THE LATER SPREAD OF BUDDHISM IN TIBET

Sven Bretfeld (University of Berne)

1. Introduction

There is a simple and a complex answer to the question of what Tibetans mean by the “later spread” of Buddhism in Tibet (bstan-pa phyi-dar, or simply phyi-dar). The simple answer might read roughly like the following: The “later spread” is a collective term for the missionary movements in Tibet of the late tenth to around the thirteenth century. During that period numerous Buddhist masters—Indians and Tibetans— brought Indian traditions of Buddhist exegesis, philosophy and ritual to Tibet and thereby revived what was left of Tibetan Buddhism after the collapse of the old empire. This period can be regarded as forma- tive for Tibetan Buddhism as we know it today, since the origins of the monastic traditions with all their social and doctrinal diversities are connected to these early movements in some way or another. The complex answer has to deal with the ideological implications of the concepts used in Tibetan statements concerning the “later spread” and the meaning of these statements in Tibetan cultural communica- tion. Such an answer can, of course, not be given within this paper. However, a few words on the problems involved may be said in this introduction. The problems can perhaps be demonstrated if we ask what sources on the “later spread” are available apart from religious texts. The simple, but maybe surprising, answer is: none. Of course, we have other sources, architectural, artistic, archaeological, textural etc., that shed light on the period of Tibetan history in question. But these do not say anything about a thing called “later spread”. This is due to the fact that this concept only makes sense within a speci c religious framework of commemoration of the past. Thus, writing an article on the “later spread” means to write about a speci c notion deeply rooted Tibetan religious culture. Our main sources on the “later spread” of Buddhism in Tibet are texts belonging to different genres of Tibetan historiography.1 These

1 See the section on the phyi-dar group of sources in the contribution of K. Kollmar- Paulenz in this book. My presentation relies largely on the same choice of sources. 342 sven bretfeld works were written by religious specialists for a speci c religio-political purpose and date from a time considerably later than the historical period in question. Although the motives behind Tibetan Buddhist historiography have, as far as I know, never been studied systematically, we can say at least the following: The chos-’byungs (“religious histories”) and similar genres of Tibetan historiography are, above all, religious statements. Their primary concern is not to give answers to the question of what happened in the past, but of what is the meaning of certain past events for the present.2 They communicate the “Great Story” of Tibetan Buddhism to an audience that identi es with this narration, and in commemorating the religious past of the country, Tibetan his- torical works communicate religious values, construct group identities and legitimate models of social differentiation—for example, the social supremacy of the clergy3 or the relationship between the clergy and worldly aristocracy. Under this perspective it is quite understandable, that our sources concentrate on the stories of past religious heroes, since it is the religious work of those extraordinary people that is believed to have formed Tibet into the religious society which is attempted to be (re-)created or preserved by commemorating these stories. Average lay-Buddhists, even ordinary monks, appear in these sources only as numerical factors or as role-speci c walk-ons. Thus, in the “later spread” accounts we hear of people converting to Buddhism, and eventually adopting a religious life, because a certain Buddhist master evoked their con dence in the dharma. But we do not hear a word on the social pro- cesses and structures involved in the establishment of Buddhism as the religion of the great masses of Tibetan population—for example, the strong dependency of Tibetan peasants from their respective landlord, who, moreover, frequently was no-one other than the head of a large, land-owning monastic estate himself. Hence, in following the accounts of the “later spread” in Tibetan historical sources, neither “Tibetan history”, nor “Tibetan Buddhism”, nor “Tibetan Buddhists” are represented, but a speci c class of Tibetan

2 Cf. also Schwieger 2000, Kapstein 2000 and Bretfeld 2003. 3 I use this term for lack of a better one. What I mean is the totality of Tibetan Buddhists who chose religious activities as their main profession. This includes many more lifestyles than that of a celibate monk or nun living in a monastery. For a detailed discussion of the various models of Buddhist specialists, see Samuel 1993, pp. 270–289.