Editing Nepal (section)

== Radical Buddhism in Nepal ==

Prior to the 1990s there is little that resembles radical Buddhism in a strict sense in Nepal. Nevertheless, there was a Theravada reform movement that came into conflict with an authoritarian state; Indian radical Buddhists passed through Nepal or corresponded with Nepalese Buddhists; and since1990 there have been campaigns in which Buddhist identity was linked to secularism, ethnic recognition, and, in a few cases, left-wing politics. Even for the Rana period, LeVine and Gellner observe that political reformers were not primarily concerned with religious reform, nor religious reformers with politics.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 100.</ref>

=== Dissent and Reform under the Rana State ===

The Rana regime was a patrimonial state in which the kings lived under what LeVine and Gellner call permanent house arrest, and it kept Indian democratic and nationalist ideas out of Nepal.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 24, 26–27.</ref> Besides banning conversion, it banned the public use of languages other than Nepali and the printing of books in them, which especially affected Newari; writers who used Newari were arrested.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", pp. 74–75.</ref> The Theravada revival was therefore also a language movement, and its translations into Newari and Nepali were themselves a form of dissent. According to Kloppenborg, following Bechert, the Maha Bodhi Society combined the propagation of Buddhism with nationalistic and social-revolutionary ideals, which is why the Rana regime distrusted contacts with it in the 1930s and 1940s.<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", p. 302, after Bechert (1966).</ref> The regime's response was not uniformly hostile: Chudal reports that Prime Minister Chandra Shamsher contributed to the renovation of the Kindol Vihara at Swayambhu in 1923.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", pp. 72–73. Chudal reads the other donor as Dharmaman Sahu, the Newar merchant of Lhasa.</ref>

Repression came in several waves, and the sources disagree about the dates. In November 1931 Das Ratna Tuladhar (Dhammalok) and eleven other Newars, among them the poets Jogbir Singh Kansakar and Chittadhar Hridaya, were fined and briefly imprisoned for "unorthodox religion."<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 41; Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 304–305.</ref> Kloppenborg and LeVine and Gellner report that Mahapragya (Mahaprajna) and five others were expelled to India in 1926, while Bechert and Hartmann place the arrest and expulsion of Mahapragya and Amritananda at Bhojpur in 1937, a date that Chudal's notes give as 14 January 1937.<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", p. 305; LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 43; Bechert and Hartmann (1988), "Observations on the Reform of Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 9, 11–12; Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", n. 18. The discrepancy is unresolved.</ref> In 1940 the government imprisoned Hridaya and Fatte Bahadur Singh over a Newari poetry collection, ''Nepali Vihara''; in prison Hridaya wrote his best-known work, ''Sugata Saurabha'', a verse life of the Buddha.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", p. 75.</ref> On 30 July 1944 Prime Minister Juddha Shamsher ordered the monks to stop preaching, ordaining, and printing in Newari and to return to lay life, and those who refused had to leave; about a dozen monks went into exile in India.<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", p. 306; LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 47–48.</ref> Buddhists in several countries protested, the Maha Bodhi Society offered the exiles hospitality in Sarnath, and the [[Sri Lanka]]n monk Bhikshu Sri Nivasa sheltered five of them at his rest house at Nautanva on the Indian side of the border.<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", p. 306; Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", n. 8. See [[Maha Bodhi Society]].</ref> The government's reply to the protests defended Hindu ''sanatana dharma'' and treated the conversion of "minors and women" as an offense; LeVine and Gellner add that the vihara of the anagarika Dharmashila at Pokhara became a meeting place for political opponents of the regime.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 48.</ref> The same sources record that in 1941 four men were hanged for organizing the Praja Parishad, a political association; LeVine and Gellner do not present this as a Buddhist event.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 47, 100.</ref>

