Language Use and Maintenance in the Monastic Setting, A

Home , Changpa, Dzongkha, Gompa, Kham language, Kopan Monastery, Lhatse (town)

DigitalResources Electronic Survey Report 2019-001

Language Use and Maintenance in the Monastic Setting A Sociolinguistic Study of the Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries of Kathmandu

Brad L. Chamberlain Language Use and Maintenance in the Monastic Setting A Sociolinguistic Study of the Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries of Kathmandu

Brad L. Chamberlain

SIL International® 2019

Data and materials collected by researchers in an era before documentation of permission was standardized may be included in this publication. SIL makes diligent efforts to identify and acknowledge sources and to obtain appropriate permissions wherever possible, acting in good faith and on the best information available at the time of publication. Abstract

Many Himalayan language varieties have had only little linguistic and sociolinguistic research. This study explores whether, and to what extent, monastic communities living in and around Kathmandu can provide suitable language consultants for linguistic research, in light of the remoteness and political constraints that complicate research in these minority language communities. More specifically, this study had three major research objectives. The first was to identify what language groups are present in Kathmandu’s monasteries and to identify different variables that could be used as criteria for targeting specific communities for more in-depth research on language use and maintenance. The second objective was to explore language use patterns among the monastic students in Kathmandu’s monasteries, and how these patterns impact their proficiency in the various languages at their disposal. The third objective was to assess the levels of language maintenance as well as the types of language shift which occur as monks spend extended time in the monasteries. This report was written in 2002 but was not published until now. In total, 73 individuals from twelve different monasteries were interviewed. They come from Nepal, Tibet, and Bhutan, originating from twenty-five different linguistic backgrounds. The tools applied include individual questionnaires, lexical comparisons, as well as fluency and comprehension testing. The results of the study can be summarized as follows: 1. Factors that encourage language maintenance: For students who leave their home areas to live in the monasteries of Kathmandu, a number of factors have been identified that can lead to language maintenance of the mother-tongue. Overall, the findings show that there is a correlation between language maintenance and the opportunities for language use. 2. Factors which may affect ability as a language assistant: The findings indicate that the ideal language consultants are monks who joined the monastic system quite recently, and at an older age. Moreover, monks who show high levels of pride in their speech variety and the culture of their home area are more likely to be still highly proficient in their heritage languages varieties. 3. Limitations of linguistic data obtained from a monastery: The findings show that—even when active ability is affected—passive ability in the mother tongue is not greatly affected. Therefore, it is quite likely that monks can serve as translators from the mother tongue to another language, and can also assess the purity level of a text, regardless of the time away from their home areas. They may not, however, be able to provide accurate regional dialect information. Furthermore, monks who have become quite educated within the monastic system become decreasingly representative of the general population from their home areas. Therefore, in the context of linguistic research in a specific region, such monks are less than ideal consultants. Moreover, only few monks have enough free time to participate regularly in any sort of linguistic research. Contents

Abbreviations Preface 1 Purpose of the study 1.1 Description of study 1.2 Some foundational definitions 1.3 Language maintenance and its role in cultural preservation 1.4 Application for the linguistic researcher 1.5 Application for the Tibetan-Buddhist communities 1.6 Broader applications 2 Background 2.1 Tibetan Buddhist language communities of South Asia 2.2 Main concentrations of monasteries in Kathmandu 2.2.1 Boudha 2.2.2 Swayambhu 2.2.3 Pharping 3 Demographic survey of Kathmandu’s monasteries 3.1 Design of the study 3.1.1 Purpose 3.1.2 Basic research questions 3.1.3 Tools used 3.2 Monastery locations and resident profiles 3.2.1 Locations of the monasteries studied 3.2.2 Home areas of Kathmandu’s monks 3.2.3 Home areas of the Rinpoches of Kathmandu’s monasteries 3.3 Categorization of Kathmandu’s monasteries 3.3.1 Homogeneous or heterogeneous monk body 3.3.2 Population size of the monasteries 3.3.3 Functional focus 3.3.4 Categorization of functional foci of the monasteries 3.3.4 Chronology of construction 3.4 Factors which may influence language use and maintenance 4 Language use study 4.1 Design of the study 4.1.1 Purpose 4.1.2 Basic research questions 4.1.3 Tools used 4.2 Discussion of sample 4.2.1 Ages of subjects 4.2.2 Mother tongue of subjects 4.2.3 Nationality of subjects 4.2.4 Monastic environment 4.3 Interaction with people from the home area 4.3.1 Interactions with people who still live in the home area 4.3.2 Interactions with people from home area living in Kathmandu 4.3.3 Summary of home-interaction data

iii iv

4.4 Language ability 4.4.1 Languages spoken 4.4.2 Assessment of language maintenance 4.4.3 Assessment of mother-tongue ability 4.4.4 Assessment of Tibetan ability 4.4.5 Assessment of Nepali ability 4.4.6 Assessment of English ability 4.4.7 Summary of language ability data 4.5 Language use 4.5.1 Language use with people from the home area 4.5.2 Language use with people from Tibet 4.5.3 Language use with people from Nepal 4.5.4 Language use for monastic purposes 4.5.5 Summary of language use results 4.6 Summary of language use study 4.6.1 General patterns 4.6.2 Answers to research questions 5 Language maintenance study 5.1 Design of the study 5.1.1 Purpose 5.1.2 Research questions 5.1.3 Tools used 5.1.4 Design and subject selection 5.2 Description of the languages in this study 5.3 Evaluation of lexical data 5.3.1 Manangi data 5.3.2 Tingri Tibetan data 5.3.3 Khengkha data 5.3.4 Summary of trends in lexical data 5.4 Evaluation of text data 5.4.1 Manangi data 5.4.2 Tingri data 5.4.3 Khengkha data 5.4.4 Summary of text data 5.5 Summary of language maintenance study 5.5.1 Lack of purity correlating with length of time in the monastic system 5.5.2 Lack of recall correlating with opportunities for language use 5.5.3 Little loss of comprehension 5.5.4 Little loss of awareness of what is pure 6 Summary and results 6.1 Factors that encourage language maintenance 6.1.1 Ease of travel to the home area. 6.1.2 Existence of a lay population from the home area near the monastery 6.1.3 Monastery population linguistic make-up 6.1.4 Monastery size 6.1.5 Languages of instruction and discussion 6.1.6 Living situation 6.2 Factors which may affect ability as a language assistant 6.2.1 Number of years living away from the home area 6.2.2 Attitudes towards the mother tongue

6.3 Limitations of linguistic data obtained from a monastery 6.3.1 Types of language shift likely 6.3.2 Attitude issues towards Tibetan and the mother tongue 6.3.3 Time and schedule constraints 6.4 Summary statement Appendix A: Monastery Data Appendix B: Profiles of Some of Kathmandu’s Rinpoches Appendix C: Tibetan Buddhist Sects Found in Kathmandu Appendix D: Monasteries Housing Particular Language Groups Appendix E: Answers to Language Use Questionnaire Appendix F: Wordlist Data References

Abbreviations

< less than # number % percent Com. community Environ. environment FPMT Foundation for the Preservation of Mahayana Tradition H.E. His Eminence Hetero. heterogeneous H.H. His Holiness Homo. homogeneous HP Himachal Pradesh CNAS Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies Lg./lgs. language, languages Med. meditation retreat (map 6) Mon. monastery MT mother tongue N north NE northeast NW northwest OK okay (reasonably well) Opp. opportunities PO Post Office SW southwest Tib. Tibetan W west

vi Preface

This sociolinguistic study of Kathmandu’s monasteries is meant to aid linguistic research in the Tibetan Buddhist world. This work will provide useful information about: 1) monasteries as a sociolinguistic setting, 2) Kathmandu as an access point to many different Tibetan Buddhist language groups, 3) issues that affect language maintenance among these populations. I am sure there are faults with this study. I confess my ignorance about things Tibetan and things Buddhist—the research has been a learning process for me. Since my own ability in Tibetan is limited, the research was conducted in Nepali or English, with Tibetan translation help when needed. There are possible errors in transcription of monastery and Rinpoche names, but I hope that the transcriptions will prove adequate. I am very thankful for the kind help of Dr. Novel K. Rai of CNAS, and for his sponsorship of this project. I am also thankful to the numerous Lamas who met with me over the past year—for their kind reception and ready help. I hope that these Lamas will see fruit from this research. Particularly, I hope that the research will help with the maintenance and development of their languages and cultures.

Brad Chamberlain Kathmandu, Nepal October 2002

vii 1 Purpose of the study

1.1 Description of study

There are many Himalayan language varieties that have had little research. Research in these languages is complicated both by their remoteness and by political constraints. However, within Kathmandu, there is a network of potential language assistants from many of these groups. Buddhist students from throughout the Tibetan Buddhist world can be found at monasteries within Kathmandu. The question arises, though, as to whether these monastic communities can provide suitable assistants for linguistic research. The monastic setting is multilingual, and the students from minority language areas are surrounded by dominant language varieties. These linguistic influences can impact the mother tongue of the individual, causing shift in the way that he speaks and lessening his ability to speak that language. For this reason, research regarding language maintenance among these students is foundational to any further linguistic research conducted through the monasteries. This study focuses on language use and language maintenance among minority language communities in the monasteries of Kathmandu. The research was conducted in three phases: 4. A demographic survey of the monasteries of Kathmandu, including the ideology, history, affiliations with other monasteries, and which linguistic communities are represented at each monastery. This is broad research, gathering a small amount of data from many monasteries. 5. A study of language use to determine which languages monks, from various language backgrounds and from different monastic environments, are using in the course of their daily lives. This research will focus on language use in several monasteries, selected according to the results of the demographic survey. 6. A study of language maintenance to determine the mother-tongue maintenance by minority language communities within the monasteries. This data will be gathered from members of several linguistic communities, in various monastic settings, selected by the results of the language use and demographic studies.

In combination, these three studies should give a strong profile of the sociolinguistic environment of the Buddhist monastery and its effect on language maintenance by minority language speakers.

1.2 Some foundational definitions

The following terms are found throughout this report: multilingual—The use by a speech community or individual speaker of two or more languages. (Crystal 1980:253) language use—Languages choices made by a speech community or individual speaker for the different situations in their daily life. language maintenance—The ability of an individual speaker or speech community to preserve the use of a language or the traditional form of a language. (Crystal 1980:214) language shift—The gradual or sudden move from the use of one language to another. (Crystal 1980:215) intelligibility—The degree of understanding a speaker of one speech variety has of a related speech variety because of the degree of genetic relationship between the two varieties. (Blair 1996:2) Tibetan Buddhist world—The collective area where the Vajrayana form of Buddhism is traditionally practiced. This includes the people of the Tibetan Plateau; many of the cultures of the Indian, Nepalese, and Bhutanese Himalayas; Mongolia; and parts of Siberia. home area—The region where an individual was raised and where he or she was first exposed to the language.

1 2

mother tongue—The language used in an individual speaker’s home when living with his or her parents. Rinpoche—The abbot or head of a monastery. Lama—An individual who has dedicated his life to living in the monasteries and who has completed all foundational monastic studies. monk—Any individual who is resident in a Buddhist monastery. “Nun” refers to the female counterpart. gompa—a Tibetan-Buddhist monastery or temple. monastery—An institution which contains lodging for a permanent presence of monks, as well as a Buddhist training facility and/or a lhakhang. lhakhang—A Tibetan Buddhist temple, often found within a monastery.

1.3 Language maintenance and its role in cultural preservation

Many of the Tibetan Buddhist groups are struggling to maintain their cultural identity. They are faced with external and internal pressures which often lead to the loss of certain aspects of their culture. These pressures are political, religious, economic, and educational. Language is an important part of culture. Many aspects of culture are revealed through the language of its people. Language maintenance, then, is an essential part of cultural preservation. Fishman (1991:24) states, “Parts of every culture are expressed, implemented and realized via the language with which that culture has been most intimately associated. So much of any culture is primarily verbally constituted: its songs and its prayers, its laws and its proverbs, its tales and its greetings, its curses and its blessings, its philosophy, its history and its teaching, and on and on, encompassing almost all of non- material culture.” This research, by looking at the monastic communities, will shed light on factors which lead to language maintenance and loss, and thereby to cultural preservation and loss.

1.4 Application for the linguistic researcher

This research shows the language varieties accessible through the monasteries of Kathmandu. It also gives an indication of the dialect purity spoken by those in the monastery, and hence, their viability as language assistants. This study serves as a foundation for further linguistic and sociolinguistic studies throughout these communities. This assessment of the assets and liabilities of the monasteries as bases for Himalayan language research will be available for those conducting research, literacy, and language development work.

1.5 Application for the Tibetan-Buddhist communities

This research provides a greater awareness of language use and maintenance issues, which is important for the preservation of home-area language and cultural identity. Language maintenance is also an issue for monks who return to their home-areas and have the duty of passing on their experience to local people. In a broader sense, this research will help people to understand factors that either assist or hinder the language maintenance of the Tibetan diaspora community. The data provides a foundation for future research, which could be applied toward literacy projects, language preservation, language development, and many other linguistic and sociolinguistic applications, all of which may be of use both to the monastic communities and to the home communities from which they come.

1.6 Broader applications

The effect of a dominant language on the maintenance of a minority language is not confined to the monastic setting. It is relevant for all people who need to resettle in a new area for whatever reasons: work, politics, study, etc. The monastic setting can serve as a good environment for studying language shift and maintenance in the Himalayan context, and such research can be applied to many other situations in the Himalayan region. Thus, issues concerning cultural and linguistic maintenance for displaced groups or individuals can be discovered through this research.

Map 1. Tibetan-related language area

2 Background

2.1 Tibetan Buddhist language communities of South Asia

In this report, the term “Tibetan Buddhist world” refers to all areas where the Vajrayana form of Mahayana Buddhism is practiced as a traditional religion. It is the religion of the Tibetan plateau, brought to Tibet in the eighth century from India by the Buddhist saint Guru Padmasambhava (Guru Rinpoche). Tibetan Buddhism encompasses not only the Tibetan plateau of China’s Tibet Autonomous Region, but also many groups found in the Himalayan regions of India, Nepal, and Bhutan, as well as populations in Mongolia and Siberia. This research focuses on the Tibetan Buddhist groups from Tibet as well as those from the Himalayan regions of India, Nepal, and Bhutan. The peoples of the Tibetan Buddhist world speak many different language varieties. The languages typically fall under the Bodic branch of the Tibeto-Burman language family. Many of the languages are considered descendents of Chokey, or classical Tibetan, which is the language of the Tibetan Buddhist

4 scriptures. Though the modern languages are not mutually intelligible with the Chokey language, they have developed from that language, much in the way that Hindi, Nepali, and the other Indo-Aryan languages are descended from Sanskrit. Examples of languages descended from Chokey are Sherpa, Dzongkha, and Ladakhi. In addition to the languages directly descended from Chokey, there are many other languages which are considered related (still within the Bodic branch of Tibeto-Burman language), but which diverged even before the Tibetan scriptures were written. Examples of such languages include Tamang, Gurung, Tsangla, and Bumthangkha. It is a matter of debate to decide which are separate languages and which are simply dialect variations between language varieties. For the purposes of this study, references to language varieties as separate languages implies that they are not mutually intelligible to speakers of the varieties. Drawing from various sources (Dombremez and Jest, Bradley, van Driem), the following table lists a basic summary of Tibeto-Burman languages spoken as mother tongues by the Tibetan Buddhist communities of South Asia and Tibet. Note that, as linguistic research continues in this region, it is inevitable that more distinctions will be drawn between language varieties.

Language communities of the Tibetan Buddhist world

Country Name Region Tibet, PRC Dbus U-tsang Lhasa area Gtsang U-tsang N of Nepal Mngahris U-tsang SW Tibet Western Kham Kham, NW of Lhasa Northern Kham N Kham Eastern Kham Kham, NE of Lhasa Southern Kham SW Kham Cone Kham Tewo, Amdo Hbrugchu Kham E of Tewo Hbrogpa Amdo Amdo Rongba Amdo NE Amdo Rtatu Amdo S Amdo India Ladakhi Ladakh Zanskari S Ladakh Lahul Bhoti Lahul Spiti Spiti Kinnaur Bhoti N Kinnaur Jad Bhoti N Uttaranchal Denjongkha N Sikkim Sherdukpen Arunachal Nepal Limi Humla Mugum Mugu Dolpa Dolpo Lowa Mustang Thakali W Annapurna Manangi N Annapurna Gurung W-Central Nepal Nar NW Gorkha District Nubri N Gurkha District Tsum NE Gurkha District

Tamang Central Nepal Langtang Langtang Yohlmo Helambu Jirel Jiri Sherpa Solu Khumbu Lhomi NE Nepal Wallung NE Nepal Bhutan Dzongkha W Bhutan Trongsakha Trongsa Mangdikha N Mangdi valley Bumthangkha Bumthang Kurtoepkha Luentshi Khengkha Zhemgang Chalikha Mongar Dzalakha NE Bhutan Tsangla E Bhutan

Map 2. Language areas of Tibetan Buddhist peoples

2.2 Main concentrations of monasteries in Kathmandu

Nepal has been an important part of the Buddhist world since 563 BC, when Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) was born in Lumbini, Nepal. Buddhism has been practiced in the central valleys and upper mountain areas of Nepal for many centuries (Savada 1993:xxix). Many of Nepal’s northern cultural groups are Tibetan Buddhists with long historical ties not only to Nepal, but also to Tibet. These groups include Sherpas, Yohlmos, Mugums, Lowas, Dolpas, Manangis, Thakalis, Gurungs, and Tamangs. After the Chinese occupation of Tibet in the late 1950s, many Tibetan refugees fled to the nearby nations of Nepal, India, and Bhutan. Being the largest city in the Himalayas, and one already well- familiar with Tibetan Buddhism, Kathmandu was a ready location for resettlement of many of the Tibetan refugees. Over the years since then, Kathmandu has grown as one of the focal points for Tibetan Buddhists. Three areas within the Kathmandu Valley have developed significant concentrations of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries: Boudha, Swayambhu, and Pharping. Since a lot has been written in various books about these locations and their significance to the Tibetan Buddhists, only a brief overview of each area will be mentioned here.

2.2.1 Boudha

The Boudhanath stupa (called Khasti Chaitya by Kathmandu’s indigenous Newari population) is located northeast of the city of Kathmandu. This is the largest stupa on earth and is considered a very holy site. It is an important destination for pilgrims from throughout the Tibetan Buddhist world. The original construction of the stupa is a matter of debate, with many Tibetan traditions, as well as several Newari traditions, attesting to its founding. However, it is believed that the stupa was constructed around AD 500, by King Manadeva (Sagemuller 2000:25). The first monastic structure believed to have been built at the site is the Chini Lama Gompa (built in the mid-nineteenth century). The other monasteries all came to Boudha since the middle of the twentieth century. The majority of the monasteries have been built in the past twenty years. Today, Boudha is one of the largest concentrations of Tibetan Buddhist religious institutions in the world. In a relatively small area, twenty-five monasteries from five sects (and several more sub-sects) can be found. There are over two thousand monks living at these monasteries.

2.2.2 Swayambhu

Swayambhu is located atop a large hill in northwest Kathmandu. Legends mention that the emperor Ashoka visited Swayambhunath over two thousand years ago. Records show that King Manadeva ordered that maintenance work be done on the site in AD 460. By the thirteenth century, Swayambhu was a major Buddhist center. With such a long tradition of Buddhism, it is not surprising that Swayambhu became one of the focal points for Tibetan Buddhism in Kathmandu, though it was not until the middle of the twentieth century that the first monastic institution was built in the area.

Map 3. Kathmandu Valley

(Map 4)

(Map 5)

(Map 6)

The monasteries of Swayambhu are located in a much lighter concentration than those of Boudha. There are four monasteries that share the same hilltop as the Swayambhu stupa, with many more along the roads that surround that hill. Still others are set atop nearby hills or back against the Himalayan foothills, several kilometers from the stupa itself. The fourteen residential monasteries of Swayambhu contain over one thousand monks, primarily from the Kagyu school, though there are also several Gelugpa monasteries. The only Bon monastery in Kathmandu is located in this area.

2.2.3 Pharping

Pharping is further from Kathmandu than the other two locations. It is set against the Hattiban hill which rises to the south of Kathmandu. Pharping has one hill which has many caves, including the Asanta cave. According to Tibetan traditions, Guru Padmasambhava visited these caves in the eighth century AD. Legacies of his visit can be viewed in physical form, such as a clear hand-print attributed to the Tibetan saint. Another cave, marked by a Buddhist gompa (Rigzen Drubpe Ghatsal) and a prominent Hindu temple (Narayansthan), is a prominent location where Padmasambhava is said to have meditated. This historical tradition, as well as the beautiful setting, has made Pharping a third popular focal point for Tibetan Buddhist institutions. Though there appear to be many monasteries (sixteen) in the area, only a few of them contain a residential population. The majority of the structures are retreat centers used by monks from Kathmandu’s monasteries, usually for three-year meditation retreats. Many of these buildings are unmarked and are dormant for a long time. While active, they house a population in retreat from the distractions of the world. As a result, this report does not include much data about them. Of the monasteries with a residential body, Pharping contains primarily those from the Nyingma sect.

3 Demographic survey of Kathmandu’s monasteries

3.1 Design of the study

3.1.1 Purpose

The demographic survey of Kathmandu’s monasteries was undertaken to identify what language groups are present in Kathmandu’s monasteries. In addition, the patterns found in these data provide several different variables which can be used as criteria for researching language use and maintenance. By looking at these variables and exploring which monastic populations are found in Kathmandu, specific communities can be targeted for more in-depth research.

3.1.2 Basic research questions

This study aims to provide a profile of the monasteries and the monastic community of Kathmandu as a whole. Some of the data are directly relevant to linguistic issues. However, other data are relevant to an overall picture of the monastic system in Kathmandu. Some basic research questions were established before conducting the research. 1. Where are the monasteries of Kathmandu located? 2. What sects of Buddhism are represented in Kathmandu? 3. What is the chronology of establishing monasteries in Kathmandu? 4. What areas do the Rinpoches of Kathmandu’s monasteries come from? 5. What areas do the monastic students of Kathmandu’s monasteries come from? 6. Are the monasteries made up of a homogeneous culture, or are they a place where many cultures are represented?

7. Do the home areas of the monastic body at a particular monastery correlate with the home areas of their Rinpoche, or to the sect they adhere to? 8. How large is the monastic body at Kathmandu’s monasteries? 9. What is the functional focus of the various monasteries (training, lhakhang maintenance, outreach, social services, etc.)? 10. What are the funding sources of the monasteries?

3.1.3 Tools used

Though there are several books that contain information about monasteries in Kathmandu, there are no current works that are comprehensive. However, those sources that do exist were of great benefit to designing the survey and its methodology. The demographic survey was simple in process. After several trips to each area, mapping out the locations of the monastic institutions (and buildings that looked like monasteries), a questionnaire was developed. The questionnaire asked: 1. What is the name of this monastery? 2. What other names are used for this monastery? 3. To which sect does this monastery belong? 4. What year was it begun? 5. What is the founding Rinpoche’s name? 6. Where is the founding Rinpoche’s birth area? 7. If different, what is the current Rinpoche’s name? 8. Where is the current Rinpoche’s home area? 9. How many monks are studying at this monastery? 10. Typically, where do these monks come from?1 11. What other monasteries are connected with this one? 12. What special services does this monastery offer? 13. What is the telephone number and address of this monastery? 14. Do you have any literature about your monastery?

These questions were usually asked in Nepali (though sometimes English was used, or Tibetan translation was used), from a knowledgeable Lama or office worker at the monastery in question. Informal discussion often preceded and followed the questioning, and relevant issues were noted.

3.2 Monastery locations and resident profiles

3.2.1 Locations of the monasteries studied

This research is meant to be as representative of Kathmandu’s monasteries as possible. In total, forty- three residential monasteries were visited. In addition, there are many Buddhist temples without a residential body (lhakhangs) and several meditation centers. The monasteries included in this study are shown in table 3.1. Also listed are the sects of the monasteries, and the reference number to the data summary found in Appendix A of this report which includes a map of the home areas of the residents.

1 Though the primary focus of this study is the languages spoken by the monks, no question explicitly asks this. Instead, the questionnaire focused on the home areas of the monks. The reason for this is twofold: 1) When discussing Tibetan language varieties, many individuals will refer to all of them collectively as “Tibetan”. Thus, asking “What are the mother tongues of the monks at this monastery?” would result in significant under- representation. 2) The languages of the Tibetan Buddhist world are typically geographically based. So, by knowing where someone comes from, we can be reasonably sure what their mother tongue is.

Table 3.1. List of monasteries included in this study

Location Monastery name Sect Boudha B01. Shelkar Chodey Gelug B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling Nyingma B03. Sherpa Service Center Nyingma B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling Kagyu B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling Nyingma B06. Jamchen Lhakhang Sakya B07. Nenang Phuntsok Choling Kagyu B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling Ka-Nying B09. Pal Thangru Tashi Choling Kagyu B10. Boudha Tamang Gompa Nyingma B11. Dobsang Kagyu Monastery Kagyu B12. Kyirong Samtenling Gelug B13. Porong Pyes Kon Sporong Boton B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling Nyingma B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling Sakya B16. Pal Dilyak Kagyu B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling Sakya B18. Pal Thupten Ngedun Kagyu B20. Zhichen Bairoling Nyingma B21. Drukchen Choeling Kagyu B22. Chusang Gompa Gelug B23. Sri Karma Subhusit Dharma unsure B24. Kopan Monastery Gelug B25. Khachoe Ghakyil Ling Gelug B26. Phulahari Monastery Kagyu Pharping P06. Rigzen Drubpe Ghatsal Nyingma P09. Ngaichu Dongag Choeling Nyingma P10. Pema Osel Ling Ka-Nying P13. Sakya Tarig Gompa Sakya Swayambhu S01. Karma Raja Maha Vihar Kagyu S02. Dongak Chyoling Kagyu S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling Gelug S04. Gaden Jam Gonling Gelug S05. Manang Society Kagyu S06. Shri Gautam Buddha Vihara Kagyu S07. Sangye Choeling Kagyu S08. Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling Kagyu S10. Nyanang Phelgyeng Gelug S11. Keydong Thukche Choling Gelug S13. Triten Norbutse Bon S14. Karma Lekshey Ling Kagyu S15. Ngesden Osel Ling Ka-Nying S16. Karma Ngedhon Osal Kagyu

Of the forty-three monasteries in this study, twenty-five (58%) are in the Boudha area, fourteen (33%) are in Swayambhu, and four (9%) are located in Pharping. By sect, the profiles of each location are as follows:

Boudha Kagyu 7 Nyingma 6 Gelug 5 Sakya 3 Ka-Nying 1 Buton 1 Swayambhu Kagyu 8 Gelug 4 Ka-Nying 1 Bon 1 Pharping Nyingma 2 Kagyu 1 Ka-Nying 1

Maps 4, 5, and 6 show the locations of these monasteries.

Map 4. Boudhanath area monasteries

Map 5. Swayambhunath area monasteries

Map 6. Pharping area monasteries

3.2.2 Home areas of Kathmandu’s monks

Monks from throughout the Tibetan Buddhist world are found in the monasteries of Kathmandu. The highest concentration of monks comes from Nepal’s Tibetan Buddhist cultural groups living along the northern border of Nepal. Many more come from the U-tsang region of Tibet, particularly from the region between Tingri and Lhasa. In addition to these dominant areas, monks also come from both the Kham and Amdo regions of Tibet. There are monks from throughout Bhutan and from the Himalayan regions of India. Table 3.2 shows the locations cited as home areas. Included is a column showing the likely mother- tongue language based on this location. In some cases, cultural groupings are listed instead. This is typically because people from these groupings come from a wide area. Cultural groupings are designated in italics, while location names are not. Map 7 shows these locations.

Table 3.2. Home areas of monks in Kathmandu’s monasteries

Country Location Language variety Country Location Language variety Nepal Mugu Mugum Tibet Kangbo Dbus Dolpo Dolpa Kyimdong Dbus Mustang Lowa Lhasa Dbus Gurung Gurung Tsetang Dbus Manang Manangi Gyangtse Gtsang Langtang Langtang Bhoti Kyirong Gtsang Helambu Yohlmo Nyelam Gtsang Tamang Tamang Pang Chu Gtsang N Gorkha Dist Nubri Shegar Gtsang Solu Khumbu Sherpa Shigatse Gtsang Tablejung Wallung Tingri Gtsang Dorpatan Dbus Kangon Mngahris India Dharamsala Dbus Kham Kham Tibetan Dolanji, HP Dbus Nangchen Northern Kham South India Dbus Dege Eastern Kham Ladakh Ladakhi Tewa Cone Kham Kinnaur Kinnaur Bhoti Nyanong Southern Kham Sikkim Denjongkha Nyarong Western Kham Darjeeling Nepali Amdo Amdo Tibetan Bhutan Ngalong Dzongkha Mangdi Mangdikha Bumthang Bumthangkha Luentshi Kurtoepkha Zhemgang Khengkha Sharchop Tsangla

There is a slight correlation between a monastery’s sect and the home areas of the monks at that monastery. Nyingmapa, Kagyupa, and Gelugpa monasteries all draw from throughout the region. However, Gelugpa monasteries particularly draw from the U-tsang region in Tibet. Sakya monasteries draw from the mountain regions in Nepal, with very few coming from Tibet, India, or Bhutan. Monks from Bhutan are only found at Kagyu-Drukpa and Nyingmapa monasteries.

