From the “Good Tradition” to Religion on Some Basic Aspects of Religious Conversion in Early Medieval Tibet and the Comparative Central Eurasian Context

Abstract

What Western academic literature described as ethnic or cultural Tibet in fact implies something composite and processually constructed: Tibet then often appears as a typical example for explanations of collective identity (and ethnicity). Such approaches increasingly are applied in present-day anthropology and historical studies, highlighting the historical conditions and the politically, socially and ideationally constructed features of identity. In Tibet, identity-building was strongly related to the spread of Buddhism. The new religion was introduced in the time of the Tibetan Empire (seventh to ninth century), but it was only its later spread (from the eleventh century) that led to the effective, all-embracing establishment of Buddhism in the Highlands. It was interlinked with regionally different forms of political manifestations—the founding of Buddhist kingdoms at the periphery and the emergence of monastic hegemonies in the central regions. These developments correlated with processes of conversion, which in its narrative model is described as an act of conquest, taming and civilizing the physical universe and which in theory actually never ends. Apart from considering current anthropological discussions of the phenomenon of religious conversion, this paper will include a comparative view of the history of Christianization in early medieval Europe (especially in Western Europe—the Frankish kingdom and the barbarian zones North of the Rhine and the Danube, fifth to tenth century). Inter alia this also raises questions about the initial social forces and interests promoting the new religion's adoption, and to what extent formal similarities with the Tibetan case are ascertainable in Europe.

Keywords:

• Tibet
• Empire
• Buddhism
• Religious Conversion

Notes

[1] As to the delimitation of Central Eurasia, here I follow Beckwith (2009, xix), which regarding the period of the Early Middle Ages includes most of Europe and to the East extended as far as to the Pacific (incl. Korea and Japan).

[2] This is a very simplified description and the precise reason or circumstances for this first introduction of the new religion in the seventh century (but also the question of the extent of Buddhist influence at that time, such as on law, written in 655) is not so clear. According to the representation in the later Buddhist historiography, the “idea” of bringing Buddhism to the Snowland (Tibet) did not come from the tsenpo and his circle, but from outside; it arrived there via Tibet's matrimonial relations with the Buddhist ruling houses of Nepal and Tang China, in the form of prestige statues brought as a dowry for which the “barbarian king” promised to erect temples. Corresponding to this form of introduction quasi initiated from the outside is the story of the mythical first encounter, which tells of the arrival of Buddhism in the form of holy objects (images, texts) that fell from heaven onto the roof of a Tibetan prince's palace. The reign of this prince is to be dated somewhere in the fifth century AD, and the account may indeed reflect historical events of the first contact with the Indian religion at that time (Sørensen and Hazod 2005, 45). At a later point, the Tibetans also had encounters with other world religions, where it is interesting that a document from the Nestorian church (dated to the 790s) lists Tibet among the desired candidates to adopt the faith; and in 715 the Tibetan court had reportedly contacted an Arab governor to send a teacher of Islam. Manichaeism apparently was less attractive, since its prophet is depicted as liar in a Tibetan document of the late eighth century (see van Schaik 2011, 31). This altogether gives the impression of an all-round interest in providing the empire, or its leadership, with an international religion.

[3] An exception is the Islamized comitatus, an adaptation by the Arabs of Central Asia (Turks and Sogdians), which in various regional milieus survived far beyond the Early Middle Ages (Beckwith 2009, 23f.; fn. 107). In several areas the comitatus is only traceable in myths (as in the Roman, Indian or Greek contexts). And it is in many ways echoed in later folk traditions, customs and lores, such as those related to the “Wilde Hunt”/“Wild Hosts” topos (cf. Keshaw 2000).

[4] Thus, for example, historians have difficulty seeing Tacitus' comitatus as an institution valid for the Germanic regions of late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages—due to the rather pluralistic regional histories and cultural realities (the latter also dependent on the factor of relative proximity of Germanic groups to Rome). Pohl (2004, 69f.), and the references given there. And also Beckwith' statement that the true comitatus is unknown among non-Central-Eurasian peoples I think needs to be further examined.