=== Indian Visitors and Allies ===

Nepal's Buddhist revival also unfolded in contact with [[India]]n scholars, several of whom are covered elsewhere in the project. [[Dharmanand Kosambi]] visited Kathmandu in February 1902, hoping to learn about Buddhism; he found no learned monk or lay Buddhist, was saddened by what he saw at a stupa, and went on to Bodh Gaya. His account is a useful baseline for how little visible Buddhist learning there was before the revival.<ref>Kosambi, Dharmanand (1924). निवेदन ''Nivedan'' [Statement] (Marathi). Manoranjak Granthaprasarak Mandali, pp. 64–82 (eye-read from page images). For the stupa and the disappointment, see pp. 71, 74–75. See [[Dharmanand Kosambi]].</ref> [[Rahul Sankrityayan]] entered Nepal repeatedly between 1920 and 1936, often disguised as a Hindu pilgrim during the Sivaratri festival, because Nepal was his gateway to [[Tibet]]. Dharmaman Sahu, a wealthy Newar merchant of Lhasa, and Hemraj Sharma, the Rana state's ''rajguru'', helped him; Chudal reports that his political books were later banned in Nepal while his Buddhist books were not.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", pp. 62–63, 66–74, 82.</ref> Chudal concludes that Sankrityayan was not actively involved in the Theravada movement and that his support for it was moral rather than organizational.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", pp. 77, 81. This is Chudal's inference.</ref> His books nevertheless reached its members. Hridaya read Sankrityayan's Hindi ''Buddhacharya'' in prison as a devotional text, and Mahapragya's Newari life of the Buddha is described by LeVine and Gellner as following Sankrityayan's Hindi life closely, although Bechert and Hartmann say that it was composed from Pali sources.<ref>Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", p. 75 and n. 26; LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 258; Bechert and Hartmann (1988), "Observations on the Reform of Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 12, 26. The identification of Mahapragya with Prem Bahadur "Nani Kaji" Shrestha (1901–1978) is Chudal's, via Sakya (1993).</ref>

=== The Kathmandu Conference of 1956 ===

In November 1956 Kathmandu hosted the Fourth General Conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists. King Mahendra opened it on 14 November and banned animal sacrifice on Buddha Jayanti; Amritananda was elected a vice-president of the Fellowship; and among the speakers, according to Kloppenborg, were Chandramani and the Sri Lankan scholar G.P. Malalasekera, who called for a "Buddhist welfare state."<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 58; Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 308–309. One source calls the conference the "World Congress of Religions" (Ayyathurai, Gajendran (2020). "Living Buddhism: Migration, memory, and castelessness in South India". ''History and Anthropology'', online 14 December 2020, n. 7); the sources are consistent on the year, and the naming differences appear to be only that.</ref> [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]], who had converted at Nagpur a month earlier, addressed the delegates in the palace on 20 November, on the relation between Buddhism and communism; the speech is treated on his page.<ref>Ambedkar, B.R. (1956). "Buddha or Karl Marx" (Kathmandu speech, 20 November 1956). In: BAWS 17, part 3: 549–558. The headnote (p. 549) places the speech in the palace of the King of Nepal and records that Chandramani gave the Three Refuges and Five Precepts; its dais list names "Amrutanand Mahasthavir," whose identification with Amritananda is not stated by the source.</ref> LeVine and Gellner and Chudal, who relies on Anand Kausalyayan, also place Ambedkar at the conference, and Chudal reports that Sankrityayan, who also attended, said in an impromptu speech that Nepal and India share a single culture.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 60; Chudal (2015), "Rahul Sankrityayan and the Buddhism of Nepal", pp. 77, 81–82. Chudal's gloss that Sankrityayan felt he was never in a "foreign land" in Nepal, expressing "one cultural soul," is her own interpretation. Ayyathurai (2020), "Living Buddhism", n. 7 (p. 18), reports an informant's account that Tamil Buddhists from Hubli met Ambedkar at the conference.</ref>

Three years later Amritananda traveled to [[China]], North [[Vietnam]], [[Mongolia]], and the [[Russia and the Societ Union|Soviet Union]]. According to Kloppenborg, he returned convinced that Buddhism was flourishing under communism, and his praise of the communist countries made a great impression on Buddhists in Nepal, [[Sri Lanka]], and [[Burma]].<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", p. 310, citing Amritananda (1961), Welch (1963), and Bechert (1966) (as reported by Kloppenborg). LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', p. 69, repeat the visit from Kloppenborg and are not independent confirmation.</ref> This is the only pairing of Buddhism and communism that the Theravada sources record before the 1990s, and the sources do not show that Amritananda drew on Marxist ideas.

