This book is a detailed overview of the Labrang monastery, one of the largest Buddhist monasteries ever established in Tibet. A study of the monastic system is critical to understanding Tibetan society and history. Until the arrival of Chinese Communist Party rule in the mid-twentieth century, monasteries were pervasive and played a pivotal role in Tibetan society. They were not only simple religious institutions, but also state-like polities that possessed their own estates and subjects. Therefore, this book is not just a simple historical overview of a local monastery, but an important lesson on how to understand Tibetan history and society through the study of monastic rule.
Over fifteen years of Paul Kocot Nietupski's research went into this work; it is a rich monograph that describes Labrang's local history in a unique way. The following is a summary of the content of this book.
In the Introduction, Nietupski discusses the location of this monastery. Labrang is located in Tibet's eastern Amdo region, where Tibetans, Mongols, Muslims, Manchus, and Chinese coexisted. Hence, the history of Labrang is characterized by ethnic conflicts and compromises. While most of the important abbots of the monastery were educated in great monasteries in Lhasa, the capital of central Tibet, the Labrang monastery also supplied many Tibetan lamas for the Manchurian Qing court. It acquired its first estates and subjects through donations from a Mongol prince. Because this monastery has such a multiethnic history, Nietupski states that “the study of Labrang's borderland society can shed new light on the stability of its political system” (p. xvi).
The first chapter provides an overview of the Amdo region, its society and history. The author argues that the multiethnic nature of the region leads to a more nuanced situation than a simple dichotomy between Lhasa-centric and Manchu-centered views.
Chapter 2 is an introduction to the monastery itself. The author describes its colleges and curriculum, and includes a short history of its institutions. Nietupski also emphasizes the religious diversity of Amdo. This diversity includes the peaceful coexistence not only of different religions but also of different traditions within Tibetan Buddhism. For example, the Jamyang Zhepas, who were famous reborn lama scholars and dignitaries of the Geluk sect and abbots of Labrang monastery, were escorted by ascetics from the Nyingma sect on their religious parades. This picture clearly shows that Amdo history cannot be fully understood in terms of antagonism among Tibetan Buddhist sects.
In Chapter 3, Nietupski analyzes Labrang's social system. The author points out that Labrang's social system was based on the mutual exchange of services between the monastery and its supporting communities. The monastery and its high lamas provided various religious services to the surrounding communities, and in turn, the communities provided the monastery with tax payments and corvée. Nietupski describes Labrang's society as “Tibetan-style interactive religious and lay society” (p. 53 and passim).
In Chapter 4, the author writes a history of the development of the Labrang monastery through a detailed reconstruction of the lineage of the Jamyang Zhepas, the most powerful reborn lamas and de facto rulers of the Labrang. The charisma and personalities of the Jamyang Zhepas played an important role in the history of Labrang. Nietupski emphasizes Labrang's independent rule, although lamas of the monastery had many titles bestowed upon by them by the Qing court.
Chapter 5 describes the modern history of Labrang. In the twentieth century, Muslim warlords became the most powerful actors in the area. The Muslims' expansion forced the monastery to seek the protection of the Chinese. In this chapter, Nietupski also describes many attempts at modernization instituted by the fifth Jamyang Zhepa and by Apa Alo, who was a close relative of the fifth Jamyang Zhepa and the most powerful figure in twentieth-century Labrang.
Chapter 6 consists of a brief series of concluding remarks. In this chapter, the author summarizes the key findings of his study. The author concludes that Labrang was an autonomous polity until 1958, and points out that the monastery's religious-political system was unique but shared many common characteristics with other Tibetan communities.
