[JiG]

Buddhism is said to have been introduced by King Songsten Gompo during the 7th Century. Tibetans during this time period were a much more warlike people than what they developed into after the spread of Buddhism. During this time Tibet had created an empire that pressed into Western China, Bengal, Mongolia and Central Asia. Tibet had even sacked the Chinese capital of Chang'an during this period and was a dominating force in the Tarim Basin. In fact Tibet was such a force during this time that China had to form a multi-regional pact with ever major state bordering Tibet. This pact was made up of the Uighur Khagnate North of Tibet, Arabs to the West of Tibet, Nanzhao and Hindustan from the South and the Chinese from the East. With this pact China could effectively do what they could not do alone, contain Tibet by having it attacked from all sides to make sure it could not threaten to invade China. This strategy worked since Tibetan forces could not concentrate on China with its enemies attacking from all its surrounding regions. Tibetan power in the region soon waned and collapsed in 866 AD, later on Tibetans adopted an isolationist policy.

So my question is do you think the spread of Buddhism in Tibet was a negative thing for Tibetans that contributed to Tibet's decline in power since the decline in Tibetan power and the spread of the Tibetan Buddhism seem to have closely coincided. Or do you think that Buddhism spreading into Tibet was a good thing? Explain.

This post has been edited by General_Zhaoyun: 25 July 2007 - 12:33 AM

[Monkey-King]

I'm not entirely sure that we can draw a direct correlation between the introduction of Buddhism into Tibet and the decline of Tibetan regional power. I'm guessing there are going to be a myriad of factors.

The Tibetans did have a martial culture - there were no shortage of wars and skirmishes in the region.
In some sense that martial culture or attitude was either preserved (or perhaps more prevalent to begin with) in the regions of Kham even after Buddhism was introduced. The Khampa people are known for being bold, short tempered and very direct... in Tibetan... 'dob dob' is a term commonly associated with the Khampa people (which as I'm sure you know translates roughly into tough or rough style or person). In both action and in speaking the Khampa people differ greatly from the Central Tibetans (Lhasa etc.) where people tended more towards politeness and formality than direct or confrontational speaking. I believe it's because of the fierce reputation that the Khampas had that palaces in Lhasa used Khampa guards (kusung) and why they formed the bodyguard detail for the Dalai lama himself.

Anyhow.. I digress... I think there are many factors at play in the loss of regional power in Tibet... not the least of which is corruption within the Tibetan government. I think that Buddhism might have played a part but I'll have to give it some thought to point to any specific examples that were a direct result of the Tibetans being Buddhist.

[JiG]

wang yun, on Jul 24 2007, 07:15 AM, said:

Erm, isn't there something self-contradicting or maybe just self-explanatory in your question? The sack of Chang'an happened well AFTER the introduction of Buddhism.... so there goes your point about the Tibetan kingdom becoming less powerful or war-like due to Buddhism.

But Buddhism didn't spread widely until later on when it was sort of reintroduced after a Tibetan king had tried to destroy it.

[Zorigo]

Tibetan Buddhism (Lamaism) is bad thing happened to people of Tibet.
And plus, theocratical rule of Dalai lama is worst thing happened after that.

This post has been edited by Zorigo: 24 July 2007 - 05:38 PM

[Karakhan]

Zorigo, on Jul 24 2007, 10:24 PM, said:

Tibetan Buddhism (Lamaism) is bad thing happened to people of Tibet.
And plus, theocratical rule of Dalai lama is worst thing happened after that.

A bit off topic. How do you feel about the adoption of Lamaism to various Mongol (Buryad, Halh, etc) and Turkic (Yugurs, Tyvan, etc) ethnic groups? for better or worse?

[Yang Zongbao]

Er.

The fact that the adoption of buddhism took place before Tibet's wane does not mean it caused it, I found Wang Yun's argument on the Sack of Chang'An relevant to that.

[Richard Lim]

Karakhan, on Jul 24 2007, 07:15 PM, said:

A bit off topic. How do you feel about the adoption of Lamaism to various Mongol (Buryad, Halh, etc) and Turkic (Yugurs, Tyvan, etc) ethnic groups? for better or worse?

Good question. In some places, this change seems to have coincided roughly speaking with the transition of such groups to a more sedentary way of life. If this was indeed the case, then the introduction of lamaism/transition to sedentary way of life might have contributed to the relative decline in warring capacity that historically stemmed from a nomadic way of life.

[Monkey-King]

Zorigo, on Jul 24 2007, 04:24 PM, said:

Tibetan Buddhism (Lamaism) is bad thing happened to people of Tibet.
And plus, theocratical rule of Dalai lama is worst thing happened after that.

I'm curious if you can do more than just hit and run posting.
This is pretty much of zero use for a discussion on the subject at hand.

How about enlightening the rest of us why you have this opinion.
Really... I'm sure many here are curious how you arrive at this opinion.

[JiG]

wang yun, on Jul 26 2007, 06:10 AM, said:

I personally shudder to go there-- but it seems making up an alternate of history of the development of Tibet under the old Bon religions, any other religion available to the Tibetan King at the time, might be the only thing to satisfy the OP.