Map 7. Home areas of monks living in Kathmandu

3.2.3 Home areas of the Rinpoches of Kathmandu’s monasteries

The Rinpoches who founded and currently administer the monasteries in Kathmandu also come from a wide range of areas, but, whereas the majority of monks come from Nepal, the majority of Rinpoches come from Tibet. Most come from the Nangchen and Dege areas of Kham, and from the U-tsang region (surrounding Lhasa). In addition, there are Rinpoches from Amdo. There are also some from Bhutan and from the Tibetan exile communities in Dharmsala and southern India. A few Rinpoches come from Mongolia. A more recent phenomenon is that of locating incarnate Lamas in countries which are not typically associated with Tibetan Buddhism. According to Tibetan Buddhist belief, an incarnation will be discovered from among the population surrounding where the deceased Lama had lived. In recent years, many Tibetan Buddhist institutions have opened throughout Western countries as well. As a result, incarnations of the Lamas who worked in the West are sometimes found in Western countries. There are Rinpoches of Kathmandu monasteries from both the USA and Spain. There does not appear to be any correlation between the monastery’s sect and the home area of the Rinpoche. There are Kagyu Rinpoches from Amdo, Kham, U-tsang, Nepal, and Bhutan present in Kathmandu. There are Nyingma Rinpoches from Kham, U-tsang, and Nepal. Gelugpa Rinpoches come from U-tsang, Nepal, and India. And Sakya Rinpoches come from Kham, Nepal, and America. The only trend of note is that there are no Gelugpa Rinpoches from Kham or Amdo, and there are no Sakya Rinpoches from U-tsang. Whether this indicates sectarian trends of these regions, or simply the limited nature of this data, is not clear. Also, there does not appear to be any trend indicating that a monastery draws monks from the Rinpoche’s home area. In many cases, the monk body comes from a wide range of places throughout the whole region, with no specific preference given to the place where the Rinpoche is from. Even in cases where the monk body is relatively homogeneous, the Rinpoche will often come from a different area than that body. Table 3.3 and map 8 show the locations of home areas for the Rinpoches of Kathmandu’s monasteries.

Table 3.3. Home areas of Rinpoches in Kathmandu’s monasteries

Country Location Country Location Tibet Amdo region India Dharmsala Dege Kham S. India Gawa Kham Sikkim Nangchen Kham Nyanong Kham Nepal Kathmandu Nyarong Kham Manang Chumba U-tsang Mustang Drepung U-tsang Solu Khumbu Ganden U-tsang Kangbo U-tsang Bhutan Thimpu Nechung U-sang Nyemo U-tsang Other Mongolia Poyul U-tsang Seattle, USA Tingri U-tsang

Map 8. Home areas of Rinpoches in Kathmandu

Tibet (CHINA)

NEPAL

INDIA BHUTAN

3.3 Categorization of Kathmandu’s monasteries

There are certain factors which can be applied to categorize Kathmandu’s monasteries. For this study the factors will prove useful for establishing profiles of various sociolinguistic environments at the monasteries. Already this report has mentioned such characteristics as location, sectarian designation, Rinpoche home area, and monk body home areas. Some other useful distinctions are discussed below.

3.3.1 Homogeneous or heterogeneous monk body

Monasteries group into two basic categories depending on the home areas of their monk bodies. Some monasteries are fairly homogeneous in their makeup, drawing almost exclusively from one region or cultural group. Such monasteries contain a monk body sharing one mother tongue, though often they have arrived in Kathmandu over the span of many years. Many other monasteries are heterogeneous in their makeup. These monasteries draw students from throughout the Tibetan Buddhist world, speaking many different mother tongues. The exact cultural profiles of these monasteries are subject to constant change. In table 3.4, a homogeneous population is marked by the name of that population’s home area. If there is a trend towards monks coming from throughout a specific larger area (Nepal, for example), then the designation is “LOCATION heterogeneous”. If the population of monks comes from many different locations, the designation is “heterogeneous”. These designations only indicate trends. So, a monastery which is listed as drawing from Mustang does not necessarily draw uniquely from Mustang, but rather primarily from there.

Table 3.4. Home area categories of Kathmandu’s monks Monastery name Home area S15. Ngesden Osel Ling N Gorkha District, Nepal S11. Keydong Thukche Choling Kyimdong, Tibet B12. Kyirong Samtenling Kyirong, Tibet S05. Manang Society Manang, Nepal S14. Karma Lekshey Ling Manang, Nepal S16. Karma Ngedhon Osal Manang, Nepal B06. Jamchen Lhakhang Mustang, Nepal S10. Nyanang Phelgyeng Nyanong, Kham B03. Sherpa Service Center Solu Khumbu, Nepal P09. Ngaichu Dongag Choeling Solu Khumbu, Nepal B10. Boudha Tamang Gompa Tamang, Central Nepal B13. Porong Pyes Kon Sporong Tingri, Tibet B22. Chusang Gompa Tingri, Tibet S06. Shri Gautam Buddha Vihara Bhutan heterogeneous B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling Kham (Tibet) heterogeneous B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling Nepal heterogeneous B21. Drukchen Choeling Nepal heterogeneous S07. Sangye Choeling Nepal heterogeneous S08. Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling Nepal heterogeneous B01. Shelkar Chodey U-tsang (Tibet) heterogeneous B23. Sri Karma Subhusit Dharma U-tsang (Tibet) heterogeneous B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling heterogeneous

Monastery name Home area B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling heterogeneous B07. Nenang Phuntsok Choling heterogeneous B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling heterogeneous B09. Pal Thangru Tashi Choling heterogeneous B11. Dobsang Kagyu Monastery heterogeneous B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling heterogeneous B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling heterogeneous B16. Pal Dilyak heterogeneous B18. Pal Thupten Ngedun heterogeneous B20. Zhichen Bairoling heterogeneous B24. Khachoe Ghakyil Ling heterogeneous B25. Kopan Monastery heterogeneous B26. Phulahari Monastery heterogeneous P06. Rigzen Drubpe Ghatsal heterogeneous S01. Karma Raja Maha Vihar heterogeneous S02. Dongak Chyoling heterogeneous S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling heterogeneous S04. Gaden Jam Gonling heterogeneous S13. Triten Norbutse heterogeneous

3.3.2 Population size of the monasteries

Kathmandu’s monasteries range from less than ten residents to more than three hundred. Population size is an important factor when looking at a monastery as a sociolinguistic environment. Table 3.5 lists the monasteries of Kathmandu according to the size of their resident population. For easy reference, the sizes have been grouped as small (less than 100 residents), and large (over 100 residents).

Table 3.5. Number of residents in Kathmandu’s monasteries Small monasteries (less than 100 residents) Monastery name Population B11. Dobsang Kagyu Monastery 6 P10. Pema Osel Ling 10 P13. Sakya Tarig Gompa 10 B13. Porong Pyes Kon Sporong 12 B20. Zhichen Bairoling 12 B07. Nenang Phuntsok Choling 17 P06. Rigzen Drubpe Ghatsal 30 B23. Sri Karma Subhusit Dharma 35 P09. Ngaichu Dongag Choeling 35 B22. Chusang Gompa 36 B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling 40 B01. Shelkar Chodey 48 B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling 50 S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling 50 S06. Shri Gautam Buddha Vihara 50

B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling 55 S04. Gaden Jam Gonling 55 B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling 60 S10. Nyanang Phelgyeng 60 S07. Sangye Choeling 65 S01. Karma Raja Maha Vihar 70 S11. Keydong Thukche Choling 70 B18. Pal Thupten Ngedun 75 S15. Ngesden Osel Ling 80 S16. Karma Ngedhon Osal 86 B16. Pal Dilyak 87 B06. Jamchen Lhakhang 90

Large monasteries (more than 100 residents) Monastery name Population B12. Kyirong Samtenling 100 B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling 120 B26. Phulahari Monastery 120 B24. Khachoe Ghakyil Ling 150 B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling 180 S13. Triten Norbutse 180 B21. Drukchen Choeling 190 S08. Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling 200 S14. Karma Lekshey Ling monastery 200 B25. Kopan Monastery 260 B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling 300 B09. Pal Thangru Tashi Choling 320

3.3.3 Functional focus

There are several functional foci which the monasteries of Kathmandu follow. Please note that these categories are simply one way to categorize the foci of the monasteries and are by no means all the functions served by these institutions. At the broadest level, a distinction can be made between those which have an upkeep focus (activities focus towards the upkeep of the lhakhang), a monastic-training focus (most activities involve the religious and philosophical development of the monk body itself), a layman focus (religious activities for the benefit of Tibetan Buddhist laymen), a community focus (many activities are for the benefit of the broader community’s needs), and an outreach focus (many activities are for the benefit of non-Buddhists or new Buddhists). There are several potential small categories within each of these broad foci, as outlined below. In section 3.3.4, the categories are arranged in a progression from what might be termed an internal focus, to a more external focus.

3.3.4 Categorization of functional foci of the monasteries

1. Upkeep focus • maintenance of the lhakhang - The resident body primarily functions to maintain the lhakhang. • performance of pujas - The resident body performs regular daily pujas which are mandated according to the lhakhang where they serve.

• upkeep of Rinpoche’s Kathmandu residence - The resident body maintains a facility that serves as the seat for the Rinpoche when he is in Kathmandu. 2. Monastic-training focus: • general sectarian religious training - A focus on training the monastic body in Buddhist doctrine, particularly from their sect’s standpoint. • specific Buddhist skill training for monk body - Training in other skills associated with Tibetan Buddhism, such as the Tibetan debate method. • meditation retreat for monk body - Facility for meditation retreats by the monk body of that monastery. These retreats can be as short as a few days and often as long as three years. 3. Layman focus: • pujas for laymen - Regular pujas are performed for the benefit of laymen who visit the monastery. • meditation retreat for laymen - Retreat facilities for laymen are provided. • pilgrimage site for laymen - The monastery represents a significant pilgrimage site for laymen and has facilities to meet their needs. 4. Community focus: • cultural preservation - An ideological focus of maintaining a specific culture. This can be as narrow as a particular ethnic group, or as broad as the term “Tibetan Buddhism”. • social services for a particular cultural group - Social services such as job training, social welfare, etc. are undertaken by some monasteries. • social gathering point for a particular cultural group - Some monasteries serve as focal points for members of a specific cultural community and even have facilities for social gatherings like banquets. • health care - Several monasteries offer medical and dental services to the public. • library - Many monasteries have a library and bookstore open to the public. 5. Outreach focus: • lodging - Lodging is available for visitors. • meditation retreats - Meditation retreats from three days to three months are organized for visitors interested in Buddhism. • training for new Buddhists - Regular dharma teaching is available for visitors interested in Buddhism. Also, many of Kathmandu’s monasteries are connected with Buddhist centers established in western nations. • language courses - Tibetan language courses are available.

Table 3.7 categorizes Kathmandu’s monasteries based on these five foci. A monastery may focus on any or all of these functions. An X is marked in the column if a monastery has that particular focus.

Table 3.7. List of monasteries showing functional foci

Internal External Name 1 2 3 4 5 B01. Shelkar Chodey X X B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling X X B03. Sherpa Service Center X X B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling X B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling X X X X X B06. Jamchen Lhakhang X X X

Internal External Name 1 2 3 4 5 B07. Nenang Phuntsok Choling X X X B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling X X X X B09. Pal Thangru Tashi Choling X X X B10. Boudha Tamang Gompa X B11. Dobsang Kagyu Monastery X B12. Kyirong Samtenling X X X B13. Porong Pyes Kon Sporong X X B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling X X B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling X X B16. Pal Dilyak X X B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling X X X B18. Pal Thupten Ngedun X X X B20. Zhichen Bairoling X X B21. Drukchen Choeling X X B22. Chusang Gompa X X B23. Sri Karma Subhusit Dharma X X B24. Khachoe Ghakyil Ling X X B25. Kopan Monastery X X X X B26. Phulahari Monastery X X X P06. Rigzen Drubpe Ghatsal X X X P09. Ngaichu Dongag Choeling X X P10. Pema Osel Ling X X X P13. Sakya Tarig Gompa X X S01. Karma Raja Maha Vihar X X S02. Dongak Chyoling X S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling X X X S04. Gaden Jam Gonling X X S05. Manang Society X X S06. Shri Gautam Buddha Vihara X X S07. Sangye Choeling X X X S08. Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling X X X S10. Nyanang Phelgyeng X X X S11. Keydong Thukche Choling X X X S13. Triten Norbutse X X X X S14. Karma Lekshey Ling X X S15. Ngesden Osel Ling X X S16. Karma Ngedhon Osal X X X

The most common monastic focus is the upkeep of the temple, followed by training of the monastic body. It is interesting that very few monasteries have a strong focus towards both Tibetan Buddhist layman and western Buddhists.

3.3.4 Chronology of construction

By far, the first Tibetan Buddhist monastic institution in Kathmandu valley was Chini Lama’s gompa at Boudha, constructed in the mid-nineteenth century. Only one other monastery, Karma Raja Maha Vihar (1940) was built before the Tibetan community began facing the struggles that eventually led to their government’s exile. Of note also is Gaden Jam Gonling, which was built on the site of an older Newari Buddhist monastery. Its Tibetan Buddhist heritage dates back to 1954. Construction of other monasteries began slowly in the years surrounding the exile, with a few built in the fifties and sixties. Table 3.8 shows the founding years of Kathmandu’s monasteries. The number of monasteries doubled in the 1970s, and that number again doubled in the 1980s. The five years from 1989‒1993 saw the greatest increase in monastic institutions in Kathmandu, with thirteen being built in only five years. Since then, the rate of construction has decreased but by no means stopped. Though this data only includes those which opened by the year 2000, it should be noted that at least one was expected to open in 2001, and several are currently under construction.

Table 3.8. Founding year of Kathmandu’s monasteries

Monastery name Year B10. Boudha Tamang Gompa 1850 S01. Karma Raja Maha Vihar 1940 B12. Kyirong Samtenling 1951 S04. Gaden Jam Gonling 1954 S02. Dongak Chyoling 1960 B11. Dobsang Kagyu Monastery 1965 B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling 1969 B25. Kopan Monastery 1970 P06. Rigzen Drubpe Ghatsal 1970 S10. Nyanang Phelgyeng 1970 S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling 1975 B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling 1976 S08. Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling 1977 B09. Pal Thangru Tashi Choling 1978 B24. Khachoe Ghakyil Ling 1979 B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling 1980 B16. Pal Dilyak 1982 S11. Keydong Thukche Choling 1983 B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling 1984 B07. Nenang Phuntsok Choling 1985 B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling 1985 S14. Karma Lekshey Ling 1985 B03. Sherpa Service Center 1986 B06. Jamchen Lhakhang 1986 B01. Shelkar Chodey 1987 B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling 1988 P10. Pema Osel Ling 1988 B22. Chusang Gompa 1989 S06. Shri Gautam Buddha Vihara 1989

Monastery name Year S15. Ngesden Osel Ling 1989 B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling 1990 B18. Pal Thupten Ngedun 1990 B21. Drukchen Choeling 1990 B23. Sri Karma Subhusit Dharma 1990 S05. Manang Society 1990 S13. Triten Norbutse 1990 B13. Porong Pyes Kon Sporong 1991 B26. Phulahari Monastery 1991 P09. Ngaichu Dongag Choeling 1993 S16. Karma Ngedhon Osal 1993 P13. Sakya Tarig Gompa 1996 S07. Sangye Choeling 1998 B20. Zhichen Bairoling 2000

3.4 Factors which may influence language use and maintenance

Language use and maintenance is greatly affected by the sociolinguistic setting. Fishman (1989:212) states “Language shift of any kind is an indicator of dislocation. It implies the breakdown of a previously established societal allocation of functions; the alteration of previously recognized role-relationships, situations and domains, so that these no longer imply or call for the language with which they were previously associated.” Living in one’s home area, surrounded by other speakers of the mother tongue, a person is likely to use the language while carrying out tasks in daily life, and will have no trouble maintaining ability in that home language. At the other extreme, someone who is living away from any other members of their language community for an extended period of time, and has no contact with members of that community, will use other languages in the course of everyday life and is less likely to maintain the ability to speak the home language as proficiently as before. The monasteries of Kathmandu present a good resource for studying language use and maintenance among Tibetan Buddhist people. Each monastery is a unique sociolinguistic setting. They are each made up of individuals from many cultural and linguistic backgrounds, who moved away from their homes at different ages and who have lived away from their home area for different amounts of time. In the course of everyday life, monks are busy in many tasks. In these daily tasks, they often need to switch between various language varieties. For example, a monk from Thimpu, Bhutan may read scriptures in Chokey, speak to other Nganglas in Dzongkha, speak to monks from other areas in dBus (Central) Tibetan, and speak Nepali with the vendors around his monastery. The amount of regular use of their mother tongue over time will impact their ability in that language. Based on a monastery’s functional foci, the residents will have differing tasks to perform in a given day. Particularly, settings in which the community only interacts internally will have different language use patterns than those who regularly interact with people outside the monastery. Using these criteria, Kathmandu’s monasteries can be sorted into the following eight categories:

Category 1: Heterogeneous, large, external focus B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling B09. Pal Thangru Tashi Choling B25. Kopan Monastery B26. Phulahari Monastery

S08. Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling S13. Triten Norbutse Category 2: Heterogeneous, large, internal focus B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling B21. Drukchen Choeling B24. Khachoe Ghakyil Ling Category 3: Heterogeneous, small, external focus B07. Nenang Phuntsok Choling B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling B18. Pal Thupten Ngedun B20. Zhichen Bairoling P06. Rigzen Drubpe Ghatsal S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling S07. Sangye Choeling Category 4: Heterogeneous, small, internal focus B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling B11. Dobsang Kagyu Monastery B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling B16. Pal Dilyak S01. Karma Raja Maha Vihar S04. Gaden Jam Gonling S06. Shri Gautam Buddha Vihara Category 5: Homogeneous, large, external focus B12. Kyirong Samtenling Category 6: Homogeneous, large, internal focus S14. Karma Lekshey Ling Category 7: Homogeneous, small, external focus B06. Jamchen Lhakhang S10. Nyanang Phelgyeng S11. Keydong Thukche Choling S16. Karma Ngedhon Osal Category 8: Homogeneous, small, internal focus B01. Shelkar Chodey B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling B13. Porong Pyes Kon Sporong B22. Chusang Gompa B23. Sri Karma Subhusit Dharma P09. Ngaichu Dongag Choeling S15. Ngesden Osel Ling

It is worth noting that almost 50 percent (1,560) of Kathmandu’s monks live in the seven “category 1” monasteries. There are not only more of these than of most other categories, but also seven of the eight largest monasteries are in this category. The other categories contain from one hundred to five hundred monks each.

4 Language use study

4.1 Design of the study

4.1.1 Purpose

Language use refers to the language choices made by a speech community or individual speaker for the different tasks in his daily life. In a typical Kathmandu monastery, there will be individuals from various language and dialect areas living together. There will typically be a high Tibetan language used in teaching of Scriptures and for studies, a pigeon variety of Tibetan used for communicating with one another (made up of various aspects of the different languages and dialects spoken as mother tongues), another variety of Tibetan used regularly when meeting with other monks or members of the Tibetan diaspora community, and Nepali used for interaction with some of the monks from Nepal as well as for interactions in the community around them. Some may speak English, both for educational purposes and for interacting with Western Buddhists who visit the monasteries. In such a setting, the individual may use several languages and dialects in the course of ordinary life. This study attempts to look at patterns of language use among the monastic students in Kathmandu’s monasteries. Language use is highly affected by the particular environment of the individual monastery and by the personal history of the monks themselves. Of particular interest to the broader language maintenance study is the question of how often in the course of everyday life the monks use their mother-tongue language, how often they are interacting in other languages, and how these levels of language use impact their ability in the various languages.

4.1.2 Basic research questions

The data gathered during this research is directly relevant to the question of which languages are being used in the monasteries, and how these usage patterns affect the individual’s maintenance of mother- tongue language ability. Some basic research questions were established before conducting the research: 1. Where, in what ways, and how well are they learning languages other than their mother tongue? 2. What languages are used when interacting with various types of individuals they encounter in their daily lives? 3. Does length of time away from the home area impact perceived language maintenance? 4. Does the level of interaction with laymen from the home area impact perceived language ability and maintenance? 5. Does the level of interaction with other monks from the home area impact perceived language ability and maintenance? 6. Does the level of relatedness between the mother tongue and Tibetan impact perceived language ability and maintenance? 7. Does the sociolinguistic make-up2 of the monastery affect language use choices and perceived language ability and maintenance?

4.1.3 Tools used

For this study, questionnaires were administered to monks from various Kathmandu monasteries. The questionnaire asked:

2 See section 3.3 Categorization of Kathmandu’s monasteries for further details. There the monasteries were categorized based on factors which would impact the sociolinguistic setting of the monastery. These factors were the size of the monastery, the level of linguistic homogeneity among the monk body, and the level of interaction with the surrounding community.

A. Personal Background A.1 Name A.2 Age A.3 Birthplace (country, district, village) A.4 Mother tongue (and dialect if relevant) B. Monastic Background B.1 How old were you when you first lived at a monastery? B.2 Where was your first monastery located? B.3 How old were you when you came to this (current) monastery? C. Interaction with home area C.1 After coming to this monastery, have you ever visited your home village? C.2 Do people from your village ever come to visit you in Kathmandu? C.3 Are there any others from your home area at this monastery? C.4 Do you know of other monks from your home area at other monasteries in Kathmandu? C.5 Do you know any non-monks from your home region here in Kathmandu? D. Language ability D.1 What languages can you speak? D.2 What languages can you read and write? D.3 How often do you speak your mother tongue? [daily, sometimes, rarely/never] D.4 When you hear people speaking together in your mother tongue, how much do you understand? [all, most, some, none] D.5 Can you speak your mother tongue as well as the people from your home region? [yes, no] D.6 When you hear people speaking together in Tibetan, how much do you understand? [all, most, some, none] D.7 How often do you speak Tibetan? [daily, sometimes, rarely/never] D.8 How well do you speak Tibetan? [good, OK, bad] D.9 Where did you learn Tibetan? D.10 When you hear people speaking together in Nepali, how much do you understand? [all, most, some, none] D.11 How often do you speak Nepali? [daily, sometimes, rarely/never] D.12 How well do you speak Nepali? [good, OK, bad] D.13 Where did you learn Nepali? D.14 When you hear other people speaking English, how much do you understand? [all, most, some, none] D.15 How often do you speak English? [daily, sometimes, rarely/never] D.16 How well do you speak English? [good, OK, bad] D.17 Where did you learn English? D.18 What language was easiest for you to speak and understand when you first arrived here? D.19 What language is easiest for you to speak and understand now? E. Language use E.1 What language do you use with monks from your home area? E.2 What language do you use with monks from (other parts of) Tibet? E.3 What language do you use with monks from (other parts of) Nepal? E.4 What language do you use with the Rinpoche? E.5 What language do you use for discussing pujas? E.6 What language do your teachers use for instruction? E.7 What language do you use when discussing lessons with your teachers? E.8 What language do you use when discussing lessons with your friends? E.9 What language do you use with Tibetan laymen?

E.10 What language do you use with Nepali laymen? E.11 What language do you use with Tibetan vendors? E.12 What language do you use with Nepali vendors? E.13 What language do you use with your parents? E.14 What language do you use with your siblings?

The questionnaire was typically asked in Nepali, with translation into Tibetan (or other languages) as needed. In some cases, the interviews were conducted in English as well. The questionnaire was asked of one individual at a time.

4.2 Discussion of sample

In total, 73 individuals from twelve different monasteries were interviewed. There are several demographic factors regarding these individuals which will prove useful in analyzing language use, maintenance, and language ability results. (Note that no interviews were conducted among the nuns studying in Kathmandu’s few nunneries. Thus, the sample is entirely male.) The respondents come from the following monasteries in Kathmandu, representing various sociolinguistic environments.

Boudhanath monasteries 1. Shelkar Chodey 2. Pal Dilyak 3. Kyirong Samtenling 4. Pal Thupten Ngedun 5. Zhichen Bairoling 6. Kopan 7. Shechen

Swayambhunath monasteries 1. Tsechen Shedrup Ling 2. Karma Lekshey Ling 3. Neynang Phelgyeng Monastery 4. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling 5. Benchen

4.2.1 Ages of subjects

The sample represented in table 4.1 contains data from individuals as young as nine and as old as sixty- six.

Table 4.1. Age ranges of subjects

Age range # in sample youth 5‒19 29 young adult 20‒29 32 adult 30‒55 10 elder 56+ 2 Since the focus of this study is the impact of the monastic culture on language use and attitudes, it is more useful to look at the amount of time an individual has been within the monastic system, rather than their actual age. The monks have started into the monastic system at anywhere from five years old up to 20 years old. Of the seventy-three interviewed, most joined between the ages of eight and fifteen (77%). Just three joined at ages younger than eight, and twelve (16%) joined at ages greater than fifteen.

Subtracting the age when the individuals began in their first monastery from their current age yields the number of years each has been in the monastic system shown in table 4.2. The monks who were interviewed ranged from someone who has been in the system for less than a year to one who has been in monasteries for 58 years.

Table 4.2. Years in the monastic system

Years in # in monasteries sample novice <5 5 student 6–10 20 teacher 11–20 17 elder 21+ 9

Roughly, these age ranges correspond to the roles of the monks within the monasteries. The novices are full-time students and have not taken vows. The regular students also have not taken vows. They have passed their basic courses and are taking more advanced courses. The teachers are responsible for most of the teaching and day-to-day administration of the monasteries, as well as being engaged in higher studies. The elders are more set apart from the others, providing guidance and complex teachings and often representing the monastery to outside interests. Much of their time is spent in seclusion and meditation. In fact, this sample is skewed compared to the overall population of monks in Kathmandu. There is a large number of young students in the monasteries in Kathmandu, and the percentage of monks who have been in the system for less than five years is actually higher than shown in this sample.

4.2.2 Mother tongue of subjects

The individuals interviewed have twenty-five different linguistic backgrounds, from Nepal, Tibet, and Bhutan. Some of their mother tongues are more directly related to Central Tibetan, while others are more distantly related. The following list shows the mother tongues of the language assistants and the population size of each grouping. Note that for those languages which are closely related to Central Tibetan, the assistants were asked if they speak the same way as those in Lhasa, Tibet. In only one case, the answer was affirmative. In other cases, the individuals were asked what the local people in their village call their dialect. These dialect names are included in table 4.3 and have not been evaluated for intelligibility with Lhasa Tibetan.

Table 4.3. Mother tongues of subjects

Language name Sample # Country Lg. classification Bumthangkha 5 Bhutan East Bodish Chachingachikha 1 Bhutan Central Bodish Changpai 1 Tibet Central Bodish Dege 2 Tibet Central Bodish Dolpa 1 Nepal Central Bodish Gurung 1 Nepal West Bodish Kham 2 Tibet Central Bodish Khengkha 3 Bhutan East Bodish Kurtoekha 1 Bhutan East Bodish Kyirongi 5 Tibet Central Bodish Lowa 7 Nepal Central Bodish

Language name Sample # Country Lg. classification Manangi 6 Nepal West Bodish Mugali 1 Nepal Central Bodish Nabring 1 Nepal Central Bodish Nar 1 Nepal Central Bodish Nepali 3 Nepal Indo-Aryan Neynanggi 3 Tibet Central Bodish Nubri 1 Nepal Central Bodish Shelkar 5 Tibet Central Bodish Sherpa 8 Nepal Central Bodish Shigatsi 2 Tibet Central Bodish Tamang 3 Nepal West Bodish Tibetan 1 Tibet Central Bodish Tingri 8 Tibet Central Bodish Yohlmo 1 Nepal Central Bodish

Except for the few individuals who speak Nepali as their mother tongue, all language assistants speak languages classified within the Bodish subgroup of the Bodic group of Tibeto-Burman languages. The majority of the languages and dialects are included within the Central Bodish subgroup, along with Central Tibetan (18 of 25). All Tibet-based languages in the sample fall in this subgroup as do a few of the Nepal and Bhutan-based languages. In addition, some of the languages from Nepal are part of the West Bodish subgroup (3 of 25), and some of the Bhutanese languages are part of the East Bodish subgroup (3 of 25). The sample includes 70 percent (51 of 73) subjects from Central Bodish mother tongues, 14 percent (10 of 73) from West Bodish languages, 12 percent (9 of 73) from East Bodish, and 4 percent (3 of 73) with Nepali as their mother tongue.

4.2.3 Nationality of subjects

Thirty subjects came from Nepal, twenty-seven from Tibet, ten from Bhutan, five were born in India but come from Nepali ancestry, and one was born in India with Tibetan ancestry. Note that though there are residents from India in Kathmandu’s monasteries, they are proportionately few. Indian Buddhists tend to attend the monasteries within India itself and are less likely to come to the monasteries in Nepal. Five of the six Indian born monks interviewed came from Kalimpong, West Bengal, while the other came from a camp in Dehra Dun, Uttaranchal.

4.2.4 Monastic environment

In section 3.4, monasteries were divided into eight categories based on three sociolinguistic features: heterogeneous or homogeneous population, size of population (large, more than one hundred; small, less than one hundred), and whether the monastery’s activities are exclusively internally focused (on that monastery and its inhabitants) or whether there is an external focus (to the surrounding community) as well. Individuals from monasteries in each of these groupings were interviewed. The sample for each of these categories is shown in tables 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6.

Table 4.4. Percentage of sample based on monastery population make-up

Heterogeneous Homogeneous 63% 37%

Table 4.5. Percentage of sample based on monastery population size

Large (100+) Small (<100) 59% 41%

Table 4.6. Percentage of sample based on monastery’s focus

External Internal (only) 58% 42%

Though this sample appears skewed towards the larger, heterogeneous, and externally focused monasteries, it should be noted that the overall Kathmandu populations in these categories are significantly higher than in the others. In fact, the data is skewed towards the homogeneous, small, internal categories, since proportionately they are far fewer than the others. In total, fifty-seven of the subjects attended their first monastery within Kathmandu. Just eight attended monasteries in Tibet, four in Nepal (all in Solu Khumbu), two in Bhutan, and two in India (Kalimpong, West Bengal). This represents a general trend that most monks in Kathmandu’s monasteries have begun their monastic careers within Kathmandu itself.

