Australia and the World Past and Present

Tibet is known as a center of “mass monasticism”.

Over centuries many monasteries grew into massive institutions, sometimes housing thousands of monks in the one location.

In some regions of Tibet, monks accounted for 10 to 20% of the adult male population.

These were gigantic monasteries – much larger than Buddhist monasteries in other parts of the world.

What explains this mass monasticism?

Does it lie in something unique to Tibetan culture? Does it have to do with the region’s particular climate? Was it shaped by specific historical forces?

The monasteries at Drepung and Sera Monastery had thousands of monks at their peak.

Drepung, near Lhasa, is one of the most important monasteries in Tibetan Buddhism.

It was founded in the 15th century.

It quickly became a center of the Gelug school, known for its emphasis on scholarship and monastic discipline.

The golden age of the monastery was in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Drepung grew into one of the largest monasteries in the world, housing up to 10,000 monks at its peak.

Before the construction of the Potala Palace, the Dalai Lamas resided at Drepung.

It became a major center of learning, with large monastic colleges.

It also played a key role in Tibetan governance, and monks from Drepung were influential in both religious and administrative affairs.

Following the Chinese annexation of Tibet (and especially after the Cultural Revolution), the monastery was severely damaged and its monastic population drastically reduced.

Drepung still functions as a monastery, though with far fewer monks than in the past.

Sera is another of the great Gelug monasteries of Tibet.

Founded in 1419, it expanded rapidly.

Monks studied philosophy, logic, and Buddhist doctrine.

The monastery was famous for its highly structured debate tradition, which is still practiced today.

Like Drepung, it suffered significant damage and disruption after the Chinese annexation of Tibet and its monastic population declined sharply.

Tibetan families viewed sending a son to a monastery as a way for them to gain merit. Good deeds were believed to bring forth reward. These sons could learn the Buddhist dharma and live in accordance with the teachings.

Tibetan monasteries were not just religious centers. They were also major hubs of society.

Monasteries were probably the chief centers if literacy. In much the same way as European monasteries became repositories of Western learning and knowledge, Tibetan monasteries were places where people could learn to read and write. The focus was always on religious studies, but the medium was also taught. In this way, many monks learned how to read and write Tibetan.

There is limited arable land in Tibet. Families with many children faced a dilemma. If they owned land, dividing it between multiple children would lead to ever-smaller parcels, making it increasingly difficult to grow crops or raise livestock. Sending children away to a monastery relived this economic pressure.

In pre-modern Tibet, there were limited pathways to make a living. One might become a pastoralist, a trader, or perhaps some kind of administrator. But what other options were there? The monasteries were always there to give people another option and provide them with purpose.

The Tibetan climate can be harsh. The high-altitude Tibetan Plateau is a place of extreme cold. Monasteries could provide shelter from the elements. Monasteries were permanent, insulated structures.

Monasteries could provide food and shelter in a region where there could be a shortage of both. They often provided protection from famine or economic hardship. Sometimes, monasteries would store grain or shelter herds of livestock. At these locations, food would be pooled and distributed. Monasteries provided a hedge against famine or the decimation of livestock herds through disease. They accumulated grain surpluses in good years and distributed it in meager years.

Seen in this light, the monasteries served a kind of social safety net. This was not their primary purpose, but it was a byproduct of their existence.

We can compare the size of Tibetan monasteries with the monasteries of Southeast Asia.

In Southeast Asia, monasteries typically serviced a single village or neighbourhood.

Another interesting difference was that temporary ordination was often permitted in southeast Asian Buddhism, whereas this was frowned upon in Tibet.

In Southeast Asia, monasteries were widely distributed whereas in Tibet they were more centralised.

The average monastery in Tibet may have had a higher number of monks than a monastery in Thailand, for example. Yet overall, Thailand has more monks than Tibet.

Buddhist mass monasticism developed in Tibet to a greater extent than it did in many other parts of the Buddhist world.

Buddhism took root in Tibet and found fertile soil there. The focus of the monasteries was always the study of Buddhism, spiritual practice and working towards enlightenment. But I suspect that there were also strong societal and economic forces which swelled the number of monks in these institutions. And we can trace a link back to Tibet’s harsh climate.

In much the same way as families in Europe in the Middle Ages would send one of their children to become part of the Church, Tibetan families often sent children away to the monastery.

There was a broader economic logic behind monasticism and the monasteries had a wider economic and social role beyond just religion.