Highlighting Unity: Two Approaches to Non-Sectarianism in Twentieth Century Tibet Adam Pearcey In the late 19th and early 20th centuries there were attempts – apparently connected with the so-called “Ris med Movement” – to strengthen the scholastic traditions of non- dGe lugs schools in Eastern Tibet. These efforts included the establishment of dozens of scriptural colleges (bshad grwa) throughout the region, and the printing and dissemination of works by the Sa skya scholar, Go rams pa bSod nams seng ge (1429– 1489) and the Nyingma polymath, ’Ju Mi pham (1846–1912). The texts of these two influential philosophers, complete with their notorious criticisms of mainstream dGe lugs pa thought, came to represent the orthodox viewpoint for followers of their respective traditions within many newly founded scriptural colleges. These developments were not without controversy, however, and inspired much debate and polemical exchange. In commenting upon this period and its key figures, some modern scholars have questioned how the strengthening and promotion of individual philosophical traditions could be regarded as non-sectarian. Yet, in spite of this, there is no question that ’Ju Mi pham and the publishers of Go rams pa’s writings continue to be associated with the Ris med ideal. In this paper I will explore the views of two writers who took a different approach to inter-sectarian (and intra-sectarian) discourse during this same period of Tibetan history and who both lived in the mGo log region of Eastern Tibet. These authors aimed less at differentiating and strengthening rival doctrines, and more at highlighting their underlying unity or compatibility. The Third rDo grub chen, ’Jigs med bstan pa'i nyi ma (1865–1926), is known for his comparative writings on elements of gSar ma and rNying ma tantra, in the course of which he repeatedly asserts the correspondence of the subtle mind of clear light (’od gsal; prabhāsvara) described in Highest Yoga Tantra and the pure awareness (rig pa) of rDzogs chen. Unlike Mi pham and his followers, ’Jigs med bstan pa'i nyi ma claimed that the principal difference between rDzogs chen and gSar ma tantra lies in the methods they employ, rather than their respective views. And although encouraged by Mi pham to promote the rNying ma school, he neither made use of Mi pham’s distinctive terminology nor echoed his key assertions. While ’Jigs med bstan pa’i nyi ma maintains the superiority of Atiyoga and thus proposes an inclusivist, hierarchical model of the various vehicles, his rDzogs chen writings are notable for their emphasis on commonality as well as difference. mDo sngags chos kyi rgya mtsho (1903–1957) was a dGe lugs pa lama from dPal sNyan mo Monastery in mGo log, who drew inspiration from ’Jigs med bstan pa’i nyi ma and his immediate disciples. In his writings he explicitly sought to heal sectarian division by uniting rNying ma views on rDzogs chen, especially those expressed in the works of Klong chen rab ’byams (1308–1364) and Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po (1012–1088), with the views on Highest Yoga tantra set out by Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357–1419). These syncretistic appeals to unity are in marked contrast not only to the distinguishing approach taken by the likes of ’Ju Mi pham and Bod pa sprul sku bsTan pa’i nyi ma (1898–1959), but also to the more exclusivist tendencies prevalent within the dGe lugs pa school – as witnessed, for example, in the infamous letters of Pha bong kha pa bDe chen snying po (1878–1941 Through this brief examination, I will suggest that the approach of strengthening scholastic traditions and highlighting their uniqueness may have actually served to increase intersectarian rivalry and conflict. Although the more ecumenical approaches discussed in the paper had only limited influence, they represent significant ideological opposition to dominant trends, especially as rival claimants to the loaded term “non-sectarian” (ris med). While Tibetan Buddhism has tended in recent years towards sectarian differentiation, with religious leaders concentrating their efforts on preserving and re-establishing their own traditions in exile, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama has often attempted to highlight the underlying unity of the major schools. And, in so doing, he has drawn upon the very writings discussed in this paper. In conclusion, then, I will suggest that there is a broader significance to this 20th century debate. It certainty represents an intriguing case of ‘intra-religious dialogue’, but it also raises perennial questions, both for Tibet and more generally, such as: What does it mean to be truly non-sectarian? Legal ideology in medieval Tibet Fernanda Pirie This presentation traces the account given by medieval Tibetan historians