4.3 Interaction with people from the home area

Several questions were asked to assess the level of interaction the monks have with people from their home area.

4.3.1 Interactions with people who still live in the home area

Two questions were asked which help assess how often the subjects interact with people who still live in their home area. (Question C1) “After coming to this monastery have you ever visited your home village?” (Question C2) “Do people from your home village ever visit you in Kathmandu?”

Table 4.7. Percentage of monks who have visited home and had visits from home

Visited home Had visitors from home Sample Yes No Yes No Overall 67 51% 49% 54% 46%

From Nepal 30 80% 2% 87% 13% From Tibet 27 22% 78% 30% 70% From Bhutan 10 40% 60% 20% 80%

These questions are primarily impacted by the location of the individual’s home area. Obviously, it is much easier for those from Nepal to return to their home village, than for a Tibetan who is not allowed to revisit his home country. A high majority of the subjects from Nepal have visited their home village, while only a few of those from Tibet have. Those from Bhutan are fairly split regarding visits back to their home villages. Neither age nor number of years in the monastic system has a significant impact on these results. The results are almost identical regarding visits by people from the home village to Kathmandu.

4.3.2 Interactions with people from home area living in Kathmandu

Three questions were asked with regard to interactions with people from the home area who are now living in Kathmandu, tables 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10.

Table 4.8. (Question C3) “Are there other monks from your home area at this monastery?”

Sample Yes No Nepal 30 93% 7% Tibet 27 85% 15% Bhutan 10 70% 30%

In most cases, the monks are in monasteries along with others from their home area (though this is a bit less the case for monks from Bhutan). This is a positive factor in language maintenance, since there are other people nearby with whom they can speak the mother tongue regularly. It should be noted here that, in many cases, the monasteries have monks from the same area room together in the dormitories. It is helpful not only for the morale of the monks, but also encourages use and maintenance of the mother tongue. Note that the sociolinguistic make-up of the monastery does not have any significant impact on this data. However, monks living in a homogeneous monastery are most likely to have a large percentage population from their home area living at the same monastery. In the same way, the population size of the monastery usually impacts the number of home area monks at any one monastery.

Table 4.9. (Question C4) “Are there other monks from your home area at other monasteries in Kathmandu?”

Sample Yes No Nepal 30 100% 0% Tibet 27 89% 11% Bhutan 10 30% 70%

All subjects from Nepal were aware of monks from their home area living at other monasteries in Kathmandu. Likewise, almost all the Tibetan monks knew of others from their home areas. The Bhutanese monks, however, were less likely to know of monks from their home area living at other monasteries. These data show a possibility (and awareness of that possibility) for the monks to interact with other monks from their home area, outside of their monastery. In some cases, there may actually be no other monks from some of the Bhutanese areas studying in Kathmandu, but in other cases there are more monks from those groups, but the monks are unaware of each other.

Table 4.10. (Question C5) “Do you know any non-monks from your home area here in Kathmandu?”

Sample Yes No Nepal 30 97% 3% Tibet 27 96% 4% Bhutan 10 0% 100%

This data parallels the other results. Both Nepali and Tibetan monks are very likely to know of non- monks from their home area living in Kathmandu. (The only Nepali responding negatively was from the Kyirongi-speaking community in Nepal, just south of Tibet’s Kyirong valley, where the majority of Kyirongi speakers live. The only Tibetan was very young and has not yet had much chance to interact in the broader community.) Thus, not only are the Nepali and Tibetan monks likely to interact with other monks from their home area, but they have opportunity to interact with laymen as well. Significantly,

none of the Bhutanese monks knew of non-monks from their home areas living in Kathmandu. The Bhutanese monks are certainly more isolated than the majority of the monks from other regions.

4.3.3 Summary of home-interaction data

In general, monks from Nepal have many opportunities for speaking their mother tongue. Not only do they have few restrictions on travel to and from their home villages, but they are likely to have a network of speakers living within the same monastery. They are also likely to know monks at other monasteries as well as lay-people in the community with whom they can speak their mother tongue. Due to distance and political constraints, Tibetan monks are unlikely to have the opportunity to travel to their home area or to be visited by people from home. However, within Kathmandu they are quite likely to interact with monks from their home area at their own monastery, at other monasteries, and with lay people from their home area living in Kathmandu. Bhutanese monks are less likely than the others to interact with others from their home area. Though they are more likely than Tibetans to travel to their home area, they do not get many visitors from home. And while there are other monks from their home areas, they are few. Further, the Bhutanese monks do not have regular opportunities to meet with laymen from their home areas. Basically, there are three environments where the monks might have opportunities to use their mother tongue: at the monastery, in the Kathmandu wider community, and with people from home (either by travelling home or receiving visitors from home). Table 4.11 shows the most typical opportunities for language use by monks from each of the three countries.

Table 4.11. Language use opportunities by various nationalities…

Bhutan Nepal Tibet at the monastery yes yes yes in the community no yes yes with people from home no yes no

4.4 Language ability

4.4.1 Languages spoken

Most of the monks know several languages at varying levels. In addition to their mother tongue language or dialect, they are likely to speak Nepali and Tibetan. Some also know English, fewer know Hindi, and a few speak Chinese. In most cases, they are primarily literate in Tibetan. Many are literate in Nepali and English as well. Subjects were asked what languages they speak other than their mother tongue (Question D1). The most commonly spoken languages were Tibetan, Nepali, and English. Also, Hindi, Chinese, and Dzongkha were spoken by a few. In addition, a few of the monks responded with other non-trade languages which they spoke in addition to their mother tongue.

Table 4.12. Percentages of the sample speaking various languages

Sample # # of lgs Tibetan Nepali English Hindi Chinese Dzongkha Other spoken Overall 73 3.2 100% 86% 71% 21% 11% 14% 19%

The average number of languages spoken by the subjects is 3.2. Of the 73 subjects, all speak Tibetan. Less speak Nepali (86%), and still fewer speak English (71%). The other languages were spoken by significantly fewer and will not be further analyzed. Those languages included the trade languages of Bhutan (Dzongkha), northern India (Hindi), China (Chinese), as well as some regional languages such as Manangi and Tamang from Nepal, and Sharchop and Bumthangkha from Bhutan.

Table 4.13 shows percentage of subjects speaking the main three languages, based on nationality of the subjects.

Table 4.13. Languages spoken based on nationality

Sample # # of lgs spoken Tibetan Nepali English Bhutan 10 3.9 100% 80% 40% Nepal 30 3.1 100% 97% 83% Tibet 27 2.8 100% 74% 67% India 6 3.7 100% 100% 83%

The Bhutanese and Indian-born monks average more languages than the others (3.9 and 3.7 respectively). Nepali monks average just below the overall number of languages (3.1), and the Tibetan monks average the fewest (2.8). Nepali is spoken by almost all of the monks from Nepal (97%) and India (100%). Fewer Bhutanese monks speak Nepali (80%), and Tibetans are the least likely to speak Nepali (74%). Some English is spoken by a large majority of the Nepali (83%) and Indian monks (83%), by fewer of the Tibetans (67%), and spoken by less than half of the Bhutanese monks interviewed (40%). The Bhutanese monks are most likely to speak languages other than their mother tongue and the various national languages. This reflects the fact that, though Bhutan has a national language, there are several other languages which are widely spoken in certain regions. Thus, many Bhutanese learn the languages of the Bumthang region, the Kheng region, and the Trashigang region as well as their mother tongue and the national language. Table 4.14 shows the language ability percentages based on the size and focus of the subjects’ monastery.

Table 4.14. Languages spoken based on monastery demographics

Sample # # of lgs Tibetan Nepali English Large 42 3.4 100% 93% 79% Small 31 2.8 100% 68% 61% External 43 3.3 100% 86% 77% Internal 30 2.7 100% 77% 63% Monks at large monasteries are more likely to speak Nepali than those at small monasteries (93% vs. 68%), and similarly they are more likely to speak English (79% vs. 61%). Those at externally focused monasteries are also more likely to speak Nepali (86%) and English (77%) than those at internally focused monasteries (77% and 63% respectively). No other significant trends are apparent based on the sociolinguistic environment of the monasteries. Finally, table 4.15 shows the percentages of language ability based on the number of years in the monastic system.

Table 4.15. Languages spoken based on number of years in a monastery

Sample # # of lgs Tibetan Nepali English 0‒5 27 2.1 100% 52% 33% 6‒10 20 3.7 100% 90% 85% 11‒20 17 4.0 100% 100% 76% 21+ 9 3.8 100% 89% 89% Not surprisingly, the monks who are new to the monastic system know the least languages on average (just 2.1), while the other age ranges all average quite high (3.7‒4.0). Further, the newcomers are least likely to know languages other than their mother tongue and Tibetan. Just 52 percent know

Nepali and only 33 percent know English. Significant percentages of the older populations know at least some Nepali and English.

4.4.2 Assessment of language maintenance

Two questions were asked to help evaluate the effect of the monastic environment on maintenance of the mother tongue. The first asks:

Table 4.16. (Question D18) “What language was easiest for you to speak when you first started in a monastery?”

Sample MT Nepali Hindi 73 92% 7% 1% In almost all cases, the monks reported their mother tongue as easiest to speak upon arrival at the monastery. Those who cited Nepali and Hindi did so because they had spent several years in secular schools where education was in those languages. These answers contrast significantly with the answers to the second question.

Table 4.17. (Question D19) “What language is easiest for you to speak now?”

Sample MT Tibetan Nepali 73 36% 37% 24%

From these overall results, it is clear that ability in the mother tongue is lowered while living in the monasteries. Conversely, Tibetan ability increases significantly, as does Nepali in some cases. Many factors interplay to create these results. This data needs to be interpreted on the basis of years spent in the monastic system, the sociolinguistic make-up of the monastery, and the linguistic background of the individual.

Table 4.18. Easiest language based on reported years in monastery

Sample MT Tibetan Nepali 0‒5 27 70% 11% 19% 6‒10 20 10% 45% 45% 11‒20 17 6% 76% 18% 21+ 9 44% 44% 12%

These data tend to be affected by two trends. First, the newer monks are obviously less likely to have learned extra languages than the older monks. As a result, a full 70 percent of the newcomers say their mother tongue is easiest. The second trend is perhaps historical, in regard to the foci of the monasteries. The monks who have been in the system for more than 21 years are equally likely to retain their mother tongue and speak Tibetan (44%). Several of these individuals began their monastic careers in local Tibetan monasteries where there was no focus on learning Nepali and less focus on learning Tibetan, since these Tibetan monasteries were typically homogeneous in make-up. These elder monks are unlikely to be comfortable with Nepali. Meanwhile, the next oldest range, the monks who have been in the monasteries for 11‒20 years, is most likely to cite Tibetan as their best language. Very few cite Nepali or their mother tongue as their best language. Next, the monks who have been in monasteries for 6‒10 years are quite likely to speak either Tibetan or Nepali best (45% each) and are much less confident in their mother tongue ability. These two factors: years in the monastery, as well as historical culture of their monastery, play off each other. As a result, the youngest and eldest monks are the most likely to speak their mother tongue

best. The 11‒20-year grouping is most likely to speak Tibetan best, and the 6‒10-year grouping is most likely to speak Nepali best.

Table 4.19. Easiest language based on answer to question C.3 “Are there others from your home area at your monastery?”

Sample MT Tibetan Nepali Yes 59 40% 38% 22% No 9 0% 67% 33% While 40 percent of the subjects who share their monastery with others from their home area cite their mother tongue as their best language, none of the isolated monks do. Rather, the isolated individuals are more likely than the others to cite Tibetan as their best language, by a margin of 29 percent.

Table 4.20. Easiest language based on monastery demographics

Sample MT Tibetan Nepali Heterogeneous 46 28% 46% 28% Homogeneous 27 48% 30% 22% Large 42 21% 48% 31% Small 31 55% 29% 16% External focus 43 33% 47% 20% Internal focus 30 40% 30% 30%

Small, homogeneous, internally focused monasteries tend to maintain the mother tongue, while large, heterogeneous, externally focused tend to promote Tibetan usage. These factors do not have significant impact on the results regarding Nepali as best language.

Table 4.21. Easiest language based on nationality

Sample MT Tibetan Nepali Bhutan 10 40% 50% 10% Nepal 30 13% 40% 47% Tibet 27 56% 41% 3%

This shows that the Tibetans are most likely to maintain their mother tongue; the Bhutanese are most likely to prefer Tibetan; and the Nepalis are most likely to maintain Nepali. The Tibetans and Bhutanese are very unlikely to cite Nepali as their best, and the Nepalis are very unlikely to cite their mother tongue as best.

Table 4.22. Easiest language based on mother-tongue language classification

Sample MT Tibetan Nepali Central Bodish 51 35% 45% 20% East Bodish 9 44% 44% 12% West Bodish 10 10% 20% 70%

In general, the Central Bodish and East Bodish language speakers are likeliest to favor their mother tongue, or Tibetan, but not Nepali. The West Bodish speakers, however, are likely to favor Nepali. There is no strong correlation between language relatedness and language maintenance (for example, both East and Central Bodish speakers equally cite Tibetan, a Central Bodish language, as their best). Rather, it seems that personal demographic factors and monastic demographic factors impact language maintenance and use, over linguistic relatedness.

Since the majority of the Central Bodish speakers are from Tibet, all East Bodish speakers are from Bhutan, and all West Bodish are from Nepal, from this point forward, data will be analyzed based simply on nationality, rather than on language classification. From these data, it is clear that several factors are at play in determining whether or not a monk maintains his MT as his best language, or if he switches to Nepali or Tibetan. Mother-tongue maintenance would most likely be highest among new or very old monks from outside of Nepal and staying in small, homogeneous, internally focused monasteries, where they have others from their language group to interact with. Tibetan usage would likely be highest among monks from any of the countries who have been in monasteries for 11–20 years, are living without others from their language area, and live in a large, heterogeneous, externally focused monastery. Finally, Nepali usage will likely be highest among monks from Nepal who have been in monasteries for 6–10 years and live in large monasteries.

4.4.3 Assessment of mother-tongue ability

Three questions were asked to more accurately determine an individual’s confidence level in their mother tongue. (Question D3) “How often do you speak your mother tongue? [daily, sometimes, seldom]” (Question D4) “When you hear other people speaking together in your mother tongue, how much do you understand? [all, most, some, little]” (Question D5) “Can you speak your mother tongue as well as people from your home village? [yes, no]”

Since these questions are related to the discussion in section 4.2, it is important first to view the answers in tables 4.23, 4.24, and 4.25 in relation to those results.

Table 4.23. “How often do you speak your mother tongue?” based on reported easiest language

Sample Daily Sometimes Seldom MT 26 88% 12% 0% Nepali 18 11% 50% 39% Tibetan 29 21% 34% 45%

Table 4.24. “How much of your mother tongue do you understand?” based on reported easiest language

Sample All Most Some Little MT 26 96% 4% 0% 0% Nepali 18 39% 33% 6% 22% Tibetan 29 62% 28% 10% 0%

Table 4.25. “Do you speak your mother tongue as well as someone from home?” based on reported easiest language

Sample Yes No MT 26 100% 0% Nepali 18 44% 56% Tibetan 29 41% 59%

These results seem to support the results of section 4.2. Of those who chose their mother tongue as their easiest language, the majority also said they use the language daily. They reportedly understand all of the mother tongue and can speak it like someone from home. The same general factors which lead to the selection of the mother tongue as the “easiest language” also lead to regular use of the same language and ability in both understanding and speaking the language. Note that the most significant factor regarding how often the mother tongue is used is the size of the monastery. Just 26 percent of monks in large monasteries use their mother tongue daily, while 96 percent of those in small monasteries do. Similarly, monks in homogeneous monasteries are more likely to use their mother tongue daily than those in heterogeneous by a margin of 33 percent.

Table 4.26. “How often do you speak your mother tongue?” based on monastery demographics

Sample Daily Sometimes Seldom Large 42 26% 43% 31% Small 31 96% 13% 23%

Heterogeneous 46 30% 35% 35% Homogeneous 27 63% 22% 15%

There are no significant trends regarding ability to understand the language, except that regular language-use correlates well with high levels of understanding. This is also true regarding the ability to speak the language well.

4.4.4 Assessment of Tibetan ability

Subjects were asked where they learned Tibetan, as a way of exploring the various methods used for language learning in the monasteries.

(Question D9) “Where did you learn Tibetan?”

In total, sixty-six subjects said that they learned Tibetan primarily at their monastery, either indirectly or through language classes. The other seven subjects come from Tibetan dialect areas where their mother tongue is intelligible with Central Tibetan. Several questions were asked to try to assess levels of Tibetan ability among the subjects.

Table 4.27. (Question D7) “How often do you speak Tibetan?”

Sample Daily Sometimes Seldom 73 68% 25% 7%

Table 4.28. (Question D6) “When you hear people speaking together in Tibetan, how much do you understand?”

Sample All Most Some Little 73 52% 29% 12% 7%

Table 4.29. (Question D8) “How well do you speak Tibetan?”

Sample Good OK Bad 73 68% 18% 14%

The overall data shows that most of the monks speak Tibetan well. About 50 percent feel that they understand all of it, and a large majority feel they understand a significant amount of Tibetan. The majority also feel that they are good at speaking Tibetan. The data is analyzed below based on some demographic factors which might impact Tibetan language ability. It should be noted that, in every case, there was a strong correlation between speaking Tibetan daily and the ability to both speak and understand Tibetan. Since usage is thus shown as the key factor in language ability, the questions in tables 4.28 and 4.29 will not be discussed further below.

Table 4.30. “How often do you use Tibetan?” based on number of years in monastery

# years Sample Daily Sometimes Seldom 0‒5 27 44% 37% 19% 6‒10 20 70% 30% 0% 11‒20 17 94% 6% 0% 21+ 9 89% 11% 0%

The data in table 4.30 simply show that, in general, usage of Tibetan increases the longer a monk is in the monastic system. This is simply because, as he learns more, he is able to use it more regularly. There is a slight trend for the eldest monks to use their mother tongue more often than Tibetan. This trend will be discussed below.

Table 4.31. “How often do you use Tibetan?” based on monastic environment

Sample Daily Sometimes Seldom

Are there others from your Yes 58 69% 22% 9% home area at the monastery? No 9 100% 0% 0% Size of monastery Large 42 86% 14% 0% Small 31 45% 39% 16% Make-up of monastery Heterog. 46 76% 24% 0% Homog. 27 56% 26% 19% Focus of monastery External 43 74% 26% 0% Internal 30 60% 23% 17%

From table 4:31, it can be seen that the best monastic environment for a monk to have frequent use of Tibetan is to be separate from his language group in a large, heterogeneous monastery with an external focus.

4.4.5 Assessment of Nepali ability

Subjects were asked where they learned Nepali, as a way of exploring the various methods used for language learning in the monasteries.

(Question D13) Where did you learn Nepali?

Though seven of the subjects have not learned any Nepali, the remaining 66 have some ability in the language. Most (53%) learned Nepali informally as a language spoken in their home before coming to Kathmandu, by interacting with the surrounding community in Kathmandu, and through interactions with Nepali-speaking monks. Thirty percent of the monks cited Nepali classes offered by their monastery as the means through which they learned Nepali. Four had learned Nepali at school before coming to the monasteries.

Several questions were asked to try to assess levels of Nepali ability among the subjects. The seven monks who have not yet learned Nepali are not included in this sample, so the sample size for the following results is sixty-six. The results are shown in tables 4.32, 4.33 and 4.34.

Table 4.32. (Question D11) “How often do you speak Nepali?”

Daily Sometimes Seldom 55% 24% 21%

Table 4.33. (Question D10) “When you hear other people speaking together in Nepali, how much do you understand?”

All Most Some Little 38% 29% 11% 22%

Table 4.34. (Question D12) “How well can you speak Nepali?”

Good OK Bad 59% 19% 22%

Slightly more than half of the monks speak Nepali on a daily basis, and a similar number feel that they speak it well. They express less confidence in their ability to understand Nepali.3 The results in tables 4.32, 4.33, and 4.34 show that, in general, the monastic community in Kathmandu has not gained high levels of ability in the local language. The data does not correlate between frequency of language use and ability in the language, so all three questions will be analyzed based on various demographic details below. First is the number of years a monk has been in the monastery as it impacts his Nepali ability.

Table 4.35. “How often do you speak Nepali?” based on number of years in the monastery

# of years Sample Daily Sometimes Seldom 0‒5 27 41% 15% 22% 6‒10 20 80% 20% 0% 11‒20 17 71% 18% 12% 21+ 9 11% 78% 11%

Table 4.36. “How much Nepali do you understand?” based on number of years in the monastery

# of years Sample All Most Some Little 0‒5 27 26% 15% 11% 26% 6‒10 20 70% 25% 5% 0% 11‒20 17 35% 47% 6% 12% 21+ 9 11% 44% 33% 11%

3 Though it seems unusual that the subjects would speak the language well, but understand it to a lesser degree, it is important to remember that this data is made up of subjective personal assessments. The monks feel confident in their ability to speak Nepali well enough to achieve their ends in that language, such as for conversation, shopping, etc. However, they do not feel confident in their ability to understand Nepali as spoken rapidly by native Nepali speakers.

Table 4.37. “How well do you speak Nepali?” based on number of years in the monastery

# of years Sample Good OK Bad 0‒5 27 41% 7% 30% 6‒10 20 90% 10% 0% 11‒20 17 71% 24% 6% 21+ 9 22% 67% 11%

The eldest lamas are least likely to use Nepali on a daily basis (11%), though most use it sometimes (89% total). Those in the monasteries from 6‒20 years are quite likely to speak Nepali daily. The 6‒10- year category is most confident in their comprehension levels as well as in their ability to speak well. These results correlate with table 4.2 showing that the 6‒10 group tends to be most confident in its Nepali ability, followed by the 11‒20 group. This trend again reflects the historical culture of the monasteries. In general, the monasteries have recently admitted more monks from Nepal than from other countries and have had more of a focus on building the Nepali language skills of the monks. Thus, the 6‒ 10-year category has a higher level of Nepali than those who joined the monasteries earlier. Next, we will look at nationality and its impact on Nepali ability.

Table 4.38. “How often do you speak Nepali?” based on nationality

Sample Daily Sometimes Seldom Bhutan 10 70% 10% 20% Nepal 29 79% 14% 7% Tibet 22 18% 59% 23%

Table 4.39. “How much Nepali do you understand?” based on nationality

Sample All Most Some Little Bhutan 10 10% 70% 0% 20% Nepal 29 69% 24% 3% 3% Tibet 22 5% 32% 32% 32%

Table 4.40. “How well do you speak Nepali?” based on nationality

Sample Good OK Bad Bhutan 10 50% 30% 20% Nepal 29 86% 10% 3% Tibet 22 32% 36% 32%

Tibetans are least likely to use Nepali daily (only 18%), while those from Nepal and Bhutan are likely to use it daily (79% and 70% respectively). The Nepalis have by far the highest confidence level in their ability to use and understand Nepali. Overall, the Tibetans are least confident. Again, the monks are more confident in their ability to speak the language (to communicate their needs) than they are to understand what they hear spoken around them. Tables 4.41, 4.42, and 4.43 will show the monastic setting and its impact on Nepali ability.

Table 4.41. “How often do you speak Nepali?” based on monastery demographics

Sample Daily Sometimes Seldom Large 41 66% 24% 10% Small 26 50% 31% 19% Heterog. 45 71% 18% 11% Homog. 22 36% 45% 18% External 43 65% 23% 12% Internal 24 50% 33% 17%

Table 4.42. “How much Nepali do you understand?” based on monastery demographics

Sample All Most Some Little Large 41 41% 37% 7% 15% Small 26 42% 23% 19% 15% Heterog. 45 49% 29% 7% 16% Homog. 22 27% 36% 23% 14% External 43 67% 33% 7% 16% Internal 24 38% 29% 21% 13%

Table 4.43. “How well do you speak Nepali?” based on monastery demographics

Sample Good OK Bad Large 41 71% 17% 12% Small 26 54% 27% 19% Heterog. 45 69% 18% 13% Homog. 22 55% 27% 18% External 43 67% 19% 14% Internal 24 58% 25% 17%

The sociolinguistic environment (size, make-up, and focus) of the monastery does not have a strong bearing on Nepali language ability, though minor trends are apparent. Nepali is spoken more regularly at the larger, heterogeneous, externally focused monasteries than at their counterparts. Likewise, the same monastery categories slightly favor better ability in speaking Nepali. Though the perceived understanding of Nepali is not impacted significantly by the size of the monastery, there is a slight trend in favor of heterogeneous and externally focused monasteries. Overall, Nepali ability seems to correlate with the number of years in the monastery (those in the monastery from 6‒10 years are typically most confident in their Nepali ability). In addition, Nepalis are much more likely to be confident in their Nepali ability than others. Heterogeneous make-up, large population size, and external focus are all qualities of monasteries which are likely to promote the use of Nepali.

4.4.6 Assessment of English ability

Subjects who speak English were asked where they learned it (Question D17). Though eighteen of the subjects did not claim to have learned any English, the majority (fifty-five total) have learned some. Many of the monasteries have English classes as part of their curriculum, and monks from these monasteries cited these classes as their source of English. A few (four total) had learned some English in a secular school before joining the monastery. The remainder (twenty-one total) learned English informally through interactions with English speakers.

Several questions were asked to try to assess levels of English ability among the subjects. The results in tables 4.44, 4.45, and 4.46 are all based on a sample of seventy-three subjects.

Table 4.44. (Question D15) “How often do you speak English?”

Daily Sometimes Seldom Never 1% 32% 45% 25%

Table 4.45. (Question D14) “When you hear other people speaking together in English, how much do you understand?”

Most Some Little None 5% 25% 49% 21%

Table 4.46. (Question D16) “How well can you speak English?”

Good OK Bad 1% 26% 73%

These data show a fairly low self-reported ability in English among the monastic body in Kathmandu. Very few speak English regularly, and very few are confident in their ability to understand or speak English.

4.4.7 Summary of language ability data

The subjects interviewed in this study speak an average of 3.2 languages each. The most common of these languages are their various mother tongues (such as Tamang, Sherpa, etc.), Tibetan, Nepali, and English. Though English is not well-learned by most of the monks, many have good ability in the other languages. There are several factors, both regarding the personal history of the subject and regarding the monastery where he lives, which interact to create environments conducive to learning some of the languages well, and others less well. Table 4.47 summarizes these factors. This table looks at two personal factors of the monks (the number of years they have been in the monastery and their nationality), and four monastery factors (whether there are other monks at the monastery with the same mother tongue or not, the size of the monastery, the population make-up of the monastery, and the monastery’s focus).

Table 4.47. Factors which correlate with increased language ability

Personal factors Monastery factors Years in mon. Nationality Isolation Size Make-up Focus MT 0–5, 21+ Tibetan together small homogeneous not relevant Tibetan 11+ years Tibetan isolated large heterogeneous external Nepali 6–20 Nepal, Bhutan not relevant large heterogeneous external

According to number of years in the monastery, monks who have been in from 0‒5 years or for 21+ years are likely to have good ability in their mother tongue. Those who have been in the monastery for more than 11 years will have the best Tibetan ability, and those who have been in the monastery from 6‒20 years are likely to have good Nepali ability. According to nationality, Tibetans are most likely to maintain good ability in their mother tongue as well as in Tibetan, while most Nepali and Bhutanese monks have good ability in Nepali. Those who share a monastery with others from their home area are most likely to maintain ability in their mother tongue. Those who do not share the monastery with others from their home area are

likely to have a high level of Tibetan ability. The isolation factor does not seem to impact Nepali ability significantly. Monks living in small monasteries are likely to maintain their mother tongue, while those in larger monasteries are likely to have increased ability in both Tibetan and Nepali. Similarly, monks in monasteries with a relatively homogeneous population will maintain their mother tongue ability, while those in heterogeneous monasteries will likely have an increased ability in Tibetan and Nepali. Monks living in monasteries with an external focus are more likely to have high ability in Nepali and Tibetan. Monastery focus does not have a significant correlation with mother tongue ability. Thus, the odds are high that a young Tibetan monk, who is living in a small, homogeneous monastery surrounded by others from his language group, will have a high level of ability in his mother tongue. On the other hand, such a candidate would be expected to have lesser ability in Nepali or Tibetan.

4.5 Language use

In a multilingual setting, individuals make choices about which languages they use for different situations. For example, it is common to use one language with family, while another language is used at the market. This is also true in the monastic environment. Most of the monks in Kathmandu are multilingual and make choices regarding language use throughout their day.

4.5.1 Language use with people from the home area

Several questions were asked to assess which languages monks are using with people from their home area.

Table 4.48. (Question E1) “What language do you speak with monks from your home area?”

Sample MT Nepali Tibetan overall 73 67% 14% 19%

The majority use their mother tongue with other monks from their home area (67%). However, a total of 33% of the monks do not. This shows a certain amount of loss of the mother tongue. Tables 4.49, 4.50, and 4.51 show what factors are most likely leading to this loss.

