Buddhism and Politics in the
Tibetan Cultural Area
Dagmar Schwerk

Which major forms of Buddhist governance have developed overtime in the Tibetan cultural area since the introduction of Buddhism
in the 7th century in Tibet?1 How have distinctions and differentiations between the societal spheres of religion and politics manifested
themselves?2 Finally, which general Buddhist conceptions may beconsidered essential in the different forms of governance? This article
provides a chronological overview of the major forms of Buddhist
governments in the Tibetan cultural area while also touching on
various underlying conceptions of Buddhist governance relevant to
the process of conceptual distinction and social differentiation.3
1

2

3

As the Tibetan cultural area is considered to comprise regions that have significant populations either speaking the Tibetan language and its vernaculars or practising Tibetan Buddhism as their religion. This at times roughly included Northern Pakistan, parts of Central Asia, Mongolia, the Tibetan Autonomous Region,
parts of the Western Chinese provinces of Yunnan, Sichuan, Qinghai and Gansu,
Bhutan, parts of the Indian Himalayas, such as Ladakh and Sikkim, and parts of
Nepal, such as Mustang and Dölpo; see also Matthew T. Kapstein, The Tibetans(Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 1–2.
In accordance with the ‘multiple secularities’ approach, I understand the term
‘secularity’ as an analytical term and a heuristic concept that serves as a “modalityof making distinctions [and differentiations]”; see Christoph Kleine and Monika
Wohlrab-Sahr, “Research Programme of the HCAS ‘Multiple Secularities – Beyond
the West, Beyond Modernities’,” Working Paper Series of the HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities” 1 (Leipzig University, 2016), 8.
Distinction (conceptual) and differentiation (institutional) between societal spheresat a given point in time – in this overview, between the religious and the political –are also understood in a non-evaluating sense.
The historical overview is based mainly on Kapstein, The Tibetans, and Sam van
Schaik, Tibet: A History (London: Yale University Press, 2011). In addition, thedates for historical events in Tibet follow the chronological overview in Kurtis
Schaeffer and Gray Tuttle, eds., The Tibetan History Reader (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), xv–xxiii. For Bhutan, see Karma Phuntsho, History of
Bhutan (Noida: Random House, India, 2013); for Sikkim, respectively, see John A.
Ardussi, “Formation of the State of Bhutan (’Brug gzhung) in the 17th Century andits Tibetan Antecedents,” Journal of Bhutan Studies 11, no. 2 (2004).
Leipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2019www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

1Companion to the Study of Secularity – Dagmar Schwerk: Buddhism and Politics in the Tibetan Cultural Area

Tibetan Empire andthe ‘Dharma Kings’

Tibet turned into a significant political player in Central Asia andChina after the unification of Central Tibet in the 7th century and thefollowing expansion of the Tibetan Empire until the 9th century under the rule of the three so-called “Dharma Kings”, “Buddhist Kings”(Tibetan: chos rgyal; Sanskrit: dharmarāja). In later Tibetan Buddhist
sources, the three Dharma Kings of the Tibetan Empire were considered emanations of three great Buddhist Bodhisattvas: (1) Songtsen
Gampo (d. 650) represented Avalokiteśvara, (2) Trisong Detsen(d. 797) appeared as Mañjuśrī, (3) and Tri Ttsugdetsen/Relpachen(d. 838) embodied Vajrapāṇi.
Furthermore, the reign of these kings was interpreted as the idealof just Buddhist rule and political ethos, which followed earlier Indianconceptions of Buddhist kingship, societal order and cosmology, alongwith associated codes of ethical conduct. The ‘Buddhanised’ historiographical depiction of the rule of the three Dharma Kings and theirroyal cult became the point of reference for later rulers throughout Tibet’s history. For instance, a symbolic, or, even better, actual descentfrom these kings’ imperial court members or reincarnation of former
important religious figures, remained crucial for legitimisation of rule.
More specifically, the three Dharma Kings were from the Tibetan
Yarlung dynasty that dated back to the 2nd century BCE starting withthe first mythological king Nyatri Tsenpo. These kings were said tohave been connected by a ‘dæmon cord’ to heaven and, as a result,left no physical body behind when they died. However, this ‘dæmon
cord’ was cut with the 8th King Drigum Tsenpo. This dynasty had its
geographic origin in the Yarlung valley in Southern Tibet, and its
kings were considered to hold special power over the sacred landscape of Tibet and the spirits and deities said to be living in it.4 Thisparticularly applied to the spirits and deities of the mountains whichwere mainly connected to the control of waters.5 Therefore, during
4

5

2

For the online database of an ongoing interdisciplinary research project (Austrian
Science Fund, FWF) that also deals with the grave sites of the Yarlung dynasty,
see Guntram Hazod, “The Burial Mounds of Central Tibet: A Historical-anthropological Study and Documentation of the Tumulus Tradition of Early Central
Tibet (4th–10th century CE),” accessed August 27, 2019, https://www.oeaw.ac.at/
tibetantumulustradition/home/.
Various myths as to the origin of the Yarlung dynasty circulated that either attributed to it a divine or worldly descent, such as stemming from the Indian Śākya
clan, the clan to which the historical Buddha Siddhārtha Gautama had belonged.

Leipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2019www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

Companion to the Study of Secularity – Dagmar Schwerk: Buddhism and Politics in the Tibetan Cultural Area

the subsequent institutionalisation of Buddhism, the earlier Indian
Buddhist (partially even non-Buddhist) ideas of sacred kingship met
and merged with indigenous conceptions of sacral kingship and thecosmological and societal order.
In fact, the introduction of Buddhism in Tibet was a more gradualprocess than is usually depicted in Buddhist historiography – for example, with successes from pro-Buddhist factions of priests and setbacks from anti-Buddhist factions in charge of pre-Buddhist religious rites at the imperial court in Lhasa, called ‘Bön’ in several early
Tibetan sources.6 While the first Dharma King Songtsen Gampo’s stancetowards Buddhism appears to have been somewhat ambivalent, as atleast his funeral rites clearly followed the earlier pre-Buddhist traditionof Bön priests customary at the imperial court, the second Dharma King
Trisong Detsen began to institutionalise Buddhism more systematicallyafter his conversion in 762. His edict, which is found on a stele in front ofTibet’s first Buddhist monastery, Samye, states that Buddhism should be
followed at all times by the people of Tibet. Future kings, their sons, andthe ministers at the imperial court were supposed to swear an oath tofollow Buddhism, and the Buddhist institutions in Tibet should receive
all necessary material support – an important moment in the religious
history of the Tibetan cultural area.7
Subsequently, Indian Buddhist masters such as Śāntarakṣita as
well as the ‘Second Buddha’ Padmasambhava/Guru Rinpoche fromOḍḍiyāna, the founding figure of the first of four major schools ofTibetan Buddhism, the Nyingma (‘old’ school), were invited to theimperial court. Besides using the newly developed Tibetan script
6

7

Introduction andinstitutionalisation of
Buddhism in Tibet:‘Earlier dissemination’of Buddhism

This article is not concerned with other pre-Buddhist religious traditions in Tibet. However, it is noteworthy that the development of ‘Bön’ as a specific religious
tradition in its later institutionalised form with its pre-Buddhist roots should not
be equated with the sum of earlier pre-Buddhist Tibetan belief systems per se.
Pre-Buddhist belief systems in Tibet constitute a complex field of study in their own
right – not least due to the lack of early textual evidence and reliance on archaeological artefacts, and the problem of applying the terminology of ‘religion’. For an overview of various terminologies for ‘doctrine’, ‘practice system’, and ‘identification of
belonging’ to the religious group of Bön specifically, see Ulrike Roesler, “Die Lehre,
der Weg und die namenlose Religion: Mögliche Äquivalente eines Religionsbegriffs
in der tibetischen Kultur,” in Religion in Asien? Studien zur Anwendbarkeit des Religionsbegriffs, ed. Peter Schalk (Uppsala: Uppsala University, 2013).
For the translation of the edict, see Kurtis Schaeffer, Matthew T. Kapstein, andGray Tuttle, eds., Sources of Tibetan Tradition (New York: Columbia University
Press, 2013), 60–64.
Leipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2019www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

3

Companion to the Study of Secularity – Dagmar Schwerk: Buddhism and Politics in the Tibetan Cultural Area

‘Samye debate’

4

for the administration of the vast empire, religious literature fromdifferent Buddhist languages was now translated into Tibetan on a
massive scale. In the following century, translation processes andterminologies were standardised, religious scriptures disseminated,and monastic institutions established. The reign of the three Dharma Kings is traditionally associated with the ‘earlier dissemination’of Buddhism from India to Tibet and the beginnings of the Nyingma
school, which was then institutionalised as a separate tradition fromthe 11th century onwards. It identifies its origins and transmissions ofTantric teachings and lineages largely with this earlier period.
Another crucial moment in religious history took place when, in
reaction to strife over various forms and interpretations of Buddhism
that were taught in Tibet at that time, the ‘Samye debate’ was calledby Trisong Detsen. The debate had the purpose of clarifying, once
and for all, what interpretation of the Buddhist doctrine should be
followed in Tibet. Details of this debate are reported differently inthe much later Tibetan writings from the 11th century onwards, andeven the historicity of the debate itself has been called into question.
Nevertheless, the longstanding impact of the narrative of the ‘Samyedebate’ (792–94) is amply demonstrated in later Tibetan Buddhist
historiographical, doxographical, polemic, and doctrinal writing,and it was decisive for the form of Buddhism that took shape in thefollowing centuries in Tibet.
In brief, later Tibetan historiographical accounts report that the
Indian Buddhist scholar and disciple of Śāntarakṣita, Kamalaśīla,who promoted a gradual path towards enlightenment, defeated theChinese Chan meditation master Heshang Moheyan, who was the
proponent of a ‘sudden’ or ‘instantaneous’ approach towards enlightenment. Therefore, Indian as opposed to Chinese Buddhism officially served as the authoritative source for Buddhism in Tibet from thenonwards. In the later polemic exchanges between Tibetan Buddhist
schools that lasted many centuries, accusing the opponent of following Heshang Moheyan’s tradition of ‘Chinese Buddhism’ became acommon trope. The definition of what exactly was meant by thiswould differ from one Buddhist master to another and often lacked
credible historicity. When the Tibetan schools were closely associated with different local hegemonies later in history, these polemics
also entered into the political arena.

Leipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2019www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

Companion to the Study of Secularity – Dagmar Schwerk: Buddhism and Politics in the Tibetan Cultural Area

With the disintegration of the Tibetan Empire from the mid-9th
century onwards, institutional support of Buddhism came to a haltwith King Langdarma’s rule (d. 842). However, local Buddhist practices in monastic communities and by Tantric practitioners alike persisted, and the male monastic lineage was kept intact in the Amdo
region of Eastern Tibet. In sum, Tibetan historiographical sourcesrefer to this period without functioning Buddhist institutions or
royal patronage as the ‘age of fragmentation’.
Renewed institutional support of Buddhism only took place fromthe middle of the 10th century onwards during the ‘later dissemination’ of Buddhism from India to Tibet. Buddhism was systematicallyreformed and promoted in Western Tibet in the Kingdom of Guge
Puhrang with Buddhist monk rulers, such as Yeshe Ö (c. 959–c. 1036)
and his successors. These rulers were deeply devoted to Buddhism butat the same time followed a solid agenda of ‘purifying’ the Buddhist
doctrine and practices from any heresy, in particular, Tantric hereticalaspects which, from their perspective, had been mushrooming in Tibet
since the fall of the Tibetan Empire.
The Buddhist monk rulers’ activities included the massive sponsorship of translation projects from Sanskrit to Tibetan that were executedin teams comprising an Indian scholar and a Tibetan translator. Indian
Buddhist masters, such as the famous Atiśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna, wereinvited to transmit the ‘authentic Indian Buddhist’ teachings and tantric cycles to Tibetan Buddhist masters and accordingly start Tibetan
Buddhist lineages which later led to the formation of the different new
Tibetan Buddhist schools. These Indian and Tibetan Buddhist masters
also composed numerous new works, such as commentaries, to contribute to the fast-growing Tibetan Buddhist literature and exegesis of
Buddhist doctrines in Tibet. In summary, they influenced how Indian
Buddhism was received and transformed in this period in Tibet andthereby had a lasting impact on Tibet’s intellectual history. However,Tibetan Buddhist masters also travelled extensively back and forth
to India, where Buddhism was in decline, to receive Buddhist scriptures and transmissions. Royal patronage also enabled the building oftemples and the establishment of monastic institutions in Tibet.
Moreover, disciples of Atiśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna founded a
Tibetan Buddhist school, the Kadampa, which later merged with theother ‘new’ Tibetan Buddhist schools. As Tibetan Buddhism spread‘Age of fragmentation’‘Later dissemination’of Buddhism and royal
patronage

Leipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2019www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

5Companion to the Study of Secularity – Dagmar Schwerk: Buddhism and Politics in the Tibetan Cultural Area

Tangut Kingdom andLama Zhang Tselpa

Intermission: Emic
conceptions of religion
and politics

later on, three ‘new’ schools – the Kagyü, Sakya and Geluk – were
founded which branched out in many different sub-schools over thefollowing centuries.8
Along the silk road, the Tanguts, an ethnic group from
North-Western China, had built a significant multi-ethnic kingdom.
They had not come under the rule of the Tibetan Empire, and after
the fall of the Tibetan Empire, they moved southwards. Subsequently,
charismatic Tibetan Buddhist masters, in particular those fromthe Sakya and Kagyü school, were able to obtain their royal patronage. The Tangut rulers awarded these Tibetan Buddhist masters thetitle of “imperial/state preceptor” (Tibetan: ti shrī; Chinese: dìshī 帝師) and in return, were recognised as Buddhist “Universal Ruler”(Tibetan: ’khor los sgyur ba’i rgyal po; Sanskrit: cakravartin). The Tangut
Kingdom of Xixia lasted for just two centuries (1038–1227) until thearrival of the Mongols, but their form of religious patronage persistently influenced later Mongolian rulers. In summary, in the formation of Buddhist governments in the Tibetan cultural area, particularly
charismatic Tantric Buddhist masters and their relations often playeda significant role. A further example of the relevance of personal
charisma among Buddhist Tantric masters is Lama Zhang Tselpa(1123–94), who was briefly able to rule over territories in Central Tibet
by exercising military and political power.9
Incidentally, a brief reflection on Tibetan emic conceptions that
address the societal spheres of religion and politics in the Tibetan
cultural area seems crucial. Pre-modern textual sources, such as legal
codes, religious histories, and advisory literature for Buddhist rulers
896

A ‘Tibetan Buddhist school or tradition’ is considered a relatively demarcatedtradition that transmits specific texts and meditations practices through specific
Buddhist lineage masters following Indian Mahāyāna and Tantric Buddhism andpossesses an exegetical and commentarial tradition resulting in a specific textual
corpus and standardised canon as well as separate institutions with differing characteristics and rituals. Most of the Tibetan standard doxographic works follow adivision into four major Tibetan schools, the Nyingma, Kagyü, Sakya, and Geluk,
including their manifold sub-schools. However, there are alternative categorisations such as the ‘eight practice lineages’. In general, consideration should be given
to the somewhat contrived nature of such fixed categories when the reality is oneof more fluid religious practices, since Tibetan Buddhist masters often received(and still receive) transmissions from various schools and lineages.
See Schaik, Tibet: A History, 75–76; see also Karl Debreczeny, “Faith and Empire:
An Overview,” accessed August 14, 2019, http://asianart.com/articles/faith-empire/index.html.

Leipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2019www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

Companion to the Study of Secularity – Dagmar Schwerk: Buddhism and Politics in the Tibetan Cultural Area

explicitly addressed an emic distinction between “politics/mundane
affairs” (Tibetan: srid) and “religion/transcending the mundane”(Tibetan: chos).10 In these textual sources, ideal forms of distinction
and differentiation between the societal spheres of religion and politics, embedded in the cosmological order of Tantric Buddhism, were
formulated. These ideals included conceptions about a specific societal
order which was, for example, laid out in codes of conduct as a formof reciprocal contractual ethics. Accordingly, different forms of functional and structural differentiation were subsequently institutionalised in the respective Buddhist forms of governance in the Tibetan
cultural area over the centuries. These ultimately culminated in a formof government with a twofold religious and political structure under a
Buddhist master or king (Tibetan: chos srid zung ’brel/chos srid gnyis’brel/chos srid zung ’jug/chos srid gnyis ldan; hereafter: ‘Joint Twofold
System of Governance’).
Moreover, different modes of succession and legitimisation of
Buddhist rule in the Tibetan cultural area co-existed but also competed with each other. Besides abbatial, hereditary, and meritocratic
succession, incarnation of a former important religious lineage holder(Tibetan: sprul sku) was first officially introduced as a form of succession in the 13th century in the Kagyü school with the ‘Second Karmapa’
Karma Pakshi.
Then, an initial, more elaborate form of the explicitly twofold
governmental structure was institutionalised in 1264. Mongol-Sakya
rule was established between the Yuan emperor Khubilai Khan and a
Tibetan Buddhist master from the Sakya school, Chögyel Pakpa, who
was appointed as ‘imperial/state preceptor’. This Tibetan and Central
Asian form of division of responsibilities and power between rulers
and their Buddhist teachers – the lay “ruler-donor” (Tibetan: yon bdag)
and his religious “counsellor-donée” (Tibetan: mchod gnas) respectively – was referred to as a “preceptor-donor” relationship (Tibetan:
yon mchod/mchod yon).11 In the case of the Mongol-Sakya rule,authority was conferred by and shared with a foreign power, the Mon-

Modes of succession
and legitimisation of
Buddhist rule

Mongol-Sakya rule

10 Several early Tibetan sources going back to the Tibetan Empire, including Dunhuang sources, mention and discuss the conceptual dyad of religion (Tibetan:chos) and politics (Tibetan: srid). For textual references, see Ardussi, “Formationof the State of Bhutan,” 26, n. iii.
11 In the English translation of the Tibetan emic terms, I follow David Seyfort Ruegg.
For a detailed discussion of the respective emic conceptions and terminologies, andLeipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2019www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

7

Companion to the Study of Secularity – Dagmar Schwerk: Buddhism and Politics in the Tibetan Cultural Area

Local hegemonies

8

gols. Accordingly, Buddhist masters from the Sakya school took chargeof the administration of the religious and political affairs within Tibet. In general, the political reality was that these complex relations
often involved conflicting interests and were difficult to handle, andMongol-Sakya rule declined after just one century in 1354.
Two observations regarding boundaries between the societal spheresof religion and politics in the conceptualisation of the ‘preceptor-donor’
relationship seem noteworthy. First, this relationship did not merely
represent and demarcate the societal spheres of religion and politics respectively, since Tibetan Buddhist masters also exercised administrative,
political and military functions, albeit in varying degrees. Second, thehierarchy between both parties in the ‘preceptor-donor’ relationshipcould vary significantly depending on the personal, spiritual, political,
and socio-economic circumstances.
After the Mongol-Sakya rule, for about two hundred years fromthe middle of the 14th century onwards, local clan lineages successively
established rather short-lived hegemonies in Central Tibet. First, thePakmodrupa (1354–1435), a sub-branch of the Kagyü school under
the lead of Tai Situ Jangchup Gyeltsen, challenged and defeated thealready weakened Sakya hegemony. Accordingly, Jangchup Gyeltsen
received the title of “Chief Minister” (Tibetan: ta’i si tu; Chinese: dàsītú 大司徒) from the Mongols. Afterwards, the Rinpungpa gradually
seized power (1435–1565) followed by the Tsangpa (1565–1642).
These hegemonies shared common characteristics: first, descentfrom an influential family clan or religious lineage connected to the
Tibetan Empire and, second, a close relationship with and patronage of one (or more) of the ‘new’ Tibetan Buddhist schools that were
established during the ‘later dissemination’ of Buddhism to Tibet.
The Pakmodrupa were mainly associated with the Kagyü school,
but also supported the newly formed Geluk school, and in particular
the complex relationships between the spheres of religion and politics in the Tibetan
cultural area, see David Seyfort Ruegg, “The Preceptor-Donor (yon mchod) Relationin Thirteenth-Century Tibetan Society and Polity, Its Inner Asian Precursors andIndian Models,” in Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Graz, 1995, 2 vols., ed. Helmut Krasser, Michael
T. Much, and Ernst Steinkellner (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1997); and David Seyfort Ruegg, “Introductory Remarks on the Spiritualand Temporal Orders,” in The relationship between religion and state (chos srid zung’brel) in traditional Tibet: Proceedings of a seminar held in Lumbini, Nepal, March 2000,
ed. Christoph Cüppers (Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2004).

Leipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2019www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

Companion to the Study of Secularity – Dagmar Schwerk: Buddhism and Politics in the Tibetan Cultural Area

its founding figure, Tsongkapa. The Rinpungpa and Tsangpa were
supporters of the Kagyü tradition; nevertheless, the Rinpungpa also
supported the Jonang school.
Although the rulers of these hegemonies are usually not strictly
associated with the institutionalisation of the ‘Joint Twofold System
of Governance’, textual sources from that time, such as legal codes
and administrative documents, demonstrate that these Buddhist
concepts of rule, political ethos, and cosmological and societal orderwere important in their self-perception.
At the same time, sectarian strife and sharp polemics between thereligious masters of the Tibetan Buddhist schools intensified. However, these controversial and heated debates brought forth a glut ofwritings and served to refine philosophical-doctrinal positions thatstrictly differentiated the respective Tibetan Buddhist schools.
In the first half of the 17th century, three major Buddhist governments characterised by the ‘Joint Twofold System of Governance‘
were established in the Tibetan cultural area, although with a significant difference in their self-perception, institutionalisation, andrelationship with nearby governments.12
First, in 1625/26 Bhutan, which had not yet come under any central political authority, was united through the charismatic Tibetan
Buddhist master Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyel from a sub-branchof the Kagyü school, the Drukpa Kagyü. Under Zhabdrung’s authority, two branches in the government were institutionalised. A “regent”(Tibetan: ’brug sde srid) exercised political-administrative power
while the religious institutions were overseen by the “Chief Abbot”(Tibetan: ’brug rje mkhan po), the head of the Bhutanese Drukpa
Kagyü school.13
Second, in 1642, the Ganden Podrang Government of the fifth

Sectarian strife‘Joint Twofold System ofGovernance’ in Bhutan,
Tibet and Sikkim

12 Several Buddhist kingdoms in other parts of the Himalayan region, such as Mustang
and Ladakh, developed different arrangements between religion (Tibetan: chos) andpolitics (Tibetan: srid). The earlier Buddhist Gungtang Kingdom that lasted from the13th to the 17th century is also noteworthy in this respect; see, for example (in German), Dieter Schuh, “Srid ohne Chos? Reflektionen zum Verhältnis von Buddhismus
und säkularer Herrschaft im tibetischen Kulturraum,” Zentralasiatische Studien desSeminars für Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften Zentralasiens der Universität Bonn 33(2004); Per K. Sørensen and Guntram Hazod, Rulers on the Celestial Plain. Ecclesiastic
and Secular Hegemony in Medieval Tibet. A Study of Tshal Gung-thang (Vienna: Verlag
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007).
13 On the relationship between the societal spheres of religion and politics inLeipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2019www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

9Companion to the Study of Secularity – Dagmar Schwerk: Buddhism and Politics in the Tibetan Cultural Area

Derge Kingdom in
Eastern Tibet

10

Dalai Lama Ngawang Lopsang Gyatso, the ‘Great Fifth’, successfullyarose out of the political and military power struggle with the Tsang
rulers in Tibet with the support of the Koshut Mongols – becoming
the most prominent among the Buddhist governments in the Tibetan
cultural area. The Mongol Koshut prince Gushri Khan conferred religious and administrative authority on the Geluk school under the fifth
Dalai Lama together with a “regent” (Tibetan: sde srid). As a result,the system of lay ‘ruler-donor’ and his religious ‘counsellor-donée’
from the earlier Mongol-Sakya rule was renewed, and the power of
the Geluk school in Tibet from the 17th to 20th centuries was in varying degrees dependent on alliances and negotiations with the Mongol and later Manchu rulers. The title of “Dalai Lama” (Tibetan: ta la’i
bla ma; Mongolian: dalaiyin qan/dalaiin khan) was first awarded by
Altan Khan from the Tümed Mongols to the third Dalai Lama Sonam
Gyatso. The two predecessors in Sonam Gyatso’s religious lineage wereretrospectively acknowledged as the first two ‘Dalai Lamas’. In addition, the Dalai Lamas are considered emanations of the Bodhisattva
Avalokiteśvara.
Third, at the same time in 1642, the Namgyel dynasty with its
first ‘Dharma King’, the Chögyel Puntsok Namgyel, was establishedin Sikkim and affiliated with the Tibetan Buddhist Nyingma school.
After 1889, the Kingdom of Sikkim became a princely state of the
British Raj.
Far away from the influence of the Central Tibetan Ganden Podrang
Government, in Eastern Tibet, several smaller kingdoms competed over
local hegemony, most prominent among them the Derge Kingdom in
Kham that had already been in existence since the 13th century. Theirrulers were fervent patrons of Tibetan Buddhism, associated initiallywith the Sakya school, but, in general, religiously tolerant towards all
Tibetan Buddhist confessions. Their patronage contributed significantly
to a cultural and intellectual revival of Buddhism in Eastern Tibet.
It is particularly worth noting the 19th-century non-sectarian“Rime” (Tibetan: ris med) movement which had prominent masters
from the Sakya, Nyingma and Kagyü schools, such as Jamyang
pre-modern and modern Bhutan, see Dagmar Schwerk, “Drawing Lines in aMaṇḍala: A Sketch of Boundaries Between Religion and Politics in Bhutan,”
Working Paper Series of the HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond
Modernities” 12 (Leipzig University, 2019).

Leipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2019www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

Companion to the Study of Secularity – Dagmar Schwerk: Buddhism and Politics in the Tibetan Cultural Area

Khyentse Wangpo and Jamgön Kongtrul Lodrö Thayé. These Buddhist
masters desperately wanted to end the sectarian strife between the different Tibetan Buddhist confessions at that time and systematically set
out to collect, preserve, and transmit the vast quantity of scriptures of
the Tibetan Buddhist schools which partially were at risk of being lost.
From the three major Buddhist governments that institutionalised the ‘Joint Twofold System of Governance’ in the 17th century
in the Tibetan cultural area, Bhutan is the only one still in existence
today, but has been transformed. In 1907, an absolute hereditary
monarchy was established under the First King, Ugyen Wangchuck,with the result that the position of the ‘regent’ ceased to exist. The
next significant change in Bhutan occurred in 2008 when a constitutional monarchy was introduced under the Fifth King Jigme Khesar
Namgyel Wangchuck. At the same time, the ‘Joint Twofold System
of Governance’ was renewed in the Constitution of the Kingdom of
Bhutan represented by the King of Bhutan as head of state. With theoccupation of Tibet through the Chinese People’s Liberation Army
(PLA) from 1950 onwards and the flight of the current fourteenth
Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso (b. 1935) into Indian exile in 1959, thetraditional Ganden Podrang government in Tibet came to an abrupt
end.14 Sikkim, on the contrary, first kept its protectorate status within
the Republic of India after independence in 1947. However, the reignof the Chögyels of Sikkim ended as well in 1975 with the twelfth
Chögyel Pelden Tondup Namgyel when Sikkim was incorporated asa new state into the Indian Union through a referendum, and Buddhist kingship was abolished against his will.
In summary, since the gradual adaptation of Buddhism in Tibet
beginning in the 7th century, a kaleidoscopic variety of pre-modern
Buddhist forms of government have been institutionalised in the‘Joint Twofold System
of Governance’ in
Bhutan only

14 During the revision of the Charter of the Tibetans in Exile in 1991, heated discussions about the term “union of religion and politics” (Tibetan: chos srid zung ’brel)
took place with the result that it was kept in the revised version of the charter.
In general, members of the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) in exile, theTibetan exile communities and Tibetan intellectuals within China have debated
topics such as newly defining the ‘Joint Twofold System of Governance’ or theplace of religion in the public domain. For an overview of the different positionsin these discourses and the newly formed semantic fields of Tibetan emic terms,
see Holly Gayley and Nicole Willock, “Introduction. Theorizing the Secular in
Tibetan Cultural Worlds,” Himalaya: The Journal of the Association for Nepal and
Himalayan Studies 36, no. 1 (2016).
Leipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2019www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

11Companion to the Study of Secularity – Dagmar Schwerk: Buddhism and Politics in the Tibetan Cultural Area

‘Secularities’ in the
Tibetan cultural area

12

Tibetan cultural area along with complex relationships between thesocietal spheres of religion and politics. From the Tibetan Empire to
the Kingdom of Guge Puhrang with Buddhist monk rulers, to thedifferent local hegemonies strongly associated with different Tibetan
Buddhist schools and lineages, and finally, at the zenith, to the ‘Joint
Twofold System of Governance’ institutionalised in three major casesin the 17th century, each case demonstrates how Tibet’s cultural encounters with diverse forms of foreign governments influenced theadaptation and transformation of emic conceptions of Buddhist ruleover time. As a result, Tibetan Buddhist governments in the different
pre-modern periods subsequently developed varying functional andstructural differentiations: ‘secularities’.
In conclusion, areas of interest that point towards boundaries between the societal spheres of religion and politics along with negotiations concerning them are crucial in analysing the ‘secularities’ of
the Tibetan cultural area in different respective periods. These areasof interest include, for example, the ‘preceptor-donor’ relationship,functions in the relevant societal spheres of religion, politics (andeconomics), and the legitimisation of Buddhist rule.15 In Bhutan,the ‘Joint Twofold System of Governance’ as a pre-modern form ofsecularity is continued in a transformed and modernised way andprovides a unique case in point for research into further processesof social distinction and differentiation in the Tibetan cultural area.

15 For the applicability of these areas of interest to indicate either merely conceptualised
or institutionalised boundaries between the societal spheres of religion and politics
based on the case of Bhutan, see Schwerk, “Drawing Lines in a Maṇḍala,” 39–44.
Leipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2019www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

Companion to the Study of Secularity – Dagmar Schwerk: Buddhism and Politics in the Tibetan Cultural Area

