Download - Labrang Monastery: Tibetan Buddhism on the Sino-Tibetan Frontier

© 2008 The AuthorJournal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Religion Compass 2/4 (2008): 513–535, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00081.x

Labrang Monastery: Tibetan Buddhism on the Sino-Tibetan Frontier

Paul K. Nietupski*John Carroll University

AbstractLabrang Monastery was formally founded in 1709 in Amdo, today located inXiahe County, Gansu Province. It was founded and occupied by the lineage ofthe Jamyang Zhepas on the central Tibetan Gelukpa model, and grew to be oneof the largest Tibetan Buddhist monasteries ever built. Labrang supported the fullrange of Tibetan Buddhist studies, and in addition allowed other Tibetan andnon-Tibetan religious practices in the community at large. The monastery waslocated on an ethnic borderland, near its Mongol co-sponsors, Manchu, Chinese,Muslim, and other neighbors. Its location resulted in both assertions of Tibetanidentity and dynamic social, political, and economic interaction. The monasticauthorities owned an enormous nomadic and agricultural estate that extendedover much of southern Gansu Province and into northern Sichuan and easternQinghai. Though politically and economically much reduced, Labrang Monastery’sinfluence is still important in present-day Amdo.

Labrang Monastery was formally founded in 1709 by Tibetans andMongols in Amdo, the Northeast corner of the Tibetan Plateau, todaylocated in Xiahe County, in China’s Gansu Province (Figure 1). In 1709,the region was sparsely populated, a high-altitude pastureland, and hometo primarily Tibetan nomads. It was on the frontier of several of Asia’sgreat civilizations, including the Tibetan, the Mongol, the Chinese, theManchu, and the Muslim, to name only a few. Labrang Monastery,however, was built on the model of central Tibetan Gelukpa Buddhistmonasteries, in which reborn lamas were in charge of the monasteries’religious and political affairs; most of Labrang’s prominent lamas andteachers were educated at Drepung Monastery’s Gomang College inLhasa. In terms of structure, the major monasteries in Lhasa – and likewiseLabrang – owned often large estates that provided the institutions withsubstantial tax revenues, corvée privileges, and sponsorship, all of whichendowed the religious and political authorities with enormous wealth.The social environment in Amdo was different, but the Tibetan monasticinstitutional structures in Lhasa and Amdo were similar. In this sense,generally speaking, one can say that the center did move to the periphery,

514 Paul K. Nietupski

© 2008 The Author Religion Compass 2/4 (2008): 513–535, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00081.xJournal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

or, the central Tibetan religious and political model was installed on theAmdo frontier.

Otherwise, beyond the basic similarities in its institutional structure,Labrang’s remote location and its complex history of conflicts and com-promises with its neighbors, for example, its location in China’s GansuProvince, might lead one to think that Labrang’s community was a hybrid,a mix of different historical and cultural influences, and to an extent, thisis true. However, even though Labrang’s history is colored by directencounters with many regional civilizations, and is an excellent place forstudying how those peoples and ideas interacted, the close proximity toso many different influences had the effect of strengthening Labrang’sethnic Tibetan identity. As scholars have observed in other contexts(Cohen 1985; White 1991; Horstmann & Wadley 2006) borderlands culturesare places where central identities are often defined and asserted more pow-erfully than at the centers themselves. When constantly faced with difference,in close proximity, what makes one culture different from another is oftenasserted more vigorously. The difference between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is oftenhighlighted and made more apparent. This, however, does not precludecross-border interaction, imitation, trade, and mutual assimilation.Labrang is a good example of a border culture, one with a powerful senseof its identity, and yet one that sought to interact and assimilate acrossboundaries at the same time asserts its Tibetan identity. At Labrang, onecan observe the building blocks of Tibetan religious and political structures,and a kaleidoscope of historical religious and political influences.

To the Tibetans, Labrang is located in Amdo, on what was a summerpasture donated by a wealthy Tibetan nomad from nearby Ganjia, stillcelebrated yearly by Labrang’s ceremonial gifts to the descendants of the

Fig. 1. Labrang Monastery, Xiahe, Gansu


Labrang Monastery 515

Ganjia estate owner (Brag dgon pa dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas 1982,p. 547). In Manchu and Chinese eyes, it was and is located in GansuProvince, and today in Xiahe County, with properties extending intoQinghai and Sichuan Provinces. In this perspective, it was part of theQing Empire until its collapse in 1911, then the Nationalist Chinesestate, and at present it is part of the People’s Republic of China. Theserelationships are marked at Labrang by ceremonial plaques, inscriptions,letters, anecdotes, a Daoist-Tibetan temple, by the legacies of encountersbetween Labrang and Qing Dynasty envoys, and by the modern Chinesepresence. The Mongols understood the region as the property of the LeftGroup of Khoshud Mongols under the Mongol Prince Erdeni Jinong(d. 1735), a descendant of Gushri Khan. Regional Mongol power declinedin the eighteenth century, but the local descendants of the Mongols,though largely assimilated into Tibetan culture, still consider themselvesMongol, and remember Labrang’s ties to Mongol authorities (Crossley2006). The Mongol Prince’s descendants live and work in present-dayGansu and Qinghai. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,the Qinghai Muslim generals, notably Ma Qi and Ma Bufang, envisionedLabrang and its territories as under their jurisdiction and for a brief periodforcibly occupied Labrang, still signaled today by the presence of mosquesin Xiahe and in other regional centers. In addition, on the nearbydescending hills and valleys of the Tibetan Plateau, there are many differentethnic groups, including the Hui and Salar Muslims, the Monguors(Chinese: Tu), Han Chinese, Dongxiang, and others. Many of thesegroups have their own languages and religious heritage. Thus, LabrangMonastery, one of the largest Tibetan Buddhist monasteries ever built,was located in a predominantly but contested Tibetan environment on ageographic, social, political, ethnic, and religious frontier.

Religion

At Labrang, religion is dominated by the main Gelukpa monastery.However, at Labrang, and somewhat more than in central Tibet, therewas a tendency to tolerate or incorporate local beliefs and practices intothe religious corpus instead of trying to eliminate them. The result wasthat at Labrang religion is built around the Gelukpa monastery, but thereligious environment is rich and varied, densely populated by invisiblespirits, and inclusive of ancient heroes like Gesar, saints like Milarepa, Bönpoexperts, Nyingma lamas, and beliefs and practices of broad description.