Table 4.49. Language spoken with monks from the home area based on years in monastery

Sample MT Nepali Tibetan 0‒5 27 88% 8% 4% 6‒10 20 45% 35% 20% 11‒20 17 63% 6% 31% 21+ 9 67% 0% 33%

Table 4.50. Language spoken with monks from the home area based on nationality

Sample MT Nepali Tibetan Bhutan 9 67% 22% 11% Nepal 30 53% 27% 20% Tibet 27 81% 0% 19%

Table 4.51. Language spoken with monks from the home area based on monastery demographics

Sample MT Nepali Tibetan Large 42 57% 19% 24% Small 31 77% 6% 13% Heterog. 44 59% 18% 23% Homog. 27 81% 7% 12% External 41 61% 19% 19% Internal 30 77% 7% 7%

From these data, it is clear that those in the monastic system for 6‒10 years are much less likely to use their mother tongue than the other groupings, and instead are more likely than the other groupings to use Nepali. The older groupings are more likely to use Tibetan if they do not use the mother tongue, while the younger groupings are more likely to use Nepali. The monks from Nepal are least likely to use their mother tongue when speaking with compatriots, while the Tibetan monks are most likely. None of the Tibetans interviewed use Nepali with people from their home area. Once again, small, homogeneous, and internally focused monasteries favor mother- tongue use. Overall, these results are consistent with data regarding language ability. Next, subjects were asked about language use with their parents.

Table 4.52. (Question E14) “What language do you use when speaking with your parents?” based on number of years in the monastery

Sample MT Nepali Tibetan Overall 70 88% 4% 7%

0‒5 27 100% 0% 0% 6‒10 20 80% 20% 0% 11‒20 17 82% 6% 12% 21+ 7 71% 0% 29%

A large overall majority (88%) use their mother tongue with their parents. Even those who feel more confident in other languages will use their mother tongue with their parents, assuming they still retain any of that language. However, use of languages other than the mother tongue increases in direct proportion to the amount of time spent in the monasteries. While all of those in the monastery for less than five years use their mother tongue with their parents, 20% of the 6‒10 category do not. A total of 18% of the 11‒20 category use other languages, and 29% of the 21+ category do. This suggests that though the monks prefer to use their mother tongue with their parents, as retention decreases over time, they are increasingly likely to use other languages instead.

Table 4.53. (Question E15) “What language do you use with your siblings?” based on nationality

Sample MT Nepali Tibetan overall 66 76% 12% 12%

Bhutan 9 89% 0% 11% Nepal 30 63% 27% 10% Tibet 27 88% 0% 12%

The majority of the monks use their mother tongue with their siblings, though the percentage is fewer by 11 % than those who use it with their parents. This suggests a slight decrease in mother tongue usage overall in the younger generations. These results are particularly impacted based on the monks’

nationalities. Nepali monks are significantly more likely to use a language other than their mother tongue with their siblings (37%) than are those from other countries (11‒12%). Overall, results are quite consistent for the three questions regarding language use with people from home. In general, monks are most likely to speak their mother tongue with their parents but are less likely to use it with their siblings and still less likely with other monks.

4.5.2 Language use with people from Tibet

Several questions were asked to assess language use by the monks with various Tibetan individuals they might encounter in daily life. These questions are discussed below.

Table 4.54. (Question E2) “What language do you speak with monks from Tibet?”

Sample MT Nepali Tibetan Overall 73 16% 3% 81%

0‒5 27 41% 7% 52% 6‒10 20 0% 0% 100% 11‒20 17 0% 0% 100% 21+ 9 11% 0% 89%

Table 4.55. (Question E9) “What language do you use with non-monks from Tibet?”

Sample MT Nepali Tibetan 73 14% 1% 85%

Table 4.56. (Question E12) “What language do you use with vendors from Tibet?”

Sample MT Tibetan 73 14% 86%

Almost all the monks use Tibetan to speak with monks from Tibet. Those who do not are primarily the younger monks, who have not yet learned Tibetan. (These younger monks claim to use their mother tongue in this situation. This does not suggest that Tibetan speakers understand these mother tongues, but rather that the young monks have very few language options, and their mother tongues are often closer to Tibetan than other languages, such as Nepali.) These same results hold true for interactions with lay people from Tibet.

4.5.3 Language use with people from Nepal

Questions were asked regarding language use with various individuals from Nepal.

Table 4.57. (Question E3) “What language do you use with monks from Nepal?” based on number of years in the monastery and nationality

Sample MT Nepali Tibetan Overall 73 10% 75% 15%

0‒5 27 26% 56% 19% 6‒10 20 0% 100% 0% 11‒20 17 0% 82% 18% 21+ 9 0% 67% 33%

Bhutan 10 0% 80% 20% Nepal 30 0% 87% 13% Tibet 27 26% 56% 18%

The majority of the subjects use Nepali to speak with monks from Nepal. However, those who do not know Nepali typically use Tibetan as an alternative. At the Shelkar Chodey monastery there is a group of young monks from Tingri who, due to the monastery’s focus on the Tingri dialect, do not speak any languages other than their own vernacular. These monks are monolingual and thus stated that they use their mother tongue when speaking with Nepalis. Perhaps surprisingly, 13 percent of the monks interviewed from Nepal use Tibetan when speaking with other monks from Nepal. These monks are all young and come from Tibetan-related language areas of Nepal, where they have not been exposed to much Nepali before coming to the monastery.

Table 4.58. (Question E10) “What language do you use with non-monk Nepalis?”

Sample MT Nepali Tibetan 73 14% 85% 1%

Table 4.59. (Question E13) “What language do you use with Nepali vendors?”

Sample MT Nepali Tibetan 73 12% 86% 2%

When speaking with Nepali laymen, the monks are most likely to use Nepali. However, since the Nepali laymen do not speak any Tibetan, even monks with limited Nepali ability are more likely to try to use Nepali in these situations than they are to use Tibetan. It should be noted that there is a portion of the monastic population who only frequent Tibetan-run stores, since the language barriers prohibit them from interacting with the Nepali vendors. In general, those who can, use Nepali with Nepali speakers. Those who do not use Nepali with Nepali laymen have not learned Nepali and so are unable to use it in these situations.

4.5.4 Language use for monastic purposes

Several questions were asked to assess language use patterns by the monks in various educational and religious practices of their everyday life.

Table 4.60. (Question E4) “What language do you speak with the Rinpoche?”

Sample MT Tibetan 73 14% 86%

The Rinpoches are the heads of the monasteries and are highly revered. Almost all monks use Tibetan with their Rinpoche. Of those who use their mother tongue, the majority are young monks from the Shelkar Chodey monastery, which draws exclusively from the Tingri dialect in Tibet, and so they use the Tingri dialect of Tibetan for all purposes. (The Rinpoche himself is from Tingri.) None of the subjects use Nepali with the Rinpoche. Even those who are not confident in Tibetan use it with the Rinpoche.

Table 4.61. (Question E5) “What language do you use for discussing pujas?”

Sample MT Nepali Tibetan Dzongkha 73 12% 5% 79% 4%

Pujas are always conducted in Chokey, an ancient language of Tibet. Though modern Tibetan dialects are related to Chokey, the differences can be great. Young monks typically do not understand Chokey very well if at all, and only after many years of studying does the typical monk come to a good understanding of this religious language. So, when discussing pujas, the monks must use a language other than Chokey. For this reason, almost all subjects claimed to use Tibetan when discussing pujas. Most of those using their mother tongue are again from the Shelkar Chodey monastery. A few of the Bhutanese monks cited Dzongkha as the language they use for discussion of pujas.

Table 4.62. (Question E6) “What language does your teacher use for teaching?”

Sample MT Nepali Tibetan Kham 73 12% 4% 81% 3%

Again, almost all classes at the monasteries are taught in Tibetan. Most of those using a mother tongue are again from the Shelkar Chodey monastery. One monastery (Tsechen Shedrup Ling) has a head Lama from Kham, Tibet, who instructs using the Kham language. Some of the students have learned enough to be able to talk with him in that variety of Tibetan. This data correlates with the data from the following question as well.

Table 4.63. (Question E7) “What language do you use to discuss class with your teachers?”

Sample MT Nepali Tibetan Kham 73 16% 3% 78% 3%

Table 4.64. (Question E8) “What language do you use to discuss class with peers?”

Sample MT Nepali Tibetan 73 23% 21% 56%

Though classes are typically taught in Tibetan, and discussion with teachers is also typically in Tibetan, peers discuss the lessons in their mother tongue and Nepali at fairly high rates. Looking at this more closely, we see the following:

Table 4.65. “What language do you use to discuss class with your peers?” based on number of years in a monastery

Sample MT Nepali Tibetan 0‒5 27 48% 19% 33% 6‒10 20 10% 30% 60% 11‒20 17 0% 24% 76% 21+ 9 22% 0% 78%

Table 4.66. “What language do you use to discuss class with your peers?” based on nationality

Sample MT Nepali Tibetan Bhutan 10 0% 0% 100% Nepal 30 6% 37% 57% Tibet 27 44% 15% 41%

Table 4.67. “What language do you use to discuss class with your peers?” based on monastery demographics

Sample MT Nepali Tibetan Heterog. 46 13% 17% 70% Homog. 27 41% 26% 33%

The youngest are most likely to use their mother tongue for discussion. All others are most likely to use Tibetan. The oldest do not use Nepali with their peers, though the younger groupings all do to some extent. The Bhutanese are the most likely to use Tibetan, and those from Nepal are more likely than others to use Nepali with peers (though this is still a minority). Meanwhile, the Tibetans are more likely to use their mother tongue with peers. Those in homogeneous monasteries are more likely to use their mother tongue, while those in heterogeneous monasteries are more likely to use Tibetan when discussing class lessons with their peers.

4.5.5 Summary of language use results

Looking at these results, we can see a few basic principles which strongly impact language-use decisions. First, of course, is ability in the languages. It is not possible to use a language which one does not know. However, if we assume that the two individuals involved share a language, three general principles come into play for determining which language to use.

Comfort level of the conversation partner

First, if the discussion is among peers, then a language will be chosen based on whatever language is best understood by both parties. For example, if one monk is fluent in Nepali, and OK at Tibetan, while another is fluent in Tibetan, but knows less Nepali, then they will use Tibetan for their conversation. The choice is not based on what is easiest for the individual, but based on what is most comfortable overall, for the parties involved.

Respect level of the conversation partner

Second, if the discussion is between a respected person and one less respected, it is the duty of the less respected to try to hold the conversation in the respected person’s language. The more respected person does not have a duty to speak in an easier language for the other. This explains the high percentages of mother-tongue usage with parents, the use of mother tongue by the oldest monks in various situations, and the use of Tibetan with the Rinpoches.

Respect level of the topic

Third, in the monastic setting, two languages tend to have religious significance. Chokey is highly esteemed as a religious language, and all pujas are performed in this language. Tibetan is respected as

the language for instruction, and as the highest of the spoken languages, so it is most used for teaching classes and for discussing religious works. This can be seen in table 4.68, which shows the most likely language choice of a monk, based on with whom he is speaking and the material covered.

Table 4.68. Language choices according to communication situation

Topic Respected conversation partner Non-respected conversation partner religious Chokey, Tibetan (performing puja, Tibetan (discussing class and discussing class, etc.) puja with peers) secular partner’s MT (in discussion with best known common language older lamas, the Rinpoche, parents) (talking with peers and laymen)

4.6 Summary of language use study

4.6.1 General patterns

There are over four thousand monks from throughout the Tibetan Buddhist world residing in the numerous monasteries of Kathmandu valley. They come from Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan, and India, and speak dozens of mother tongues. As time goes by, some monks lose their ability in their mother tongue while others maintain it. Some learn Tibetan very well, while others learn it at lesser levels. Some become fluent in Nepali, while others only gain a rudimentary ability. One of the main factors which impacts language maintenance and language ability is the opportunity to speak each language. In this study, several demographic factors show an impact on language use opportunities in the monastic setting. The opportunities for language use come in three categories: 1. Opportunities to speak the language in the monastery 2. Opportunities to speak the language in the community 3. Opportunities to speak the language with people from home

For each of these, several demographic factors of the individual and the monastery where they live interact to determine their level of language use opportunities. 1. Nationality. Where the person was born has an impact on their ability to visit their home and to receive visits from home, on their likelihood to be isolated at the monastery, and on their pre- monastic ability in various languages. 2. Monastic make up. A homogeneous monastery provides more opportunities for mother-tongue usage (assuming the subject shares the mother tongue of the majority population), but provides less opportunities for Nepali and Tibetan. However, a heterogeneous monastery offers more opportunity for conversation partners from each of the languages, and thus provides a good opportunity for using Nepali and Tibetan. 3. Monastery size. A large monastery provides more conversation partners and increases the odds of mother-tongue speakers being available (in a non-homogeneous monastery). 4. Monastery focus. Externally focussed monasteries are more likely to encourage the use of trade languages such as Nepali and Tibetan in order to communicate with outsiders. Internally focussed monasteries are more likely to focus on one language. In general, those at externally focused monasteries will have better opportunities for learning the trade languages well.

Language-use choices are determined by an interplay of these various opportunities and the sociolinguistic factors of respect level of those spoken to, as well as attitude towards the material being discussed. Meanwhile, language ability is impacted by two further factors.

1. Language use opportunities. Based on the above factors, a profile of an individual can emerge regarding their opportunities to use various languages. Language use correlates highly with reported language ability, whether in the mother tongue or in one of the trade languages. 2. Number of years in a monastery. As an individual spends more time away from home, living in the monastic environment, his language abilities change. Those who have recently arrived at the monasteries maintain a high level of ability in the mother tongue, but this tends to decrease over time. Nepali ability tends to increase in the early stages of the monastic career, and Tibetan ability tends to increase over longer periods of time.

Thus, by looking at an individual’s personal history, as well as his monastic background, it is possible to make an educated guess at his relative ability in various languages. These factors combine to impact the individual’s ability in their mother tongue as well as in various trade languages.

4.6.2 Answers to research questions

We now can refer to the initial research questions and provide some educated answers. 1. Where, in what ways, and how well are they learning languages other than their mother tongue? Mother tongue: The monks come into the monastic system already speaking their mother tongue well. It is unlikely that this ability will grow over time, but it is rather a question of how well it will be maintained. Tibetan: Few monks enter the monasteries speaking Tibetan well. It is learned primarily through immersion in the classroom setting, as well as with formal classes at many of the monasteries. Almost all of the monks learn Tibetan at least adequately to hold conversations in it comfortably. Nepali: Many monks from Nepal enter the monastery fluent in Nepali. For those who spoke it as a trade language or education language, it is likely that their ability will increase over the years, since they have many opportunities to speak it in the monasteries. For those who enter without Nepali ability, there is rarely a formal infrastructure for learning Nepali. Rather, it is learned primarily through interactions in the community and with monks who speak Nepali. English: Several of the monasteries offer English language classes to their monks. In addition, there is occasional opportunity for English usage with foreigners who visit the monasteries. While many are interested in speaking English well, and many have studied it in classes, few are able to speak it at more than a very basic level. In general, language use improves ability much more than formal training. 2. What languages are used when interacting with various types of individuals they will encounter in their daily lives? Based on the language use study, we find that these choices are based on the monk’s ability in the different languages, combined with various factors regarding respect. Generally, they will attempt to speak in whatever language is easiest for the person they are dialoguing with. (Unless the one being spoken with is much older. In that case, they will tend to default to the elder’s most comfortable language regardless of the younger person’s ability in that language.) This means that with respected people and elders, they will attempt to talk as close to that person’s mother tongue as possible. When speaking with equals or non-respected people, they will try to speak the language which is most comfortable overall for the parties involved. 3. Does length of time away from the home area impact perceived language maintenance? Length of time away from the home area, or rather, length of time in the monastic system does have a strong impact on perceived mother-tongue language maintenance. 4. Does the level of interaction with laymen from the home the area impact perceived language maintenance? In general, increased ability to interact with people from home will also lead to an increased level of mother-tongue language maintenance. 5. Does the level of interaction with other monks from the home area impact perceived language ability and maintenance?

Increased ability to interact with monks from home will also lead to an increased level of mother-tongue language maintenance. 6. Does the level of relatedness between the mother tongue and Central Tibetan impact perceived language ability and maintenance? It is generally theorized that someone speaking a trade language closely related to his mother tongue will lose the mother tongue more quickly than will someone whose mother tongue is more distantly related. Because of the linguistic similarity, the new language more easily replaces the mother tongue. However, in this study, there does not seem to be a strong correlation between language maintenance and language relatedness. Rather, opportunity for use is a much stronger factor in determining maintenance. So, someone who speaks a language related to the trade language, but gets many opportunities to speak the mother tongue, will maintain the mother tongue much better than someone who speaks a more distantly related language, but does not have the opportunities to speak the mother tongue. 7. Does the sociolinguistic make-up of the monastery affect language use choices and perceived language ability and maintenance? In that a monastery’s sociolinguistic make-up impacts opportunities for use of various languages, it does impact language use choices and maintenance. It is not the make-up itself, but how it encourages or discourages use of various languages which has the impact.

5 Language maintenance study

5.1 Design of the study

5.1.1 Purpose

Language maintenance refers to the degree to which an individual or community, in a multilingual setting, maintains ability in the mother tongue. This third phase of the study was designed to assess both the levels of maintenance and the types of language shift which occurs as monks spend extended time in the monasteries. The data is analyzed based on factors that include opportunities for language use, time away from home, and linguistic relation of the vernacular to the languages used in the monastery.

5.1.2 Research questions

This research is designed to answer the following specific questions regarding language maintenance and how the monastic environment, time away from home, opportunities to use the language, and relation of the mother tongue to the trade language impact language maintenance. 1. How well can the subject recall and use the mother tongue? 2. What are common areas in which the mother tongue is forgotten? 3. Can the subject still speak the mother tongue purely? 4. If the subject mixes another language with the mother tongue, with which language? 5. Can the subject understand the mother tongue? 6. How aware is the subject of what is “pure” mother-tongue language? 7. How aware is the subject that shift is happening?

5.1.3 Tools used

For this study, the following tools were used: 1. Lexical comparison—Wordlists were elicited from each of the subjects interviewed. This elicited data is analyzed in two ways. The first is by the ease with which the subject can recall the vernacular terms (as shown through the actual dynamics of the interview, as well as by the 55

number of words that the subject chooses to skip because he cannot remember the vernacular term). The second is by the percentage of increase in the cited terms, using the languages of the monasteries instead of the vernacular. For example, if the language is 40 percent cognate with Tibetan, but the subject’s wordlist shows a 45 percent level of lexical similarity with Tibetan, it is likely that the subject has forgotten some of the original vernacular terms and instead favors the Tibetan terms. 2. Text—Each subject was asked to tell a short narrative from his life. The elicitation of the text is evaluated in two ways: The ease with which the subject was able to tell the story and the perceived level of mixing with other languages (according to other mother-tongue speakers listening to the elicitation). 3. Questions—Each subject was later asked to listen to the texts given by others in their language group. The subjects were asked questions regarding comprehension of the text, as well as their perceptions of its purity.

5.1.4 Design and subject selection

The language-use component of this study showed that monasteries can be divided into two broad categories, according to the amount of exposure to the mother tongue that a monk will have. At one extreme is a monastery with numerous people from the monk’s home area. They are able to speak together using that language on a regular basis. At the other extreme is a monastery in which the monk is the only person from his home area and he has no opportunities to use the mother tongue in that monastery. In addition to opportunities at the monastery, the monks use language in the surrounding community as well. In this situation, if the surrounding community has numerous individuals from the monk’s home area, there will be greater opportunity for using the language than if there are no people from the home area in the surrounding community. Finally, opportunities for traveling home or receiving visitors from home is another key factor in language use. Monks, who can travel easily to their home area or receive visitors from there, are going to have more opportunities to use the mother tongue than are those who cannot visit their home and are not able to receive visitors. It was found that, typically, monks from Nepal more easily have opportunities for interacting in the community with people from their home area and also have many opportunities for travelling home and for receiving visitors from home. Monks from Tibet quite often can find a large community of people from their home area living in Kathmandu. However, it is not possible for them to visit home or to receive regular visits from people from home. Finally, monks from Bhutan are quite unlikely to find people from their home areas in the community. While they are able to travel home occasionally, they cannot do so often, nor can their relatives afford to visit them often. The research was designed to gather information from monks belonging to one language group in Nepal, one in Tibet, and one in Bhutan. From each community, a monk who lives in a monastery with others from his home area, as well as one who does not, were interviewed. Where possible, laymen or newly arrived monks were also interviewed to provide a baseline study of individuals who have not been impacted linguistically by the monasteries. From each subject, several types of data were elicited. 1. A wordlist, demonstrating a sample of the subject’s mother-tongue lexicon, 2. A text in the vernacular, 3. Responses to questions regarding texts given by others from the same mother tongue.

5.2 Description of the languages in this study

From Nepal, the Manangi community was chosen for study. From Tibet, the Tingri community was selected. And from Bhutan, the Khengpa community was selected. These three language groups, shown 56

on map 9, were chosen for study because they met the criterion necessary for carrying out the study and because they were all within fairly easy to access in Kathmandu. The Manangis have a large network of local contacts and services within Kathmandu itself, as well as plenty of opportunities for travel to and from their home area. There are monasteries made up entirely of Manangis, as well as many heterogeneous monasteries with individual Manangis living there. Also, a large number of Tingri Tibetans are found in Kathmandu, both inside and outside of the monastic system. However, they are rarely able to travel back to their home area, since they left Tibet as refugees. There is a monastery in which only Tingri Tibetans live, and there are other monasteries housing a few Tingri Tibetans. There are no non-monk Khengkha speakers found in Kathmandu. The Khengpa monks have no interactions with people from their home area outside of the monastery. And they rarely have any opportunity to travel home. Similarly, they are rarely able to receive any visitors from home. One monastery has a population of several Khengpas, and there are a few isolated Khengpas found at other monasteries in Kathmandu.

Map 9. Location of the three languages studied

Tingri Tibetan TIBET Manang

NEPAL Khengkh

BHUTAN

The Manangi language is spoken by about 3,700 people living in Manang District, Nepal. It is classified as a Western Gurung language, in the West Bodish subgroup of the Bodic languages. Tingri Tibetan is a variety of Central Tibetan spoken just north of the Nepal-Tibet border, in the region surrounding Tingri village. The population speaking this variety of Tibetan is unknown. The Khengkha language is spoken by about 50,000 people in south-central Bhutan. It is classified as an Eastern Bodish language in the Bodic group of Tibeto-Burman languages.

5.3 Evaluation of lexical data

A 184-item standard wordlist was gathered from each of the subjects. The words were elicited in Nepali or Tibetan, and the subject was then asked to say the vernacular word for that item. From each language group, a wordlist was gathered from someone who recently came to Kathmandu from the home area, to use as a baseline study. Also, a wordlist was elicited from a monk living in community among others from the home area, as well as from a monk living isolated from others from the home area. Wordlists in Nepali, Tibetan, and Dzongkha (the national language of Bhutan) were also elicited for this study. 57

The wordlists were then compared to assess the degree of lexical similarity between the various samples in question. This comparison was based on lexical similarity, not cognate counts. It is important to note that, in this study, the subjects were asked (and given time) to recall some very basic words in their language. This is a very different mental task than trying to actually speak in the language. As a result, the amount of shift towards other languages is in all cases quite small. The inability of the subjects to recall certain lexical items at all is a significant sign of language loss, and any increase in the percentage of lexical similarity with other languages also shows a certain level of subconscious shift from the vernacular to the other languages.

5.3.1 Manangi data

Manangi baseline lexical similarity data

The baseline Manangi wordlist was elicited from a monk from Manang who only recently moved to a monastery in Kathmandu. This wordlist shows the lexical similarity with the trade languages shown in table 5.1.

Table 5.1. Manangi baseline lexical similarity data

Same Percentage Tibetan 33/184 18% Nepali 3/184 2%

These data show a relatively small lexical similarity percentage between the Manangi sample and the Tibetan sample, and very low lexical similarity with Nepali.

Manangi monk in community, lexical similarity data

This sample was elicited from a Manangi monk living in a monastery which is predominantly made up of Manangis. The subject has been in the monastery for eight years. He gave the wordlist confidently and was sure that it was pure Manangi. It should be noted that though the people in this monastery all come from Manang, the monastery has a strong focus on the Tibetan language.

Table 5.2. Manangi in community, lexical similarity data

Same Percentage Tibetan 40/184 22% Nepali 3/184 1%

In this data we see a significant increase in Tibetan usage. Seven more terms were similar to Tibetan than in the baseline list. Nepali usage had not increased. It appears that this subject has started to lose some of his ability in Manangi and is favoring purer Tibetan.

Manangi monk in isolation, lexical similarity data

This sample was taken from a Manangi who has been living at a monastery in Kathmandu for 35 years. Though there are a couple of other Manangis at his monastery, they speak together primarily in Nepali and say that they only rarely use Manangi. This subject was quite confident on some words and struggled for others. The impression was that he recalls the language, but sometimes it is an effort. He was not able to give responses for two of the words, suggesting again that retention is slightly affected. It should be noted that this subject’s monastery draws from many different language groups, but all from within Nepal. Thus, Nepali is often used as the lingua franca in this monastery.

Table 5.3. Manangi monk in isolation, lexical similarity data

Same Percentage Tibetan 32/182 18% Nepali 6/182 3%

In this data we see no change in Tibetan lexical similarity in the sample. However, three more words were similar to Nepali than in the baseline study. This suggests that some shift towards Nepali is underway for this subject.

Summary of Manangi lexical similarity data

In general, each of the Manangi subjects was able to recall Manangi quite well. The variable of the language focus of the specific monastery appears to have had more of an impact on language shift than has the amount of time the subject has been away from home, or the level of interaction with other monks in the vernacular. This is consistent with expectations, since even the isolated Manangi has many opportunities for speaking Manangi in the community outside of the monastery, and in fact he has had many opportunities for travelling to his home area over the years.

5.3.2 Tingri Tibetan data

Tingri baseline lexical similarity data

The baseline Tingri Tibetan wordlist was elicited from a young Tingri monk who just came to Kathmandu within the last year. This wordlist shows the lexical similarity with the trade languages shown in table 5.4.

Table 5.4. Tingri baseline lexical similarity data

Same Percentage Tibetan 111/184 60% Nepali 1/184 1%

The Tingri Tibetan variety shows a significant level of lexical similarity with Tibetan but clearly is lexically distinct from that language. There is obviously negligible influence from Nepali on this language.

Tingri monk in community, lexical similarity data

This sample, represented in table 5.5, was taken from a Tingri monk who has lived in Kathmandu for over 10 years. The monastery where he is resident is made up almost entirely of Tingri-area Tibetans, and use of the vernacular is encouraged, even in the classroom setting. The subject gave the wordlist fairly confidently but did pause occasionally and struggled to recall some terms.

Table 5.5. Tingri in community lexical similarity data

Same Percentage Tibetan 114/184 62% Nepali 1/184 1%

Here we find a bit of an increase in Tibetan lexical similarity (a total increase of three). This suggests that a slight shift towards Tibetan has occurred for this subject.

Summary of Tingri lexical similarity data

I was not able to gather data from a Tingri monk living in isolation, so only two subjects are included in the Tingri discussion, and analysis of isolation as a factor in language maintenance must be based on the data from the other two languages. From this data, it appears that even in a monastery that strongly encourages use of the mother tongue, a certain amount of language shift may occur.

5.3.3 Khengkha data

Khengkha baseline lexical similarity data

The baseline Khengkha wordlist was elicited from a Khengpa layman who lives within the Kheng region of Bhutan. This wordlist shows the lexical similarity with the trade languages shown in table 5.6.

Table 5.6. Khengkha baseline lexical similarity data

Same Percentage Tibetan 38/184 21% Dzongkha 42/183 23% Nepali 3/184 2%

From this, we see that this sample has a slightly higher lexical similarity with Dzongkha than with Tibetan. These numbers are significant primarily as baseline for comparing the other Khengkha samples.

Khengkha-speaking monk in community, lexical similarity data

The Khengpa monk living in community with other Khengpa monks in Kathmandu was unable to provide items for three of the 184 words (1.6%). This suggests a slight loss of ability to recall the language, though not significantly high. Table 5.7 shows the lexical similarity with other relevant languages.

Table 5.7. Khengkha in community, lexical similarity data

Same Percentage Tibetan 39/181 22% Dzongkha 40/180 22% Nepali 3/181 2%

In this data we see a very slight increase in Tibetan usage, and slight decrease in Dzongkha usage. Again, the degree of variation is statistically insignificant. From this, we see that the Khengpa living with others, though not recalling all Khengkha words elicited, did not significantly borrow from other languages during the elicitation.

Khengkha-speaking monk in isolation, lexical similarity data

The Khengpa monk, who was not living along with other Khengpas, was unable to provide terms for sixteen of the 184 words (8.7%). In general, this subject struggled to recall terms during the elicitation. This suggests a substantial loss in recall of the mother tongue for this subject. Table 5.8 shows the lexical similarity with other languages. 60

Table 5.8. Khengkha in isolation, lexical similarity data

Same Percentage Tibetan 35/168 21% Dzongkha 42/167 25% Nepali 3/168 2%

Here we find the ratio of lexical similarity with Tibetan has stayed the same. However, the percentage with Dzongkha has increased significantly (by 4%). These results suggest that this subject has lost recall of some of the vernacular vocabulary. In some cases, he is certain that he has lost the vocabulary; while in others, he has taken on Dzongkha terms, thinking them to be Khengkha.

Summary of Khengkha lexical similarity data

The Khengkha data is very consistent in general. There does appear to be a correlation between lack of exposure to the language and loss of some of the language. Where this loss has not been acknowledged, Dzongkha is the primary source of borrowings to fill these lexical gaps.

