TIBETAN SCHOLASTIC EDUCATIONthem as "works that explain the meaning of the Buddha's word, are in accord-
ance with the path for the attainment of emancipation, and are composed by
someone with a nondistracted mind."^36
We may wonder about such a choice of curricular material, which seems to
be unique in the history of Buddhism. This is not the place for an elaborate
exploration of the scriptural background of Tibetan Buddhism which would be
required to answer such a question in any detail. Suffice it to say that historically
the form that Buddhism has taken in Tibet partly derives from the Indian models
that existed at the time (eighth to twelfth centuries) when Buddhism was
adopted by Tibetans. The emphasis on treatise can also be seen as a way to deal
with the tremendous complexity of the canonical material. In general the Bud-
dhist canon is enormous. The bka' gyur contains more than a hundred volumes
of the teachings that purport to be Buddha's direct words. Moreover, these
teachings are not only numerous, but they often explicitly contradict each other.
Confronted with this mass of teachings, Tibetans have tended to be selective and
systematic. They have preferred the systematic treatment of the material found
in the canonical treatises to the more inspirational but less organized material
found in the bka' gyur.
This organization of the curriculum reflects the unabashedly classical orienta-
tion of Tibetan scholastic traditions, their regard for the lost antiquity of high
Indian Buddhist culture. The great Indian treatises, which form the basis of the
curriculum, are considered to be classical by all the schools of Tibetan Bud-
dhism. Their scholastic educations look on these texts from a past period (fourth
to eighth century C.E. ), a period often described as the "golden age of Indian
civilization," as their models in relation to which their contemporary achieve-
ments are measured. For Tibetan scholars, such texts are classical in the full
sense of the word, which is explained by Gadamer in this way:
The "classical" is something raised above the vicissitudes of changing
times and changing tastes. It is immediately accessible, not through that
shock of recognition, as it were, that sometimes characterizes a work of
art for its contemporaries and in which the beholder experiences a ful-
filled apprehension of meaning that surpasses all conscious expecta-
tions. Rather when we call something classical, there is a consciousness
of something enduring, of significance, that cannot be lost and that is
independent of all the circumstances of time-a timeless present that is
contemporaneous with every other present.^37The great Indian treatises have this timeless and normative status. They are the
obligatory reference points for later reflections. They are the "great texts"
revered by Tibetan scholiasts. They provide the basis and model for the educa-
tion of Tibetan scholars, who take them as setting the standards against which
contemporary achievements are measured.