Labrang Monastery is one of the largest monastic communities everbuilt in Tibetan history. Its sprawling physical campus is designed to housemonks in individual residential compounds. These are sometimes groupedby monks’ common homeland, but are otherwise unlike the dormitories(khang tshan) in central Tibetan monasteries. On special occasions, themonastic population at Labrang expanded to as many as 5000 monks. Its



monastic functions, academic curriculum, several of its physical structures,and its political infrastructures were loosely modeled on those of centralTibet. For example, Lhasa’s Gomang College at Drepung Monastery, theMedical College, and others served as prototypes at Labrang. Labrang wasa ‘Yellow Hat’, or Gelukpa institution, following the teaching of thescholar Tsongkhapa (1357–1419), his successors, the Dalai Lamas, andthe community of Gelukpa Tibetan Buddhist scholars. These affiliationsare central to Labrang’s religious and political heritage.

As in any academic institution and even moreso in this rugged Tibetanhighland environment at Labrang, there was a wide range of studentswith varying abilities, motivations, opportunities, and interests. There wasa broad range of intellectual ability and performance, from barely basicliteracy or even illiteracy to the highest levels of erudition. Here, likeelsewhere in Tibet, the percentage of highly educated monks was small.Having said this, however, scholarship and ritual expertise were qualitieshighly valued in the Amdo Tibetan communities at large.

The academic curriculum at Labrang followed the central TibetanGelukpa model, as has been described by Dreyfus (2003) and others.Young monks were required to memorize the main philosophical texts ofthe system, then to debate their shades of meaning. At the same time,the monks were taught the corpus of Tibetan Buddhist liturgies andcalendrical rituals. Exceptional monks went on to mastery of philosophicaltenets and ritual practices.

Labrang monks were ordained as novices and later as bhikŠus, or fullyordained monks, and followed the standard Tibetan monastic system,based on the Indian Mûlasarvâstivâda Vinaya and Gu{aprabha’s later Vinayasûtracorpus. The monks recognized the authority of the Indian monastic textsand models and followed rules for ethical conduct and behavior, but fewattempted to observe the full range of ancient Indian rules. In such largemonastic environments, there were likely transgressions of the monasticcode, again as one might expect in a large educational institution, but onthe other hand, upholding monastic discipline was a quality valued in thecommunity at large.

The Gelukpa academic curriculum was focused on rigorous scholarship,particularly the in-depth study of historical Buddhist theories. Theseincluded especially Madhyamaka, based on the teachings of the IndiansNAgArjuna and Candrak}rti and their Tibetan commentators, Mind-Only,and Perfection of Wisdom philosophies, and theories of perception andconception formulated by the Indians DignAga and Dharmak}rti and theirTibetan commentators. The Gelukpa system uses a broad range of tantras,but four are the most common, Cakrasamvara, GuhyasamAja, Vajrab-hairava, and KAlacakra; these and some others, including Hevajra, werewidely studied and practiced at Labrang.

The study and memorization of philosophical and tantric scriptures, thecomplex tantric rituals, and daily routines occupied much of the Labrang



monks’ time. Labrang monks also spent much time reciting basic Buddhistliturgies and long-life prayers, performing calendrical rites, and much timeadvising and performing religious services for the lay community. In addition,the entire range of Buddhist sciences, arts, crafts, medicine, religious musicand drama, and book production were fully developed at Labrang. Themonastery was a fully developed religious and academic institution andvery much integrated with its lay supporters, the regional economy, andthe prevailing political authorities. Indeed, on top of this rigorous monasticregimen, the monastery was also the seat of social and political power, andthe largest estate owner in the region. As such, the monastic authoritieswere compelled to address their community, domestic and foreign politicaland legal matters, and at the same time manage their estates.

The large community of monks and the complex curriculum requireda massive physical infrastructure. There were six major monastic collegesinside the Labrang complex. The first of these, Tösam Ling (thos bsamgling), was founded by the First Jamyang Zhepa, with Mongol support,after his 1709 arrival. In 1710, it was established in a tent at the monasterysite in the Ganjia community’s summer pasture and later expanded into abuilding with eighty wood pillars. The Main Meeting Hall (tshogs chen ‘dukhang) is located in this complex. In 1772, the Second Jamyang Zhepaexpanded it into a hall supported by 140 pillars. The second main collegeor monastery is the Lower Tantric Monastery (rgyud smad grwa tshang),built by the First Jamyang Zhepa in 1716. The third major college atLabrang is the Kalacakra Monastery, built by the Second Jamyang Zhepain 1763. The fourth college, also built by the Second Jamyang Zhepa, in1784, is the Medical Monastery (sman pa grwa tshang, gzhan phan gling),on the model of Lhasa’s medical college. The fifth college is the HevajraMonastery (kyai rdo grwa tshang), founded in 1879 by the Fourth JamyangZhepa, said to be inspired by Lhasa’s Namgyal Monastery. It was destroyedby fire and rebuilt in 1957. The sixth college is the Upper TantricMonastery (rgyud stod grwa tshang), founded during the office of the FifthJamyang Zhepa in 1928, when the Fifth was about twelve years old, andcompleted in 1942. In addition to these major structures, Labrang hadsome 48 other temples, and extensive monastic residences. The libraryand printing house at Labrang held an important collection of Tibetantexts, including ancient manuscripts collected especially by the SecondJamyang Zhepa from monasteries all over eastern Tibet (Figure 2).

The Gelukpa order was dominant at Labrang, but Labrang’s religiousenvironment was nonetheless diverse. One important example is theNyingma-originated Ngakpa, or Tantric Monastery (sngags pa grwa tshang),located immediately outside of Labrang Monastery’s outer walls, andhome to white, red-trimmed robed, non-celibate religious experts. Thesereligious specialists, often wearing bundled dreadlocks, represent a class ofTibetan religious experts older than Labrang Monastery. In years previous,they were often resident in family homes or nomad tents, but at Labrang



they were housed in a permanent, non-celibate community. They providedreligious services to the Labrang monks and lamas, including rituals forhealth and long life, for the control of regional spirits, prognostication,exorcism, and pre-emptive or protective prayer.

