a master, it also has foundation in the Nyingma school and the Rime (non- sectarian ecumenical) movement of Tibetan Buddhism. In order to place it within the context of this study, and because many of the Shambhala centers classify themselves as falling within the

Kagyu school, the organization will be classified as Kagyu.

The Shambhala organization describes itself as a non-sectarian path of spiritual training.

Founded in 1976, Shambhala currently has over 100 centers and is headquartered in Halifax,

100

Nova Scotia. The University, the first fully accredited Buddhist university in the United

States, located in Boulder, Colorado, was founded as part of this organization as a place to blend intuition with intellect.

Aro Ter – Nyingma - www.aroter.org

The Aro Ter lineage was founded as a non-profit organization in Penarth, Wales in 1977 by His Holiness Dudjom Rinpoche. The teachings of this lineage are based on the Inner teachings of the Dzogchen and they emphasize the integration of transformative practice into one’s everyday activities.

The Welsh center serves as the headquarters for an international group of practitioners, most of whom are located in Europe. Though there are approximately sixty practitioners in this lineage who have been ordained through an apprenticeship program, there are relatively few official practice centers. Of the approximately 17 centers, 3 are located in the United States.

The lineage does state worldwide expansion as one of the goals of its apprenticeship program.

Chagdud Gonpa- Nyingma – www.chagdud.org

This affiliation was established as a non-profit foundation in 1983 by His Eminence

Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche in order to provide public teachings and retreats to interested practitioners and also to serve as a center for Tibetan text translation and publication. A goal of this organization is to “uphold and preserve the arts, philosophy, and meditation practices of the

Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism.” (www.chagdud.org/north_am/index.html).

101

This affiliation operates only in the western hemisphere with centers in the North and

South America. There are 28 centers in the United States, 23 practice centers in Brazil, and one each in , and Canada.

Dzogchen – Nyingma – www.dzogchenlineage.org

This lineage is part of a large international network, also referred to as the Shri Singha, that has centers in countries in Asia and Europe as well as in the United States, Mexico and

Brazil. The affiliation provides educational instruction and support at the Shri Singha University in Tibet, spiritual education at its practice centers, retreat opportunities throughout the world and is engaged in various charitable projects in support of Tibetans throughout the world.

Palyul – Nyingma – www.palyul.org

This lineage is headed by His Holiness Pema Norbu Rinpoche and has affiliated centers in fourteen countries throughout the world. The mission of the lineage is to “uphold and preserve” the teachings of the Buddha, particularly in the Palyul Nyingma tradition, and to make them available to all. The centers offer courses of study, prayer and meditation practice for all who are interested.

Padmasambhava Buddhist Center – Nyingma- www.padmasambhava.org

This organization was founded in New York City in 1989 by Venerable Khenchen Palden

Sherab Rinpoche and Khenpo Tsewant Dongyal Rinpoche. It consists of over 20 centers in the

United States, Puerto Rico and Russia. Among the activities in which it is involved are the support of Tibetan monasteries and nunneries in India, the provision of retreats, and the spreading of the Dharma through regular teachings and through radio broadcast.

102

Rigpa – Nyingma – www.rigpa.org

This affiliation was founded by specifically to serve western students and currently consists of approximately 106 centers in 23 countries. The goal of this affiliation is to make the teachings of the Buddha “available to benefit as many people as possible” and to offer students of the Dharma “a complete path of study and practice” in a proper environment.

Tsechen Kunchab Ling – Sakya- www.sakyatemple.org

This organization was established as the North American seat of the Sakya lama His

Holiness . The main goal of this group has been to create a traditional Tibetan temple to serve as a retreat center and where both ordained and lay practitioners can devote themselves to study, contemplation and meditation. In addition to the temple, one auxiliary meeting center exists.

Vikramasila – Sakya- www.vikra

This non-profit organization was founded by the Venerable Lama Pema Wangdak in an effort to aid the mission of His Holiness Sakya Trizin to reestablish the Sakya school outside of

Tibet. The organization seeks to help exiled Tibetans and preserve the culture as well as provide spiritual instruction to those who seek it.

103