Organizer and Chair: Matthew Kapstein, Columbia University
Discussant: Morris Rossabi, City University of New York
Since 1978 the People's Republic of China has tolerated increasing expressions of cultural identity among minority nationalities. Tibetans in the Tibet Autonomous Region, Sichuan, Qinghai Yunnan and Gansu have taken advantage of the liberalization of cultural policy to reassert the distinctiveness of their Tibetan identity in many different areas: language and literature, music and theater, the arts and crafts. Tibetan cultural identity, however, is profoundly interwoven with Tibetan religious identity, so that this has entailed a far-reaching religious revival.
The reinstitution of traditional religious practices, the re establishment of temples and monasteries, and in some cases the establishment of new ones, the re emergence of monasticism, in some districts on a very large scale, all have significant economic, political and cultural dimensions. Questions of ethnicity, regional and sectarian identity, cultural autonomy and the patronage of cultural institutions are raised prominently in this context.
The present panel addresses some of the key issues that are at stake here from an interdisciplinary perspective, bringing together recent research in anthropology and religion conducted in three of the regions and provinces (T.A.R., Sichuan, Qinghai) in which there are substantial Tibetan populations. Above and beyond the particular interest the papers to be presented will hold for Tibetanists, the topics considered address topics of concern to the broader community of scholars studying ethnicity and religion in China, contemporary Inner Asian affairs, and the Himalayan communities of South Asia.
Melvyn Goldstein, Case Western Reserve University
Discussions about contemporary Tibet frequently focus on the state of core cultural institutions such as religion. This paper examines this issue using data collected by the author during fieldwork in the Tibet Autonomous Region in two diverse areas, one a nomadic community in western Tibet and the other one of Tibet's most famous monasteries-Drepung (in Lhasa). The nature of religious activities is examined with regard to both practice and economics. The current situation is contextualized diachronically through examining briefly the history of religion in these areas since 1951 when the 17 Point Agreement was signed and China began to exercise sovereignty over Tibet.
David Germano, The University of Virginia, Charlottesville
This presentation will focus on the marked revival of the Nyingma scholastic, contemplative and monastic traditions of Tibetan Buddhism over the past two decades in Tibetan cultural areas currently under P.R.C. rule, its significance for changing notions of ethnic identity, and the continuing obstacles it faces. This will be based on experiences in Central Tibet and Khams (Sichuan) while staying in communities in those regions during fieldwork in 1990-92. The particular focus will be the large religious institute that has developed in Golok Serta around the charismatic Buddhist teacher known as Khanpo Jikphun (mkhan po 'jigs med phun tshogs), though information gathered on other important religious centers, and anecdotes concerning some important contemporary religious figures involved in the Nyingma revival, will also be presented.
Larry Epstein, The University of Washington, Seattle
Villagers in the vicinity of Reb skong, Amdo (eastern Qinghai), claim to have celebrated the same week long folk ritual known as Klu rol among other names, for more than 1100 years. The ritual consists of a series of dances, sacrifices, propitiations of local mountain deities, and rites that celebrate long life and fertility. Despite the presence of a large and famous monastery, Rong dgon, monks are not allowed to attend, and the ritual is organized and performed exclusively by laymen and shamans. Rituals such as these appear to be of ancient provenance in Tibetan life and in the lives of other "minority nationalities" in China. Comparison with the latter reveals that despite the presence of similar ritual forms and structures, the Tibetans of Reb skong interpret their meaning in a very different way, primarily having to do with local military conquest and history. Although performance of this and many other rituals was banned during and following the Cultural Revolution, it has been revived with renewed vigor since the early part of the last decade. Further, examination of ritual structures and conversations with participants in them unveil, within the contemporary context, new structures of meaning within the ritual process representing not only static concerns with local Tibetan history, but newer ones, such as ethnic identity and generational conflict as well.
Matthew Kapstein, Columbia University
Besides the many mensual and annual rituals and festivals of Tibetan Buddhism, there are a number of important duodecennial pilgrimages, held at major sacred sites throughout Tibet. Because of the relative infrequency of these observances, they were especially vulnerable to their interruption after 1959, and their revival, in those cases where it has occurred, has accordingly been greeted by Tibetans as a palpable indication of the revitalization of their culture. A notable case in point is the Drigung Phowa Chenmo ('bri gung 'pho ba chen mo, "the great Drigung [teaching of] transference of consciousness [into a Pure Land following this lifetime])," whose reinstitution in 1992 after a hiatus of 36 years was celebrated by approximately 10,000 participants from Central Tibet, but some coming from far distant districts in Qinghai and Sichuan with traditional sectarian affiliations to Drigung Monastery.
The Drigung Phowa Chenmo exemplifies the great significance of religious pilgrimage in the traditional Tibetan world, embodying at once conceptions of sacred time and space, and a rich system of symbols, that are constitutive of the beliefs, values and orientations of the Tibetan religious universe. Thus, the re establishment of this pilgrimage was felt by many to be an important expression of Tibetan cultural autonomy. The question we will examine, therefore, is the manner in which the 1992 performance was both continuous with and divergent from the tradition as it existed until 1956.
Would you like to return to the China & Inner Asia Table of Contents? Choose another area?