=== U Chandramani ===

U Chandramani (1876–1972; also Candramani) was an Arakanese-born monk who came to India at Dharmapala's request and was based at Kusinagar, where he opened a school in 1929.<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 305–306. Earlier project notes give 1875 as his birth year (via Ober); the year is unresolved (F.97).</ref> He trained the first Nepalese Theravada monks, among them Dharmaloka, who was ordained a novice under him in 1931, and Ober, following LeVine and Gellner, credits him with spearheading the Theravada movement in twentieth-century Nepal by introducing a new lineage of trained monks and nuns among Vajrayana Newar families.<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", p. 305; Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 109, n. 8, citing LeVine and Gellner (2005), pp. 41–48.</ref> He was the first president of the Dharmodaya Sabha. He matters for the history of radical Buddhism chiefly because he was the senior monk at Ambedkar's conversion at Nagpur on 14 October 1956, where he administered the Three Refuges and Five Precepts, and, according to the headnote of Ambedkar's Kathmandu speech, he also gave the refuges and precepts at the Kathmandu event a month later.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', pp. 185–186 (photograph caption); LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 44, 60 (which say that he "ordained" Ambedkar in 1956 and Sangharakshita in 1949; the Nagpur ceremony is usually described as the administering of the refuges and precepts to a lay convert). See also [[Dalit Buddhism]].</ref>

=== Caste, Women, and Reform within the Sangha ===

Bechert and Hartmann identify modernist features in the Nepalese Theravada movement: translation of texts, lay access, mass meditation, rationalism and demythologization, and a social philosophy that included the emancipation of women and a critical examination of the inherited social and political order.<ref>Bechert and Hartmann (1988), "Observations on the Reform of Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 18, 30.</ref> Caste was a practical problem. A monk who accepts food from a lower-caste donor may be refused by higher-caste lay supporters, so that many monasteries replaced alms rounds with invitations to lunch.<ref>Kloppenborg (1977), "Theravada Buddhism in Nepal", p. 312.</ref> Bechert and Hartmann report that Theravada monks call caste a secular matter, that laypeople threatened to withdraw their support if certain bounds were crossed, and that, although alms from untouchables are accepted and several untouchables have entered the community, the Sangha had not yet conferred full ordination on a monk of untouchable caste, who remained a novice.<ref>Bechert and Hartmann (1988), "Observations on the Reform of Buddhism in Nepal", pp. 22–23.</ref> LeVine and Gellner record that the monks Ashwaghosh and Buddhaghosh insisted from the start on taking alms rice from low-caste households, and that Theravada reached middle and lower Newar castes, notably the Maharjans, who became a main source of recruits.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 63, 281.</ref> Vipassana courses opened meditation, formerly restricted to Vajracharyas, Shakyas, and Udays, to a wider public.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 228–229.</ref>

Nepal did not develop a [[Dalit Buddhism|Dalit Buddhist]] movement like the one that followed Ambedkar in India. Letizia, citing Hangen, notes that the Dharmodaya Sabha has not promoted Dalit conversion, that the Newars who control the public representation of Buddhism accept Janajati (ethnic) Buddhists but seem uncomfortable with Dalit Buddhists, and that the Janajati category, which excludes Hindu caste groups, impedes coalitions between Janajatis and Dalits.<ref>Letizia (2014), "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging", n. 34, citing Hangen (2007), pp. 20, 51; LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 262, 266–267. Torri (2019) deliberately excludes Dalits from his study (para. [3]).</ref> The movement was nevertheless linked to the Indian one: according to the ''Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'', the Triratna movement founded by Sangharakshita, which supports Ambedkarite converts, had centers in India and Nepal by the 1970s.<ref>Geary, David, & Sraman Mukherjee (2017). "Buddhism in Contemporary India". In: Jerryson, Michael (Ed.), ''The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Buddhism'': 36–57. Oxford University Press, pp. 49–50. See [[Dalit Buddhism]].</ref>

