I have lived in
Nepal for almost one year and I feel extremely fortunate to study Tibetan language
at the Rangjung Yeshe Institute (RYI). RYI, being the Buddhist Studies center
of the Kathmandu University, is a very unusual kind of an institution considering
the Western notions of academic colleges and universities. The most noteworthy
feature of RYI is its location in the environment of the Ka-Nying Shedrup Ling
monastery. While RYI is based on a modern academic curriculum taught by
professors trained in Asian, American and European universities, its neighboring
shedra (the monastic school) has monks studying in the intensive Tibetan
methods of education. In addition to experiencing the vibrant daily activities
at the monastery, I also consider it a privilege to attend classes taught by
the Lopons and Khenpos from the Ka-Nying Shedrup Ling monastery. I have had
many interesting experiences while studying at RYI, staying at International
Buddhist Academy, and being in the sacred city of Boudha.
As a
Bangladeshi Buddhist monk, brought up in a traditionally Theravāda culture, and
studied in Sri Lanka for almost ten years, I have often been asked to express
my impressions about Vajrayāna Buddhism. Vajrayāna Buddhism is an enormous
subject and making categorical statements about the distinctions between
Theravāda and Vajrayāna requires careful observation and analysis. In Nepal, one
form of Vajrayāna is practiced by Newar Buddhists and another form of Vajrāyāna
is followed by denominations of Tibetan Buddhist lineages among Tibetan
refugees and Himalayan Buddhists. There are overlaps in terms of the deities
invoked by the Newars and Tibetan Buddhist lineages but there are also
significant differences in the nature of their rituals, monastic structures, ordination
systems and so on. It is not possible to elaborate on these within the space of
this short article. However, I would like to reflect on a few points about the
Tibetan monastic training that have drawn my attention during this past year.
First and
fore-most, I think the grandeur of Tibetan Vajrayāna Buddhism is visible in
almost every aspect of the material and religious culture. This is evident for
example in the monasteries with hundreds of monks; shrine halls
with large Buddha statues and intricate murals; elegant thankas with paintings
of mahāsiddhas, Buddha-fields, and cycle of existence; the pujas
with magnificent drums and dungchen (dharma trumpets) and so on. In all
of the Theravāda world, I think, it would be hard to find monastic institutions
as large as Drepung Loseling, Ganden, Sera Je and so on. One may mention the
network of Dharmakaya monastery in Thailand but it is a modern movement that
claims to present Buddhist ideas, discipline and meditation to fulfill the
needs of the 21st century and produce highly skilled and disciplined
monastics to that effect. It is a special example, not the norm in Theravāda countries.
Compared to the Tibetan shedras, the Sri Lankan pirivenas are
also not as massive and their curriculum not as diverse. Modern Buddhist colleges
and universities in Theravāda countries is noteworthy in this regard. They
follow western academic training and train Buddhist monks and nuns for PhD
degrees. I believe there are more PhD monks in Theravāda countries than in the
Tibetan monastic community. However, the training in these colleges and
universities is not exactly the same as in the Tibetan shedras. While
Theravāda countries have adapted to Western academic methods, the Tibetan shedras
are exemplary in retaining a traditional education system.
Ka-Nying
Shedrub Ling, Shechen and Kopan monasteries in Kathmandu with more than four
hundred monks in each are definitely not as large as the ones in Tibet or South
India. Yet, they can be considered as mini-models of those mega monastic
complexes. My Tibetan monastic friends find hard to believe when I say there
are only three monks in the monastery at my village in Bangladesh. We have
extremely few institutions for monastic training accommodating fifty to hundred
students or more. The training in these institutions is also insignificant
compared to the elaborate curriculum and nine to eighteen years of rigorous training
in Tibetan monasteries. I am sure it requires excellent organizational skills
in maintaining these monasteries while providing high quality training for their
monks and nuns. I am fascinated by not only the organizational aspects of
maintaining these large monastic establishments but also their academic
curriculum.