OTOH, one could just stop playing alternate history (and what if's) and just look at the changes to Tibet that were initiated or justified by Buddhism as Tibet received it, aka Buddhism as a socio-political tool.

Buddhism was adopted to (socio-politically) "unify" the new (militarily) unified Tibetan kingdom, much like what Asoka did after (militarily) unifying India. Lots of governments past and present have done it with lots of religions-- so let's look at what the actual effects were:

1) Buddhism had a written tradition and so helped promoting writing

2) Buddhism was more "organized" than the old Bon religion and so good for creating socio-political institutions and traditions (such as theocracy) which helped organized Tibetan societies. In this respect, Bon actually divided Tibetan kingdom as a whole because it was an largely animist religion which worshiped various mountains, rivers, demons and spirits....

3) Buddhism and Bon could mutually absorb each other for an easy transition. Even now traces of Bon are found in Tibetan Buddhism or in the more remote places and practices of Tibetan Buddhism.

How do you know that it was intended to be adopted for these reasons? BTW what is the acronym "OP" and "OTOH"?

wang yun, on Jul 26 2007, 06:10 AM, said:

As for "the Tibetan King who try to destroy it"-- while I am aware of such an incident, it is usually preferable for people making the OP to present the facts rather than try a bait-and-switch. If you are aware of any more facts instead of one-liners which supporting your case, we would appreciate having your considered argument.

P.S. While there are very few state-wide conflicts that were historically justified or purported to be justified by Buddhism, there also are very few state-wide conflicts were historically "stopped" by Buddhism. A state or ruler who wants to go to war usually takes the "bless me or let me go" attitude-- and a theocracy just means that the interests of the clergy and politicians are intertwined.

Sorry I was in a bit of a hurry at the time so I just posted what a recollected from what I read before. I'm sure I heard it discussed about here before.

I found a brief little mention bout it on this site: http://omni.cc.purdu...et/history.html

Quote

"For all those years, Bon believers were trying to resist. Some Bon prime minister murdered the King, Khri-tsug-de-tsan (TseTsuDeZan(8)). The throne was passed to his brother Dar-ma(9) who was convinced to destroy Buddhism and to revive the native religion `Bon'. The timing might be a strange coincidence, note that in Tang, the Emperor (Wu-Chung) prohibited Buddhism in favor of Taoism at the same time. Dar-ma(9) ordered that all Buddhist scriptures burned, all Buddhist sculptures tossed away, and all temples used as butcher's mills. The destructions were total. It was a victory of Bon. Thus the first period of Buddhism (Chien-Hon Chee ) was closed in Tibet."

I remember reading something more detailed about this king in a book but I don't have it with me.

I agree with you that Buddhism is not the reason why Tibetans became less war-like. I remember reading an article by a historian stating how it was in fact isolationism that caused Tibetans to decline in power and become less involved in inter-state wars not Buddhism and I strongly agree with this. Also there are many other Buddhist states whose histories have blood on their hands, so the notion of a Buddhist state being a pacifist one is not an accurate one.

This post has been edited by JiG: 26 July 2007 - 03:54 PM

[Edward Adventures]

I think it is none business of buddhism, maybe some people use buddhism to get their personal goals.

[JiG]

Thanks

[marcello passagrilli]

Zorigo, on Jul 24 2007, 04:24 PM, said:

Tibetan Buddhism (Lamaism) is bad thing happened to people of Tibet.
And plus, theocratical rule of Dalai lama is worst thing happened after that.

Yes I agree , the Lamaism has been the cause of permaining of feudal way of production that kept the Tibet underdeveloped economically , and backward culturally .
People from western countries have a very bad mithic approach to tibetan Lamaism culture , they do not consider the miserable condition of people under that theocratic regime .

[polar_zen]

What if Chinese Buddhism (Pure Land, Chan) had been introduced in Tibet, and had eventually replaced Lamaism? How would things have changed? Just curious.

[fireball]

polar_zen, on Nov 9 2007, 09:00 PM, said:

What if Chinese Buddhism (Pure Land, Chan) had been introduced in Tibet, and had eventually replaced Lamaism? How would things have changed? Just curious.

Probably won't change much. Just have some Pure Land or Chan masters replacing the lamas.

I think Buddhism in Tibet did cause some problems. One major problem was the birth rate. I read that many Tibetans wanted to become the monk, so there were a problemm with the birth rate. I am not sure about the modern time. But this problem was mentioned in several books I read about Tibet.

However, I don't know how much Buddhism impacted their martial culture. From what I read from a book written by one of the Nationalist ambassy to Tibet during WWII era, he mentioned that Tibetans were the most fierce people comparing to Hui or Mongols. In some areas where all three ethnic groups were present, Hui and Mongols always deferred to Tibetans. I also heard from my Mongol friend who was a News Reporter in China, and she said the same thing. Therefore, I think Tibetans are probably as martial as their ancestors before the Buddhism was in Tibet. However, the later political climates caused the Tibetan empire decline, not Buddhism.