5.3.4 Summary of trends in lexical data

Each subject who had been out of his home area for several years struggled to some extent at recalling vernacular terms for the word elicited. In some cases, the subjects were not able to recall the vernacular words. In other cases, they thought they were recalling the vernacular, but in fact were substituting items from other languages, as seen by slight increases in the lexical similarities with these other languages. In these data, the Manangi subjects, overall, show the least language shift. This is likely due to the opportunities they have to use the language in the surrounding community and the ease with which they can visit their home areas. The Tingri subjects show some shift, towards Tibetan, though only slightly. Again, the opportunities for language use at the monastery and in the surrounding community appear to help encourage language maintenance. The Khengpa subjects show a slightly lower level of language maintenance. The monk living in community has maintained the language fairly well, though he has forgotten some words and shifted towards Tibetan a bit. The monk not living in community has lost more of his language. He not only forgot many terms but borrowed more from other languages in order to complete the elicitation. These results suggest a strong correlation between language use opportunities and language maintenance results. In each case, the monk living in isolation showed more shift than the one living in community. Further, based on the opportunities for speaking the language outside of the monastery, the Manangis (who have the greatest opportunities) show the most maintenance; while the Khengpas (who have the least opportunities) show the most loss. As expected, the Khengpa subject, living in the monastery isolated from other Khengka speakers with no opportunity for speaking the language (and no speakers in the community or opportunities to travel home), showed the highest degree of language loss.

5.4 Evaluation of text data

A total of seven texts were elicited during this study. Subjects were asked to tell a simple narrative from their life, such as an interesting event or journey they went on. I was not able to gather a text from a Tingri monk living in isolation, nor from a newcomer from Manang. 61

5.4.1 Manangi data

A Manangi living in a community of Manangis

This subject told a short narrative about his trip to Dorjiden (site of Buddha’s enlightenment) for the Kalichakra in January 2002. He told the narrative confidently and did not pause while telling it. After finishing, he explained that he has been out of Manang for awhile now and it is hard to use the language smoothly. This was confirmed by several Manangis who listened to him give the narrative. They said that the text was mostly Manangi, but that there was quite a bit of mixing with Tibetan. Note that this is consistent with his wordlist data which suggested a bit of a shift towards Tibetan. He had no trouble understanding the text given by the Manangi living in isolation, but considered it to have a bit of Nepali mixed in.

A Manangi living isolated from others

This subject told a short narrative simply describing where he is from, and about coming to the monastery. Again, the narrative was told confidently with little pausing. When asked how pure it was, he said that it was mostly Manangi, but he cannot speak just Manangi, and that quite a bit of Nepali came into the text. This is consistent with his wordlist data in which some shift towards Nepali was evidenced. He had no trouble understanding the text given by the Manangi living in community and considered it to be relatively pure.

5.4.2 Tingri data

A Tingri Tibetan recently arrived in Kathmandu

This subject told a narrative about his journey from Tingri to Kathmandu. He was young and quite shy, so the story was told with the assistance of another newly arrived monk, in the form of questions and answers. He never paused and spoke quite rapidly. People listening said that it was pure Tingri Tibetan, with no mixing. When this text was listened to by the monk living in community, he understood it fully and found it to be pure Tingri Tibetan.

A Tingri Tibetan living in community

This subject started to tell about a recent trip to Dorjiden for the Kalichakra but found it difficult to use only Tingri and became embarrassed with people watching him make mistakes. So, he also gave a text in conversational style, with another long-timer asking him questions about his travels to Dorjiden. The two talked freely and easily, but, by all accounts, there was quite a bit of Tibetan mixed in. When this text was listened to by the newly arrived Tingri monk, the subject was able to understand the text, but struggled with some of the Tibetan.

5.4.3 Khengkha data

A Khengkha-speaking layman living in his home area

This subject told a traditional story about the moon. He had no struggles telling it, and by all accounts it is pure Khengkha. Neither of the other two subjects had any trouble understanding this text and considered it to be pure Khengkha.

A Khengkha speaker living in community

This subject told a narrative about his life. He spoke easily and without hesitation. On finishing, he commented that it was not pure Khengkha, but that he mixed in some Tibetan when speaking. This text was not played for the Khengpa living in isolation. However, the Khengpa who still lives in Kheng had many comments about the text. First, he fully understood it. From the vocabulary he could tell which region the speaker had come from, but also could tell that some mixing was happening. On one level, there was was mixing with other regional dialects of Khengkha, suggesting that, since the Khengpas living at this monastery come from different dialect areas, there is a certain amount of borrowing between dialects. Further, there was an increase in Dzongkha usage.

A Khengkha speaker isolated from other speakers

This subject was unable to tell any stories in the Khengkha language. He felt that he had lost too much of the language to be able to simply tell a text. Instead, he told a question and answer text, with a monk from Bumthang (the region neighboring Kheng to the north) asking him questions in a mixture of Bumthangkha and Dzongkha. He managed to do this but felt that the result had very much Dzongkha mixed in. This text was not played for the Khengpa living in community. Again, the Khengkha speaker who still lives in Kheng was able to tell the subject’s birth area based on certain vocabulary items used. But he could tell the subject had been away from home for a long time. He commented that there was some Bumthangkha and quite a bit of Dzongkha in his responses to the questions.

5.4.4 Summary of text data

Table 5.9 shows the various subjects and gives a basic evaluation of their confidence and purity of language while telling a text, as well as their comprehension and accuracy of impressions when listening to texts.

Table 5.9. Text elicitation purity and confidence ratings

Lg. use opp. Telling text Listening to text Language Environ. Mon Com Home Confidence Mixed Comprehension Impressions Manangi long x x x high Tibetan high accurate Manangi isolated x x high Nepali high Tib not noted Tingri new x x high pure OK accurate Tingri long x x mid Tibetan high accurate Khengkha new x high pure high accurate Khengkha long x high Tibetan high accurate Khengkha isolated low Dzongka high accurate

According to subject profile

The only subjects who did not mix any other language when they gave their texts were the newly arrived Tingri monk and the Khengpa layman who still lives in the Kheng region. This shows that regardless of the monastic environment and the opportunities available for using the language, some shift in language use occurs. Of those who did mix other languages, the trends were for those in the monastery for a long time to shift towards Tibetan, except in the case where the subject comes from a monastery with a lot of Nepali usage. Thus, it has to do with the language focus of their monastery. 63

Two subjects were not very confident when telling texts. One was the Khengpa living in isolation. Surprisingly, the second was the Tingri Tibetan who lives in a monastery made up of Tingri Tibetans. His hesitation shows that even in what seems an ideal setting for language maintenance, the Tibetan focus of the monk’s daily activities is a strong factor leading to language shift. Comprehension of the mother tongue was not impacted in any of cases. The only subject who had any trouble was the newly arrived Tingri monk, when listening to a Tingri text with Tibetan mixed in. His problems were with the Tibetan, not the Tingri. From these results we can see that comprehension of the mother tongue is much less impacted than is the production of the language, and, in fact, none of the subjects in this study appear to have lost their ability to comprehend their mother tongue. Similarly, the subjects were quite accurate in their assessments of purity and mixing in the language varieties spoken in the texts, indicating that they are generally aware of what is proper usage of their language, and what is not. This again shows that all the subjects are generally aware of what is their language, and what is borrowed from another language. Even though they might have trouble producing their language purely, they know what the pure form of their language should sound like.

According to opportunity factors for language use

Obviously, those subjects who either had recently arrived in the monastery or are still living in their home area were able to speak the most purely and confidently. In each case, those living in a community with others from their language area mixed some of the trade language (either Tibetan or Dzongkha) into their text. The subject who struggled the most with the language was the Khengpa who had had no language use opportunities in his life. It appears that language use opportunity helps to promote language maintenance. However, it also appears that, in any case, the monastic environment does lead to some language shift.

Correlation with lexical similarity data

These results of both confidence in and purity of language correlate with the slight trends found in the lexical similarity data, as shown in table 5.10 (the two “new” subjects were removed, since their data serves simply as a baseline in the lexical similarity study).

Table 5.10. Correlation of confidence and purity of language with lexical similarity data

Telling text Lexical similarity Language Environment Confidence Mixed Skipped Borrowing items Manangi long high Tibetan 0 +4% Tibetan Manangi isolated high Nepali 0 +2% Nepali Tingri long mid Tibetan 0 +2% Tibetan Khengkha long high Tibetan 3 +1% Tibetan Khengkha isolated low Dzongka 16 +2% Dzongkha

In each case, the language reported as being mixed into the text is the same language which showed an increase in the subject’s lexical similarity data sample. Also, the least confident subject when giving a text had to skip many of the lexical items.

5.5 Summary of language maintenance study

In this study, there are several basic trends which can be seen in regard to language maintenance. 64

5.5.1 Lack of purity correlating with length of time in the monastic system

This is less of an issue in elicited data than in actual speaking, since the subject has more of an opportunity to think carefully and remember the term. However, for all monks who have spent time in the monasteries, whether in a community of others from their home area, or in isolation from others of their home area, a certain amount of lexical borrowing has occurred. This borrowing is evidenced to a limited extent in the lexical similarity comparisons, and further in text elicitation. It is interesting that in lexical similarity comparisons the borrowings are evidenced, since this suggests that some of the borrowing may not be on a conscious level (or they would have simply skipped the item). In texts, they were usually aware that they had mixed other languages into the narrative. This shows a certain amount of awareness of shift as well.

5.5.2 Lack of recall correlating with opportunities for language use

In general, monks with any opportunities for language use (whether in the monastery itself, in the surrounding community, or with people from home), were able to recall lexical items during wordlist elicitation. (Some mistakenly borrowed from other languages, but this is a different issue as shown in A above). However, lack of opportunities for language use was evidenced in an inability to recall what is considered a mother tongue word for the item being elicited. This was apparent to some extent in the Khengpa who can only use his language with the other Khengpas at his monastery, and to a further degree with the Khengpa who has no opportunities for mother-tongue language use. In text elicitation, subjects were much more likely to simply fill in the lexical gaps with borrowings from other languages, though this is done at a more conscious level than the borrowings found in the lexical similarity comparison.

5.5.3 Little loss of comprehension

In general, subjects had no trouble comprehending other texts spoken in their mother tongue. This was regardless of the monastic environment in which they live and regardless of their opportunities for language use. This suggests that lack of comprehension is not a common area of language loss, but rather, the issue is of production.

5.5.4 Little loss of awareness of what is pure

Similarly, subjects tended to be aware of mixing of their mother tongue with other languages when listening to texts. This shows an awareness of what is pure, regardless of time away from home, monastic environment, or opportunities for language use. Again, passive capacity appears much more robust than active language capacity.

6 Summary and results

6.1 Factors that encourage language maintenance

There are several factors which can lead to maintenance of the mother-tongue language for students who leave their home area to live in the monasteries of Kathmandu. In general, this study has shown that language maintenance correlates directly with the opportunities for language use. Thus, the following list of factors increase language use opportunities and thereby increasing language maintenance levels. 65

6.1.1 Ease of travel to the home area.

In general, monks who are able to travel to their home area are likely to do so from time to time. Most monasteries have an annual holiday leave during which those monks who can afford to travel home (and who have political access to their home nation) do so. This provides a good opportunity for them to be re-immersed in their home culture. It is not uncommon for a monk to return home on holiday, hang up his robes, and join his family working in the fields, watching the cattle, etc. Those who travel home regularly, have renewed input about their mother-tongue language variety, as well as increased opportunities for language usage. This directly results in an increase of mother-tongue language maintenance. Further, if travel is relatively simple (and politically feasible) between the home area and the monastery, then it is quite common for relatives of the monk to show up for visits at the monastery. Many of Kathmandu’s monks who come from Nepali villages have a regular stream of family, other relatives, and village friends who either come specifically to visit with them, or at least come calling when they visit Kathmandu. This again leads to an increase in opportunity for speaking the mother tongue, which in turn encourages language maintenance.

6.1.2 Existence of a lay population from the home area near the monastery

Most monks have at least some interaction with the people in their surrounding community. These interactions include the monks going out to perform pujas at people’s houses, socializing with friends living in the area, and visiting businesses for shopping and eating. They also involve the public coming to the monastery for pujas, cultural events, and tours. The more these interactions are with people from their home area speaking their mother tongue, the more the opportunities for the monks to use their language. Again, this directly relates to language maintenance. For this reason, the monastic language communities who share a common homeland with laymen living in the Kathmandu area are more likely to maintain their mother tongue than those whose homeland is not represented among Kathmandu’s Buddhist communities. In some cases, the monasteries serve as cultural centers for people from particular areas. Monks who live in these monasteries and come from the same area as the visiting laymen are more likely than others to use their mother tongue on a regular basis.

6.1.3 Monastery population linguistic make-up

The monasteries are very diverse from one another in regard to their linguistic makeup. Some monasteries draw primarily from a particular region, and thus a large percentage of the population share a common homeland and mother tongue. Other monasteries draw from a particular country. In such cases, there is likely to be several monks from the same home area, though there are other linguistic backgrounds also represented among the population. In other monasteries, the population comes from throughout the Tibetan Buddhist world. In these monasteries, the percentage of the population from any one particular linguistic background is typically smaller. The more peers a monk has with a common linguistic background, the more likely they are to use the language regularly in their day-to-day interactions, and thus the more likely they will maintain their ability in the mother tongue.

6.1.4 Monastery size

Monastery size, in and of itself, is not a relevant factor in language maintenance. However, since the ethnic make-up of a monastery dictates a percentage of the population speaking a language, monastery size then dictates the actual population speaking that language. A large heterogeneous monastery may have several monks from a particular language group, while a small heterogeneous monastery is less likely to have a significant population from any particular language variety. Again, the more individuals 66

who share a common language, the more likely they will use that language together, leading to an increase in language usage and maintenance.

6.1.5 Languages of instruction and discussion

The more homogeneous monasteries often have teachers and leaders from the same language background as the students. In such cases, it is quite common for classes to be taught in that shared language, rather than in a more prestigious form of Tibetan. Even in cases where attitudes towards religious materials mandate more standard Tibetan usage, the shared local language will be used in discussion and explanations. In such cases, the students again have regular interaction with their home language. Further, they have less interaction with standard Tibetan than do monks in most other monasteries. As a result, they are quite likely to maintain a high level of ability in the mother tongue.

6.1.6 Living situation

Many monasteries have a policy of rooming monks from the same home area together, typically with two or three sharing a single room. This encourages regular use of the mother tongue as the room-mates converse and discuss the day’s lessons and activities using their common, comfortable language. It is also common, when several monks come from the same area, to house them all along the same hallway, or in the same wing of the monastery. Again, this encourages regular mother-tongue language usage and helps to maintain ability in the mother tongue.

6.2 Factors which may affect ability as a language assistant

The following demographic factors are important in evaluating the ability of a particular monk to serve as a language assistant. It is intended as a quick list of issues for a researcher to look at if considering learning something about a language through language assistants located in Kathmandu’s monasteries. As noted in section 6.1, opportunities for language use are a key factor leading to language maintenance. Thus, in addition to evaluating the individual’s monastic home’s sociolinguistic setting, according to the issues listed in 6.1, the following issues regarding an individual’s background are important to evaluate.

6.2.1 Number of years living away from the home area

Even in a sociolinguistic setting which maximizes language use opportunities and mother-tongue language maintenance, it is still true that the monk is no longer living in the home area and is being influenced by many other linguistic pressures than when living at home. The longer the monk is away from his home area, the more his ability in the mother tongue will be affected. Thus, the ideal subject for linguistic inquiry is one who has spent a minimal time away from his home area. Similarly, subjects who stayed in their home area and became monks later in life are more likely to be good representatives of the home language variety than are the monks who began their career at a very young age. They have had more opportunity to gain a deep understanding of the mother tongue before changing environments. Similarly, those who joined at a young age are more likely to learn new languages quickly and to begin shifting away from mother tongue usage at a much more rapid pace, as compared with those who spent a significant number of years in their home area before becoming monks. So, regarding time, the ideal candidate for linguistic inquiry is one who joined the monastic system at an older age, and quite recently. Both being young when joining the monastery and being a large number of years in the monastic system will, conversely, decrease language maintenance and qualifications as a linguistic assistant.

6.2.2 Attitudes towards the mother tongue

The issue of attitudes towards one’s mother tongue and the other languages used in the monastic environment was not pursued in this study. However, in general, a subject with a higher level of pride in their home area’s culture and language variety will more likely maintain higher levels of ability in that language, than will those who consider their home area to be backward and consider their home language variety as embarrassing.

6.3 Limitations of linguistic data obtained from a monastery

6.3.1 Types of language shift likely

This study shows that, while active ability in the mother tongue is affected to varying degrees, passive ability is not greatly affected. Subjects are quite likely, regardless of time away from the home area, to be able to serve as translators from the mother tongue to another language, and to be able to assess the purity level of a text. However, the individual’s ability to speak the language purely and naturally is likely to be affected based on the amount of time they have been in the monasteries, and on the sociolinguistic environment of the monastery in which they live. Likewise, recall of specific mother-tongue terms may become lessened based on the same factors. When several monks come from a common language area, but have specific local dialects spoken in their home villages, they will tend to converge and form a variant form of their language based on the dialects represented among them. Here again, they can serve as excellent translators, sources of basic information, and as conversation partners, but they are not able to give accurate regional dialect information. The data gathered needs careful evaluation as to its weaknesses and strengths for it to be useful data in any linguistic research.

6.3.2 Attitude issues towards Tibetan and the mother tongue

As the monks become more educated within the Buddhist monastic system, they become decreasingly representative of the general population from their home area. Not only are they more likely to make lexical choices which favor a more standardized form of Tibetan, they may increasingly view that form of Tibetan as accurate (especially for discussion of religion) and the mother-tongue language variety as more corrupted. As a result, even in conversations with people from the home area, they may tend increasingly towards usage of Tibetan, both at a conscious level as well as a subconscious level. Similarly, they become culturally more like the Tibetan diaspora community and decreasingly like those from their home areas. Language and anthropology are intimately linked, and the change in world view that comes as the monk is educated, will be reflected in the way that he talks about many issues. This will also lead to the monk being a less ideal language assistant, if the goal is to learn about the language as spoken in a specific region.

6.3.3 Time and schedule constraints

On a practical level, the monks are typically quite busy. They often have an hour or so break at midday, but it is meal time, as well as their chance to rest and process information from morning classes, religious activities, and work. Typically, the daily schedule ends around five o’clock p.m. The next hour or so is the main time when the monks are free from activities. Similarly, most monasteries give the monks a half day off on Saturdays and a full day off on Sundays, and they are free to spend this time as they wish. 68

It is important in conducting any research among this population, to respect the restraints of their schedule and find times when it is convenient for them to assist. Very few monks have enough free time to give regular input into any sort of linguistic research.

6.4 Summary statement

The monasteries of Kathmandu are an incredible microcosm of the Tibetan Buddhist world. They house monks from Mongolia, various parts of Tibet, Bhutan, the Indian Himalayas, and Nepal. The centralization of the monasteries in Kathmandu, for populations ranging across such a large region each of which have both geographic and political constraints, makes them a possible resource for conducting initial research on many languages. However, there are many factors which affect an individual’s ability to speak his mother tongue purely. These factors need to be evaluated before any data is gathered, and the data needs to be evaluated in the context of these factors. It is hoped that this report will serve as a useful tool for exploring the possibilities and limitations of working with monks in Kathmandu’s monasteries as language assistants for various languages spoken in the Tibetan Buddhist world. Appendix A: Monastery Data

A.1 Boudhanath monasteries

Note: In the Code numbers, B stands for Boudha, P for Pharping and S for Swayambu, the three locations of the monasteries studied.

A.1.1 Code number: B01

Monastery: Name of monastery: Shelkar Chodey Monastery Other name(s): Shincho Khanden Leshek Ling Sect: Gelugpa Year started: 1987

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Sherka Linka Tuvu Founder’s home area: Sikkim

Monk body:

Number of residents: 48 Home areas: Tibet: Tingri Kyirong Pang Chu

Map 10. Home areas of monks at Shelkar Chodey Monastery

69 70

A.1.2 Code number: B02

Monastery: Name of monastery: Urgyen Dongar Choling Gompa Other name(s): Dudjom Monastery, O-rgyan mdo-sngags chos-’khor gling, Urgyen Dongak Choeling Sect: Nyingmapa Year started: 1990

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Dudjom Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Tibet: Kangbo Current’s name: Yangse Rinpoche Current’s home area: Bhutan Current’s notes: Born in 1989. Lives in Bhutan.

Monk body: Number of residents: 60 Home areas: Nepal: Tamang Mugu Solu Khumbu Other Tibet: Lhasa Bhutan Sharchop Ngalong

Map 11. Home areas of monks at Urgyen Dongar Choling Gompa

A.1.3 Code number: B03

Monastery: Name of monastery: Sherpa Service Centre Other name(s): Sherpa Monastery Sect: Nyingmapa Year started: 1980 Special services: Community center for Sherpa community. Has a lhakhang and offers social functions. Many visitors from Solu Khumbu. Other notes: Service Center has a lhakhang. Non-residential.

Monk body: Number of residents: non-residential Home area: Nepal: Solu Khumbu

Map 12. Location of Sherpa Service Centre

A.1.4 Code number: B04

Monastery: Name of monastery: Karma Tharjay Choemeling Other name(s): Karma Thegchen Legshey Ling, Bairo Mkhyen-rise Rinpoche’s monastery Sect: Kagyu Year started: 1988 Other notes: Residence for the head of the Karma Kagyu school when he visits Nepal.

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Beru Kyente Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Kham: Nangchen

Monk body: Number of residents: 50 Home areas: Nepal: Tamang Gurung Mustang Dolpo Other Tibet: Kham (most)

Map 13. Home areas of monks at Karma Tharjay Choemeling

A.1.5 Code number: B05

Monastery: Name of monastery: Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling Other name(s): Shechen Mahaboudha Vihara; Khentse Gompa; Bhutanese Gompa, Zhe-chen bstan-gnyis dar-rgyas-ling Sect: Nyingmapa Year started: 1984 Special services: Large library. College of higher studies. Tibetan courses for foreigners. Other notes: Funded by the Bhutanese government. Bhutanese residents are Drukpas, while others are Nyingmapas.

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Kham: Dege Notes on founder: Born in Kham, in 1910. Moved to Bhutan. Established Gompa after moving to Nepal. Died in 1991. Reincarnated in 1993. The reincarnation studies in Paro, Bhutan and will take over Shechen when old enough. Current’s name: Ugyen Tenzing Jigme Lhundup. Rabjam Rinpoche is currently Abbot. Current’s home area: Kathmandu—Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling monastery. Current’s notes: Son of Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche. Caretaker until Ugyen Tenzing Jigme Lhundup’s reincarnation is ready. 73

Monk body: Number of residents: 300 Home areas: Nepal: Solu Khumbu Mugu Langtang Dolpo Tamang Gurung Mustang Other Tibet: Shigatse Tewa Dege Gyangtse Bhutan: Ngalong Sharchop Bumthang Kheng Mangdi Luentshi

Map 14. Home areas of monks at Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling

A.1.6 Code number: B06

Monastery: Name of monastery: Jamchen Lhakhang Other name(s): Maitreya Temple; Trikala Maitreya Viahara, Bco-brgyad khri- chen dgon-pa, Byams-pa'i lha-Khang, Jamchen Monastery Sect: Sakyu Year started: 1986

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: H.E. the Chogye Trichen Rinpoche: Ngawang Khyenrab Legshe Gyatso Founder’s home area: Mustang Notes on founder: He is the uncle of the Raja of Mustang. He wrote a small book, called “Fortunate to Behold” in 1986, which discusses a temple in Lumbini, but also includes two pages about the Jamchen Monastery. Current’s name: Same

Monk body: Number of residents: 90 Home areas: Nepal: Mustang (most) Tibet: Throughout

Map 15. Home areas of monks at Jamchen Lhakhang

Recommended reading: “Fortunate to Behold” by Ngawang Khyenrab Legshe Gyatso. 1986.

A.1.7 Code number: B07

Monastery: Name of monastery: Nenang Phuntsok Choling Other name(s): Pawo Monastery, Gnas-nang Dpa'-bo Rinpoche’s monastery Sect: Kagyu Year started: 1985

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Pawo Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Tibet: Nyemo Notes on founder: Born 1912, died in 1991. Was the 10th of the lineage of the Dpa'-bo sprul-sku Current’s name: Pawo Tsukla Mawe Tayang Rinpoche Current’s home area: Tibet: Nechung Current’s notes: Born in 1994. 75

Monk body: Number of residents: 17 Home areas: Nepal: Throughout Tibet: Lhasa area

Map 16. Home Areas of monks at Nenang Phuntsok Choling

A.1.8 Code number: B08

Monastery: Name of monastery: Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling Other name(s): White Monastery, Bka'-rnying bshad-sgrub gling Sect: Kagyu, Nyingmapa Year started: 1976 Special services: Rangjung Yeshe Institute (Higher Tibetan Buddhist Studies); International center; Tibetan language school affiliated with Tribhuvan University; weekly dharma teachings in English (Sat., 10 a.m.) Other notes: Is producing a Tibetan dictionary on-line at home.earthlink.net/~rangjung/rypub/ry-dictionary

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Kham: Nangchen Notes on founder: Died in 1996. Father of Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche and Chokling Rinpoche Current’s name: Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche and Chokling Rinpoche Current’s home area: Kathmandu Current’s notes: Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche (abbot) and Chokling Rinpoche (Vara Master) are the two eldest sons of Tulku Urgyen. Chokling is also the father of two reincarnate lamas: Phakchok Rinpoche (future successor to this monastery, studying in India and Nepal), and Khyentse Yangsi Rinpoche, who is studying in Paro, Bhutan, the reincarnation of H.H. Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche (of the Shechen monastery). 76

Monk body: Number of residents: 180 Home areas: Nepal: Throughout Tibet: Throughout India: Sikkim

Map 17. Home areas of monks at Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling

Recommended reading: “Welcome to Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling Monastery”, brochure for foreign guests.

A.1.9 Code number: B09

Monastery: Name of monastery: Pal Thangru Tashi Choling Other name(s): Namo Buddha Meditation and Education Center; Thangru gompa, Bkra- shis chos-'phel-gling Sect: Kagyu Year started: 1978 Special services: Offers both classes and practical meditation programs. Some outreach to western Buddhists. Guest House for visitors.

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Kenchen Thrangu Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Kham

Monk body: Number of residents: 320 Home areas: Nepal: Throughout Tibet: Lhasa area Bhutan: Ngalong Sharchop

Map 18. Home areas of monks at Pal Thangru Tashi Choling

Recommended reading: “The Institute for Higher Learning and the Center for Practice at Pal Thrangu Tashi Choling in the Supreme Sacred Place of Namo Buddha, Nepal”, 1999, information booklet; Sagemuller, 2000. The Little Talisman: Boudha, p. 53.

A.1.10 Code number: B10

Monastery: Name of monastery: Chini Lama Gompa Other name(s): Boudha Tamang Gompa Sect: Nyingma Year started: nineteenth century Other notes: Non-residential. The first Buddhist institution located at the Boudhanath area. Congregating point for Tamangs.

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Chini Lama Founder’s home area: Kathmandu Current’s name: Chini Lama’s descendents still own the property.

Monk body: Number of residents: 0 Home areas: Nepal: Tamang

A.1.11 Code number: B11

Monastery: Name of monastery: Dobsang Kargyu Monastery Other name(s): Temple of 1000 Buddhas, Phrin-las chos-'khor gling Sect: Kagyu Year started: 1965 Other notes: Building from 1951, built by a Mongolian Lama.

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Dobsang Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Kham: Dege Notes on founder: Died in 1990 Current’s name: See B16

Monk body: Number of residents: 6 caretakers, from the body at B16

A.1.12 Code number: B12

Monastery: Name of monastery: Kyirong Samtenling Monastery Other name(s): Ganden Choeme Ling; Tashi Samtenling Monastery; Mahayana Buddhist Progressive Education Centre, Samtenling Monastery Sect: Gelug Year started: 1951 Other notes: The only Kathmandu monastery headed by the Tibetan government. It is where H.H. Dalai Lama comes when he comes to Nepal. They support poor children from Kyirong to attend this monastery. The monastery in Kyirong was established in the seventeenth century. It was established in Boudha in 1951 and renovated in 1996. It became the refuge for Kyirong monks when they were raided during the Chinese invasion in 1959. A one-page history sheet is available. Mentioned in Seven Years in Tibet (Harrer, 1981).

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Sokpo Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Mongolia Notes on founder: Current’s name: Gyeshe Chamba Choeten Rinpoche Current’s home area: South India refugee camp Current’s notes: Every 6 years H.H. Dalai Lama appoints a new Rinpoche to this monastery from amongst those in the three large South Indian monasteries.

Monk body: Number of residents: 100 Home areas: Nepal: Solu Khumbu Yohlmo Tibet: Kyirong (most) India: Dharmsala 79

Map 19. Home areas of monks at Kyirong Samtenling Monastery

Recommended reading: “Brief History of Samtenling Monastery”, a one-page information sheet. Seven Years in Tibet (Harrer, 1981) discusses the original Kyirong monastery

A.1.13 Code number: B13

Monastery: Name of monastery: Porong Pyes Kon Sporong pangma Choeling Other name(s): Porong Gompa Sect: Buton Year started: 1991 Special services: Only Buton monastery outside of Tibet

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Tenzing Tutok Jigjel Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Tibet: Tingri

Monk body: Number of residents: 12 Home areas: Tibet: Tingri Nyelam

Map 20. Home areas of monks at Porong Pyes Kon Sporong pangma Choeling

A.1.14 Code number: B14

Monastery: Name of monastery: Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling Other name(s): Mahayan Prakash Palyul Dharmalaya, Zongar Gompa, Padnor Rinpoche’s Monastery Sect: Nyingma Year started: 1980

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Zongar Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Kham: Poyul Notes on founder: Died in 1984 Current’s name: Zongar Rinpoche Current’s home area: Camp in South India Current’s notes: Born in 1991

Monk body: Number of residents: 40 Home areas: Nepal: Tamang Solu Khumbu Other Tibet: Kham Lhasa India: Sikkim S. India

Map 21. Home areas of monks at Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling

A.1.15 Code number: B15

Monastery: Name of monastery: Tsechen Shedrup Ling Other name(s): Shakya Tarig Gompa, Tsechen Schedrup Ling gompa, bshad-sgrub gling dgon-pa, Sa-skya dgon-pa Sect: Sakya Year started: 1969

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Tarig Tulku Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Kham: Nangchen Notes on founder: Died in 1997 Current’s name: Incarnation not found yet. Tenzing Khenpo is acting Abbot

Monk body: Number of residents: 120 Home areas: Nepal: Mustang Dolpo Solu Khumbu Manang Other Tibet: Kham

Map 22. Home areas of monks at Tsechen Shedrup Ling

A.1.16 Code number: B16

Monastery: Name of monastery: Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee Gyaltsen Ling Other name(s): Dobsang Monastery, Dil-yag E-vam dpal-ris bkra-shis mi-'gyur rdo-rje rgyal-mtshan gling Sect: Kagyu Year started: 1982 Other notes: The monastery in Kham was destroyed during the Chinese invasion. They came to the small gompa (B11). This monastery was started in 1982. The two are really one unit in two locations. The Kham monastery was rebuilt, then fell down from bad construction, then was rebuilt again in 1996.