Quoted and Further Reading
Ardussi, John A. “Bhutan Before the British: A Historical Study.” PhD thesis,
Australian National University, 1977. Accessed June 22, 2019. https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/11280.
Ardussi, John A. “Formation of the State of Bhutan (’Brug gzhung) in the 17th
Century and its Tibetan Antecedents.” Journal of Bhutan Studies 11, no. 2(2004): 10–23 (first published in Proceedings of the Seminar on The Relation
between Religion and State (chos srid zung ’brel) in Traditional Tibet: Lumbini
4–7 March 2000, edited by Christoph Cüppers, 33–48. Lumbini: Lumbini
International Research Center, 2004).
Ardussi, John A., Anna Balikci Denjongpa, and Per K. Sørensen, eds. The RoyalHistory of Sikkim: A History of the Namgyal House of Sikkim As Narrated by
Their Highnesses The Chogyal Thutob Namgyal and The Gyalmo Yeshe Dolma.
Based upon the Original Translation by Kazi Dawasamdup. Chicago: Serindia
Publications (forthcoming).
Aris, Michael V. Bhutan: The Early History of a Himalayan Kingdom. Warminster,
Wiltshire: Aris & Phillips Ltd, 1979.
Aris, Michael V. Sources for the History of Bhutan. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 1986.
Aris, Michael V. The Raven Crown: the Origins of Buddhist Monarchy in Bhutan.
London: Serindia Publications, 1994.
Beckwith, Christopher I. The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia: A History of theStruggle for Great Power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during the
Early Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987.
Brauen, Martin, ed. The Dalai Lamas: A Visual History. London: Serindia Publications, 2005.
Bretfeld, Sven. “The ‘Great debate’ of bSam yas. Construction and Deconstructionof a Tibetan Buddhist Myth.” Asiatische Studien/Etudes Asiatiques 58, no. 1(2004): 15–56.
Cabezón, José Ignacio, transl. The Just King: The Tibetan Buddhist Classic on Leading an Ethical Life. Jamgön Mipham. Boulder: Snow Lion Publications, 2017.
Cuevas, Bryan J. “Some Reflections on the Periodization of Tibetan History.”
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 10 (2006): 44–55.
Cüppers, Christoph, ed. The relationship between religion and state (chos srid zung’brel) in traditional Tibet: Proceedings of a seminar held in Lumbini, Nepal,
March 2000. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2004.
Czaja, Olaf. Medieval Rule in Tibet: The Rlangs Clan and the Political and Religious
History of the Ruling House of Phag mo gru pa. With a Study of the Monastic
Art of Gdan sa mthil. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie derWissenschaften, 2013.
Debreczeny, Karl. “Faith and Empire: An Overview.” May 30, 2019. Accessed
July 28, 2019. http://asianart.com/articles/faith-empire/index.html.
Dotson, Brandon. The Old Tibetan Annals: An Annotated Translation of Tibet’sFirst History. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009.
Dotson, Brandon. “Theorising the king: implicit and explicit sources for the studyof Tibetan sacred kingship.” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 21 (2011): 83–103.

13
Leipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2019www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

Companion to the Study of Secularity – Dagmar Schwerk: Buddhism and Politics in the Tibetan Cultural Area

Everding, Karl-Heinz. “The Mongolian States and their Struggle for Predominanceover Tibet in the 13th Century.” In Tibet, Past and Present. Tibetan Studies I.
PIATS 2000: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Leiden 2000. Edited by Henk Blezer
with the assistance of Abel Zadoks, 109–28. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Gayley, Holly, and Nicole Willock. “Introduction. Theorizing the Secular in Tibetan Cultural Worlds.” Himalaya: The Journal of the Association for Nepal and
Himalayan Studies 36, no. 1 (2016): 12–21.
Goldstein, Melvyn C., and Gelek Rimpoche. A History of Modern Tibet 1913–1951:
The Demise of the Lamaist State. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.
Goldstein, Melvyn C. A History of Modern Tibet. Volume 2: The Calm before theStorm, 1951–1955. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009.
Halkias, Georgios T. “The Enlightened Sovereign: Kingship and Buddhism in
Indo-Tibetan Tradition.” In A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy. Edited by
Steven Emmanuel, 491–511. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell Publishers, 2013.
Halkias, Georgios T. “The Mirror and the Palimpsest: The Myth of Buddhist
Kingship in Imperial Tibet.” In Locating Religions: Contact, Diversity andTranslocality. Edited by Reinhold F. Glei and Nikolas Jaspert, 123–50. Leiden:
Brill, 2017.
Hazod, Guntram. “The Burial Mounds of Central Tibet: A Historical-anthropological Study and Documentation of the Tumulus Tradition of Early
Central Tibet (4th–10th century CE).” Financed by the Austrian Science Fund(FWF). Part I (Burial Mounds I): 2013–2017, and Part II (Burial Mounds II):
2017–2021. Accessed August 27, 2019. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/tibetantumulustradition/home/.
Kapstein, Matthew T. The Tibetans. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
Kleine, Christoph, and Monika Wohlrab-Sahr. “Research Programme of the
HCAS ‘Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities’.” Working Paper Series of the HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond
Modernities” 1. Leipzig University, 2016.
Kollmar-Paulenz, Karénina. “Lamas und Schamanen: Mongolische Wissensordnungen vom frühen 17. bis zum 21. Jahrhundert. Ein Beitrag zur Debatteum außereuropäische Religionsbegriffe.” In Religion in Asien? Studien zur
Anwendbarkeit des Religionsbegriffs. Edited by Peter Schalk, 151–200. Uppsala:Uppsala Universitet, 2013.
McKay, Alex. Tibet and The British Raj: The Frontier Cadre 1904–1947. Delhi:
Paljor Publications/Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 2009.
Mullard, Saul. Opening the Hidden Land: State Formation and the Construction of
Sikkimese History. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Phuntsho, Karma. History of Bhutan. Noida: Random House, India, 2013.
Roerich, George N., and Gendün Chöpel. The Blue Annals. Part 1 and 2. Delhi:
Motilal Barnassidas, 1995 (reprint).
Roesler, Ulrike. “Die Lehre, der Weg und die namenlose Religion: Mögliche Äquivalente eines Religionsbegriffs in der tibetischen Kultur.” In Religion in Asien?
Studien zur Anwendbarkeit des Religionsbegriffs. Edited by Peter Schalk,
129–50. Uppsala: Uppsala University, 2013.