At Labrang, and unlike central Tibet, these persons and their functionswere tolerated, eventually adapted to fit Gelukpa ethical and religiousparameters, and their community supported and institutionalized in closeproximity and interactive with the monastic community. This phenomenonis unique to Labrang. While there are still such persons active in com-munities elsewhere in Tibet, only at Labrang are they institutionalized,included and accepted into the dominant Gelukpa community.

The religious environment at Labrang is otherwise multifaceted.There is a broad range of regional deities known, invoked, or rejectedeverywhere in the greater Labrang community. Even the Tibetan Buddhistmedical corpus includes description, and often illustration in medicalworks, of diseases caused by spirits and their respective treatments.Nearly, every local sedentary and nomad group has its protector deities,far beyond those deities known and worshipped in the monastery. Therewere many kinds of deities: water spirits inhabited the lakes, springs, andstreams; airborne spirits received and carried prayers and offerings; andearth deities maintained or disrupted the stability of livestock and crops(Figures 3–6). It was normal practice for lay and monastic communitiesto identify, invoke, and regularly make ritual offerings to this densepopulation of invisible spirits. The result was a corpus of religiousrituals and practices that filled the lives of monastic and lay communities(Kapstein 2006).

In addition to participation in events and opportunities offered by themain monastery and the Ngakpa Monastery, one of the most visibleexamples of local religious beliefs and practices is the yearly re-installationof labtse (Figures 7 and 8), bundles of long arrows or poles withfeather-like decorations attached by village or nomad groups, often ona peak or high pass, or in an auspicious valley location, always to mark

Fig. 2. Labrang ca. 1943, Photo courtesy Tibet House New York



the residence and control of a specific spirit. Other examples of deityinvocation and control include installation of an animal skin or headunder bridges for protection, community participation in the yearlymonastery-sponsored ‘effigy’ or ‘torma’ (gtor rkyag) ritual (Figures 9 and 10),and routine use of juniper branches in houses and on vehicles to guaranteehousehold security and safety while traveling (Figure 11).

The greater Labrang community also includes Bön religious experts,and there is at least one functioning Bönpo temple in nearby Ganjia,where Bön experts play important roles in community religious life, wellapart from the functions of Labrang Monastery. In the late nineteenthand early twentieth centuries, the Labrang authorities tolerated the

Fig. 3. Lakeside deity ritual

Fig. 4. Local deity offering



Fig. 5. Lunar new year celebration

Fig. 6. Ritual dancer



construction of a mosque, a Confucian/Daoist ‘Guandi’ temple, and aChristian mission, all in the immediate vicinity of the monastery.Religion at Labrang was an active force in daily life.

Religion and Politics

The Tibetan sources go on in detail about the fulfillment of religiousprophecies at Labrang, but the First Jamyang Zhepa’s (1648–1721)involvement at Labrang and the Mongol Erdeni Jinong’s sponsorship hadstrong political overtones. The story begins in Lhasa, well before the 1709founding of Labrang in faraway Amdo, in the middle of political machi-nations between the Tibetan Buddhist, Mongol, and Manchu authorities.The First Jamyang Zhepa’s political influence in Lhasa is marked by his1653 meeting with and 1675 ordination by the Fifth Dalai Lama LozangGyatso (1617–1682), and later by his post as abbot of Gomang College at

Fig. 7. Labrang Labtse



Fig. 8. Labtse

Fig. 9. Torma ritual



Fig. 10. Torma

Fig. 11. Juniper offering to a resident deity, photo Rosemary Stanitz-Skove



Drepung Monastery. In 1697, he participated in the ordination ceremonyof the Sixth Dalai Lama Tsangyang Gyatso (1683–1706), which was ledby the Panchen Lama at Tashi Lhunpo Monastery in Shigatsé. He wasa well-known figure in the community of central Tibetan BuddhistGelukpa monasteries.

In addition to the politics of the central Tibetan religious establishment,in those years Lhasa politics were further complicated by the fact thatTibet was occupied by the Zunghar Mongols under Lhazang Khan. TheMongols played a crucial role in Tibet’s and Labrang’s history, and canonly be briefly summarized here. In 1636–1639, Gushri Khan and theZunghar Mongols defeated the Khalkha Mongols, and migrated fromnorth of the Tianshan Mountains to the Kokenuur (Chinese: Qinghai)region (Borjigidai 2002, p. 182). Gushri’s sons and later his grandsonsremained the strongest groups of Mongols in the Kokenuur and greaterAmdo region until at least 1723. In the years following his occupation ofAmdo, Gushri allied himself with the Fifth Dalai Lama, and proceeded topromote Gelukpa institutions. He and his sons were in turn endorsed andgiven titles by the Fifth Dalai Lama. In late seventeenth century, Lhasa,Lhazang Khan, was the prominent Zunghar authority. In Amdo, thecousins Lubsangdanjin and Erdeni Jinong, the latter the primary Mongolsponsor of Labrang Monastery, were the most powerful Mongol leaders.

The motives of the Mongols in Tibet and Amdo should be understoodin the context of the Qing Dynasty’s occupation of Mongolia (Elverskog2006). Chinese control of Mongolia began at least in the Ming Dynasty,and was expanded and formalized by the implementation (in 1696) ofa code of rules administered by Qing Dynasty Ministry of Foreign Affairs(Lifanyuan), under the Kangxi Emperor. By the eighteenth century,Mongolia was largely under Manchu sovereignty. Qing control ofMongolia gave the Lhasa Mongols reason to maintain control of centralTibet and gave the Amdo Khoshud Mongols good political motives toestablish a new bastion of Tibetan and Mongol power at Labrang.