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Dobsang Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Kham: Dege Notes on founder: Died in 1990 Current’s name: Dobsang Rinpoche Current’s home area: Kham: Nangchen

Monk body: Number of residents: 87 Home areas: Nepal: Manang Yohlmo Mustang Sherpa Tamang Gurung Tibet: Kham Bhutan: Ngalong

Map 23. Home areas of monks at Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee Gyaltsen Ling

A.1.17 Code number: B17

Monastery: Name of monastery: Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling Other name(s): Deshung Gompa, Thar-lam grwa-tshang rnam-rgyal gling Sect: Sakya Year started: 1993

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Deshung Rinpoche IV Founder’s home area: Tibet: Gyaiwa Notes on founder: Died in 1990 Current’s name: Ngawang Kunga Tegchen Chokyi Nyima Current’s home area: Seattle, USA Current’s notes: Born in 1991. Father is Tibetan, mother is American.

Monk body: Number of residents: 55 Home areas: Nepal: Mustang Solu Khumbu Manang Tablejung Other India: Ladakh

Map 24. Home areas of monks at Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling

A.1.18 Code number: B18

Monastery: Name of monastery: Pal Thupten Ngedun Shedrup Darge Ling Other name(s): Palnge Kagyu Monastery, Dpal-ldan thub-bstan nges-don bshad-sgrub dar-rgyas gling Sect: Kagyu Year started: 1990

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Azim Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Kham: Nangchen

Monk body: Number of residents: 75 Home areas: Nepal: Tamang Manang Yohlmo Mugu Mustang Tibet: Tamang

Map 25. Home areas of monks at Pal Thupten Ngedun Shedrup Darge Ling

A.1.19 Code number: B19

Monastery: Name of monastery: Lotus Bazra Guru Centre Other notes: Should open in 2002. Rinpoche and large portion of monk body are Mongolian.

A.1.20 Code number: B20

Monastery: Name of monastery: Zhichen Bairoling Other name(s): Nyingma Kathok Monastery Sect: Nyingma Year started: 2000 Special services: This gompa is primarily set up for large pujas hosting outsiders, so it is large, but the permanent residency rate is low. Other notes: Darjeeling gompa has a school for the homeless, an old age home, a clinic, and a retreat center

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Bairo Pema Gyaltsen Founder’s home area: Kham: Dege Notes on founder: Born in 1933. Considered the 36th incarnation of “Vairocana”

Monk body: Number of residents: 12 Home areas: Tibet: Amdo Kangon Bhutan: Bumthang Kheng India: Darjeeling Ladakh

Map 26. Home areas of monks at Zhichen Bairoling

A.1.21 Code number: B21

Monastery: Name of monastery: Drukchen Choeling Other name(s): Gompa Karpo Sect: Kagyu Year started: 1990

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Tembe Gyaltsen Founder’s home area: Amdo

Monk body: Number of residents: 190 Home areas: Nepal: Throughout India: Sikkim Ladakh

Map 27. Home areas of monks at Drukchen Choeling

A.1.22 Code number: B22

Monastery: Name of monastery: Chusang Gompa Other name(s): Sri Chusan Samten Yhangtse Sect: Gelug Year started: 1989

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Chusang Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Dharmsala

Monk body: Number of residents: 36 Home area: Tibet: Tingri

Map 28. Home area of monks at Chusang Gompa

A.1.23 Code number: B23

Monastery: Name of monastery: Sri Karma Subhusit Dharma Mahayan Dhipa Other name(s): Karma Thigchen Lhigeling Year: 1990 Special services: Nunnery

Monk body: Number of residents: 35 Home areas: Tibet: Lhasa area

Map 29. Home area of monks at Sri Karma Subhusit Dharma Mahayan Dhipa

A.1.24 Code number: B24

Monastery: Name of monastery: Khachoe Ghakyil Ling Nunnery Other name(s): Kopan Nunnery Sect: Gelug Year started: 1979

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: See B25

Monk body: Number of residents: 150 Home areas: Nepal: Throughout Tibet: Throughout

Map 30. Home areas of nuns at Khachoe Ghakyil Ling Nunnery

A.1.25 Code number: B25

Monastery: Name of monastery: Kopan Monastery 4 Sect: Gelugpa Year started: 1970 Special services: Many facilities and retreats for western Buddhists Other notes: Offers opportunity to sponsor monks in their education, as well as to sponsor pujas.

Rinpoche: Founder #1’s name: Lama Zopa Rinpoche Founder #1’s home: Solu Khumbu Notes on founder #1: Reincarnation of the famous Sherpa Yogi named Lawudo Lama Founder #2’s name: Lama Thubten Yeshe Founder #2’s home: Tibet Notes on founder #2: Grew up in camp in Buxa, India. Died in 1984. Current’s name: Lama Yeshe’s reincarnation is Lama Osel Rinpoche Current’s home area: Spain

Monk body: Number of residents: 260 Home areas: Nepal: Throughout Tibet: Throughout Bhutan: Sharchop Ngalong India: Sikkim Ladakh

Map 31. Home areas of monks at Kopan Monastery

4 Information brochure (2000) available at the Kopan Monastery.

A.1.26 Code number: B26

Monastery: Name of monastery: Phulahari Monastery Sect: Kagyu Year started: 1991

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche III Current’s name: reincarnated as Ugyen Trinley Dorji Current’s birthdate: 1994 Current Abbot: Khenpo Chokey Gyaltsen Abbot’s birthdate: 1963 Abbot’s birthplace: Mustang

Monk body: Number of residents: 120

A.2 Swayambhunath monasteries

A.2.1 Code number: S01

Monastery: Name of monastery: Karma Raja Maha Vihar Other name(s): Swayambhu Tibetan Gompa, Swayambhu Sect: Kagyu Year started: 1940

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Shama Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Kham: Dege Notes on founder: Lives in Delhi Current’s name: Sapchu Rinpoche Current’s home area: Kham: Nang Chen

Monk body: Number of residents: 70 Home areas: Nepal: Solu Khumbu Dolpo Tibet: Nangchen Lhasa 91

Map 32. Home areas of monks at Karma Raja Maha Vihar

A.2.2 Code number: S02

Monastery: Name of monastery: Dongak Chyoling Other name(s): Deva Darma Sect: Kagyu Other notes: Lhakhang with a few residential caretakers. See S07.

A.2.3 Code number: S03

Monastery: Name of monastery: Whochen Thokjay Choyaling Sect: Gelugpa Year started: 1975

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Truktup Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Lhasa: Drepung

Monk body: Number of residents: 50 Home areas: Nepal: Langtang Mustang Other Tibet: Kham Tsetang India: Ladakh

Map 33. Home areas of monks at Whochen Thokjay Choyaling

A.2.4 Code number: S04

Monastery: Name of monastery: Gaden Jam Ghon ling Other name(s): Sri Sumati Maitri; Maitri Bihaar; Gaden Maitri Buddha Preach- perform. of Sutra Trantra Desire emancipation Sect: Gelugpa Year started: 1954 Other notes: There was a Nepali gompa at the site for many years. The monastery was built on that site in 1954. They rebuilt the monastery again in 1986.

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Lumpun Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Tibet: Ganden Notes on founder: Died in 1992. Incarnation not yet found. Current’s name: Sigun Dorji Chan is Abbot Current’s home area: Current’s notes: Born in 1979. Studying in India.

Monk body: Number of residents: 55 Home areas: Nepal: Solu Khumbu Yohlmo Dolpo Other Tibet: Kham Amdo Lhasa India: Ladakh 93

Map 34. Home areas of monks Gaden Jam Ghon ling

A.2.5 Code number: S05

Monastery: Name of monastery: Manang Society Sect: Kagyu Special services: Many services including social welfare, job training, and community functions for the Manangi people.

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Sharab Khyenltsing Founder’s home area: Manang

Monk body: Number of residents: Non-residential Home areas: Nepal: Manang

Map 35. Location of the Manang Society

A.2.6 Code number: S06

Monastery: Name of monastery: Shri Gautam Buddha Vihara Sect: Kagyu Year started: 1990

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Jegar Chungtur Founder’s home area: Tibet

Monk body: Number of residents: 50 Home areas: Nepal: Tamang Yohlmo Gurung Bhutan: Ngalong Sharchop Bumthang

Map 36. Home areas of monks at Shri Gautam Buddha Vihara

A.2.7 Code number: S07

Monastery: Name of monastery: Sangye Choeling Other name(s): Buddha Dharma Center5 Sect: Kagyu Year started: 1998 Special services: Meditation and retreat facilities for foreigners

5 Information brochure (2000) available at the Buddha Dharma Centre. 95

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Lopon Tsechu Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Bhutan Notes on founder: Born in 1918. Was Drukpa Kagyu monk at Punakha Dzong starting at age seven. Came to Nepal and continued studies. He has founded many monasteries in Nepal. Current’s name: Lama Zopa

Monk body: Number of residents: 65 Home areas: Nepal: Throughout

Map 37. Home areas of monks at Sangye Choeling

A.2.8 Code number: S08

Monastery: Name of monastery: Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling Monastery Other name(s): Benchen Monastery Sect: Kagyu Year started: 1977 Special services: Free health and dental clinics

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Tenga Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Kham: Gyaiwa

Monk body: Number of residents: 200 Home areas: Nepal: Throughout Tibet: Few Bhutan: Few

Map 38. Home areas of monks at Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling Monastery

A.2.9 Code number: S09

Monastery: Lhakhang with residential area for pilgrims. Not a monastery.

A.2.10 Code number: S10

Monastery: Name of monastery: Neynang Phelgyeng Monastery Sect: Gelug Year started: 1970 Special services: Dharmakirti Buddhist School of Dialectics

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Pasang Lama Founder’s home area: Tibet: Neynang Notes on founder: He is a guru. There is no rinpoche here.

Monk body: Number of residents: 60 Home areas: Nepal: Few Tibet: Neynang Kham 97

Map 39. Home areas of monks at Neynang Phelgyeng Monastery

A.2.11 Code number: S11

Monastery: Name of monastery: Keydong Thukche Choling Other name(s): Choeme Nunnery Sect: Gelugpa Year started: 1983

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Khenpa Jamyang Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Hunsuk, south India

Monk body: Number of residents: 70 Home areas: Tibet: Kyimdong Shegar Tingri

Map 40. Home areas of monks at Keydong Thukche Choling

A.2.12 Code number: S12

Monastery: Lhakhang with housing for pilgrims.

A.2.13 Code number: S13

Monastery: Name of monastery: Triten Norbutse Monastery Other name(s): Center for the Recipients of Dzogchen, Advanced Dialects and Education Sect: Bon Year started: 1990 Special services: Linked with Yung Drung Monastic Center in Solan, HP, which runs the “Bon Children’s Welfare Centre”. A facility where 110 children from Bon areas are raised. Other notes: Monastery was built by a French foundation.

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Sangye Tenzing Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Amdo Notes on founder: Referred to as the “senior sMen-ri Lopon”. Resides at Yeng Drung Bon Monastic Center, PO Kotla, 173223; Oachghat, Solan, HP Current’s name: Gyapje Yongzen Tenzing Namtak Current’s home area: Nedong Current’s notes:

Monk body: Number of residents: 180 Home areas: Nepal: Dolpo Mustang Dorpatan Tibet: Kham Amdo Lhasa India: Ladakh Kinnaur Dolanji, HP

Map 41. Home areas of monks at Triten Norbutse Monastery

A.2.14 Code number: S14

Monastery: Name of monastery: Karma Lekshey Ling Monastery Sect: Kagyu Year started: 1985

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Nishang Gyalpo Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Tibet: Chumba

Monk body: Number of residents: 200 Home areas: Nepal: Manang (most) Tamang Dolpo Gurung Other Tibet: Tingri

100

Map 42. Home areas of monks at Karma Lekshey Ling Monastery

A.2.15 Code number: S15

Monastery: Name of monastery: Ngesden Osel Ling Monastery Sect: Kagyu-Nyingma Year started: 1989

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Kathmandu Notes on founder: Youngest son of Tulku Urgen Rinpoche, founder of the white monastery. Current’s name: Same

Monk body: Number of residents: 80 Home areas: Nepal: N Gorkha Mugu Dolpo Tamang Tibet: Nangchen

101

Map 43. Home areas of monks at Ngesden Osel Ling Monastery

A.2.16 Code number: S16

Monastery: Name of monastery: Karma Ngedhon Osal Choekhorling Other name(s): Manang Nunnery Sect: Kagyu Year started: 1993

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Sharab Khyeltsing Founder’s home area: Manang

Monk body: Number of residents: 86 Home areas: Nepal: Manang (most) Tamang Nubri Tibet: Tingri

Map 44. Home areas of monks at Karma Ngedhon Osal Choekhorling

102

A.3 Pharping monasteries

A.3.1 Code number: P01

Monastery: Meditation retreat (unmarked)

A.3.2 Code number: P02

Monastery: Meditation retreat (unmarked)

A.3.3 Code number: P03

Monastery: Meditation retreat (unmarked)

A.3.4 Code number: P04

Monastery: Meditation retreat (unmarked)

A.3.5 Code number: P05

Monastery: Meditation retreat (unmarked)

A.3.6 Code number: P06

Monastery: Name of monastery: Rigzen Drubpe Ghatsal Monastery Other name(s): Yangleshe Gompa; Naranthan Gompa Sect: Nyingma Year started: 1970 Other notes: Next to a Hindu temple complex which contains one of Phadmasambhava’s meditations caves. An old monk was inside meditating.

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Jadal Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Tibet: Nyarong

Monk body: Number of residents: 30 Home areas: Nepal: Solu Khumbu Tamang Gurung Yohlmo Tibet: Nyarong Gyangtse Bhutan: Sharchop India: Sikkim

103

Map 45. Home areas of monks at Rigzen Drubpe Ghatsal Monastery

A.3.7 Code number: P07

Monastery: Meditation retreat (unmarked)

A.3.8 Code number: P08

Monastery: Name of monastery: Pinnacle Dharma Center of Dzongsar Special services: Lhakhang with pilgrim housing Other notes: Houses several very large prayer wheels.

A.3.9 Code number: P09

Monastery: Name of monastery: Ngaichu Dongag Choeling Other name(s): Buddha Dharma Expansion Centre; Shree Dongag Choeling Sect: Nyingmapa Year started: 1993

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Dzatul Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Tibet: Tingri

Monk body: Home areas: Nepal: Solu Khumbu Tamang Tingri: Tingri

104

Map 46. Home areas of monks at Ngaichu Dongag Choeling

A.3.10 Code number: P10

Monastery: Name of monastery: Pema Osel Ling Sect: Kagyu-Nyingma Year started: 1988 Special services: Meditation retreat, many old and ill people come here for meditation. Caretaker population only in permanent residence. Other notes: Contains cave of Guru Rinpoche, with a clear handprint melted into the rock of the cave entrance.

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Tulku Ugyen Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Tibet: Nangchen Notes on founder: See Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling entry. Current’s name: Tugye Stugen Nyima

Monk body: Number of residents: 10 Home areas: Transferred from other Ka-Nying monasteries

A.3.11 Code number: P11

Monastery: Name of monastery: Ralo Rinpoche Drupkhang Sect: Nyingma Year started: 1996 Special services: Meditation retreat

A.3.12 Code number: P12

Monastery: Meditation retreat (unmarked)

105

A.3.13 Code number: P13

Monastery: Name of monastery: Sakya Tarig Gompa Sect: Sakya Year started: 1996 Special services: Meditation retreat Other notes: Very beautiful stupa on the premises

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: Tarig Rinpoche Founder’s home area: Tibet: Nangchen Notes on founder: Died 1997 Current’s name: Tenzing Khengpo is the current Abbot

Monk body: Number of residents: 10 caretakers Home areas: Nepal: Dolpo Mustang Manang Tibet: Nangchen

Map 47. Home areas of caretakers at Sakya Tarig Gompa

A.3.14 Code number: P14

Monastery: Meditation Retreat (unmarked)

106

A.3.15 Code number: P15

Monastery: Name of monastery: Benchen Clear Light Meditation Center Sect: Kagyu

Rinpoche: Founder’s name: See Benchen Information

Monk body: Number of residents: no permanent presence

A.3.16 Code number: P16

Monastery: Name of monastery: Rigzen Phodrang Buddhist Monastery Other name(s): Sri Saraswati Sthan Pharping Year started: 1979 Special services: Lodging for pilgrims and caretaker, no permanent residence. Other notes: Shares compound with Hindu shrine to Ganesh and Saraswati. Buddhist shrine to Tara.

Appendix B: Profiles of Some of Kathmandu’s Rinpoches

Name: LTZR Associated monasteries: Kopan monastery, Khachoe Ghakyil Ling Nunnery, Lawudo Retreat Center, Thubten Shedrup Ling, over 90 FPMT centers around the world. Birthdate: 1946 Birthplace: Solu Khumbu Previous incarnation: Lawudo Lama (Solu Khumbu) Summary of life story: At the age of three, he was recognized as the reincarnation of Lawudo Lama. He entered Dungkar monastery in Tibet, where he studied until 1959. After the Chinese invasion, he traveled to the Buxa refugee camp in Buxa Duars, India. Here he met with Lama Yeshe, becoming a disciple to him.

Name: LY Associated monasteries: Kopan monastery, Khachoe Ghakyil Ling Nunnery, Lawudo Retreat Center, Thubten Shedrup Ling Following incarnation: Lama Osel Rinpoche Summary of life story: Fled from Tibet in 1959 and settled in Buxa Duars, India. There he met and discipled Lama Thupten Zopa Rinpoche, and together they established Kopan monastery and the FPMT movement. He died in 1984.

Name: KTR Associated monasteries: Pal Thrangu Tashi Choling Birthdate: 1933 Birthplace: Kham Previous incarnation: 8th Thrangu Tulku Rinpoche Summary of life story: He was located through a vision of the 16th Gyalwang Karmapa Rangjung Rigpe Dorje, and was enthroned at the monastery of Thrangu Tashi Choling in Tibet, in the year 1937. Over the next many years he completed numerous studies. In 1967, H.H. the Dalai Lama gave Thrangu Rinpoche the title of Kagyu Khenpo. From 1968 until 1976, he lived at the Karmapa Kagyu seat in Rumtek, Sikkim. Beginning in 1976, he traveled throughout the east and west teaching dharma.

Name: TUR Associated monasteries: Kopan Monastery, Pema Osel Ling, Ngesden Osel Ling, Nagi Gompa Birthdate: 1920 Birthplace: Nangchen Previous incarnation: Guru Chowang Tulku Summary of life story: He was recognized by the 15th Gyalwang Karmapa as the reincarnation of Guru Chowang Tulku and as the emanation of Nubchen Sangye Yeshe, one of the chief disciples of Padmasambhava. He began his studies at Lachab Gompa in Nangchen, Kham, where he studied both the Kagyu and Nyingma schools. His family is the holder of the Barom Kagyu lineage, but, in addition, he received complete teachings in the Nyingma tradition. Eventually, he went on to establish six monasteries. He has toured throughout America, Europe, and south east Asia. He is known for his ability to teach deep truths in a concise, lucid, and humorous style.

107 108

Name: TTR Associated monasteries: Benchen Monastery, Benchen Clear Light Meditation Center, Rumtek Monastery (Sikkim) Birthdate: 1932 Birthplace: Kham Previous incarnation: 1st and 2nd Tenga Tulkus Rinpoche Summary of life story: Found at age 7, after a prophecy by Situ Pema Wangchuk Gyalpo (11th Situpa). He began monastic studies immediately. At age 19, when he received his full ordination vows, he was given the name “Karma Tenzin Thringle Pal Sangpo”. He studied tantric rituals and philosophies with many different masters, studied Tibetan medicine, and completed his studies with a three-year retreat. In 1959, he left Tibet and eventually settled at Rumtek Monastery in Sikkim. He was there for the following seventeen years, where he served as the Vajra master. In 1974, he toured America and Europe. Since 1976 he has been living at Benchen monastery (which he established), and tours Europe extensively.

Name: NKTCN Associated monasteries: Tharlam Monastery, Sakya Monastery in Seattle Birthdate: 1991 Birthplace: Seattle, USA Previous incarnation: Deshung Rinpoche Summary of life story: Born in Seattle, USA, to a Tibetan father and American mother. His predecessor, Deshung Rinpoche, had established the monastery in Seattle. He was formally acknowledged as the incarnation at age four by H.H. Sakya Trizin and H.H. Sakya Dagchen. He is now actively engaged in monastic studies at Tharlam Monastery in Kathmandu.

Name: LTR Associated monasteries: Buddha Dharma Center Birthdate: 1918 Birthplace: Bhutan Summary of life story: LTR became a Drukpa Kagyu monk at age seven. At that time he was a new monk in the Punakha Dzong Monastery in Punakha, Bhutan. Later he traveled to Nepal on a pilgrimage. While in Nepal, he studied under the 16th Gyalwang Karmapa and Ngawang Palzang Rinpoche. He remained in Nepal where he has founded several monasteries, including the Buddha Dharma Center.

Name: KCG Associated monasteries: Phulahari Birthdate: 1963 Birthplace: Manang Summary of life story: At age twelve, he was sent to the monastery. At age fourteen, he began study at a Karmapa monastery in Swayambhu. He eventually received full ordination from Dabsang Rinpoche. In 1981, he began a nine year attendance at the Karma Shri Nalanda Institute in Rumtek, Sikkim. Upon returning to Kathmandu, he worked with His Eminence Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche III. When His Eminence passed away in 1992, Khenpo took up his main seat at Phulahari monastery.

Name: KTR Associated monasteries: Kharma Thegchen Legshey Ling Birthdate: 1931 Birthplace: Nangchen, Kham Previous incarnation: Incarnation of the fifteenth century Kagyu scholar, the fourth Karma Thinleypa.

109

Summary of life story: Recognized at age two by Dagshu Thinley Rinchen, then the Sakya Trizin. Later he was recognized the by sixteenth Karmapa as an incarnation of Karma Thinleypa. He left Tibet after the Chinese invasion in 1959 and spent the following twelve years in India. He then moved to Canada in 1971. He has become the leading exponent of the Rime ecumenical movement of Tibetan Buddhism. Though most of the year is spent in Canada, he spends two to three months each year at Boudha.

Name: BPG Associated monasteries: Zhichen Bairoling Birthdate: 1933 Birthplace: Dege, Kham Previous incarnation: 35th emanation of Vairocana Summary of life story: At the age of eight years, he was recognized by Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodo and Kyabgon Gertse Gyurme Tenpa Namgyal as an emanation of Vairocana. He was enthroned at Zhichen Khamar Sangngag Tengye Ling in Tibet. Since then, he has studied under many great masters and received empowerments and instructions from them. He taught and spread the Dadul and Longsal teachings of the Kathok lineage. He built the Zhichen Bairoling monastery to help preserve the Kathok lineage teachings.

Appendix C: Tibetan Buddhist Sects Found in Kathmandu

Practitioners of the four primary Tibetan Buddhist sects can be found in Kathmandu’s monasteries. In addition, some lesser known sects can be found here, including Bon (recently recognized as the fifth Tibetan Buddhist sect by the Dalai Lama), and the Buton sect. It should be noted that the Drukpa and Karma sub-sects of Kagyu are also found here. Finally, the three monasteries started by Tulku Nyima Rinpoche (Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling, Pema Osel Ling, and Ngesden Osel Ling) each combine teachings from both the Kagyu and Nyingma traditions, which they term “Ka-Nying”. Again, the focus of this research is not on the distinctions between these sects, and the information contained in this section is covered better in numerous other works. However, a brief description of the sects, their histories, and distinctions, may prove beneficial to the reader and is therefore included. The number of Tibetan Buddhist schools can be attributed to waves of reformation of the Buddhist doctrine as it was originally brought to Tibet. As a result, the schools can be ordered from the least reformed to the most reformed.

Unreformed Semi reformed Reformed Bon Bon Nyingma Kadampa Sakyapa Drukpa Kagyupa Karmapa Gelugpa Pre-8th Formalized 9th 11th 11th 12th 12th 12th 14th century century century century century century century

C.1 Nyingmapa

Nyingmapa is the oldest order of the main Tibetan Buddhist sects. Its founding is attributed to Guru Padmasambhava (Rinpoche) in the eighth century. It is believed that Guru Rinpoche brought the Buddhist doctrine from India to Tibet at this time. Elements of the traditional shamanistic religion of the Tibetan plateau (often referred to as Bon, though, over the centuries, Bon has itself taken on many Buddhist traditions and is now considered a sub-sect) were incorporated into the Buddhist teachings, creating the foundation of Tibetan or Vajrayana Buddhism. Of the main Tibetan Buddhist sects, the Nyingmapas retain the most of Tibet’s shamanist traditions. The Nyingmapas believe that Padmasambhava revealed only some of his knowledge during his lifetime. Many other doctrines were hidden in caves for discovery at a later time. Still today, these hidden teachings (called “Terma”) are discovered, often through dreams and visions. Many of Nepal’s Buddhist groups come from the Nyingmapa tradition, including the Sherpas and Tamangs. The sect is found throughout Tibet, particularly in Kham and Amdo. It is the second most common sect found in Bhutan (after Drukpa Kagyu). In this tradition, monks are not required to be celibate.

C.2 Sakyapa

The Sakyapa tradition began in the eleventh century, by Khom Konchok Gyalpo. The tradition is slightly reformed from the Nyingmapa tradition. Among the four major Buddhist traditions, this tradition is the least represented among the monasteries of Kathmandu and is found only in the Boudha area (and one meditation center in Pharping). The Lowas from Mustang in Nepal are the most prominent group espousing this tradition in Nepal. The Sakyapa tradition is found throughout Tibet but is not found in Bhutan. In this tradition also, the monks are not required to be celibate.

110 111

C.3 Kagyupa

The popular Tibetan folk hero, Milarepa, is considered the father of the Kagyu sect. The Kagyus were originally hermits working independently from each other. As a result, many subsects formed within the Kagyu tradition. The most prominent of these are the Drukpa and Karmapa traditions. Most Western Buddhists who study Tibetan Buddhism study the Kagyupa doctrine. It is by far the most predominant sect in Kathmandu, with 37 percent of the monasteries following this doctrine. The Manangis of Nepal are primarily Kagyupas. Again, the Kagyupas are found throughout Tibet, though mainly in the Kham area. The Drukpa subsect of Kagyu was founded towards the end of the twelfth century. The Drukpas steered the Kagyu doctrine back towards the unreformed doctrines espoused by the Sakyapas and Nyingmapas. This is the state religion of Bhutan, the only Tibetan Buddhist nation with sovereignty today. It is also the major form of Tibetan Buddhism found in Ladakh, India. The Karmapa subsect of Kagyu was also begun in the twelfth century. This represents a slight reformation to the traditional Kagyu teachings. This is the first sect to introduce the idea of incarnated Lamas as heads of the sect. The sect in Sikkim, India is primarily from the Kagyu Karmapa lineage.

C.4 Gelugpa

In the eleventh century, the Kadampa school split from the Nyingmapa school. The Gelugpa sect is a reformation movement of the Kadampa school. However, the Kadampa teachings are no longer practiced. In the early fifteenth century, Tsongkhapa, a monk from northeast Tibet, is credited with outlining a series of reforms to monastic organization and discipline. His work began the Gelugpa sect, the most reformed of the Tibetan Buddhist sects. His reformations influenced the disciplines required of the monks, though tantric and shamanistic practices are a part of the Gelugpa tradition as well. The Gelugpas became very powerful. Their incarnate head Lama, known as Dalai Lama, eventually gained recognition not only as a religious authority, but also the secular authority of Tibet. This is the predominant sect followed in the U-tsang region of Tibet but is also found throughout the rest of Tibet. It is favored among the Tibetan exiles living in Nepal, Bhutan, and India, though it is not prevalent among the indigenous Buddhist groups of those countries.

C.5 Bon

Bon really represents two different religious systems in the Tibetan picture. It is the name often applied to the pre-Buddhist shamanistic religion. At this level, it has much in common with the shamanism of Siberia and many of the Native American religious systems. This shamanist religion still exists throughout the Himalayan world, even amidst cultures which are strongly Buddhist. Most groups in the central hills or high mountains of Nepal, Bhutan, and India espouse shamanistic traditions to this day. When Padmasambhava brought Buddhism to Tibet, he incorporated many of the Bon traditions into the Tantric Buddhist doctrine that he carried. From this beginning, the pre-Buddhist shamanism of Tibet and the Tantric Buddhism of India began a process of syncretization that became the defining characteristics of Tibetan Buddhism. As Buddhism was influenced by Bon, so too Bon was influenced by Buddhism. The result was that, centuries later, the Bon religion has been formalized and has incorporated many of the Tibetan Buddhist institutions. Items in common include: the monastic system, incarnate Lamas, temple structure, religious artifacts, etc. Outwardly, the differences between modern-day Bon and modern-day Tibetan Buddhism are few. This strong relationship between Bon and Tibetan Buddhism led to the Dalai Lama recently designating Bon as the fifth major school of Tibetan Buddhism. In Nepal, Dolpo and Mustang are the primary areas where formalized Bon is practiced. It is also practiced in northern Himachal Pradesh, India, and in Tibet itself.