14
Leipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2019www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

Companion to the Study of Secularity – Dagmar Schwerk: Buddhism and Politics in the Tibetan Cultural Area

Sagaster, Klaus. Die weisse Geschichte. Eine mongolische Quelle zur Lehre von den
beiden Ordnungen. Religion und Staat in Tibet und der Mongolei. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1976.
Schaeffer, Kurtis, and Gray Tuttle, eds. The Tibetan History Reader. New York:
Columbia University Press, 2013.
Schaeffer, Kurtis, Matthew T. Kapstein, and Gray Tuttle, eds. Sources of Tibetan
Tradition. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013.
Schuh, Dieter. “Srid ohne Chos? Reflektionen zum Verhältnis von Buddhismus
und säkularer Herrschaft im tibetischen Kulturraum.” ZentralasiatischeStudien des Seminars für Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften Zentralasiens derUniversität Bonn 33 (2004): 153–62.
Schwerk, Dagmar. “Drawing Lines in a Maṇḍala: A Sketch of Boundaries Between
Religion and Politics in Bhutan.” Working Paper Series of the HCAS “Multiple
Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities” 12. Leipzig University, 2019.
https://www.multiple-secularities.de/media/wps_schwerk_drawinglines.pdf.
Schwieger, Peter. “Power and Territory in the Kingdom of Ladakh.” In Recent
Research on Ladakh 7. Proceedings of the Seventh International Colloquium of
the International Association for Ladakh Studies held at Bonn/St. Augustin,
12–15 June 1995. Edited by Thierry Dodin and Heinz Räther, 427–34. Ulm:
Universität Ulm, 1997.
Schwieger, Peter. Teilung und Reintegration des Königreichs von Ladakh im 18.
Jahrhundert. Der Staatsvertrag zwischen Ladakh und Purig aus dem Jahr 1753.
Bonn: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag, 1999.
Schwieger, Peter. The Dalai Lama and the Emperor of China: A Political History of the
Tibetan Institution of Reincarnation. New York: Columbia University Press, 2015.
Seyfort Ruegg, David. “The Preceptor-Donor (yon mchod) Relation in ThirteenthCentury Tibetan Society and Polity, Its Inner Asian Precursors and Indian
Models.” In Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 7th Seminar of the International
Association for Tibetan Studies, Graz, 1995, 2 vols. Edited by Helmut Krasser,
Michael T. Much, and Ernst Steinkellner, vol. 2, 857–72. Vienna: Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1997.
Seyfort Ruegg, David. “Buddha-nature, Mind and the Problem of Gradualism
in a Comparative Perspective.” Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion 13.
London: SOAS, University of London, 1989.
Seyfort Ruegg, David. Ordre spirituel et ordre temporel dans la pensée bouddhiquede l’Inde et du Tibet: Quatre conférences au Collège de France. Paris: Collège deFrance, l’Institut de civilisation indienne; Diffusion De Boccard, 1995.
Seyfort Ruegg, David. “Introductory Remarks on the Spiritual and Temporal
Orders.” In The relationship between religion and state (chos srid zung ’brel)in traditional Tibet: Proceedings of a seminar held in Lumbini, Nepal, March
2000. Edited by Christoph Cüppers, 1–13. Lumbini: Lumbini International
Research Institute, 2004.
Shakya, Tsering. The Dragon in the Land of Snows: A History of Modern Tibet Since
1947. London: Pimlico, 1999.
Shakabpa, Tsepon W. D. Tibet: A Political History. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1967.
Sinha, Nirmal C. “Chhos srid gnyis ldan.” Bulletin of Tibetology 5, no. 3 (1968): 13–27.

15
Leipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2019www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion

Companion to the Study of Secularity – Dagmar Schwerk: Buddhism and Politics in the Tibetan Cultural Area

Sørensen, Per K. Tibetan Buddhist Historiography: The Mirror Illuminating theRoyal Genealogies. An Annotated Translation of the XIVth Century Chronicle
rGyal-rabs gsal-ba’i me-long. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994.
Sørensen, Per K., and Guntram Hazod. Rulers on the Celestial Plain. Ecclesiastic
and Secular Hegemony in Medieval Tibet. A Study of Tshal Gung-thang. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007.
Van Schaik, Sam. Tibet: A History. London: Yale University Press, 2011.
Wallace, Vesna A., ed. Buddhism in Mongolian History, Culture, and Society. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2015.

This text is part of the Companion to the Study of Secularity. The intent of the Companion is to give scholars interested in the concept of Multiple Secularities, who are
not themselves specialists in particular (historical) regions, an insight into different
regions in which formations of secularity can be observed, as well as into the key
concepts and notions with respect to the study of secularity.
It is published by the Humanities Centre for Advanced Studies “Multiple
Secularities − Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”. For as long as the HCAS
continues to exist, the Companion will be published and further expanded on the
HCAS’ website. Towards the end of Multiple Secularities project, all entries will
be systematised and edited in order to transform the Companion into a completed
Open Access publication.
Please cite as:
Schwerk, Dagmar. “Buddhism and Politics in the Tibetan Cultural Area.” In Companion to the Study of Secularity. Edited by HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond
the West, Beyond Modernities.” Leipzig University, 2019. www.multiple-secularities.de/media/css_schwerk_tibetanculturalarea.pdf

16
Leipzig University – HCAS “Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities”, 2019www.multiple-secularities.de/publications/companion