about the introduction of law into Tibet, that is, accounts found in histories written between the end of the empire and the beginning of the Ganden Podrang government. A relatively consistent story emerged concerning the introduction of the ‘king’s law’ (rgyal khrims) by the early emperors (Songtsan Gampo or Tri Song Detsen), which can be traced back to the Old Tibetan Chronicle. However, the nature of that law and its relations with the ‘religious law’ (chos khrims) were not always presented in the same way. This paper will describe and analyse the way in which the presentation changed during the period. It will ask whether any of the changes can be attributed to contemporary political or religious events, and whether we can see the development of a more Buddhist account, from which references to the death penalty were, for example, excised. It will also explore the possible influence of this ideology on legal practices and writing during the period. A Feast for the Learned: The Power of Genre and Genres of Power in Research Collaborations Among Scholars of Tibetan Buddhism Annabella Pitkin Academic research on Tibetan Buddhist topics often involves collaboration between researchers trained in non-Buddhist academic settings and Tibetan Buddhist intellectuals trained in Buddhist educational institutions. Especially where academic research involves oral history, shared study, joint translation efforts, and other collaborative research with living Tibetan religious scholars and experts, urgent issues of power, mutual intelligibility, and representation come into play. Based on an ongoing research project involving scholars and religious intellectuals from multiple backgrounds and intellectual formations, this paper argues for discussing genre (of written and spoken work) as a key location for exploring collaboration and difference in scholarly projects, for asking how different styles of intervention are received, and for illuminating questions of power and authority. I explore here possible "principles and conditions required" for scholarly conversations that include Tibetan religious intellectuals, secular intellectuals, and scholars trained in contemporary international forms of academic study, in a context of mutuality and collaboration. This kind of scholarly engagement offers an alternative to approaching traditional holders of Tibetan Buddhist expertise (including monastics, lay teachers, retreat meditators, yogic practitioners, authors of Tibetan commentarial and interpretive works, etc.) as "informants,” rather than experts trained in distinctive intellectual traditions. Collaborative scholarly conversation and mutual engagement emerge amidst multiple factors. Some considerations are structural: who has funding, and of what kind; what kinds of publications or other research outcomes scholars with different social locations want, or need; which languages are used for research and publication, etc. Other considerations are philosophical, with political and ethical implications. Whose work, and what genres of work in particular, are framed as scholarly interventions, rather than other kinds of cultural products? What assumptions about authority and expertise are at play in these questions of genre? I examine several modes of scholarly conversation, from a variety of institutional settings and genres of written or orally presented work, including models drawn from Tibetan systems of lineage formation and training; models drawn from the natural sciences; and models of scholarly interaction rooted in artistic practice. Wildlife Conservation in the Himalyan Borderlands: An investigation of the Shagya Agreement Nadine Plachta In this presentation, I examine how the Tsumpa, a community in Nepal’s northern borderlands, perceive, narrate, and interact with the natural environment, in particular with livestock and non-domesticated animals. In April 2012, the Nepalese Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai visited the region to take part in a “Tsum Valley Cultural Shagya Festival.” The main purpose of the three-day event was to spread the Buddhist moral precept of non-violence by revitalizing an agreement dating back to the Bhutanese Drukpa Rinpoche Ngawang Palsang, who is known for highlighting the nature of human-animal relationships. Formulated by Drakar Taso Tulku Tenzin Norbu, the Shagya Agreement since 1939 has been prohibiting the killing of any animal in Tsum, a regulation that is more precisely defined to include any form of slaughter, hunting, poaching, and even trading animals to a place beyond the region where they would face certain death. The initial text has undergone several amendments, with the most recent changes taking place in 2012, an event reported by national broadcast and print media. In combining oral historical narratives