Jonathan Samuels

"Debate" (Tibetan: rtsod pa), in the present context, refers to a uniquely Tibetan method of structured analysis and discourse conducted between two (or more) parties on matters pertaining to religion. The practice is extremely technical and has traditionally been the province of monks. It has medieval roots, and it references logical principles derived from the Indian Buddhist pramāṇa system. Debate is also closely aligned with the tradition of commentarial writing, in which the evaluation and critiquing of earlier interpretations of Indian-origin Buddhist works has long been standard. A custom among Tibetan religious writers has been to deal with "rival" interpretations in a truculent fashion, redolent of an actual confrontation. There is also much in the dialectical approach, analytical process, and language that can best be described as shared between the literary and oral spheres (with frequent crossover and borrowing). But debate is primarily to be understood as a face-to-face practice, distinct from what is represented in the written medium, and only truly comprehensible in terms of the institutional context of its performance. Furthermore, while inspired by Indian scholastic traditions, this kind of argumentation is peculiarly Tibetan in its formulation. The practice of debate is especially associated with the largest school of Tibetan Buddhism, the Geluk (dGe lugs). In the school's major scholastic centers, which were, for a number of centuries, the largest monasteries in the world, debate was employed as the primary tool of education, with those trained in the scholastic tradition, including its most prominent figures, such as various Dalai Lamas and Panchen Lamas, having been required to master it. Academic understanding of debate relies heavily on analysis of the so-called Collected Topics (bsDus grwa) works, primer materials, chiefly composed of sample debates, from which students (and academics) learn about the logical principles, basic taxonomies, and informal "rules" that structure debate.

There is a growing academic literature on what is commonly phrased 'Tibetan medieval scholasticism', but few studies have considered the institutionalisation of learning within monastic centres, or the norms and practices associated with this during specific historical periods. As so much within the tightly-structured, monastic education of present times has traceable medieval origins, it is often assumed that learning during those earlier times was highly regulated. Epitomising this vision of continuity, both in systems and practices, are understandings of the three institutions of scholastic touring, testing, and the awarding of titles, marking the culmination of the learning process. Based on documents from the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, this article explores the nature of these three at the time and what they reveal about the organisation of learning. It both tests and questions the current understanding regarding the existence of a standardised educational system.

In studies dealing with aspects of Buddhist monasticism, within a wide range of historical settings, we encounter phrases such as “the common monastic curriculum.” But the notion of a curriculum itself in these settings is rarely subjected to genuine scrutiny. Consequently, native conceptions related to curricula, processes of curricula formation, and indeed the appropriateness of the term’s usage seem worthy of greater consideration. Particularly if we seek to understand evolution in the domain of organised monastic learning, greater clarity and consistency seems necessary with regard to the notion of a curriculum, especially because this might allow us to identify the points in history, within various contexts, where Buddhist monastic curricula can be said to have emerged, and what factors, in each case, led to their emergence. 

In addition to assessing Buddhist monastic relations with curricula in pre-modern settings more generally, this article specifically investigates the concept of curricula in terms of Tibetan medieval monastic learning. It deals briefly with how a tenfold classification associated with Sakya Pandita (1182-1251) relates to medieval monastic learning. But the majority of this article takes the form of a historical case study, investigating the events and circumstances surrounding what has been projected as a change in the medieval curriculum, manifesting in the introduction of a new scholastic title, known as the “ten-pillars,” in the final decades of the fourteenth century. The article aims, among other things, to bring the under-appreciated variety and complexity of this area to light, in order to better understand the organisation of learning in Buddhist monastic contexts during earlier centuries.

The prohibition on incest, a topic so key to kinship studies, has not featured prominently in literature on Tibet. This article draws attention to a previously unreported section of writing devoted to the topic of incest, composed by the Tibetan ‘prime minister’ Sangye Gyatso (Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, 1653–1705), one of the principal architects of the Tibetan state. Sangye Gyatso sets out what purports to be a threefold classification of incest, traditional to Tibet, and considers how aspects of it are to be interpreted. The present article focuses on some of the significant issues raised by this piece. Among these are questions about the context and circumstances of its appearance, the status of incest as a category in historical Tibet, and the place of religious and state authority in the social domain.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license.