In late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century Lhasa, the Mongolswere involved with both Tibetan religion and politics. The ZungharLhazang Khan, however, alienated the Tibetan monasteries and nobles somuch that he instigated his own downfall. He took over Lhasa, executedthe Regent, participated in the removal and exile of the Sixth Dalai Lama,Tsangyang Gyatso in 1706, and subsequently installed his own choice forthe Seventh Dalai Lama – ironically with the Panchen Lama’s support.This ‘false’ Seventh Dalai Lama was Lhazang’s own son, Ngakwang YesheGyatso (b. 1686). The result of this was that Lhazang’s popular support incentral Tibet collapsed. Lhazang turned for help to China and formed analliance with the Kangxi Emperor (1661–1722), who was concernedabout the Zunghar Mongols in the Ili valley west of the Kokenuur region.Kangxi, evidently not understanding the currents of power and influencein Lhasa, supported Lhazang in hopes of securing a Mongol and possibly



a Tibetan advantage against the Ili Zunghars. In 1707, the Manchu courtsent an envoy to Lhasa, but even this failed to generate any positive result.The Beijing court seemed to have little understanding of power structuresin Tibetan and Mongol areas.

Meanwhile, the central Tibetan religious authorities identified theirown Seventh Dalai Lama, Kelzang Gyatso (b. 1708) in Litang, claimingthat their candidate was prophesied by none other than the Sixth DalaiLama, Tsangyang Gyatso. Lhazang Khan, with his own Seventh DalaiLama still in place, alienated the Kokenuur Khoshud Mongol chiefsLubsangdanjin and Erdeni Jinong, who remained loyal to the sentimentsof the central Tibetan Gelukpa monastic authorities and TsangyangGyatso. The confluence of these events shows political motives at the 1709founding of Labrang Monastery.

Since Kangxi had expressed support for Lhazang’s central Tibetan policiesin hopes of an alliance against the Ili Zunghars, he was in the awkwardposition of supporting someone who was at odds with the central Tibetanmonastic authorities and, importantly, at odds with the KokenuurKhoshuds and their Tibetan allies. When the Tibetans’ Seventh DalaiLama was authenticated by the Tibetan State Oracle, Kangxi’s responsewas to prevent him from entering Tibet, against Kokenuur KhoshudMongol – including Erdeni Jinong’s – wishes. The Seventh Dalai Lamawas moved from Litang via Labrang Monastery to Kumbum by the stillpowerful and defiant Mongols, who were increasingly angered by LhazangKhan. Lhazang Khan, with Qing support, prevented the new SeventhDalai Lama from entering Tibet. Then, in 1712, the Panchen Lamasupported Lhazang’s and the Qing position by pronouncing the boy – theTibetans’ and Kokenuur Mongols’ – an imposter. The tense situation incentral Tibet was exacerbated by all of these events. It is not surprisingthat Jamyang Zhepa decided to leave Lhasa.

In the years before his 1709 departure from Lhasa for Amdo and thenew Labrang Monastery, through all of the major political machinationsbetween the central Tibetan monasteries, the Zunghar and KhoshudMongols, and the Qing court, the First Jamyang Zhepa was an adviser tothe Mongol Lhazang Khan. Jamyang Zhepa’s influence was made evidentin the conflicts between Lhazang and the monastic Regent Sangyé Gyatso.The Regent is said to be behind attempts to murder Lhazang Khan in1703 and later in 1705, and it was Jamyang Zhepa who intervened onboth occasions. In 1705, Lhazang went on to order the execution of theRegent and then went on a rampage in Lhasa, and it was none other thanJamyang Zhepa who restrained him. Lhazang eventually lost favor withthe Manchu court and his Kokenuur Mongol cousins, and in 1717 wasexecuted in central Tibet (Petech 1972; Kapstein 2006). When the FirstJamyang Zhepa moved to Amdo and founded Labrang Monastery withKhoshud Mongol support, the Qing Dynasty was relieved to offer itsendorsement to someone who in turn offered regional stability. Jamyang



Zhepa was thus in between the central Tibetan monasteries, the LhasaZunghars, the Kokenuur Khoshuds, and the Manchus.

Labrang Monastery from 1709 to the Present

The early eighteenth century was a time of extensive monastery buildingin eastern Tibet, in response to political turmoil in central Tibet, Mongolia,and China. Many hundreds of new monasteries were founded in easternTibet and in Mongol territories; among them, Labrang grew to unpre-cedented prominence in Tibet’s religious and political world (Kapstein2006). The new monasteries signaled political alliances, but in additionLabrang Monastery was home to some of the greatest scholars and writersin Tibetan Buddhist history. Among them, the First and Second (1728–1791)Jamyang Zhepas, Gungtang Tenpé Dronmé (1762–1823) (Dbal mangpandita dkon mchog rgyal mtshan 1989), Belmang Pandita KonchokGyaltsen (1764–1853) (Brag dgon pa dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas 2001)were prolific writers and highly regarded scholars, in addition to beingexperts in ritual sciences.

The First Jamyang Zhepa is a typical example of a prominent scholarand regional political figure. Like most other famous Labrang scholars,he was an Amdo native who rose to prominence in the Lhasa monastichierarchy. He was an erudite scholar with an impressive record of fifteenvolumes of writings. In 1709, conditions in Lhasa were so tense that thelama was moved to accept the offer of sponsorship of a new monasteryin his Amdo homeland. When the First Jamyang Zhepa arrived in Amdo,local lamas, monks, and disciples gathered, offered religious gifts, andparticipated in the welcome rituals. Tibetan and Mongol noblemen andwomen donated flocks of sheep, hundreds of horses, many rolls of silkand other gifts of great value; less wealthy people gave smaller gifts andothers only offered their skills and paid their respects. Tibetan and Mongolpatrons offered 300 boys to become novice monks, a common practiceelsewhere in Tibet. Accounts of his travels describe requisite corvée travelsupport, and reception by entire communities who rode out to meet andgreet the lama on his arrival. The lama was typically met by local monks,regional nomads, and local dignitaries, all bearing gifts and religiousparaphernalia to the furthest extent of the Tibetan Buddhist repertoire.Large umbrellas, banners, Tibetan trumpets, long horns, and drums weresounded to announce his arrival. At his reception, the entire group wouldtypically make extensive offerings of materials goods, livestock, and allavailable precious objects. A typical donation given to the Jamyang Zhepain Urga (Ulan Bator) by an estate lord, one Namgyal Tsetan, to mark theoccasion of the lama’s founding Labrang Monastery, including ‘a goldma{|ala, jewels, lots of everyday objects, 500 rolls of brocade, 500 horses,about 4000 sheep, and other things, like an open casket of jewels’ (Kunmkhyen ‘jigs med dbang po 1991, p. 148).