=== Bhikshu Ashwaghosh ===

Bhikshu Ashwaghosh (born Buddha Ratna Shakya, b. 1926; also Aswaghosh, Asvagosha) became a novice in 1944 and was fully ordained in 1949 in Sri Lanka; he was later abbot of the Shrigha Vihara in Kathmandu.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 281, 293 (Appendix 1).</ref> LeVine and Gellner report that he was known to many as "the communist monk," that after 1990 he was active in the movement for a secular constitution in alliance with the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), and that he sat in the Upper House on its nomination, either from 1991 to 1993 (p. 281) or from 1993 to 1995 (Appendix 1, p. 293).<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 281, 293. Steinmann (2016), p. 377, repeats the nomination, which she takes from LeVine and Gellner (2005), p. 293; the nomination is therefore reported at second hand twice.</ref> The chapters of LeVine and Gellner on meditation and social activism contain no politics: they show him as a supporter of the meditation movement who hoped it would help with his temper, included selfless social service among its advantages, and, with Sudarshan, advised Magar activists on rites and texts.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 211, 223, 236.</ref> He is the clearest case in the sources of a monk allied with a left-wing party, but the sources do not document his own political statements, and none links him to the monks' secularism campaign discussed below.<ref>Torri (2019), para. [27], attributes that campaign to Theravada monks without naming any; Letizia (2014), "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging", p. 293, names a monk "Asvagosha" at a 1995 camp, but the identification with Ashwaghosh is assumed and not stated.</ref>

=== Secularism, Ethnicity, and Buddhism after 1990 ===

The first ''jana andolan'' (people's movement) of 1990 ended the ''panchayat'' system under King Birendra, the Maoist insurgency lasted from 1996 to 2006, a second ''jana andolan'' in April 2006 led to the proclamation of a secular state on 18 May 2006, and the Constituent Assembly declared a secular republic in May 2008.<ref>Torri (2019), "Religious Identities and the Struggle for Secularism", paras. [1], [26].</ref> Torri reports, at second hand from Letizia, that the campaign for secularism emerged in the 1990s from a movement launched by Theravada monks with the support of Janajati activists; no monk is named, and Torri does not link the campaign to Ashwaghosh.<ref>Torri (2019), "Religious Identities and the Struggle for Secularism", para. [27], citing Letizia (2016), p. 42.</ref> Letizia describes how late in the Panchayat period young Newar activists formed the Yuba Bauddha Samuha, which sought Janajati recruits for a "secular, that is, non-Hindu" constitution and held meetings in Theravada viharas; when the 1990 constitution still called Nepal a Hindu state, the activists judged the campaign a failure.<ref>Letizia (2014), "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging", p. 292 and n. 24; Gellner, David N., Sondra L. Hausner, & Chiara Letizia (Eds.) (2016). ''Religion, Secularism, and Ethnicity in Contemporary Nepal''. Oxford University Press, pp. 42–45.</ref> By "secularism" many groups meant primarily the equal recognition of religions and an end to the primacy of Hinduism, and not the separation of religion from the state.<ref>Letizia (2014), "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging", p. 292 and n. 24; Torri (2019), "Religious Identities and the Struggle for Secularism", para. [26].</ref> The Maoist leadership also envisaged a secular Nepal as part of its program of "new democracy."<ref>Torri (2019), "Religious Identities and the Struggle for Secularism", n. 14.</ref> The 2015 Constitution calls Nepal "secular," but the explanatory note glosses the word as protection of religion and culture practiced from ancient times, which Letizia reads, according to Torri, as evoking ''sanatan dharma''.<ref>Torri (2019), "Religious Identities and the Struggle for Secularism", paras. [33]–[34], citing Letizia (2016), p. 69; Gellner, Hausner, & Letizia (2016), ''Religion, Secularism, and Ethnicity in Contemporary Nepal'', pp. 5–6.</ref>

