“clericalization” of retreat practice
III.1.2. Religious tolerance and power structures at sDe dge
Prior to the 19th century, sDe dge had maintained its autonomous status for a thousand years. It was governed by a complex network of power, presided over by the king (rgyal po), his ministers and prominent members of the clergy. However, it was by no means a rigid structure or a centralized system. The king was in charge of an intricate hierarchy of thirty hereditary chieftains (sde pa) who headed twenty-five districts and were practically semi-independent as administrators.121 Lower in rank were minor officials and leaders of local communities. All of these secular power holders, including the monarch, sought to establish their ties with influential monasteries in order to support their authority on different levels.122
The ruling House of sDe dge (sde dge tshang) had accepted the Sa skya school as their official religious affiliation already in the 13th century.123 However, in the 19th century, the kingdom became a stage for a broad intersectarian dialogue, in which prominent teachers of the Sa skya school played an important role.
The development of the non-sectarian tendency might have been motivated by the dramatic tensions and warfare that resulted from religious sectarianism. In 1798, sDe dge became the center of dissension that was rooted in religious prejudice. That very year, as a consequence of the royal patronage of the rNying ma pa school, a civil war broke out in the kingdom, which resulted in suppression of that school by the dominant Sa skya adherents.124 1848 was the year that saw another strife between a dGe lugs pa monastery in Ba thang and a Karma bKa’ brgyud pa institution affiliated with the great sDe dge monastery of dPal spungs; as a result, a high lama was slain.125
In 1862, a major conflict that spread throughout Khams, struck sDe dge, heavily affecting the local balance of power. It had begun when one of the rulers of Nyag rong, a territory
120 Coales 1919, Giersch 2010 and Relyea 2010: 60 and 81.
121 Yudru Tsomu 2006: 37. For a detailed discussion of sDe dge, especially in the context of the 19th-century tendencies for political, religious and intellectual unity, see Hartley 1997.
122 Hartley 1997: 87-89.
123 Hartley 1997: 7-8.
124 E. G. Smith 1970: 24.
125 E. G. Smith 1970: 248.
neighboring sDe dge in the south-west, mGon po rnam rgyal (?-1865) developed the ambition to bring the whole of Eastern Tibet under his command.126 The chieftains of sDe dge sought to appeal for aid to both Lha sa and Beijing, but since the Manchus were not able to take immediate action, the dGa’ ldan pho brang regime seized the opportunity to increase their influence in Khams. Hence, in 1865 Lha sa provided an army, which ultimately defeated the Nyag rong forces and ended the war.127
In the wake of the hostilities, the dGe lugs pa augmented their authority in sDe dge. Two dGe lugs pa monasteries insisted that one of the most famous and politically influential bKa’
brgyud pa monasteries of dPal spungs in sDe dge be destroyed and de facto “converted” into a dGe lugs pa institution.128 Several rNying ma pa-associated institutions and individuals were persecuted on the suspicion of conspiring with mGon po rnam rgyal.129
Furthermore, a certain “scholastic conquest” also occurred, as philosophical views approved by the dGe lugs pa were spread in the role of the only acceptable doctrine. Equally problematic was that the specific teaching, studying and debating techniques employed in the monastic colleges of the dGe lugs pa were used to create sectarian dissent, adding to what Smith calls “an intellectual petrification.”130
As the dGe lugs pa influence in sDe dge and in the whole of Khams increased, the desire for intellectual and religious liberty became more pronounced. In fact, the kingdom had already developed an inclination towards tolerance, dating from the 18th-century sectarian conflict involving the sDe dge court. At that time, the regent queen was imprisoned and exiled due to her sympathies for the renowned rNying ma pa master ’Jigs med gling pa (1729-1798) by the dominant Ngor pa sect. In the aftermath of the conflict, the queen’s son and successor to the sDe dge throne, Tshe dbang rdo rje rig ’dzin (1786- ?) later composed what Smith refers to as “the first document of the nonsectarian movement.”131 The famous sDe dge’i rgyal rabs reaffirmed that the guiding principle in the relationship between royalty and clergy in the realm should be built on the acceptance of and support for all schools.132 Thus, the practice of patronage of the dBu bla khag lnga (“Five Chaplains”) was initiated. Later, in the
126 See Tashi Tsering 1985: 198-214.
127 For a detailed study of the mechanisms which led to the Nyag rong contest as well as its consequences see Yudru Tsomu 2006.