The monastery was formally founded on the 300th anniversary ofTsongkhapa’s founding of Ganden Monastery in central Tibet. Soon afterthe founding ceremony, local people brought timber and buildingmaterials and the monastery began its rapid growth. The Tibetan textsdescribe nearly continuous meetings in that year of Tibetan Buddhistteachers, crowds of monks and lay Buddhists, wealthy landowners andcommon people from all throughout Amdo. Soon, in 1710, the Qingcourt sent a formal endorsement to commemorate the founding of the newmonastery. There were many religious and lay persons among the sponsors,notably Erdeni Jinong’s wife Namgyal Drolma, who with her Mongolsuccessors, were to become important donors in the years that followed(Dbal mang dkon mchog rgyal mtshan 1974). Important donors andpolitical leaders came from neighboring communities in Kham,Rebgong, Ngawa, Tebo, Dzogé, Tsö, Bora, Zamtsa, and elsewhere.Many of these places soon became Labrang’s properties and importantsources of monastery revenues, corvée, and novice monks.

The process of invitation, reception, pledge of property, regular taxrevenues, and corvée was similar to monastery estate building proceduresthroughout Tibet. The major difference in the Amdo region was that thedonors did not come from a powerful class of nobles, inherited estate holders,and officials of the Tibetan central government, as were present in Lhasa(Kapstein 2006). Political and religious authority in Amdo were in the handsof the monasteries and individual lamas, who often owned large estates,but the social classes and infrastructures in Amdo were quite different,precisely because of the lack of noble houses and central government officials.

With this combination of central Tibetan and Amdo borderlandsfoundations Labrang Monastery grew and prospered. Its pattern of growthand development was a mechanism fueled by the lamas’ combination ofreligious and political authority. Their authority worked internally in themonastery’s properties and notably externally in their relations withoutside powers. The pattern is evident in the events around Labrang’sfounding and through its history, in all of its major and minor estates, andin its diplomatic successes and failures.

After its successful founding, recognition of Labrang’s regional impor-tance and religious pedigree were marked in 1716 by official seals andrepresentatives from the Qing Kangxi Emperor, envoys from Lhasa, includingthe Panchen Lama, and many officials from Mongolia. Later, the volatilityof the frontier environment was marked after the First Jamyang Zhepa’s1721 passing, only 12 years after the monastery’s 1709 founding, by‘Lubsangdanjin’s Rebellion’. This was a reaction by local Kokenuur KhoshudMongols to an agreement broken by the Qing court (Ishihama 1997,pp. 419–26), itself in transition in those years, but which nonethelesshad secured Khoshud support to overthrow the Mongol Lhazang Khan’sregime in Lhasa in 1717–1718. The Khoshuds understood that theywould assume control of central Tibet, and when denied this, in 1723



they attacked the Manchus, but only incurred their wrath and reprisal(Petech 1972). Labrang Monastery, however, was spared by ErdeniJinong’s timely withdrawal from the battle, a fact that contributed toLabrang’s survival and continuing growth. The monastery survived bycareful borderlands diplomacy.

The Second Jamyang Zhepa (1728–1791) was born in a Tibetannomadic family in Qinghai, not far from Tongkor, one of the monasteriesdestroyed by the Qing in retaliation for Lubsangdanjin’s insurrection, andlater rebuilt by the Qing in a gesture of conciliation and likely a bid forregional allegiance. He was ordained by the famous Monguor scholarJangkya Rolpé Dorjé (1717–1786), then a key Tibetan Buddhist teacherin the Qing court (Tuttle 2005). This confluence of factors, and thefact that he went on to study at Lhasa’s Gomang College in DrepungMonastery, followed the model of religious and political authority insidethe community and in Labrang’s ability to communicate and negotiatewith its neighbors. That is, the key influences at Labrang were its Tibetanand nomadic heritage, its affiliation with the Mongols, its relations withthe Qing Dynasty, and its powerful identification with Gelukpa TibetanBuddhist institutions in Lhasa. Labrang Monastery was a community withinfluences that extended across many borders.

The Second Jamyang Zhepa was one of Tibet’s great scholars, theauthor of twelve volumes of works on doctrines, rituals, histories, and thefull range of monastic subjects. He was in addition a key figure in LabrangMonastery’s growth. He worked to enlarge Labrang’s existing structuresand sponsored the construction of new buildings, among them theKAlacakra Temple (1763), the Medical College (1784), the Changchubstupa, and numerous monastic dwellings. The Second Jamyang Zhepa’sactivities were far-reaching; like his predecessor, he was able to build Labrang’sestate, and is credited with building or renovating some forty monasteriesin the regions around Labrang. This included work at Amchok Monastery(Ganden Chokor Ling), in Ngawa, Kotsé, Sangkok, and throughout whatis today southern Gansu, extending Labrang’s estate enormously. Again,the pattern of using religious authority to acquire property, corvée, andthus political power was the same as that of the First Jamyang Zhepa, andof his monastic colleagues and estate owners. The Second JamyangZhepa was invited and received locally and in neighboring non-Tibetanpower centers, and in return for religious services and political diplomacyhe was offered pledges of revenue and support. His influence was crucialto Labrang’s growth (Gung thang bstan pa’i sgron me 1990).

The Third Jamyang Zhepa (1792–1856) was a native of a nomad tribefrom Rebgong in Qinghai and if not as productive as his predecessors,followed their religious and political examples. He was ordained inLhasa by the Panchen Lama in 1812. Although he did not undertakemuch new construction at Labrang, he oversaw the completion of theMedical College begun by his predecessor, and generated substantial



donations for the monastery. The Third was known as a contemplativeindividual, but he traveled extensively in Labrang’s territories. Labrang’sestate, its religious pedigree, and its recognition in regional countriesgrew (Ngag dbang thub bstan rgya mtsho 1991).