==== Janajati Buddhism ====

After 1990 ethnic activists campaigned against Brahmin domination, and the federation of indigenous nationalities (founded as NEFEN, renamed NEFIN in 2003) became the main organization of the Janajatis, who make up about a third of the population.<ref>Letizia (2014), "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging", pp. 294–300; Torri (2019), "Religious Identities and the Struggle for Secularism", paras. [6]–[10].</ref> Buddhism supplied some of them with a way of opposing Hindu hegemony. The first international Magar conference in 1998 declared Buddhism the Magars' religion, and after a campaign by activists about a quarter of Magars declared themselves Buddhist in the 2001 census, although, as Letizia notes, the Magars and Tharus had no Buddhist tradition of their own.<ref>Letizia (2014), "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging", pp. 294–300 and nn. 37–38. Rival activists favored a "Religion of Nature" (n. 38).</ref> Buddhist awareness camps, a new class of lay Buddhist ritual specialists (Magar ''uapas'' and Tharu pandits) who replace the Brahmin in life-cycle rituals, and the Himalayan Buddhist Education Foundation (founded 1995 with Taiwanese funds) supported the turn; Letizia argues that by 2008 ethnic activism had given way to moral teaching and personal responsibility.<ref>Letizia (2014), "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging", pp. 289–294, 300–311; LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 234–236.</ref> The Maoist insurgency brought the camps to a halt in 2001, and they have only slowly restarted.<ref>LeVine and Gellner (2005), ''Rebuilding Buddhism'', pp. 139, 235; Letizia (2014), "Buddhist Activism, New Sanghas, and the Politics of Belonging", p. 293.</ref>

==== Maoists and Buddhists ====

The only source in hand that pairs Buddhism with Maoist politics in Nepal is Steinmann's ethnography of Buddhist Tamangs in the eastern hills.<ref>Steinmann, Brigitte (2016). "Confrontations between Maoists and Buddhists in Nepal". In: Gellner, David N., Sondra L. Hausner, & Chiara Letizia (Eds.), ''Religion, Secularism, and Ethnicity in Contemporary Nepal'': 353–402. Oxford University Press, pp. 353–354, 357.</ref> She reports that in the 1980s Tamang villagers called themselves communists while revering the Hindu king, that from the 1990s young people read Buddhism as protest against Hindu supremacy, and that a few marginal, self-educated urban Tamang intellectuals aligned Marxism with a modernist Buddhism.<ref>Steinmann (2016), "Confrontations between Maoists and Buddhists in Nepal", pp. 353–354, 357.</ref> According to her, the Maoists did not seek to destroy monasteries, and they aimed to open places of worship to untouchables, although a Tamang lama was tortured by Maoist relatives.<ref>Steinmann (2016), "Confrontations between Maoists and Buddhists in Nepal", pp. 370–371, 376–377.</ref> Steinmann also reports that all parties courted the "Buddhist vote"; that Lharkyal Lama sat in the Constituent Assembly for the CPN-UML after 2008, briefly became a minister, and was elected on the Maoist proportional list in 2013; and that the monk Bhikkhu Ananda, trained in Sri Lanka, became a Maoist member of the Assembly.<ref>Steinmann (2016), "Confrontations between Maoists and Buddhists in Nepal", pp. 377–378 (citing the ''Nepali Times'' for Bhikkhu Ananda).</ref> Her own interpretation, which is contested, is that Nepali Maoism was a Brahmin-led project of modernization and a "third wave" of Hinduization from above.<ref>Steinmann (2016), "Confrontations between Maoists and Buddhists in Nepal", pp. 367–368, 372. This is Steinmann's interpretation, not a settled finding.</ref>