[Buddha-l] "Indigenous"

[Margaret Gouin]

On Sun, October 14, 2007 7:29 pm, curt wrote:
>
> "Indigenous" is always a slippery term. Native Americans are not really
> "indigenous" to the Americas, for example. But I think the term has an
> obvious and reasonable application here - whatever religion(s) the
> Tibetans had prior to arrival of Buddhism can be considered at least
> "relatively indigenous".

As far as I am aware, Native Americans consider themselves to be
"indigenous" to North America. However, as the Bon myth of origin points
out, the Bon themselves do not consider their religion "indigenous" (i.e.
natively/originally Tibetan). Is it possible/desirable for outsiders such
as ourselves to impose "indigeneity" (?) on any group?

> And the same point still remains - did the
> religions that preceded Buddhism in Tibet suffer the same fate as the
> religions that preceded Christianity and Islam in Europe, North Africa
> and the Middle East?

Pre-Buddhist religions of Tibet are shrouded in confusion. It would appear
possible that there was some form of Tibetan religion which preceded 'dur
Bon'; what it was or how it disappeared are not known. 'Dur Bon' was in
turn succeeded by Buddhism and also by 'modern Bon'. Although Tibetan
Buddhism has done its best (at least in the past) to get rid of
Bon--usually by teaching it is an inferior, shamanic, indigenous religion,
which it is not (on any of the three counts)--there has been a notable
lack of success there, and 'modern Bon' flourishes in exile. There are
also some popular Bon teachers in the West. The 14th Dalai Lama has
recognised the head of Bon as having the same status as the head of each
of the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism.

-- 
Margaret Gouin
PhD Candidate
Centre for Buddhist Studies
Department of Theology and Religious Studies
University of Bristol (UK)