Proof of Labrang’s development as a major Tibetan Buddhist academicand religious center are in this period, the late eighteenth and earlynineteenth centuries. Some of its greatest writers lived in these years,notably Gungtang Tenpé Dronmé (1762–1823), Belmang Pandita KonchokGyaltsen (1764–1853), Konchok Tenpa Rabgyé (1801–1866), and others.These and other scholars formed a network of religious and politicalauthorities that strengthened Labrang internally and externally in cross-bordernegotiations. In these years, such cross-border diplomacy was necessary,as the Qing Dynasty was still capable of regional military maneuvers,proved in the 1790s in Nepal against the Gurkhas, for example. However,the Qing’s power was soon to wane, marked by its frustrated attempts tocontrol the Tibetan system of naming reborn lamas in 1792 with a largelyineffective lottery system, by the passing of the Qianlong Emperor in1796, civil unrest, and in the early nineteenth century the increasing interestand presence of foreign powers in China.

The Fourth Jamyang Zhepa (1856–1916), a native of Kham, like hispredecessors and fellow lamas traveled extensively to solicit funds for newstructures at Labrang. True to the pattern, he was educated at Labrangand in Lhasa, and promoted central Tibetan Gelukpa authority in Amdo.He sponsored Labrang’s Hevajra Temple in 1881 and renovated the MainAssembly Hall soon thereafter. The Fourth Jamyang Zhepa was active atWutai Shan and in the Qing Court, out of religious piety and in effortsat diplomacy. He established many small monasteries in his extensivetravels in Labrang’s territories, visited numerous Buddhist holy places, andwas always graciously received by local communities, in turn offeringprayers for his hosts. The Fourth is known for establishing and enhancingreligious, political and economic ties in areas outside of the Labrangterritories, from China to Lhasa and far western Tibet. At Labrang, hesponsored retreat houses and renovation projects. In addition to being ascholar and ritual adept the Fourth was very well-traveled, well-known,and respected. He was a pilgrim, a missionary, a builder, and importantly,a religious and political authority, and a diplomat.

The Fourth Jamyang Zhepa continued the inherited traditions atLabrang, but he was faced with a changing political environment. TheQing Dynasty was already in decline when he took office, and the powerand presence of the Qinghai-based Muslims was ascending rapidly andoften violently. The Qing authorities, their authority, and their threat andprotection by military action were much reduced, and more inconsistentthan ever. The nearby Muslims filled the vacuum, and in this periodexpanded their influence into Labrang’s territories. The Qinghai Muslimstook over pasturelands in Labrang’s territories in and around Xiahe and



elsewhere in Gansu, and established an increased ethnic presence in theregion in part by their ferocity, signaled by the construction of mosques,notably at Labrang in 1884. The configurations of power on the Sino-Tibetan borderlands were changing rapidly, and the Fourth Jamyang Zhepawas faced with challenge of maintaining the internal integrity of themonastery and the cohesion of its estate at the same time as reconfiguringLabrang’s profile of outside diplomatic alliances. The Manchus and theMongols were no longer Labrang’s critical allies. When the FourthJamyang Zhepa passed away, Amdo was in a crisis (‘Jigs med phrin las rgyamtsho 1916).

His successor, the Fifth Jamyang Zhepa (1916–1947), and his familywere faced with the same structural challenges, namely how to maintainand expand Labrang’s estate, and how to forge external alliances toguarantee regional stability. By 1916, the key powers of years past haddissolved. The Fifth’s representatives’ response was nonetheless to followthe same pattern as that of his predecessors, namely to reassert religiousand political authority at Labrang, to reaffirm Labrang’s central Tibetanconnections, and to engage in constructive diplomacy with externalpowers in return for alliances and support against Labrang’s new enemies,the Qinghai Muslims.

The Fifth Jamyang Zhepa was born in Litang, Sichuan, the second sonof Gonpo Dondrup. His life story is largely typical of a reborn LabrangTibetan Buddhist lama, but he did not have the opportunity to studyextensively at Gomang College in Lhasa, with the exception of his1937–1940 stay in central Tibet. He was tutored and advised at Labrangby Gomang-educated scholars, and worked to enhance Labrang’s GelukpaTibetan Buddhist heritage. He was a recognized rebirth of the FourthJamyang Zhepa, the heir of a massive estate, a monk, ritual master, andwith his family’s guidance, a political leader (Rgya zhabs drung tshangsSkal bzang dkon mchog rgya mtsho n.d., ca. 1953).

As often happened in Tibet, the family of the Fifth Jamyang Zhepaaccompanied him to Labrang from Litang, and they assumed a lot ofpower and privilege. Even after the 1947 passing of the Fifth JamyangZhepa, several of his family members retained a degree of regionalpower. The Fifth Jamyang Zhepa’s oldest brother Apa Alo played a majorrole in events at Labrang from the mid-1920s, and at least through theChinese Republican and early Communist periods. The late nineteenth-and early twentieth-century conflicts on this borderland were typical.In years previous, the Tibetans, Mongols, and Manchus fought andnegotiated for dominance in the region. In the late nineteenth and earlytwentieth century, the Tibetans, Muslims, and Chinese competed foradvantage, a typical example of borderland diplomacy, and of conflict andcompromise.

The Qinghai Muslims occupied Labrang from 1924–1927. In answerto appeals by the Labrang Tibetans, in 1927 the Chinese under Feng



Yuxiang established Xiahe County, under the jurisdiction of Lanzhou.The 1930s nevertheless brought more turmoil to the region, but as timewent on and in relative stability the Labrang Tibetans allowed socialinnovations, including lay education, tolerance of religious institutions,including Muslim, Christian, and Chinese, and expansion of Labrang’smarkets and lay communities. By 1947, there were at least attempts toestablish schools for monks and lay persons that included calligraphy,music, monastic dance, craft skills, science, and Tibetan and Chineselanguages (Labrang Jigme Gyatso 1996, pp. 73–4). The key tactic thatinsured Labrang’s survival was its flexibility, and the willingness of theTibetans to form allegiances as they had in the past, with the series ofneighbors engaged in nearly constant struggles for regional dominance.

The Sixth Jamyang Zhepa (b. 1948), lived through the devastating 1958Chinese takeover and dismantling of Labrang’s social, political, and reli-gious infrastructures in the following years, especially during the hysteriaof the Cultural Revolution, 1966–1976. The 1980s and 1990s broughtsome relaxation of Chinese control and a welcome degree of restoration.Like in other Tibetan areas, the cultural achievements at Labrang remainthreatened, in danger of irrevocable loss.

