Tibet as a Stateless Society and Some Islamic Parallels

Abstract

Tibet is the most numerically significant society practicing Vajrayana (Tantric) Buddhism. The unusual features of religion in Tibetan society are often understood in terms of differences between Vajrayana and other forms of Buddhism. The author suggests here that Tibet is not a “typical” Vajrayana society compared to the Newars or the Balinese, and that what is special about religion in Tibet is related to structural differences between Tibetan society and Buddhist states elsewhere in Asia. Tibet historically has been a region where a centralized state was barely achievable, and Tibetan political structures have more in common with stateless societies than with states. Buddhism in Tibetan society has analogies with Islam in structurally similar Islamic societies.

Democracy and Democratization among Tibetans in Exile

“…(1990,14) The Tibetan exiles' experiments with democracy represent a significant change from the government they knew in Tibet. The Dalai Lamas exercised centralized control in Tibet only from 1642 (with the rise of the Great Fifth Dalai Lama) to 1959 (with the exile of the fourteenth Dalai Lama), and even then, there is considerable debate as to how extensive their control actually was (Cassinelli and Ekvall 1969;Goldstein 1971;Miller 1982;Samuel 1982). 19 The Tibetans call this form of governance chösi nyidrel (religion and politics combined), a term that I gloss as "enlightened governance."…”

“…For simplicity, and in accordance with exile nostalgia, I present a rather idealized view of the Tibetan past here. The Dalai Lamas exercised centralized control in Tibet only from 1642 (with the rise of the Great Fifth Dalai Lama) to 1959 (with the exile of the fourteenth Dalai Lama), and even then, there is considerable debate as to how extensive their control actually was (Cassinelli and Ekvall 1969;Goldstein 1971;Miller 1982;Samuel 1982). Other high lamas and even some nonenlightened military rulers frequently contested the Dalai Lama's position.…”

The Historical Roots of Tibetan Scholasticism

“…Unfortunately, Kapstein does not extend his discussion of the binding power of ideas to the later dissemination period – perhaps because after the collapse of the empire there was no longer a political unity that required a complementary ideological unity. But, as Samuel points out, ideological‐cultural cohesion in the absence of centralized political authority may just be the most distinctive fact of Tibetan history (Samuel 1982), and it would be illuminating to ask about the respective roles of esoteric ritual and exoteric scholarship in the production of this ideological cohesion.…”

Tibetan Culture in the Diaspora

“…Thus, the longing for the homeland functions as a therapeutic for many who know that they may never return. In other words, the yearning replaces the actual phenomenon of physical repatriation, allowing the individual to remain loyal to a "stateless society" (Samuel 1982 ).…”