Monasteries traditionally played a large role in the lives of ordinary people in Tibet. To date, however, relatively little is known about the role of these monasteries and their inhabitants in Tibetan society. Still, the impact of monastic Buddhism on other expressions of Buddhism as well as on a wide range of aspects of Tibetan culture has been tremendous. By contrast, whereas Christian monasticism is only of secondary importance to its faith, Buddhist monasticism is generally seen as primary to Buddhism. Its importance is brought to the fore both in Buddhist doctrine and Buddhist practice. It should, therefore, not come as a surprise that Buddhist monastic institutions not only were a religious “driving force” but also organizations that dealt with so much more than religion alone. In Tibet, as in other countries where Buddhism was adopted as the dominant religion, monasteries came to be major players in politics, economics, culture, art, and society as a whole. This book investigates the role and position of these Buddhist monasteries in Tibetan societies. While the Christian monastic institution, as it existed in medieval Europe, is
seen as the earliest form of organization and a model for later institutions such as schools, orphanages and hospitals, the Buddhist monastic community, according to Spiro, has provided no model for the organization of lay society. Although it is doubtful that this remark is applicable to all Buddhist cultures, Spiro’s comment shows how this notion of religious specialists as guardians of social institutions is ingrained in the psyche of many modern (Western) thinkers and commentators— be they academically or otherwise affiliated. People who are aware of the role that Christian monasticism has played throughout history regularly associate the clerical role with particular worldly concerns, social service, community welfare, economic justice, and charity work. Evidence for this influence is found throughout the history of the Christian church. This is what raises the question of why certain other religions and non-Christian societies have not led to the same types of ubiquitous institutions; it is difficult not to view the other through the lens of one’s own cultural and religious background.