The true value of this book lies in its historiographical richness. This monograph is a very interesting local history of the borderland area where many civilizations met. Although the view that Labrang was in a peripheral region is often emphasized, this does not mean that the monastery was isolated. The present work attempts to refute two influential standpoints, which approach the local history of peripheral Tibet from Lhasa-centric and Manchu-centric points of view. According to the Lhasa-centric perspective, Labrang can be understood as a branch of the Drepung monastery, one of the most influential Geluk monasteries in Lhasa. This is because the most powerful abbots of Labrang were educated in and played important roles in central Tibet. One the other hand, scholars with a Qing-centric viewpoint emphasize the monastery's relationship with the court, since many titles and gifts were given to the reborn lamas of the monastery by the Qing. Nietupski refutes both of these views by portraying Labrang's historical development as autonomous. In his view, Labrang's relationships with centers of power can be understood as strategic coalitions rather than direct subordination. This balanced presentation offers a new understanding of the power structure of peripheral Tibet.
Another important contribution provided by Nietupski's work concerns the discussion of political theory as applied to the Tibetan social system. Throughout this book, especially in Chapter 3, the author uses novel expressions, such as “Tibetan-style interactive religious and lay society”, or “Labrang and its support communities”. Although Nietupski does not give detailed definitions for these terms, they are important because they elucidate a new way of looking at Tibetan local governance. The author uses the term “support communities” to refer to the communities under Labrang's governance that provided many services such as tax and corvée to the monastery. In traditional political theories of the Tibetan social system, which were developed by Melvyn C. Goldstein and other scholars (cf. Goldstein 1968), members of surrounding communities were described as “serfs” or “subjects” of the monastery.Footnote 1 Nietupski's selection of terms seems intentional, though he does not elaborate on his reasons for selecting the terms he uses. By using the term “support communities”, he emphasizes the voluntary and mutual aspects of the exchanges between the rulers and the ruled. Nietupski understands Tibetan society in Labrang as a monastery-centered estate complex. In such a society, the monasteries would not have functioned as despotic ruler, but rather would have had a duty to provide religious services to their support communities. On the other hand, the ruled communities also had a duty to provide services to the monasteries. Hence the author uses the term “support communities” rather than calling them “serfs” or “subjects”. Nietupski conveys his nuanced understanding of the ruler–ruled relationship by using the term “Tibetan-style interactive religious and lay society”. Nietupski's understanding of Tibetan monastic governance as reciprocal and interactive will not only contribute to the field of Tibetan political theory, but also to the study of political science in other pre-modern societies.
This book is one of the most interesting contributions to the history of Amdo, presenting the history of a famous monastery. However it would be an error to assume that this study is perfect. The author states that it is the result of both field research and textual study, but in fact it is predominantly a work of textual study or historiography, not a work of ethnography. It seems that precious oral data collected by Nietupski were not utilized fully.
Another unsatisfying aspect of the book lies in its citation methods and its degree of bibliographical precision. Nietupski repeatedly and excessively cites the same Tibetan sources, such as biographies of the Jamyang Zhepas, without using abbreviations. If the author had used abbreviations (such as JZ2 for the biography of the second Jamyang Zhepa) instead of repeating the lengthy full Wylie system spellings, then this book would have been shorter in length. The extensive notes and bibliography constitute a large portion of this book. Such a redundancy, if not pedantry, damages this work's readability.
Significant misprints can also found in the bibliography. For example, the work of Dbang rgyal is attributed to Dan Qu (p. 235). The author also lists Tian Ma Book Company (p. 237) and Flying Horse Publishing Company (p. 236) as separate entities, but they are the same publisher; the citation should have been standardized. The contents of Sum pa ye shes's work (p. 242) and Smaten Karmay's work (p. 253) are not complete. I also found that the work of Goldstein (Goldstein 1989) has been cited erroneously on p. 43 n. 23 and p. 44 n. 24. In the section of the text in which these citations are found, Nietupski discusses the problem of the Tibetan mass monastic system, but Goldstein's article is a short note on the status of Tibetan peasantry and has nothing to do with the monastic system.Footnote 2
Such shortcomings aside, the author here presents a fascinating picture of the local history of this important monastery and its support communities. I believe that this book will contribute to not only Tibetan studies but also the wider fields of pre-modern society and history. Readers will find this book to be a good socio-historical monograph that tries to overcome the limits of state definition.