Community Social Structures

The estate-building process began with the monastery’s founding andcontinued over time, with the result that Labrang’s holdings grew into anenormous estate that extended over much of what is today southern Gansu,part of eastern Qinghai, and a northern section of Sichuan Province. Materialgoods, pastureland and livestock, arable land, and communities of peoplewere commodities given to Labrang Monastery. In this way, LabrangMonastery became a powerful example of the Tibetan system of ‘unity ofreligious and lay’ authority (chos srid zung ‘brel ).

Labrang’s powerful neighbors, however, had their own political structures,and like religion, trade, and culture, political jurisdiction met on theseborderlands. Through its history the Manchu and Chinese authorities,notably the Qinghai regional representative (amban), in the Manchu andChinese vision in control of Labrang and Amdo, could be appealed to intimes of crisis, but outside intervention was intermittent, inconsistent, andusually ineffective. In its properties, the Labrang lamas exercised the highestlevel of moral and legal legitimacy in the community at large; ownershipcarried with it a measure of political and legal control. The Labrangmonastic authorities were called on to mediate or settle legal disputes tothe best of their judgment and ability, or to adjudicate them based on legalprinciples. The rule of the Labrang legal office, called at first the TsongduMarnag, and later, after the Fifth Jamyang Zhepa’s 1937–1940 visit toLhasa, the Yiktsang, was the highest Tibetan legal authority in Labrang’sterritories.



The First Jamyang Zhepa did not travel to Amdo as a single individualwith his Mongol and Tibetan donors. He was accompanied by a groupof disciples, most of whom were themselves from Amdo, reborn lamaswho went on to develop their own lineages and personal estates atLabrang, at the same time as participating in and contributing to thegrowth of the main monastery. The group, including powerful figures likeSetsang Ngakwang Tashi (1678–1738) and Detri Losang Dondrup(1673–1746), together made up a network of monastic experts, politicalauthorities, and estate owners in Amdo (Zhou Ta & Chen Xiao Qiang1994, p. 108).

As the series of six reborn Jamyang Zhepa lamas inherited and built theestate, the entire network of reborn lamas likewise inherited and builttheir individual estates. Passing properties along monastic lines of successionprotected the estates’ holdings from divisions among children and kinship-connected heirs. As a result, many estates accumulated considerable wealthand extensive properties. At Labrang, the traditional number of estates waseighteen (nang chen bco brgyad), but by the time of the dismantling of thesystem in 1958 there were some 36 major monastic estates at Labrang.Some of the largest and most wealthy were those of the Jamyang Zhepas,the Gungtangs, the Detris, and the Gyanagpas (‘Chinese’), all led bylineages of reborn lamas. Most of these lamas were Amdo natives, and ofthese the majority was educated at Gomang College in Lhasa’s DrepungMonastery. Many went on to hold high offices in the Lhasa monasticinfrastructure, later bringing their expertise to Labrang, to recreate amonastic bureaucracy on central Tibetan models.

There were also a very few wealthy lay Tibetan and Mongol estateowners in the region, for example, the Mongol Prince Erdeni Jinong,the Dzoge Méma Lord, and a small number of others. Under the estateowners, there was a class of people with less wealth and political statusdescribed as craftspersons and lesser tribal lords and ladies (dpon, dponmo) who under the jurisdiction of Labrang Monastery or their lord hadwealth, status, and claims to regional property ownership and corvéerights from persons in their small communities. The result was a complexweb of agricultural and nomadic economic and political relationships.

The monastic estates’ Amdo properties were not at all contiguous andcould be exchanged. Estate properties were often scattered aroundLabrang’s territories, resulting in an economic and political patchwork ofallegiances. The reborn lamas received tax revenues, produce, wool, andcorvée at rates that varied from estate to estate, place to place in individualestates, and year to year in times of crop failure or loss of livestock. Therewas little consistency in the system, but it was carefully monitored, andfrom its beginning in 1709 it formed a network largely under the controlof a close knit group of Buddhist monks.

The Labrang Tibetan and the few local Mongol communities weredivided into categories. The fundamental types were the ‘blessed groups’



(lha sde) or landed properties and the ‘subjects’ (mi sde) or groups withfinancial and corvée responsibilities but without resident monastic estatejurisdiction. Other communities had flexible and even voluntary revenueresponsibilities based on religious commitments. As a general rule, thepeople and pastures in the original Tibetan and Mongol ‘land grant’,originally pastoral and later known as the agricultural ‘thirteen villages’,were monastery properties, today located in and around Xiahe town. Astime went on, monastic properties expanded to include territories inwhat are today eastern Qinghai, southern Gansu, and northern SichuanProvince. These were the ‘blessed groups’ (Huang Zhengqing 1994).

Other lands and revenues were located on the peripheries of Labrang’sprimary properties and sometimes in remote locations, in Inner Mongolia,Mongolia, and as far away as Heilongjiang Province in China (Rgya zhabsdrung tshangs Skal bzang dkon mchog rgya mtsho 1948). The differentcategories did not designate class structures, as all categories might includerelatively wealthy livestock or land owners, indentured persons, and bothnomads and farmers. The terms only designate an economic, religious,and political relationship with Labrang Monastery.

Labrang’s peoples and territories had different tax responsibilities. Ingeneral, communities owned by or under the jurisdiction of the monasterywere required to give a sometimes substantial percentage of their harvestsand animal products to Labrang Monastery. If unable to pay, they couldsubstitute service in the monastery for tax payment. They could, forexample, work the monastery estate’s lands, tend their herds, and work inthe monastery itself. If a relatively wealthy person did not want to provideservice, he could hire a replacement to serve in his place. To overseepayments and maintain stability, the monastery assigned resident officers(‘go ba) to their primary estates, or in cases where there was not a singlecommunity, a representative (sku tshab). These officers had their ownbureaucracies drawn from the local community, and were responsible forthe group’s political, legal, and economic affairs. In addition, in thelater years of its history, on a yearly basis the monastery sent economicrepresentatives to collect revenues and to account for profits and losses.

In summary, Labrang Monastery was a typical Tibetan Buddhist institutionon the central Tibetan model, but at the same time a very uniqueproduct of its highland environment, and its borderlands location. Itsfounding, growth, and survival are proof of the flexibility, determination,and abilities of its founders and supporters. Time will tell if its uniquecharacteristics will be able to adapt to the current social, political, andeconomic changes.

