Joshua Esler’s recently published book Tibetan Buddhism among Han Chinese: Mediation and Superscription of the Tibetan Tradition in Contemporary China is a timely publication and an important contribution to scholarship on Sino-Tibetan Buddhist interactions in the contemporary period. It examines the increasing interest in Tibetan Buddhism among ordinary Han Chinese in the early 2000s. This phenomenon is not only present in the mainland China context, but interestingly also in Chinese communities outside the mainland, as explored in Esler’s book. Esler provides unique glimpses into the lives of a wide range of interlocutors in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, including Han practitioners, Tibetan religious teachers, and lay Tibetans. The analysis takes into account their life stories and previously held convictions as well as the sociocultural and political environment in which these individuals practice their faith. Research that takes account of religiosities across Chinese societies is scarce, and this is one of the strong points of Esler’s work. Moreover, the book acknowledges the deep influence of the state, especially on the mainland, in matters of religion and Sino-Tibetan relations. At the same time, it also acknowledges the agency of interlocutors to understand and practice their faith within these confines, without being subsumed by political discourse.
Esler specifically examines key topics concerning the ways in which Han practitioners are adapting Tibetan Buddhism for concrete, this-worldly, as well as soteriological aims. These include the interpretations of Han practitioners concerning the Tibetan tradition and addressing mundane problems such as wealth increase, environmental issues in comparison with and contrast to Tibetan mountain deity cults, and their understanding of a “harmonious society” (hexie shehui 和谐社会), which is in line with or in opposition to Confucian teaching and current political rhetoric (chapter 3).
The ethereal and spectral realms are also examined in chapters 2 and 6, where Esler explores the interpretations of Han practitioners concerning the re-incorporation of the “Chinese god of war” (guangong 关公) into Tibetan Buddhism under the 17th Karmapa, and concerning Chinese popular ideas about ghosts in regard to Tibetan Buddhist teachings on this subject. The book thus discusses issues concerning Tibetan Buddhism and modern Chinese society, such as declining moral standards and environmental pollution (chapter 5), and “concerns that have always been present in Chinese society but are becoming exacerbated with the increase in individualism, such as crass materialism” (xxxii).
Esler skillfully brings out the past and present through his encounters with interlocutors, exploring the ideas and practices of Han followers in relation to current issues in modern China. At the same time, the book acknowledges the still-important scaffolding of a worldview centered on “gods, ghosts, and ancestors,” which is still prevalent among Han practitioners, and to a degree within Chinese societies in general.
The book is written in the first person and is refreshing in many ways, as the author injects lightheartedness and humor into the various chapters as we follow him on his journey into the ideas and issues he struggles with or questions. While the book is written in this personal and lighthearted manner, its tone is also respectful and at times somber as it seeks to examine how and why Han Chinese practice Tibetan Buddhism. Esler teases out the ways in which Tibetan Buddhism is being adapted by Han followers to Chinese society, how the Tibetan tradition has changed the lives of these followers who seek to discover spiritual solace in an increasingly secularized world, and how it is perceived as a powerful force for change in Chinese society at large. This is well conveyed in the opening pages of the book, for example, where we meet Cheng, a practitioner whose life and worldview have been transformed through his newfound faith. Through the lived experiences of Cheng and subsequent practitioners, Esler leads the reader into the many ways in which Tibetan Buddhism has been “superscribed” with new meaning drawn from various modernist as well as “traditionalist” discourses, even as it reorients these practitioners’ lives.
Another highlight of the book is the way in which Esler insightfully points out the many ironies that are part of the current trend of Han Chinese following Tibetan Buddhism. For example, while Tibetans and their religion have typically been portrayed as backward and superstitious by state initiatives and the state has portrayed itself as an instrument for Tibetan “progress,” Han practitioners see Tibetans and their religion as pure, profound, authentic and as being at the peak of civilization. The idea of Tibet as “Shangri-La” is thus deployed by these practitioners, not as a simple stereotypical label, but as a means toward what Esler terms “reverse acculturation,” through which long-held negative stereotypes of Tibetans are replaced with oppositional positive ones.
This book will be of interest to researchers and scholars of Sino-Tibetan Buddhist interaction, Tibetan and Chinese religiosities, and religion within the Chinese context in general. It will also benefit lay readers, who will find many valuable insights concerning Sino-Tibetan religion in the current context. Although the book does not demonstrate how widespread the movement of Tibetan Buddhism among Han Chinese is—due in part to a lack of information in government censuses—it does provide some indication of its extensive geographic spread through its focus on a variety of locations including Beijing, Shangri-La (in Diqing Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Yunnan), Taipei, and Hong Kong. However, some rough indication of the numbers of Chinese practitioners would have been useful. Further, while Esler does explore, to some extent, the situation in Taiwan, his focus is mostly on mainland China and Hong Kong. More exploration of Tibetan Buddhism in Taiwan would have further enriched the book, given the popularity of the Tibetan tradition there. Also, while the author used Mandarin Chinese in mainland China and Taiwan, and Cantonese and English in Hong Kong to conduct his fieldwork, Tibetan was not used with Tibetan interlocutors. While Esler notes in the introduction to his book that being able to use Tibetan among Tibetan interlocutors would have been optimal and that Mandarin Chinese was used instead, given the use of this medium for work and study among Tibetans in Diqing Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, it is possible that certain religious terms, idioms, and contexts were not conveyed in the same way to the author as they may have been in the Tibetan language. However, Esler does provide religious terms of significance in Tibetan throughout the book, in addition to the same terms in Mandarin, Sanskrit, and Cantonese where relevant. Another point to be raised is the representativeness of the book. Esler interviews and interacts with eighty-eight interlocutors, which is a significant number. The fieldwork, however, is spread over four locations, and one wonders how much the work represents Han practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism in such a large place as mainland China in particular. Nevertheless, Esler does acknowledge some limits of the book’s scope, in that it examines clusters of practitioners in the four locations, rather than the totality of Han practitioners throughout the Chinese world. In sum, these are all minor criticisms of an otherwise accomplished work.
I hope to see this work translated into Chinese, to join other works on Tibetan Buddhism in Chinese that have been much appreciated within Chinese communities.