The Tibetan
monastic education system takes pride in retaining the intellectual and scholastic
culture of Nalanda Mahavihara of medieval India. The subjects in the curriculum
include logic, philosophy, Tantra, Vinaya (discipline) and so on. The monks go
through not only a rigorous academic training – memorizing important root
texts, studying commentaries, and debating on them – but also participate in elaborate
daily rituals dedicated to protective deities or commemorating important
auspicious occasions. Training young monastic members for Thanka painting (for
example at the art school at Shechen monastery) and the Cham or Lama dances is
also remarkable aspects of the Tibetan monastic education. In that way, I feel
the curriculum in these monasteries is very extensive and complete – in the
sense that academic, ritualistic, and artistic aspects are all included. Compared
to Theravāda institutions, the debate, paintings, and lama-dance are especially
distinct elements of Tibetan monastic training. HH Dalai Lama’s openness to
science – for example, sending monastics to Emory University to study science
and establishing science laboratories in major Gelug monasteries – add yet
another dimension to the far sightedness and inclusive nature of Tibetan
monastic education.
In spite of
this grand, rigorous, multifaceted training, I see a short-coming as regards
their understanding of Theravāda Buddhism. In many conversations, I had with
monks trained in this kind of education system and even foreigners who have
been studying Vajrāyāna Buddhism, I observe a common misunderstanding when they
refer to Theravāda as Hīnayāna. This misunderstanding is based on medieval
Indian Buddhist texts as presented and interpreted by Tibetan scholars. This is
not merely a mis-recognition, using a classical polemical term to refer to a
contemporary Buddhist tradition, but also complete misunderstanding of the
Theravāda Buddhist history and practice. I have heard many tell me that there
is no bodhisattva practice in Theravāda Buddhist tradition. Such ideas ensue
from a presentation of Buddhism in Tibetan manuals defending the Mahāyāna
tenets and referring to other traditions of Buddhism in medieval India as inferior
to them. I have come to realize through these statements that despite their
extensive academic curriculum and openness to science, the Tibetan monastic system
pays minimal attention to the Theravāda Buddhist texts and practices. They are
completely unaware of Buddhaghosa, the great fifth century Theravāda scholar
and commentator, and his magun opus the Visuddhimagga. The Milindapañha,
recording the debates between a Buddhist monk named Nagasena and the Greek king
Menander (Pāli: Milinda) is also unknown. Texts like Buddha-vaṃsa, Cariyā-piṭaka,
Jātaka-aṭṭhakathā, Dhamma-padaṭṭhakathā – that present elaborate ideas
of bodhisattva practice are also not known to them.
What I find
most astonishing is how the past Tibetan translators who tirelessly translated
the Buddhist texts from Indian languages, mostly from Sanskrit, have missed the
Pāli nikāya texts of the Suttapiṭaka, available in the parallel
Chinese translations of the Sanskrit Sarvāstivāda āgama-s,
forming important documents for early Buddhist literature! I observe that while
Mahāyāna texts like Saddharmapuḍarīkasūtras, Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamikakārikā,
and Śāntideva’s Bodhicaryāvatāra are studied in modern Theravāda
countries, Tibetan monastic institutions have yet to include Theravāda texts
into their curriculum. Theravāda scholars study Nāgārjuna not only as a
Mahāyāna philosopher but also as an important thinker in the history of
Buddhism. Similarly, Śāntideva’s teachings have relevance for all people.
I am aware that Theravāda institutions can still be more inclusive of Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna texts, and the works of great Tibetan scholars. I think the Tibetan shedras can also make rooms for Buddhist texts from other traditions. The Nalanda-centric understanding of Buddhism reflected in their pedagogical training simply overlooks the point that long before the establishment of Nalanda, Buddhist scholars in Sri Lanka, China, Middle East etc. had already made important contributions to Buddhism. I am aware that there are many great Buddhist texts and within a short life span it is not possible to read every one of them. However, an awareness of the great works of different traditions would enable us to have a more expansive understanding of Buddhist history, culture and practices. Even a basic introduction to what others in a different tradition are studying would eventually open up the imagination and interest of future scholars to enrich their knowledge and practice in a significant way. This would also save us from the negative karma of perpetuating wrong knowledge (a-vidyā) about others!
~ Upali Sraman
vūpasamāya 