Tibetan studies

This special issue (co-edited by Françoise Robin, Nicola Schneider and Nicolas Sihlé) on hair and its treatment in the Tibetan cultural area establishes a dialogue with the work of Christian Bromberger, who has proposed a general analytical approach to the social treatment of hair on the head and body. In the Tibetan world, hair is a corporeal element closely associated with the prosperity and vitality of the individual (as we are reminded in the ethnographic account by a Tibetan contributor in this issue). It also reflects contemporary evolutions, with breaks in the ascribing of value to long hair among laypeople, or the possibility of critical political interpretations of its length. Among religious people, capillary modalities are highly codified, varying depending on the form of religious specialisation. The contrast is obvious between the shaven-headed monastic clergy and, at the other extreme, the case of long-haired female non-monastic virtuoso adepts, and especially tantrists and their genuine culture of long hair (often dreadlocks). The texts assembled in this issue reveal a particularly rich trichological culture, suggesting how Bromberger's work could be extended towards a more complete anthropology of hair.

Due to its enormous expansion of and the networks established by the Tibetan Empire between the 7th and 9th century, Tibetan culture, language, and religion spread in a vast territory , reaching from Ladakh in the west to Dartsedo in the east, and covering parts of present-day Nepal (Mustang) and regions today administered by Pakistan (Gilgit-Baltistan). The area where Tibetic languages are still spoken, and where cultural traits which can be identified as being of Tibetan origin persist, therefore goes far beyond the actual Tibetan Autonomous Region and further Tibetan autonomous prefectures currently administered by the People's Republic of China. Thus, scholars often use the term "ethnic Tibet" to define this entire zone to distinguish it from today's geopolitical entity Tibet. But while the term "ethnic" implies a specific belonging to one group, in our workshop we will discuss in detail the various forms of assertion or rejection of belonging to a real or imagined wider Tibetan community among speakers of Tibet-ic languages outside of today's geopolitical entity Tibet. The speakers of this workshop are scholars of different disciplines studying diverse aspects of Tibetic speaking groups in present-day Bhutan, China, India, Nepal, and Pakistan, focussing on various identity (trans)formation processes among these groups. Among others, the following questions will be addressed: Does the Tibetan past play a role and if so, to what extent for the identity (trans)formation processes among these Tibetic speaking groups? What kind of endeavours to preserve and/or revive Tibetan heritage can be observed? What role do global networks, social media, local and international NGOs, education institutions, and the respective states play? Are Tibetan Buddhism and symbols in general allocated to this integrative elements of the identity (trans)formation processes? What local and global factors contribute to the assertion or rejection of belonging to a wider Tibetan community? How do members of these groups define Tibetanness?

In April 2019, Dasho Karma Ura, the director of the Centre for Bhutan and GNH Studies in Thimphu, opened the Third International Vajrayana Conference, by stat- ing that he is taking pride in the fact that Bhutan is the last remaining Vajrayana Bud- dhist nation-state in the world, and his country consequently had a responsibility in safeguarding and preserving the Vajrayana Buddhist teachings. The prime minister of Bhutan, Dr. Lotay Tshering, gave an inaugural speech and H.M. Jigme Namgyal Wangchuck, the Fifth King of Bhutan offered a private audience to all international participants at the final day of the Conference, both of them reinforcing Bhutan’s strong sense of ownership of the Vajrayana Buddhist teachings as their ‘main stake- holders’. The conference was attended by a wide range of international scholars and practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism, as well the local intellectual elite and people in power.
The Bhutanese Buddhist state was founded by a Tibetan Lama and many important Tibet-born Buddhist authorities directly impacted Bhutan by spreading the Buddhist teachings there in person. Still, in present discourse, Bhutanese exclusively refer to their Buddhist practice as Vajrayana and Mahayana Buddhism, rather than ‘Tibetan Buddhism’, and when talking about their liturgical language solely use the term chos skad (“dharma language”), avoiding the English term “Classical Tibetan” at all costs. Obviously, there is a politically motivated necessity to protect the tiny state’s sover- eignty by means of emphasising its distinctive culture which is not to be equalled with Tibetan culture, stressing Bhutan’s ‘Non-Tibetanness’.
When researching Bhutan’s communal Vajrayana festivals, I was often taken aback, how different Bhutanese practice of ‘cham festivals is in comparison to all festivals I had observed in Ladakhi/Zanskari and Tibetan-exile monasteries in India and what I knew from literature about ‘chams located in Tibet. As a consequence, I started to understand Bhutanese practice of ‘Tibetan Buddhism’ as syncretism, a “creative blend- ing of indigenous and foreign beliefs or practices into new cultural forms” (Havilland 2013), resulting in ‘Bhutaneseness’ of Vajrayana Buddhism in Bhutan, rather than ‘Ti- betanness’. Drawing on my field research, I would like to discuss ‘Non-Tibetanness’ and the transformation of ‘Tibetanness’ into ‘Bhutaneseness’ using the example of communal ‘cham festivals in Bhutan.