342 sven bretfeld
works were written by religious specialists for a speci c religio-political
purpose and date from a time considerably later than the historical
period in question. Although the motives behind Tibetan Buddhist
historiography have, as far as I know, never been studied systematically,
we can say at least the following: The chos-’byungs (“religious histories”)
and similar genres of Tibetan historiography are, above all, religious
statements. Their primary concern is not to give answers to the question
of what happened in the past, but of what is the meaning of certain
past events for the present.^2 They communicate the “Great Story” of
Tibetan Buddhism to an audience that identi es with this narration,
and in commemorating the religious past of the country, Tibetan his-
torical works communicate religious values, construct group identities
and legitimate models of social differentiation—for example, the social
supremacy of the clergy^3 or the relationship between the clergy and
worldly aristocracy. Under this perspective it is quite understandable,
that our sources concentrate on the stories of past religious heroes, since
it is the religious work of those extraordinary people that is believed
to have formed Tibet into the religious society which is attempted to
be (re-)created or preserved by commemorating these stories. Average
lay-Buddhists, even ordinary monks, appear in these sources only as
numerical factors or as role-speci c walk-ons. Thus, in the “later spread”
accounts we hear of people converting to Buddhism, and eventually
adopting a religious life, because a certain Buddhist master evoked their
con dence in the dharma. But we do not hear a word on the social pro-
cesses and structures involved in the establishment of Buddhism as the
religion of the great masses of Tibetan population—for example, the
strong dependency of Tibetan peasants from their respective landlord,
who, moreover, frequently was no-one other than the head of a large,
land-owning monastic estate himself.
Hence, in following the accounts of the “later spread” in Tibetan
historical sources, neither “Tibetan history”, nor “Tibetan Buddhism”,
nor “Tibetan Buddhists” are represented, but a speci c class of Tibetan
(^2) Cf. also Schwieger 2000, Kapstein 2000 and Bretfeld 2003.
(^3) I use this term for lack of a better one. What I mean is the totality of Tibetan
Buddhists who chose religious activities as their main profession. This includes many
more lifestyles than that of a celibate monk or nun living in a monastery. For a
detailed discussion of the various models of Buddhist specialists, see Samuel 1993,
pp. 270–289.