Short Biography

Paul K. Nietupski received a Bachelor’s Degree in Comparative Literaturefrom the University of Massachusetts, a Master’s Degree in Asian Languages



and Literatures from the University of Washington, and a Master’s Degreeand PhD in Religion from Columbia University. His research interests arein Tibetan studies, and in the transmissions of medieval Buddhism inSouth and Southeast Asia. He currently teaches at John Carroll Universityin Cleveland, Ohio.

Note

* Correspondence address: Paul K. Nietupski, John Carroll University Religious Studies,20700 North Park Boulevard, Cleveland, OH 44118, USA. Email: [email protected].

Primary Sources

Brag dgon pa dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas, 1985, Mdo smad chos’byung (Deb ther rgya mtsho),The Political and Religious History of A-mdo (North-Eastern Region of Tibet), Gansu People’sPublishing House, Lanzhou.

Brag dgon pa dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas, 2001, Dbal mang pandita’i rnam thar: Yongs rdzogsbstan pa’i mnga’ bdag rje btsun bla ma rdo rje ‘chang dkon mchog rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’i zhalsnga nas kyi rnam par thar ba thar ‘dod ‘jug ngogs. People’s Publishing House, Beijing.

Brug thar (Zhou Ta ), 2002, Mdo smad byang shar gyi bod kyi tsho ba shog pa’i lo rgyus dangrig gnas bcas par dpyad pa, People’s Publishing House, Beijing.

Dbal mang pandita dkon mchog rgyal mtshan, 1989, Gung thang bstan pa’i sgron me’i rnam thar,Gansu People’s Publishing House, Lanzhou.

Dbal mang dkon mchog rgyal mtshan, 1974, Rgya bod hor sog gyi lo rgyus nyung brjod pa byis pa‘jug pa’i ‘bab stegs (deb ther), Reproduced by Gyaltan Gelek Namgyal, Laxmi Printers, NewDelhi.

Gung thang bstan pa’i sgron me, 1990, Kun mkhyen ‘jam dbyangs bzhad pa sku ‘phreng gnyis parje ‘jigs med dbang po’i rnam thar. [Biography of the Second Jamyang Zhepa], Gansu People’sPublishing House, Lanzhou.

Huang Zhengqing , 1994, Hwang krin ching blo bzang tshe dbang dang kun mkhyen lngaba chen po sku mched zung gi rnam thar ba rjes su dran pa zag med ye shes kyi me long (A blospun mched kyi rnam thar). Translation by Dorje Rinchen, People’s Publishing House,Beijing.

‘Jigs med phrin las rgya mtsho, 1916, Zhva ser ring lugs pa sKal bzang thub bstan dbang phyug girtogs pa brjod pa rin chen phreng ba [Biography of the Fourth Jamyang Zhepa], 2 Vols., LabrangMonastery reprint.

Kun mkhyen ‘jigs med dbang po, 1991, Kun mkhyen ‘jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rnam thar [Biographyof the First Jamyang Zhepa], Gansu People’s Publishing House, Lanzhou.

Labrang Jigme Gyatso, 1996, Bla brang bkris ‘khyil dang ‘brel gtam chos srid gsal ba’i me long, Talesof Labrang Tashi Khyil, Gomang Academic Publishing House, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Ngag dbang thub bstan rgya mtsho, 1991, Kun mkhyen ‘Jam dbyangs bzhad pa sku phreng gsumpa’i rnam thar [Biography of the Third Jamyang Zhepa], Chinese Tibetology PublishingHouse, Beijing.

Rgya zhabs drung tshangs Skal bzang dkon mchog rgya mtsho, n.d., ca. 1953, Kun mkhyenchen po rje btsun blo bzang dbyangs ye shes bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’i rnamthat ba dpag bsam ljon ba [Biography of the Fifth Jamyang Zhepa], Labrang Monasteryblockprint.

Rgya zhabs drung tshang Skal bzang dkon mchog rgya mtsho, 1948, Thub bstan yongs su rdzogspa’i mnga’ bdag kun gzigs ye shes kyi nyi ma chen po ‘jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje ‘phreng lnga’irnam par thar ba mdor bsdus su bkod pa, Nanjing.

Zhou Ta and Chen Xiaoqiang , eds., 1994, De er long si yu li bei sai cang huo fo (gTer lung dgon pa dang bse tshang sprul sku rim byon), China

Tibetan Studies Publishing Company, Beijing.



Western Language Works

Borjigidai, U, 2002, ‘The Hoshuud Polity in Khökhnuur (Kokonor)’, Inner Asia vol. 4,pp. 181–196.

Cohen, AP, 1985, The Symbolic Construction of Community, Ellis Horwood, Ltd., Chichester &Tavistock Publications, London, UK.

Crossley, PK, 2006, ‘Making Mongols’, in PK, Crossley, HF, Siu & Sutton, DS (eds.), Empireat the Margins: Culture, Ethnicity, and Frontier in Early Modern China, University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley, CA, pp. 58–82.

Dreyfus, GJB, 2003, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist Monk,University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Elverskog, J, 2006, Our Great Qing: The Mongols, Buddhism and the State in Late Imperial China,University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu, HI.

Horstmann, A & Wadley, RL (eds.), 2006, Centering the Margin: Agency and Narrative in SoutheastAsian Borderlands, Berghahn Books, New York, NY.

Ishihama, Y, 1997, ‘New Light on the “Chinese Conquest of Tibet” in 1720 (Based on NewManchu Sources)’, in H Krasser, et al. (eds.), Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 7th Seminarof the International Association of Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995, Volume I, Verlag der Oster-reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna, Austria, pp. 419–426.

Kapstein, MT, 2006, The Tibetans, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.Petech, L, 1972, China and Tibet in the Early XVIIIth Century: History of the Establishment of

Chinese Protectorate in Tibet, Second, Revised Edition, E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.Tuttle, G, 2005, Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China, Columbia Press, New York,

NY.White, R, 1991, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and the Republics in the Great Lakes Region,

1650–1815, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Download - Labrang Monastery: Tibetan Buddhism on the Sino-Tibetan Frontier

Top Related