[5] See Walter (2009, 18–36), the first to discuss some of the key CECC elements in the Tibetan context in greater detail.

[6] That is, the oath of loyalty (lobanye; lit.: “near to [the lord's] side”). See also Walter (2009, 63–66, 204).

[7] The clan (or “Sippe”) organization among Germanic groups, for example, was clearly a formative moment of the alliance system (cf. Pohl 2004, 72).

[8] It shows some formal parallels with the “Centre of the World surrounded by Enemies/Barbarian/Wild Nations”—constructions in the early European contexts (cf., e.g. Halsall 2007, 35f.). However, in the present example the enemies were not considered “barbarians”. (Historically it relates to rebellious groups in the core regions of Bö subjugated during the time of this emperor, or to neighbouring powers, who opposed Tibet's claim to be included in the Silk Road economy, or who had as it were blocked the way to the markets (such as Shangshung in the W, or the Tuyuhun in the NE, who were defeated during the reign of Songtsen Gampo).) In Tibetan, the “four borders”/“four directions” phrasing (tashi/chogshi) is often synonymous for “all” or “everywhere”; in other contexts it more closely marked a territorial unit (as in Yarmo Naschi; similar to the phrasing of goshi/deshi; “four doors”/“four divisions”), long before the use of the Indian mandala concept; see below. For the chogshi and the Tibetan (pre-Buddhist) “Lord of the Four Quarters” principle, see Walter (2009, 47).

[9] For “barbarian” and its often unquestioned use in history books, see the impressive albeit somewhat overstated critique in the epilogue to Beckwith (2009, 320–362). As to polytheism, the term is inapplicable to describe the pre- (or non-) Buddhist religious situations in Tibet (and nor is it used by the research), because it does not give any dissociation of Tibetan Buddhism. (The rejection of the faith in the old gods as programmatically demanded in the Abrahamic (monotheistic) religions as an absolute prerequisite for conversion and the attainment of salvation (cf. e.g. Matthew 18.3) has no comparable counterpart in Tibetan Buddhism, inasmuch as the old gods were integrated into the new system—as converted beings in a new clothes and classification.)

[10] Bloch (2008). The approach is based on the simple observation that namely the same certain social terms appear in the divine realm as well as in the social reality (e.g. the names of worshipped ancestors and the names of socially respected elders; Bloch 2008, 2057). This is again to be seen against the background of the much observed classification of the physical world, where gods and men, heaven and earth, etc. appear to be transcended into an indivisible unit—basically the mythically imagined oneness of the realms of death and the living, which makes a strict separation into religious and social spheres etc. improper.

[11] This is not least expressed by the fact that besides Indian, Chinese or Khotanese “traditions” (lug), the temples' layout and inventory are described as originally also having included elements of the pre-Buddhist tradition, in this context specified as drung, the ancient lores circulated by the traditional storytellers.

[12] At the same time there were also Buddhist scholars from Tang China at the court, and the emperor's decision to follow the “Indian way” was preceded by debates about the different (Mahayanist) approaches of how enlightenment, the insight of “emptiness”, was to be realized (Wangdu and Diemberger 2000, 79f.; van Schaik 2011, 37–40).

[13] This refers to the series of bloody wars during his term, with the defeat of Tang China and the temporary occupation of the Chinese capital (in AD 763) as its culmination.

[14] That is, the period when Buddhism began to seriously decline in India.

[15] Sørensen and Hazod (2007). While in many ways there are parallels between the medieval monastery in Tibet and Europe (in terms of scholarship, training, science, demesne, etc.), there appears to be no closer formal comparability in respect to this specific ritual function of the Tibetan cloister and shrine.

[16] Muslims (mainly merchants) had settled in Lhasa since the fourteenth century, and they had had a mosque there, situated not far from the national temple in Lhasa, since the eighteenth century.

[17] For the historical circumstances and immediate consequences of Clovis' baptism (reportedly followed by the voluntary conversion of 3000 of his warrior companions), see Padberg (2004, 47–57); for the “CECC elements” in the Frank's political (and religious) history in the Early Middle Ages, see Beckwith (2009, 101, 135f., 143–149).