112

C.6 Buton

Buton is not considered one of the main sects of Tibetan Buddhism. In the fourteenth century, the scholar Pu Ton went about the major task of editing all the Buddhist and tantric texts in existence at the time. These works, called the Tengyur, number 250 texts in all. There is only one Buton monastery in Kathmandu, and the Lamas there believe that it is the only Buton monastery outside of Tibet. The Palcho monastery in Gyantse, Tibet is famous for its combination of the Gelugpa, Sakyapa, and Buton sects in one monastery.

C.7 Ka-Nying

While Ka-Nying is not an official designation, it is a useful term, coined for the teachings of Tulku Urgen Rinpoche, who taught a combination of Kagyupa and Nyingmapa doctrines. It is an important subsect for a discussion of Kathmandu’s monasteries, as one prominent monastery in each of the locations (Boudha, Swayambhu, and Pharping) belongs to this heritage. It appears to be a term applied only to the schools which were founded by Tulku Urgen Rinpoche.

Appendix D: Monasteries Housing Particular Language Groups

The following pages are included to help locate monks who speak a particular language. Since most of the language varieties in the Tibetan Buddhist world are geographically based, it is possible to assume one’s mother tongue is based on his home area. Within each listing, monasteries are rated to show the likelihood that people from the language group in question will be found at the monastery. For example, if the reader is interested in finding Lowa speakers, the listing will show a list of monasteries and the likelihood that they house a population from Mustang. The rating system given is: definite, likely, possible. A rating of definite means that the monastery currently has a large population from that language area. Because monastic populations are transient, it cannot be guaranteed that the same locations will be represented by the same monasteries in the future. For this reason, a designation of possible is used if there is currently a small population from a specific area. Also, in some cases, rather than listing specific groups who are present at a monastery, those providing information gave a broader designation, such as “throughout northern Nepal”. In such a case, tables D.1 to D.4 will rate the presence of a particular group as possible. If a particular monastery is not listed for a language group, it is unlikely anyone from that language-speaking region resides at the monastery.

Table D.1. Nepali language-location guide

Language Monastery name Rating Dolpa B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling definite B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling definite B25. Kopan Monastery definite S13. Triten Norbutse definite B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling likely B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling likely B09. Pal Thangru Tashi Choling likely P13. Sakya Tarig Gompa likely S01. Karma Raja Maha Vihar likely S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling likely S07. Sangye Choeling likely S08. Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling likely S14. Karma Lekshey Ling likely S15. Ngesden Osel Ling likely B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling Gompa possible B07. Nenang Phuntsok Choling possible B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling possible B16. Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee possible B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling possible B21. Drukchen Choeling possible S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling possible

113 114

Language Monastery name Rating Gurung B25. Kopan Monastery definite B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling likely B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling likely B09. Pal Thangru Tashi Choling likely P06. Rigzen Drubpe Ghatsal Monastery likely S06. Shri Gautam Buddha Vihara likely S07. Sangye Choeling likely S08. Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling likely S14. Karma Lekshey Ling likely B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling Gompa possible B07. Nenang Phuntsok Choling possible B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling possible B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling possible B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling possible B16. Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee possible B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling possible B21. Drukchen Choeling possible S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling possible S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling possible Langtang Bhoti B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling likely B09. Pal Thangru Tashi Choling likely B25. Kopan Monastery likely S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling likely B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling Gompa possible B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling possible B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling possible B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling possible B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling possible B16. Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee possible B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling possible B21. Drukchen Choeling possible S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling possible S07. Sangye Choeling possible S08. Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling possible S14. Karma Lekshey Ling possible

115

Language Monastery name Rating Lowa B06. Jamchen Lhakhang definite B25. Kopan Monastery definite S13. Triten Norbutse definite B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling likely B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling likely B09. Pal Thangru Tashi Choling likely B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling likely B16. Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee likely B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling likely B18. Pal Thupten Ngedun Shedrup Darge Ling likely S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling likely S07. Sangye Choeling likely S08. Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling likely S13. Sakya Tarig Gompa likely B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling Gompa possible B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling possible B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling possible B21. Drukchen Choeling possible S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling possible S14. Karma Lekshey Ling possible Manangi S05. Manang Society definite S14. Karma Lekshey Ling definite S16. Karma Ngedhon Osal Choekhorling definite B09. Pal Thangru Tashi Choling likely B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling likely B16. Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee likely B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling likely B18. Pal Thupten Ngedun Shedrup Darge Ling likely B25. Kopan Monastery likely S07. Sangye Choeling likely S13. Sakya Tarig Gompa likely B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling Gompa possible B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling possible B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling possible B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling possible B21. Drukchen Choeling possible S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling possible S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling possible S08. Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling possible

116

Language Monastery Name Rating Mugum B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling Gompa likely B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling likely B09. Pal Thangru Tashi Choling likely B18. Pal Thupten Ngedun Shedrup Darge Ling likely B25. Kopan Monastery likely S15. Ngesden Osel Ling likely B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling possible B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling possible B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling possible B16. Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee possible B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling possible B21. Drukchen Choeling possible S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling possible S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling possible S07. Sangye Choeling possible S08. Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling possible S14. Karma Lekshey Ling possible Nubri, Nar, Tsum S15. Ngesden Osel Ling Monastery definite S16. Karma Ngedhon Osal Choekhorling likely B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling possible B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling possible B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling possible B16. Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee possible B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling possible B21. Drukchen Choeling possible S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling possible S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling possible S07. Sangye Choeling possible S08. Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling possible S14. Karma Lekshey Ling possible

117

Language Monastery Name Rating Sherpa B03. Sherpa Service Center definite B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling definite B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling definite B25. Kopan Monastery definite P09. Ngaichu Dongag Choeling definite S01. Karma Raja Maha Vihar definite B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling Gompa likely B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling likely B09. Pal Thangru Tashi Choling likely B12. Kyirong Samtenling Monastery likely B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling likely B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling likely B21. Drukchen Choeling likely P06. Rigzen Drubpe Ghatsal Monastery likely S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling likely S07. Sangye Choeling likely S08. Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling likely B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling possible B07. Nenang Phuntsok Choling possible B16. Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee possible S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling possible S14. Karma Lekshey Ling possible Tamang B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling definite B25. Kopan Monastery definite S15. Ngesden Osel Ling definite B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling Gompa likely B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling likely B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling likely B09. Pal Thangru Tashi Choling likely B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling likely B18. Pal Thupten Ngedun Shedrup Darge Ling likely B21. Drukchen Choeling likely P06. Rigzen Drubpe Ghatsal Monastery likely P09. Ngaichu Dongag Choeling likely S06. Shri Gautam Buddha Vihara likely S07. Sangye Choeling likely S08. Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling likely S14. Karma Lekshey Ling likely S16. Karma Ngedhon Osal Choekhorling likely B07. Nenang Phuntsok Choling possible B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling possible B16. Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee possible B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling possible

118

S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling possible S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling possible Wallung B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling likely B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling Gompa possible B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling possible B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling possible B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling possible B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling possible B16. Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee possible B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling possible B21. Drukchen Choeling possible S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling possible S07. Sangye Choeling possible S08. Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling possible S14. Karma Lekshey Ling possible Yohlmo B09. Pal Thangru Tashi Choling likely B12. Kyirong Samtenling Monastery likely B18. Pal Thupten Ngedun Shedrup Darge Ling likely P06. Rigzen Drubpe Ghatsal Monastery likely S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling likely S06. Shri Gautam Buddha Vihara likely B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling Gompa possible B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling possible B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling possible B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling possible B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling possible B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling possible B16. Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee possible B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling possible S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling possible

119

Table D.2. Tibetan language location guide Language Monastery name Rating Dbus B23. Sri Karma Subhusit Dharma Mahayan Dhipa definite S11. Keydong Thukche Choling definite B01. Shelkar Chodey Monastery likely B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling Gompa likely B07. Nenang Phuntsok Choling likely B09. Pal Thangru Tashi Choling likely B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling likely S01. Karma Raja Maha Vihar likely S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling likely S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling likely S13. Triten Norbutse Monastery likely B06. Jamchen Lhakhang possible B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling possible B24. Khachoe Ghakyil Ling Nunnery possible B25. Kopan Monastery possible Gtsang B01. Shelkar Chodey Monastery definite B12. Kyirong Samtenling Monastery definite B13. Porong Pyes Kon Sporong pangma Choeling definite B22. Chusang Gompa definite S11. Keydong Thukche Choling definite B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling likely P06. Rigzen Drubpe Ghatsal Monastery likely P09. Ngaichu Dongag Choeling likely S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling likely S13. Triten Norbutse Monastery likely S14. Karma Lekshey Ling Monastery likely S16. Karma Ngedhon Osal Choekhorling likely B06. Jamchen Lhakhang possible B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling possible B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling possible B23. Sri Karma Subhusit Dharma Mahayan Dhipa possible B24. Khachoe Ghakyil Ling Nunnery possible B25. Kopan Monastery possible Mngahris B20. Zhichen Bairoling likely S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling possible S13. Triten Norbutse Monastery possible

120

Language Monastery name Rating Western Kham P06. Rigzen Drubpe Ghatsal Monastery likely B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling possible B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling possible B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling possible B16. Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee possible B24. Khachoe Ghakyil Ling Nunnery possible B25. Kopan Monastery possible S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling possible S04. Gaden Jam Ghon ling possible S13. Triten Norbutse Monastery possible Northern Kham B18. Pal Thupten Ngedun Shedrup Darge Ling definite S15. Ngesden Osel Ling Monastery definite B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling likely P13. Sakya Tarig Gompa likely S01. Karma Raja Maha Vihar likely S04. Gaden Jam Ghon ling likely S13. Triten Norbutse Monastery likely B06. Jamchen Lhakhang possible B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling possible B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling possible B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling possible B16. Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee possible B24. Khachoe Ghakyil Ling Nunnery possible B25. Kopan Monastery possible S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling possible Eastern Kham B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling likely B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling likely S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling likely S13. Triten Norbutse Monastery likely B06. Jamchen Lhakhang possible B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling possible B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling possible B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling possible B16. Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee possible B24. Khachoe Ghakyil Ling Nunnery possible B25. Kopan Monastery possible S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling possible

121

Language Monastery name Rating Southern Kham B10. Nyanang Phelgyeng Monastery definite B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling possible B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling possible B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling possible B16. Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee possible B24. Khachoe Ghakyil Ling Nunnery possible B25. Kopan Monastery possible S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling possible S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling possible S13. Triten Norbutse Monastery possible Cone Kham B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling likely B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling possible B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling possible B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling possible B16. Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee possible S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling possible S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling possible S13. Triten Norbutse Monastery possible Hbrugchu Kham B04. Karma Tharjay Choemeling possible B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling possible B15. Tsechen Shedrup Ling possible B16. Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee possible S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling possible S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling possible S13. Triten Norbutse Monastery possible Hbrogpa Amdo B20. Zhichen Bairoling likely S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling likely S13. Triten Norbutse Monastery likely B06. Jamchen Lhakhang possible B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling possible B24. Khachoe Ghakyil Ling Nunnery possible B25. Kopan Monastery possible Rongba Amdo B20. Zhichen Bairoling possible S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling possible S13. Triten Norbutse Monastery possible Rtahu Amdo B20. Zhichen Bairoling possible S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling possible S13. Triten Norbutse Monastery possible

122

Table D.3. Bhutanese language location guide Language Monastery name Rating Bumthangkha B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling definite B20. Zhichen Bairoling likely S06. Shri Gautam Buddha Vihara likely Dzongkha B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling definite B09. Pal Thangru Tashi Choling definite B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling Gompa likely B16. Pal Dilyak Ae-Om Palri Tashi Migyur Dorjee likely B25. Kopan Monastery likely S06. Shri Gautam Buddha Vihara likely S08. Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling possible Khengkha B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling definite B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling Gompa possible B20. Zhichen Bairoling possible S06. Shri Gautam Buddha Vihara possible Kurtoepkha B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling likely Mangdikha B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling likely Tsangla B05. Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling definite B09. Pal Thangru Tashi Choling definite B25. Kopan Monastery definite S06. Shri Gautam Buddha Vihara definite B02. Urgyen Dongar Choling Gompa likely P06. Rigzen Drubpe Ghatsal Monastery likely S08. Benchen Phuntsok Dargyeling possible

Table D.4. Indian language location guide

Language Monastery name Rating Denjongkha B08. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling likely B14. Thekchok Osel Palyul Choeling likely B21. Drukchen Choeling likely B25. Kopan Monastery likely P06. Rigzen Drubpe Ghatsal Monastery likely Kinnaur Bhoti S13. Triten Norbutse likely Ladakhi B17. Tharlam Sasang Nangyal Ling likely B20. Zhichen Bairoling likely B21. Drukchen Choeling likely B25. Kopan Monastery likely S04. Gaden Jam Ghon Ling likely S13. Triten Norbutse likely S03. Whochen Thokjay Choyaling likely

Appendix E: Answers to Language Use Questionnaire

Table E.1. Subject demographics A1. Monastery A2. Age A3. Birthplace A4. Mother-tongue language/dialect B1. How old were you when you first went to a monastery? B2. Where was your first monastery? B3. How old were you when you came to this monastery?

Subj. A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B01 Shelkar Chodey 23 Tibet: Tingri Tingri 14 Kathmandu 14 B02 Shelkar Chodey 40 Tibet: Kyirong Kyirong 18 Kyirong 39 B03 Shelkar Chodey 12 Tibet: Tingri Tingri 11 Kathmandu 11 B04 Shelkar Chodey 20 Tibet: Tingri Tingri 19 Kathmandu 29 B05 Shelkar Chodey 21 Tibet: Tingri Tingri 17 Kathmandu 17 B06 Shelkar Chodey 64 Tibet: Padruk Shelkar 8 Tingri 49 B07 Shelkar Chodey 15 Tibet: Padruk Shelkar 14 Kathmandu 14 B08 Shelkar Chodey 13 Tibet: Shelkar Shelkar 12 Kathmandu 12 B09 Shelkar Chodey 16 Tibet: Padruk Shelkar 14 Kathmandu 14 B10 Shelkar Chodey 17 Tibet: Tingri Tingri 15 Kathmandu 15 B11 Shelkar Chodey 28 Tibet: Shelkar Shelkar 20 Kathmandu 20 B12 Pal Dilyak 44 Nepal: Manang Manangi 11 Kathmandu 14 B13 Pal Dilyak 26 Nepal: Mustang Lowa 13 Kathmandu 13 B14 Pal Dilyak 29 Nepal: Manang Manangi 12 Kathmandu 12 B15 Pal Dilyak 30 Nepal: Mustang Lowa 9 Kathmandu 9 B16 Pal Dilyak 48 Tibet: Kham: Zimba Kham 10 Tibet 25 B17 Pal Dilyak 14 Nepal: Chitwan: Krishnapur Tamang 12 Kathmandu 12 B18 Pal Dilyak 17 Solu Khumbu: Zumbeshi Sherpa 10 Kathmandu 10 B19 Kyirong Samtenling 29 Tibet: Kyirong Kyirongi 9 Kathmandu 9 B20 Pal Thupten Ngedun 23 India: W Bengal: Kalimpong Nepali 13 Kathmandu 13

123 124

Subj. A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B21 Pal Thupten Ngedun 16 India: W Bengal: Kalimpong Nepali 13 Kathmandu 13 B22 Pal Thupten Ngedun 21 India: W Bengal: Kalimpong Nepali 17 Kathmandu 17 B23 Pal Thupten Ngedun 19 India: Sikkim: Kabi Yohlmo 12 Kathmandu 12 B24 Pal Thupten Ngedun 20 Nepal: Manang: Phu Manangi 10 Kathmandu 10 B25 Kyirong Samtenling 38 Nepal: Solu Khumbu: Jalka Tingri 13 Solu Khumbu 15 B26 Kyirong Samtenling 33 Nepal: Kyirong: Sedang Kyirongi 11 Kathmandu 11 B27 Kyirong Samtenling 66 Tibet: Kyirong: Lhandip Kyirongi 15 Kyirong 40 B28 Kyirong Samtenling 43 Tibet: Kyirong Kyirongi 15 Kyirong 40 B29 Zhichen Bairoling 22 Bhutan: Kheng: Gonphu Khengkha 8 Darjeeling 21 B30 Zhichen Bairoling 19 Bhutan: Bumthang: Tang Bumthangkha 18 Kathmandu 18 B31 Zhichen Bairoling 14 Bhutan: Bumthang: Tang Bumthangkha 14 Kathmandu 14 B32 Kopan 17 Solu Khumbu Sherpa 12 Kathmandu 12 B33 Kopan 18 Tibet: Tingri Tingri 17 Kathmandu 17 B34 Kopan 14 Nepal: Rasua: Goljung Tamang 13 Kathmandu 13 B35 Kopan 14 Tibet: Changpa: Namring Changpai 12 Solu Khumbu 14 B36 Kopan 27 Tibet: Tingri Tingri 16 Solu Khumbu 22 B37 Kopan 30 Tibet: Shigatse Shigatsi 14 Potala, Lhasa 29 B38 Shechen 24 Bhutan: Zhemgang: Zhemgang Khengkha 13 Kathmandu 13 B39 Shechen 26 Bhutan: Mongar: Selambi Khengkha 10 Thimpu 14 B40 Shechen 22 Bhutan: Bumthang: Chinmey Bumthangkha 18 Kathmandu 18 B41 Shechen 23 Bhutan: Luentsi: Songmay Chachingachikha 17 Kalimpong 20 B42 Tsechen Shedrup Ling 9 Nepal: Mustang: Gimi Lowa 9 Kathmandu 9 B43 Tsechen Shedrup Ling 9 Nepal: Mustang: Pho Lowa 9 Kathmandu 9 B44 Tsechen Shedrup Ling 21 India: Dehra Dun (from Dege) Dege 8 Kathmandu 8 B45 Tsechen Shedrup Ling 19 Tibet: Kham: Dege Dege 19 Tibet: Dege 10 B46 Tsechen Shedrup Ling 24 Mustang: Jarkot Lowa 8 Kathmandu 8 B47 Tsechen Shedrup Ling 24 Tibet: Shigatse Shigatse 15 Kathmandu 15 B48 Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling 32 Tibet: Lhatse: Nabring Nabring Tibetan 14 Solu Khumbu 16 B49 Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling 18 Dorkha: Bigu Sherpa 12 Kathmandu 12 B50 Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling 12 Mugum: ?? Mugali 11 Kathmandu 11 B51 Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling 19 Nepal: Kathmandu Tamang 5 Kathmandu 5

125

Subj. A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B52 Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling 22 Nepal: Sango Sawa Sherpa 15 Kathmandu 15 B53 Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling 21 Nepal: Surkhet Dolpa 14 Kathmandu 14 B54 Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling 18 Nepal: Tatopani Sherpa 5 Kathmandu 7 S1 Karma Lekshey Ling 25 Nepal: Lamjung Gurung 15 Kathmandu 15 S2 Karma Lekshey Ling 25 Nepal: Manang: Pisang Manangi 14 Kathmandu 14 S3 Karma Lekshey Ling 18 Nepal: Mustang: Khengga Lowa 10 Kathmandu 10 S4 Karma Lekshey Ling 18 Nepal: Solu Khumbu: Sarma Sherpa 13 Kathmandu 13 S5 Karma Lekshey Ling 25 Nepal: Mustang: LoMontang Lowa 20 Kathmandu 20 S6 Karma Lekshey Ling 17 Tibet: Utsang: Does not know Tibetan 7 Kathmandu 7 S7 Neynang Phelgyeng 24 Tibet: Neynang Neynanggi 8 Kathmandu 8 S8 Neynang Phelgyeng 21 Tibet: Neynang Neynanggi 11 Kathmandu 11 S9 Neynang Phelgyeng 21 Tibet: Neynang Neynanggi 17 Kathmandu 17 S10 Neynang Phelgyeng 30 Tibet: Kham: Ledang Kham 19 Kyedang Tibet 21 S11 Neynang Phelgyeng 26 India: W Bengal: Kalimpong Sherpa 8 Kathmandu 8 S12 Benchen 19 Nepal: Gorkha: Logon Nubri 12 Kathmandu 12 S13 Benchen 20 Bhutan: Bumthang: Jakar Bumthangkha 13 Kathmandu 13 S14 Benchen 15 Bhutan: Bumthang: Domkhar Bumthangkha 11 Kathmandu 11 S15 Benchen 20 Nepal: Okhaldunga Sherpa 13 Kathmandu 13 S16 Benchen 19 Nepal: Manang: Tilje Manangi 9 Kathmandu 9 S17 Benchen 16 Nepal: Manang: Pu Manangi 14 Kathmandu 14 S18 Benchen 24 Nepal: Gorkha: Samdo Nar 15 Kathmandu 15 S19 Benchen 21 Bhutan: Kurtoe: D41 Kurtoepkha 15 Bhutan 19

126

Table E.2. Home interactions and languages spoken C1. After coming to this monastery have you ever visited home? C2. Do people come to visit you? C3. Are there others from your home area at this monastery? C4. Do you know others at other monasteries in Kathmandu from your home area? C5. Do you know any laymen from your home area here in Kathmandu? D4. What languages (other than your mother tongue) can you speak? D5. What languages can you read and write?

Dz=Dzongkha; E=English; H=Hindi; N=Nepali; T=Tibetan

Subj. C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 D4 D5 B01 yes no yes yes yes T, N T B02 no yes no yes yes N, H, E, T T, E, N B03 yes no yes no no none, T none B04 no yes yes yes yes T T B05 no no yes yes yes T T B06 yes yes yes yes yes H, N, T, Dz, E T B07 no no yes yes yes T T B08 no no yes yes yes none, T T B09 no no yes yes yes T, N none B10 no no yes yes yes N, T none B11 yes no yes yes yes T, N, E, Japanese T, E, N B12 yes no yes yes yes Tamang, N, H, T, E T, E, N B13 yes yes yes yes yes N, E, T, Tamang T, E, N B14 yes yes yes yes yes N, T, E T, E, N B15 yes yes yes yes yes N, T, E N, T, E B16 no no yes yes yes Chinese, N, T, E T, Chinese, E B17 yes yes yes yes yes N, T N, T B18 yes yes yes yes yes N, T, E N B19 no yes yes yes yes E, N, T, H E, T, N B24 yes yes yes yes yes T, N, E T, E, N B25 yes yes no yes yes N, T, Sherpa, E N, E, T B26 yes yes yes yes no E, N, T, H T, N, E

127

Subj. C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 D4 D5 B27 no yes yes yes yes T, N, E T, N, E B28 no yes yes yes yes T, N, E T, N, E B29 no no no no no T, N, E, Dz, Bumthang T, N, E B30 no no yes no no T, Dz, Sharchop T B31 no yes yes no no T, Dz T B32 yes yes yes yes yes N, T, E E, N, T B33 no no yes yes yes T, E, Chinese T, E, Chinese B34 no no yes yes yes N, E, T N B35 no no yes yes yes N, E, T N, T B36 yes yes yes yes yes N, E, T E, T B37 no yes yes no yes E, N, Chinese, H, T E, T B38 yes no yes no no N, T, Dz, Sharchop N, T, E B39 no no yes no no N, T, Dz, Sharchop N, T, E B40 yes yes yes yes no N, T, Dz N, T, E B41 yes no no no no N, T, Dz N, T, E B42 no no yes yes yes T none B43 no yes yes yes yes E, T, N T Subj C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 D4 D5 B45 yes no yes yes yes T T B46 yes yes yes yes yes N, T, E, H, Kham E, N, T B47 no no yes yes yes N, T, H, E T, E B48 no no no yes yes T, E, Kham, Amdo, N, Sherpa, Chinese T, N, E B49 yes yes yes yes yes N, T, E N, T, E B50 no yes yes yes yes N, T N, T B51 no no yes yes yes N, T T, N B52 yes yes yes yes yes T, N, E T, N, E B53 yes yes no yes yes E, N, T E, N, T B54 yes yes yes yes yes N, T T, N S1 yes yes yes yes yes N, H, T, E T, N, E S2 yes yes yes yes yes N, T, E N, T, E S3 yes yes yes yes yes N, T, E N, T, E

128

Subj. C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 D4 D5 S4 yes yes yes yes yes N, T E N, T, E S5 yes yes yes yes yes N, T, E T S6 no no no no yes N, Manangi, E N, E, T S7 no no yes yes yes E, N, T N, E, T S8 no no yes yes yes N, E, T N, E, T S9 no no yes yes yes T, N, E N, E, T S10 no no no yes yes T, N, H, Chinese T, E, Chinese S12 yes yes yes yes yes N, E, T, H T, N, E S13 yes no yes yes no E, T, N, H, Dz E, N, T S14 no no yes yes no N, T, E E, T, N S15 yes yes yes yes yes E, N, T T, N, E S16 yes yes yes yes yes N, E, T T, E S17 no yes yes yes yes N, T, E T, N S18 yes yes yes yes yes E, H, N, T N, T, E S19 no no no no no T, E, N, Dz, Sharchop,Bumthang,Khengkha T, N, E

129

Table E.3. Mother tongue, Tibetan, and Nepali ability D1. How often do you speak your mother tongue? D2. When two people talk your mother tongue, how much do you understand? D3. Do you speak your mother tongue as well as someone from your home? D6. When you hear people speaking Tibetan how much do you understand? D7. How often do you speak Tibetan? D8. How well do you speak Tibetan? D9. Where did you learn Tibetan? D10. When you hear people speaking Nepali, how much do you understand? D11. How often do you speak Nepali? D12. How well do you speak Nepali? D13. Where did you learn Nepali?

Mon=monastery; n/a=not applicable; OK=okay, reasonably well

Subj D1 D2 D3 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 D13 B01 daily all yes all daily good monastery little sometimes OK informal B02 sometimes most yes all daily good monastery most sometimes OK Mon class B03 daily most yes some seldom bad n/a none n/a n/a n/a B04 daily all yes little seldom bad monastery none n/a n/a n/a B05 daily all yes some sometimes OK monastery none n/a n/a n/a B06 daily all yes all daily good monasteries some sometimes OK informal B07 daily all yes all sometimes OK monastery none n/a n/a n/a B08 daily all yes little seldom bad n/a none n/a n/a n/a B09 daily all yes some seldom bad monastery some seldom bad Mon class B10 daily all yes little seldom bad monastery some seldom bad informal B11 daily all yes all sometimes good monastery most sometimes good informal B12 seldom most no most daily good monastery all daily good school B13 sometimes all no all daily good monastery most daily good school B14 daily all yes most daily OK monastery all daily good Mon class B15 seldom some no all daily good monastery most sometimes OK informal B16 sometimes all yes all daily good Lhasa some sometimes OK informal B17 sometimes most no some sometimes OK monastery all daily good informal B18 daily all yes most daily good Monastery all daily good informal

130

Subj D1 D2 D3 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 D13 B19 sometimes most no all daily good monastery most sometimes good informal B20 daily all yes most sometimes OK monastery all daily good informal B21 daily all yes some sometimes bad monastery all daily good informal B22 daily all yes some sometimes OK monastery all daily good informal B23 seldom little no all sometimes OK monastery all daily good informal B24 seldom most yes most sometimes good monastery all daily good informal B25 seldom all no most daily good Solu Khumbu most sometimes OK informal B26 daily all yes all daily good monastery most sometimes good informal B27 daily all yes most daily good monasteries little seldom bad informal B28 daily all yes all sometimes OK monastery some sometimes OK informal B29 seldom little no most daily OK Kalimpong most daily OK Mon class B30 daily all yes some sometimes bad monastery little seldom bad Mon class B31 daily all yes some sometimes bad monastery little seldom bad Mon class B32 daily all yes all daily good monastery all daily good informal B33 sometimes all yes all daily good home little sometimes bad informal B34 daily all yes some sometimes OK monastery all daily good informal B35 sometimes all yes all Often good monastery little sometimes bad n/a B36 seldom all yes all Often good home most daily good informal B37 sometimes all no all Often good Tibet little sometimes OK informal B38 daily all yes all Often good monastery most daily OK informal B39 daily most no all Often good monastery most daily good informal B40 daily all yes most Often OK monastery most daily good informal B41 seldom most no all Often good monastery most sometimes OK Mon class B42 daily all yes little Often bad monastery none n/a n/a n/a B43 daily all yes little Often bad monastery little seldom bad Mon class B44 sometimes little no most sometimes OK monastery all daily Well Mon class B45 seldom all yes all Often good home little seldom bad Mon class B46 sometimes most no all daily good monastery most sometimes good Mon class B47 seldom all no all daily good home some sometimes OK Mon class B48 seldom all no most daily good home most daily good Mon class B49 sometimes all yes all daily good monastery all daily good informal

131

Subj D1 D2 D3 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 D13 B50 sometimes all yes most daily good monastery most daily good informal B51 sometimes some no most daily good monastery some seldom OK Mon class B52 sometimes all no all daily good monastery all daily good informal B53 sometimes most yes all daily good monastery all daily good Mon class B54 sometimes all yes all daily good monastery all daily good informal S1 sometimes all yes all daily good monastery all daily good informal S2 sometimes most no most daily good monastery all daily good informal S3 seldom some no all sometimes OK monastery all daily good informal S4 sometimes most no all daily good monastery all daily good informal S5 sometimes all yes all sometimes OK monastery most daily good informal S6 daily all yes all daily good home most daily good Mon class S7 daily all yes most daily good monastery all daily good Mon class S8 daily all yes most sometimes OK home most sometimes good Mon class S9 daily all yes most daily good monastery some sometimes OK Mon class S10 seldom all no all daily good monastery little seldom bad Mon class S11 seldom most no all daily good monastery all daily good informal S12 sometimes most no all daily good monastery all daily good informal S13 seldom some no most daily yes monastery all daily good Mon class S14 seldom most no most daily yes monastery most daily good Mon class S15 seldom all yes all daily yes monastery all daily good school S16 seldom little no all daily yes monastery all daily good informal S17 sometimes all yes most sometimes OK monastery all daily good informal S18 seldom all no all daily yes home all daily good school S19 seldom all yes most daily yes monastery most daily good Mon class

132

Table E.4. English ability, maintenance, and language use D14. When two people speak English, how much do you understand? D15. How often do you speak English? D16. How well do you speak English? D17. Where did you learn English? D18. When you first arrived here, what language was easiest? D19. What language is easiest now? E1. What language do you use with monks from the mother-tongue area? E2. What language do you use with monks from Tibet? E3. What language do you use with monks from Nepal E4. What language do you use with the Rinpoche E5. What language do you use for discussing pujas? E6. What language do your teachers use for instruction? E7. What language do you use when discussing lessons with your teachers? E8. What language do you use when discussing lessons with your friends? E9. What language do you use with Tibetan laymen? E10. What language do you use with Nepali laymen? E11. What language do you use with Tibetan vendors? E12. What language do you use with Nepali vendors? E13. What language do you use with your parents? E14. What language do you use with your siblings?