128 E. G. Smith 2001: 250.
129 Petech 1973: 121 in Hartley 1997: 15.
130 E. G. Smith 2001: 246.
131 E. G. Smith 2001: 25-26.
132 E. G. Smith 2001.
19th century, the House of sDe dge also developed a unique association with the main Sa skya monastery of Lhun grub steng.
The five institutions were the rNying ma monasteries of Kaḥ thog, rDzogs chen, Zhe chen and dPal yul; the Karma bKa’ brgyud pa school was represented by dPal spungs.133 I believe it was no coincidence that, considering their equal status and cooperation in serving the king, they later evolved into important strongholds of the non-sectarian Ris med group. The mutual bond between the royal house, the Five Chaplains, and additionally Lhun grub steng, was expressed through patronage, bestowing of titles, as well as appointing reincarnations on the side of the ruler; while ritual service, administrative support and counseling belonged to the duties of the clergy.
The customary tolerance at the sDe dge court received an additional boost as the main masters of the non-sectarian Ris med movement became the consecutive official court preceptors (dbu bla) to the royal family. ’Jam dbyang mKhyen brtse dbang po, Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas, gTer chen mChog gyur gling pa as well as Mi pham rGya mtsho all exercised this function, which allowed them to receive royal support for the expansion of their activities, but also to reinforce the non-sectarian trend at the sDe dge court.134
As far as the nature of their reciprocal relationship is concerned, the link between secular authority and religious power in sDe dge was unlike the structures known from Central Tibet.
The specific configuration of power in sDe dge allowed for religious pluralism and was exercised by a many-leveled formation, connecting the king, chieftains, lower-ranking officials and monastic authorities. The nature of these links and agreements was constantly changing; this created a configuration of a more ambiguous and less centralized nature than the one observable in Central Tibet.
Decentralization in sDe dge was constantly progressing, given that the alliances with the dGa’ ldan pho brang or the Manchu administration undermined the position of the ruler and compromised the autonomy of the kingdom. What is more, the chieftains, that is lower-ranking representatives of the sDe dge government, were also seeking to reinforce their status on a local level by way of sponsoring religious institutions and influencing reincarnation structures, arranging for the sprul sku to appear in noble families.135 These factors intensified
133 Hartley 1997: 57-60.
134 Hartley 1997: 43. On Kong sprul’s relationship with the House of sDe dge see Kong sprul, et al. 2003: 81-83, 114, 145 and elsewhere in that text.
135 Hartley 1997: 87-90.
the fragmentation of power, therefore it became increasingly important to maintain coherence with the help of domestic coalitions, be they lay or religious in nature.
The above dynamics paved the way for the Five Chaplains and the Lhun grub steng monastery to exercise real power in the sDe dge area. However, since they represented three different Tibetan Buddhist schools, they helped pave the way for the rise of the great non-sectarian revival movement known as the Ris med.
III.2. “The challenge of spreading the teachings in an unbiased manner” – on Ris med as a movement
136I shall now examine the primary players of the Ris med movement, their philosophy, ritual performance and respective agendas. Their agencies will have to be considered within the framework of specific political and socio-economic conditions.
Although Ris med can hardly be considered a monolithic cultural phenomenon, as it is the case with some presentations of the movement,137 the people associated with the group did cooperate and share specific views, while “favoring a generalized common goal” of philosophical and practical unification, restoration and reform.138 What is more, the social implications of the movement are emphasized in various sources.139
Certain texts attempt to deconstruct the Ris med non-sectarianism or question whether Ris med constituted a movement. 140 Nonetheless, my aim for the current chapter is to present the actions of a group bound by a common agenda of religious restoration in the spirit of non-sectarian cooperation. Moreover, their most interesting feature from the perspective of this work is that the members of this movement augmented their influence largely through constructing hermitages, rather than monasteries.