Within Europe, there developed what has been described as a »medieval culture of disputation«. This description seems equally apt with regard to certain societies in Asia that had strong Buddhist scholarly traditions. A formalised practice of disputation is one of the many correspondences that exists, for instance, between the scholarly cultures of medieval Europe and Tibet. In Europe, various intellectual and social movements contributed to the eventual decline of scholasticism, the system to which disputation was central. But in Tibet, disputation still holds pride of place in a style of learning that is essentially medieval in origin. The existence of this »living tradition« and the availability of plentiful sources hailing from the medieval scholastic tradition may well be seen as major assets when it comes to understanding the earlier Tibetan practice. But confusion about sources, domains, and claims of continuity appear to have discouraged efforts in this direction. The current article is the first to consider Tibetan monastic disputation in historical terms. Through the clarification of boundaries, the identification of relevant historical sources, and by means of comparison with contemporary practice, it takes the first steps to understanding the evolution of disputation, specifically within institutional contexts.

Since 1990, an ethnic revival (Toffin 209: 25) in Nepal has seen members of janajāti (indigenous nationalities) campaign for greater recognition and rights for their respective groups. Many anthropologists are strongly opposed to the way that activists project the identities of these groups as historical continuities. Questions about the antiquity and authenticity of their cultural and religious traditions also abound.

The focus of this study are the Tamang, one of Nepal’s largest ethnic minorities. Recent changes in Tamang religious practices are considered within the context of the contemporaneous ethnic revival. After outlining the historical background of the current situation, in which some activists and anthropologists find themselves pitted against one another, this study argues that members of both groups are strangely united in their wish to distance representations of Tamang identity and religious affiliation from associations with Tibet. Hence, avoidance of the b-word: understood either as bod, the Tibetan term for Tibet, or as bhoṭe, the Nepali racial epithet derived from it. At issue here, for activist and academic alike, is the assertion of ethnic and cultural autonomy. But both sides’ representations of the Tamang are weakened by this minimalisation of the b-dimension. In particular, the contention of this study is that the limitations they both impose make it impossible to fully understand Tamang perceptions of their own cultural heritage or the background and nature of contemporary changes occurring within their religious traditions.

Are We Legend?
Reconsidering Clan in Tibet


Tibetan Studies is relatively familiar with the theme of clan. The so-called “Tibetan ancestral clans” regularly feature in works of Tibetan historiography, and have been the subject of several studies.  Dynastic records and genealogies, often labelled “clan histories,” have been examined, and attempts have been made to identify ancient Tibetan clan territories.  Various ethnographic and anthropological studies have also dealt both with the concept of clan membership amongst contemporary populations and a supposed Tibetan principle of descent, according to which the “bone”-substance (rus pa), the metonym for clan, is transmitted from father to progeny.

Can it be said, however, that we have a coherent picture of clan in Tibet, particularly from a historical perspective? The present article has two aims. Firstly, by probing the current state of our understanding, it draws attention to key unanswered questions pertaining to clans and descent, and attempts to sharpen the discussion surrounding them. Secondly, exploring new avenues of research, it considers the extent to which we may distinguish between idealised representation and social reality within relevant sections of traditional hagiographical literature.

The “worldly–other-worldly” division (Sanskrit: laukika–lokottara) is usually presented as a contrastive opposition of Indic origin, frequent reference to which occurs in various Buddhist textual traditions. In general terms, this binary division seeks to delineate the transmundane from the mundane. The frequency of reference to the division and the variety of situations in which it has been evoked convinces many that it represents more than a mobile motif, popular with Buddhist writers, and that it can be seen as a way that they, or the traditions they belonged to, understood or organised the world. Academic discussion of it may, therefore, touch upon abstract matters, related to questions of universality. The emic nature and contents of the division are often stressed, especially by those keen on exploring parallels with binary divisions suggested elsewhere. This study considers aspects of this and related dichotomies. It questions some of the claims, assertions, and assumptions made with regard to them.

This is an interview with Tawni Tidwell, the first western graduate of a Tibetan medical training college. We discuss her unique background, aspects of her traditional training, the changing nature of Tibetan medical practice, issues related to the revival and restoration of certain parts of tradition, and the controversies surrounding the use of traditional ingredients, such as mercury.