H=Hindi; MT=mother tongue; n/a= not applicable; N=Nepal; OK=okay, reasonable well; T=Tibetan

Subj D14 D15 D16 D17 D18 D19 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14 B01 none never bad n/a MT MT MT T N MT MT MT MT MT MT N T N MT MT B02 little seldom bad class MT T T T N T T T T T MT N MT N MT T B03 none never bad n/a MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT B04 none never bad n/a MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT B05 none never bad n/a MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT B06 some seldom OK informal MT MT MT T N T T T MT MT T N T N n/a n/a B07 none never bad n/a MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT B08 none never bad n/a MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT B09 none never bad n/a MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT

133

Subj D14 D15 D16 D17 D18 D19 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14 B10 none never bad n/a MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT B11 some sometimes OK school MT T MT T N T T T MT MT T N T N MT MT B12 some sometimes bad informal MT N MT T T T T T T T T N T N MT MT B13 some sometimes bad informal MT T T T T T T T T T T N T N MT MT B14 some sometimes OK class MT T MT T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT B15 little sometimes bad informal MT T T T T T T T T T T N T N T T B16 little seldom bad informal MT MT MT MT N T T T T T T N T N n/a n/a B17 none never bad n/a MT N MT N N T T T T N N N T N MT N B18 little seldom bad informal MT T MT T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT B19 most sometimes good school MT T T T T T T T T T T N T N T T B20 little daily bad class MT MT MT T N T T T T MT T N T N MT MT B21 little seldom bad class MT MT MT T N T T T T MT T N T N MT MT B22 little sometimes OK class MT MT TM T N T T T T MT T N T N MT MT B23 little sometimes OK class N N N T N T T T T T T N T N N N B24 some sometimes bad class MT N N T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT B25 some seldom bad informal MT T T T N T T T T T T N T N T T B26 some seldom OK informal MT T MT T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT B27 none never bad informal MT MT MT T T MT MT MT MT MT T T MT MT MT MT B28 little seldom bad informal MT MT MT T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT B29 some seldom bad informal N N Dz T N T T T T T T N T N Dz Dz B30 little seldom bad informal MT MT MT MT T T Dz T T T T N, T T N MT MT B31 little seldom bad informal MT MT MT MT T T Dz T T T T N T N MT MT B32 some seldom OK class MT N MT T N T T T T N T N T N MT MT B33 little seldom bad class MT T MT T T T T T T T T N T N MT MT B34 little seldom bad class MT MT MT N N T N N T MT T N T N MT MT B35 little seldom bad class MT MT MT T N T T T T MT T N T N MT MT B36 some sometimes OK class MT T T T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT B37 little sometimes OK class MT T T T N T T T T T T N T N T T B38 little seldom bad n/a MT MT MT T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT B39 little seldom bad n/a MT T MT T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT B40 little seldom bad n/a MT MT MT T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT

134

Subj D14 D15 D16 D17 D18 D19 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14 B41 little seldom bad n/a MT T N T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT B42 none never bad n/a MT MT MT MT N T T T MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT B43 none never bad n/a MT MT MT T T T T T T T T MT T T MT MT B44 little sometimes bad class H N MT T N T T Kham Kham T T N T N MT H B45 none never bad n/a MT T MT MT T T T Kham Kham T T N T N MT MT B46 Litle seldom OK class MT T T T N T T T T T T N T N MT N B47 little seldom bad class MT T T T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT B48 most sometimes OK informal MT T MT T N T, N T T T N T N T N MT MT B49 little sometimes OK informal N T MT T N T N T T N T N T N MT MT B50 none never bad n/a MT MT MT T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT B51 little never bad informal MT T MT T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT B52 some sometimes OK informal MT N MT T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT B53 some seldom OK school N N N T N T T T T N T N T N MT N B54 little seldom bad informal MT T N T N T T T T N T N T N MT MT S1 little seldom bad class MT N MT T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT S2 some sometimes OK class N N MT T N T T T T N T N T N MT N S3 little seldom bad class MT N N T N T T T T N T N T N N N S4 little seldom bad class MT N N T N T N T T N T N T N MT N S5 little seldom bad class MT N MT T N T T T N N T N T N MT MT S6 little seldom bad class MT N MT T N T N N N N T N T N n/a n/a S7 most sometimes OK class MT T MT T N MT T T T N T N T N MT MT S8 some seldom bad class MT MT MT T N T T T T N T N T N MT MT S9 little seldom bad class MT MT MT T N T T N T T T N T N MT MT S10 little seldom bad class MT T MT T T T T T T T T MT T N MT MT S11 most sometimes bad class MT T MT T N T T T T T T N T N N N S12 some sometimes bad class MT T T T N T T T T N T N T N MT N S13 little sometimes OK informal MT T T T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT S14 little seldom bad class MT T T T N T T T T T T N T N MT T S15 little sometimes bad school MT N N T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT S16 some sometimes bad class MT N N T N T T T T T T N T N T T S17 none never bad n/a MT N N T N T T T T N T N T N MT N

135

Subj D14 D15 D16 D17 D18 D19 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14 S18 some sometimes OK informal MT T T T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT S19 little seldom OK informal MT T MT T N T T T T T T N T N MT MT

Appendix F: Wordlist Data

The following pages contain eleven wordlists.

1. Nepali. Nepali is the national language of Nepal and is spoken as a trade language throughout the Himalayan region, from Northwest India, through Nepal, southern Bhutan, and into northeastern India. The sample of Nepali used in this study is based on Nepali as spoken in Kathmandu, since that is the variety that most likely affects the language of the monks residing in Kathmandu. 2. Dzongkha. Dzongkha is the national language of Bhutan. It is known by a large percentage of the Bhutanese, but not by people outside of Bhutan. It is often used as a language of communication between monks from Bhutan but who are from different language groups. The sample used in this study was elicited from a Bhutanese layman who visited Kathmandu. 3. Tibetan. There are many varieties of Tibetan, some of which are mutually unintelligible. For this study, the variety often used by the diaspora Tibetan community of Kathmandu is used, since this is the form of Tibetan most likely to have an influence on Kathmandu’s monks. 4. Tingri 1. The Tingri area of Tibet has a distinct language variety, closely related to Central Tibetan, but divergent enough to make the two forms inherently unintelligible. This wordlist was elicited from a monk who has lived in Kathmandu for more than fifteen years. He is about thirty years old and lives at a monastery that is exclusively populated with Tingri Tibetans. 5. Tingri 2. This wordlist was given by a monk at the same monastery as “Tingri 1”, but who only arrived in Kathmandu within the past year. 6. Manangi 1. Manangi is a Western Bodish language, closely related to the Gurung language of Nepal and spoken by the people of Manang District, Nepal. This wordlist sample was given by an older monk more than sixty years of age, who has lived in Kathmandu for more than twenty years. There are many Manangis living at this monastery. 7. Manangi 2. This sample was given by another monk at the same monastery as the “Manangi 1” list is from. This monk, however, only recently arrived at the monastery in Kathmandu. 8. Manangi 3. This sample was given by a monk who lives among very few other Manangis at a monastery in Kathmandu. He has been out of Manang for many years. 9. Khengkha 1. Khengkha is an East Bodish language spoken in south-central Bhutan. This sample was given by a monk who has lived in Kathmandu for about ten years at a monastery where there are several other Khengkha speakers. 10. Khengkha 2. This sample was given by a Khengkha-speaking layman who still resides in the Kheng region of Bhutan. 11. Khengkha 3. This sample was given by a monk who left Kheng at a young age and has now lived for ten years outside of Bhutan. There are no other Khengpas at the monastery where he lives, though there are two monks from Bumthang, the region directly north of Kheng, in Bhutan.

136 137

Table F.1. Nepali, Dzongkha, Tibetan, and Tingri wordlists

Gloss Nepali Dzongkha Tibetan Tingri 1 Tingri 2 body diu zug sukpo libo libo head tauko gut u go go ko hair kapal tS a t.a t.a t.a/tSa face anuha do do tSe tSe’ eye aka mig tu mig mi mi’ ear kan namtSu amtSo amd o amd o nose nak hapa nak u nakje nakje mouth muk k a k a k a k a tooth da t so so ts o s o tongue d ib.o tS tSe tSele tSemo chest tS ati b a to b.a k o p a go p.a ko belly p t p o t.oko t.oda t.oita arm hat lap lakpa lakpa/la go la go elbow kuhino no entry d.umo tesukpa tesukpa palm hatk la lem ba.mo pandi pandi finger a ula zu mo dzumo dzuk u dzugu fingernail na simo senmo senno senno leg k utta kam ka ba laSa/ka ba laSa/ka ba skin tSala pako pakpa pakpa pakpa bone hadi .utu .uk o ugo .uba heart mutu du hi n i n in n i blood .agat t.ak t .a t .a t .a village gau jy d.o seb t .o sep lu gjok house g a. tSim k a pa na na roof tS ana tSimto t og t ok t oka door d oka go go ko go firewood dau.a me Si Si Si Si broom kutSo tSam tSagma k o se k o se hammer g an .at ok t oba t a: t a: knife tSakku gitSu d.i t .i t .i axe bantSa.o ta.i ta.e ta.i ta.i rope do.i t ap t akpa t akpa t akpa thread d ago kyp kupa k utok k utok needle siju k ap k ap k ap k ap cloth kapada kola .atSa e e ring au ti zuki ts ikk ep set op set op sun su.ja nim njima n ima n ima moon tSand.ama dau dawa dagja dagja

138

Gloss Nepali Dzongkha Tibetan Tingri 1 Tingri 2 sky akaS namk a nam nam nam star ta.a ka:m ka.ma ka:ma ka:ma rain pani tSap tS a.pa tSaba tSawa water pani tSu tS u tS u tS u river k ola tSu d uktSu tsa bo tsa bo cloud badal samo pinpa t in t i rainbow ind.eni d a sen d a d a d a wind hawa lu l akpa hawa hawa\lu po stone d u ga do do do do path bato lam lam lamka tsat.a sand baluwa pSem bema pema pema fire ago me me me me smoke d uwa dupa duba t yda t yda ash k a.ani megi t ejo got al k oda k oda mud hilo dam dakpa dawa dawa dust d ulo t ejo t alba t ala t ala gold sun se. se. se. se: tree .uk su si Si do Si do leaf pat dama loma loma loma root d a.a .atok tsaba pandza panta thorn kado sa ts e.ma tse:ma tse:ma flower p ul meto meto ment o ment o fruit p alp ul d.ebu s i to Si to Si to rice (husked) tSamal tSu b.a te: te: potato alu kewa ogo ige .ige chili k u.sani ema siman matsi matsi garlic lasun tSagop gokpa gokpa gokpa onion pjad gop tso tso tso oil t l ma. num num num salt nun s a ts a ts a ts a meat (raw) masu Sa Sa Sa Sa fat boso tsilu ts ilu ts ilu ts ilu fish matSa n a n a n a n a chicken kuk u.a d itSu cade tSamu tSamo egg p ul go do go a go a go a cow gai no. bacu pa p a milk dud om o:ma o:ma o:ma horns si .au .aco .a o .ad o tail putSa. d uma ugu ama ama goat bak .a .a .a .a .a

139

Gloss Nepali Dzongkha Tibetan Tingri 1 Tingri 2 dog kuku. .otSi k i k i k i snake sa.pa d.yl bu d.ul d.ul monkey ba da. tSa peu t.e t.e mosquito lamkutte zendom dub.a tupd.a d.a ma ant kamila d okmo t.oma put.oma put.oma spider maku.a no entry dom bamo bamo name nam mi mi mi mi man lognemantse bu mi \ koga mi mi woman aimai bum kema p uma p uma child batSa alu p ugu eme eme father bua apa pap a pa pa mother ama ai ama hama hama brother–older dai p og m d od o tSo tSotSo brother–young b ai nutSu oma tSu bo tSu bo sister–older didi aSim atSa tSetSe tSetSe sister–young bahini num o:la tSumo tSumo son tS o.a bu bu p u p u daughter tS o.i bum bumo p umo p umo husband s.iman map k oga makpa nakpa wife s.imati amtsu kema nama nama day din nim n ima n ima n ima night .at tSi.u ts an tsemo tsemo morning bihana d.oba okpa mad.o maSo noon diuso n ima n inkun n ingun n ingun evening beluka tSi.u go da go mo go mo yesterday hid o k asa k asa ta ta today ad a da.i de.i ti.i tiko tomorrow b oli na pa sa n in sa sa week hapta dønt.a dunp a dønt.a dønt.a month mahina dau laba dawa dawa year ba.sa lo lo lo lo old (object) pu.ano nim n i pa n i ba n i ba new (object) naja sap sa.pa sa.pa samba good .am.o lekSum jakpo kad e du ka du bad na.am.o zop duktSa kad e mindu da mindu wet b id ali ba lonpa pau ns pau ns dry sukeko kam kampo kams kams long (object) lamo .im .i pu .i po .i po short (object) tSoto t u ku t u t u t u du t u du hot (water) tato sa tokto ts apo ts abo ts abo

140

Gloss Nepali Dzongkha Tibetan Tingri 1 Tingri 2 cold (water) tSiso k e sisi t.a mo ta mo ta mo right dahine je k atu jeapa jeba jeba left deb.e jøn k atu jonpa jonba jonba near nad ik t ama t i la njewo njewo far tada p a: tak.i po tak.i bo tak.i bo big t ulo bom tSinpo tSinbo tSinbo small sano tSu ku tSu tSu tSu ne tSu ne heavy ga.u go d iktSen d ipo d ise d ise light haluka ja t.et.e ja po ja a ja a above mat i talu t okla t owa t owa below tala hoglu ola hok hok white seto k ap ka.po ka.a ka.a black kalo nap nakpo naga nakpo red .ato map ma.po ma.a ma.a one k tSik tSik tSik tSik two dui n it n i n i n i three tin sum sum sum sum four tSa. Si Si Si Si five pa tS a a a a six tSa d.u t u t uk t uk seven sat døn duin dy dy eight at g ke ke ke nine nau gu gu gu gu ten das tSutam tSutamba tSu tSu eleven ega.a tSuktSi tSutSik tSud ik tSud ik twelve ba.ha tSuni tSun i tSun i tSun i twenty bis n iSu n iSu n iSu n iSu one hundred se d a t a ba gjat amba gjat amba gjat amba who? ko ga su su su what? ke gatSi ka .e ka de ka where? kaha gati ka pa kalade kalade when? kahile nam ka tjo nama jo ge nama hu ge how many? kati gadimtSi ka tjo kad ai kad ai what kind? kasto gatSizum ka te ka te ka te this (near) jo ani di di di that (far) tjo ap i pa ki hana hana same (alike) ustai tSo.at ek tSikpa tSikpa tSikpa different qa.ak soso loka. kepa kepa broken big.ieko tSak ta i ga tsa lugpo lugpo whole pu.a k .ibu tSakpa ga po ga po

141

Gloss Nepali Dzongkha Tibetan Tingri 1 Tingri 2 few t o.ai asi tSi ka Se tize tize many d e.ai namisami ma po ma bo ma bo all sabai g e.a tsa ma tsa ma tsa ma eat k annu za sa tSe so so bite toknu mu. sogj p sodjep sodjep be hungry b ok lagjo to k e ji tok tok tok drink piunu t u tu pa tu tu be thirsty ti.ka lagjo k a komtSi k ako k ako k ako sleep sutnu n e n inn jælpa njo njo sit down basnu saka de depa de de give dinu d inda tepa na na burn (wood) balnu me ta tsikpa tsikpa tsikpa kill ma.nu seda se pa sepa sepa fly (bird) udnu p u.da p.ua p .uwa p .uwa walk hidnu lamd o ku ba poba ku ba ku ba go d anu d o d.owa gjuk gjuk come aunu Sok jo kiji Sok Sok speak bolnu lapda ketSaSepa So So hear sunnu n enda koa nje nje see h .nu ta to so to : to : I (1s) ma a a a a you (2s) timi tSø ke.a ke.a ke.a he (3s) u k o ko k o k o we (1p) hami atSe nantso ho.a gja ho.a gja you (2p) tapaiha.u tSødisu ke.a tso ke.a gja ke.a gja they (3p) uniha.u ko ko.antso k o egja k u e gja

142

Table F.2. Manangi and Khengkha wordlists

Gloss Manangi 1 Manangi 2 Manangi 3 Khengkha 1 Khengkha 2 Khengkha 3 body sug suk suk zug zug zuk head pakali pakali pakali guju guju guju hair k.a k.a k.a k.ah k.ah k.ah face li li li nu. nu. u. eye mig mi mi meg me mig ear n ima n ima n ima napali napali napali nose na n na nato napa ?? mouth su su su k a ka ka tooth sa sa sa kwa kwah wah tongue le le l li lih lih chest k u. k u: tatSugu b.a to b.a to b.a tok belly p o p o p o d oma d oma d oma arm p u /jak p u /jak jak ja jak jak \ jok elbow jak um jak .u No entry jaktsi k ut u.ma kili palm jakt il jakt il No entry jane jalem ?? finger jakp u jakt .i jakp .i No entry jap.ama p.ima fingernail jakSi jakSi jakSi sinmo simbah simba leg p ale s li p ale dokpa dokpa to pa skin t .i mui/t.ui t .i Sa pakpa ?? bone nog.e nog.e nukri .otpa .otpa .opa heart tin ti ti ne ne ni blood ka ka ka ka kak kah village jul jyl jyl k.o k.o k.o house t i t i t i mai mae mai roof pe k ape pe mo maemo mu door m.e m.e ma.e ko ko ko firewood si si Si se tse se broom pSja pja pja qiksa p iksa p iksa hammer p odi p odi poti t owa t owa t owa knife k a.ti k a.di ka.di pata pata pata axe ta ta ta ta.i ta.i ta.i rope ts o ts o ts o t akpa t akpa t akpa thread t .u t .u t .u k .oman k.odme k.omi needle t e t e t e k ap k ap kap cloth k.atsa kola gadza kaSa lokpa lokpo ring tSe tSe tSe tsedum jadum suk i sun ti it n ima ti i ni ne ni moon le k i tawa li i lada lah daka

143

Gloss Manangi 1 Manangi 2 Manangi 3 Khengkha 1 Khengkha 2 Khengkha 3 sky mo nam na gu. nam nam nam star se. ka.ma sa. ka.ma ka.ma ka.ma rain k ju mo mo \ jumo ju jy jui water k ju k ju k ju k we qwe qe river k ju ts o moSa k ju k we ga qwe \ ga qe ka cloud moti moti mukpa mukpa mukpa mugpa rainbow p .atSo d a k je d a glo ma.d ad No entry wind l apa l awa laba lo lo lo stone m ugu jo be ju go. go. go.tala path k je k je k je jam jam jam sand pjoma ptSema pjoma bema bema bema fire mje mje me gami gami ?? smoke mjugu mjugu mjugu duwa duwah duwa ash So d.o .ugum mep.a baisa baisa a ga. mud sab.a sab.an sab.a dam dam dam dust tela k.i tela t aiwa suma suma gold ma. ma. ma. se. se. se. tree Si dom Si dom Si dom se se se leaf si pat k je pat lakpe b ama lampa root Si d.a ts a ta \ t.e tsawa .ato .ato thorn putsu putsu putSu tse. s e. s e flower mindo mendo mento met ok mento mento fruit Si do Si to Si to Sind.e Si d.e Sind.e rice (husked) si k e Si ipa \ tSu ipa tSum potato alo alo alo ki ki ki chili ma.sa ma.dza ma.tsa ba gala ba gala ba gala garlic no Sa mo Sa no tSatSu tSatSup tSitSo onion tso pjaz pjaz gopa gop \ pes gokpa oil tSugu tSugu tSugu ma.k u ma.k u ma.k u salt ts a tsatsa tsatsa tsa ts a ts a meat (raw) Sa Sa Sa Sa Sa Sa fat tSi tSi tSi kot kot kot fish ta. a ta. a ta. a n a n a nja chicken nak a naga naga k aga k agah k aga egg p um p um p u k aete k agaite k aete cow mje mje me: ba no. \ ba ba \ no. milk je nji nje d u d u d u horns .u .a .u .awa .o .o tail mi me m : n itali n epa nidili goat .a .a .a lele lele lele 144

Gloss Manangi 1 Manangi 2 Manangi 3 Khengkha 1 Khengkha 2 Khengkha 3 dog njugju njugju nytju k wi qwi fwi snake puk.i puk.i puk.i po poh poh monkey t.imu t.imu panda. p.a p.a p.ah mosquito lamki.a lamki.a lamkutt e No entry ka kila ka kila ant nok.o nok.o nok.o kalikpu b.uktula No entry spider k we nab.a .k we nab.a .k we No entry ka kapa No entry name mi mi mi me me me man p o mi p ju p od a p od a p od a woman m.i a a m.i keme mod a mod a child kola kola kola olo olo olo \ o a father aba\apa aba\apa apa apa apa apa mother ama ama ama ama ama ama brother–older ata ata ata atSo atSo atSo Sipo brother–young atSo atSo atSo no no no\ba.ma sister–older ana ana ana ad e a e ad a\obo sister–young nani nani nani nomet nomet nomet son tsa tsa tsa bo bo bo daughter tsamet tsemet tsamet bomet bomet bomet husband p o p a qa makpa makpa makpa wife pe pe p nemo nesa /keme nesa /nemo day n ima .a ti ze nen nen nen night mundze mundz nu ze san san sula / san morning na da na da nanajo aza azi adzi noon ti t.e tinse ti zi nentsa nentSa nintSa evening njeza njeza njaze sutla sutla sutla yesterday tele tele tele da la da lak nanmu today ti i ti i ti i dasum dasum dasum tomorrow njese njese nese jampa jampa jampet week tsa p a at ewa t.inta hapta dønt a hapta month la tawa \ la la la lah lah year lo lo lo No entry ne ne old (object) n i ba n i ba n i ba manpa manpa manpa new (object) samba samba samba sa.pa sa.pa sa.po good saba k eba k eba katSan lemola lemo bad asaba asaba ak eba katSan mut gokpala No entry wet Sutame lomba Su Su.pa Si.ba Sidemut dry ka.gja ka.gja ka.gja kam kambam kamban long (object) .unba .unba .i ba .i Se k a ba k a bala short (object) luktu luktu Su ba t i k ula t i ku tSi kula hot (water) ts apa ts apa l tsanma s anba sanba

145

Gloss Manangi 1 Manangi 2 Manangi 3 Khengkha 1 Khengkha 2 Khengkha 3 cold (water) plapa pla pla nakpa nakpa akpa right onze jøba k eza jaipa jaipai Samai left lidze jonba t o.za jonpa jonpai jonmai near njeba ondza.i njeba .atna t amaido No entry far t a.u ba t a.i bo t a.i ba t ugozi.o jamk a ba No entry big Seba Seba t jeba tSetpo d ikpa d igpala small tSamba tSamba tSa ba tSinkula tSi ko tSi gu heavy liba liba liba pet d ittSan d un light njamba aliba nja pa ja supa jan kut No entry above k a.e k a.e p ili d aido d aido d aido below mat.i mat.i mat.i suto sutdo sutdo white ta.gja ta.gja ta.gja k a.ti k a.tila k a.dila black mla ja mli ja mla gja n onte jontela njunti red olgja olgja olgja Sindi d intila d inti one Si Si Si t ek t ek t ek two nji nji nji (low) zon zon zon three se se se sum sum sum four qli p li qli ble ble ble five a a a ja a ja a ja a six t u t u t u g.ok g.ok g.o seven nji nji nji (high) n it n it njit eight q.e q.e q.e d at d at d at nine ku ku ku dogo dogo d ogo ten tSu tSu tSu tSe tSe tS e eleven tSug.i tSug.i tSug.i tSowa.e tSowa.e tSau.e twelve tSu ji tSu ji tSu ji tSowazon tSozon tSozon twenty n iSu n iSu n iSu k aede k aet e k ae one hundred q.a q.a q.a k aeja a k aeja a k aeja a who? su su su ae ae ae what? ta ta ta d e d a d ae where? hani hani hani ao ao ao when? haja haja haja a.wa a.ba a.ba how many? kati kati kati akpa akpa akpa what kind? hatSo hatSo hatSo akSila aSo ka ato this (near) tsogo tsugo tsugo hokai hekai ekae that (far) hogo ogo ogo a t ukai t okai t u same (alike) tSotSo tSotSo tSo soksa sogsat tsogsa different a.omo a.omo atSo ba soso mad owa soso broken nu me k imet nu ba mep tS om kopo.ogai whole anu me tsa.a tsa.a t amtSe temtem No entry

146

Gloss Manangi 1 Manangi 2 Manangi 3 Khengkha 1 Khengkha 2 Khengkha 3 few tsap.e tsa tsap.i k amti t ekpa zonba kamtSi many la kati bla kati leSa d akse dakti all tSa.a tSa.a tSa.a t amje tS anjam .a sa a eat tso tsomo tso zu zujai tSablai bite njeba njemo njedo mu. selai selai be hungry pokSomo pok pokremo b.owana b.owana No entry drink t u ba t u tu t o t o lai t o lai be thirsty p imo p jumo pju p imo k akam kakam No entry sleep nuba nuba nuba dod dodlai dodlai sit down t.oba t.u t.o nik niklai nilai give pimba pin \ pim pindo wai bijai bijai burn (wood) Sa ba k .om m.endo pa. n um No entry kill tseba tse tse sut masutlai No entry fly (bird) p ja ba p ja p ja p u. li lai No entry walk njojo.o p .omo p.oba go gojai gojai go jo.a jamo ja.o gai galai galai come k o k omo ko Sai Sai Sai speak la Seba la Semo la Sedo lab lablai lablai hear njeba njemo njenba n an n atlai nanlai see njoto njomo njopa ta \ t ai tajai t ajai I (1s) a a a a at at you (2s) kja kja kja wet wet jet he (3s) k i k i k i gon \ k it k it khit \ gon we (1p) nja nja nji n et n et \n e.a et you (2p) k imibudi k imibudi k imibudi n in win \ n in jin they (3p) k imi k imi k imi gon ga po bot gone

References

Blair, Frank. 1990. Survey on a shoestring: A manual for small-scale language surveys. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington. Bradley, David. 1997. Tibeto Burman languages of the Himalayas. In Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics No. 14, Australia: Pacific Linguistics. Crystal, David. 1980. Dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Dombremez and Jest, 1976. Map of Tibetan dialects on northern border of Nepal. Fishman, Joshua A. 1989. Language and ethnicity in minority sociolinguistic perspective. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Fishman, Joshua A. 1991. Reversing language shift. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Gyatso, Ngawang Khyenrab Legshe. Translation by Cyrus Stearns. 1986. Fortunate to behold: An explanation of the nativity of Sakyamuni Buddha at Lumbini Garden, together with an historical account of Kapilavastu and Devadaha, and some additional discourses. Kathmandu: Sahayogi Press. Harrer, Heinrich. 1981 (original 1953). Seven years in Tibet. Los Angeles: J. P. Tarcher. Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling. 2000. Welcome to Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling Monastery. Information brochure available at Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling Monastery. Pal Thrangu Tashi Choling. 1999. The Institute for Higher Learning and the Center for Practice at Pal Thrangu Tashi Choling in the Supreme Sacred Place of Namo Buddha, Nepal. Kathmandu: Thrangu Tashi Choling Institute. Sagemuller, Dr. Ernst. 2000. The little talisman: Boudha. Kathmandu, Nepal: Sewa Printers. Samtenling Monastery. 2000. Brief history of Tashi Samtenling Monastery. Information brochure available at Samtenling Monastery. Savada, Andrea Matles. 1993. Nepal and Bhutan: Country studies. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. van Driem, George. 1991. Report on the first linguistic survey of Bhutan. Thimpu, Bhutan: Royal Government of Bhutan. Wurm, Stephen A., Rong Li, Theo Baumann, Mei W. Lee, et al. 1987. Language atlas of China. Pacific Linguistics, Series C., No. 102. Hong Kong: Longman, on behalf of the Australian Academy of the Humanities and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

147