Cosumnes River College

Toward Effective Performance of Understanding: Methods for Teaching and Assessment of Material Understanding in the Tibetan Monastic University

Leave Term: Spring 2011

Constance M. Carter

3/19/2012

Carter 1

Abstract

This paper reports on a project undertaken to examine the cultural

and pedagogical means by which students in the Tibetan Buddhist monastic

university learn and develop an appreciation of inquiry and demonstrated

understanding. The goal of this project is to determine what elements, if

any, from the Tibetan model might be adapted for use in the critical

thinking/composition classroom and in the wider campus community at

CRC.

The report describes the method of Tibetan debate that is used to

teach and assess learning in the monastic university. It also presents

findings about the cultural and academic attitudes and values that support

monastic education which were gained through interviews with monks—

both students and teachers—at several universities and colleges in Nepal

and India. Woven into these findings are observations of potentially

transferrable aspects of the Tibetan model.

The report concludes with an assessment of the project and discussion

of how its findings will be presented to the college community.

Please note that this report is a reconstruction of an earlier draft that

was lost due to a home burglary. While some data were recovered,

unfortunately significant portions of analysis completed immediately after

returning to the US remain lost as they were on a separate hard drive which

has not been recovered.

Carter 2

Toward Effective Performance of Understanding: Methods for

Teaching and Assessment of Material Understanding in the Tibetan

Monastic University

In the Tibetan Buddhist monastic tradition, the goal of practice is

enlightenment—the individual realization of “emptiness” which leads to

freedom from worldly suffering, or Buddhahood. To achieve this goal—

which in the Buddhist view might take countless lifetimes—monastic

practitioners engage in a decades-long education that uses, as its primary

methodology, a systematic and careful examination of perception and

understanding. Students are asked to carefully think their way through

complex and often esoteric concepts not simply to arrive at an intellectual

answer that can be assessed as “correct” or “incorrect,” but to train the

mind to see beyond one’s initial perception—to see things as they really are.

This entails asking a series of questions that require the student to make

ever-finer analyses not only of the concepts presented via the sutras—the

teachings of the Buddha and other great practitioners—but also of the

individual’s answers to those questions and of the mind that engages in the

endeavor.

To get a sense of just how close the analysis can be, consider the

following example from Colors and So Forth, the first topic presented in

“The Introductory Path of Reasoning,” the first part of the Tutor Jampa

Gyatso’s foundational work, The Presentation of Collected Topics Revealing

the Meaning of the Texts on Valid Cognition, the Magical Key to the Path of

Carter 3

Reasoning1:

If someone [a hypothetical Defender] says, “Whatever is a color is necessarily red,” [the Challenger responds to him,] “It [absurdly] follows that the subject, the color of a white [tea cup,] is red because of being a color. You asserted the pervasion [that whatever is a color is necessarily red].”

If he says that the reason [that the color of a white tea cup is a color] is not established, [the Challenger responds,] “It follows that the subject, the color of a white [tea cup,] is a color because of being white.”

If he says that the reason [that the color of a white tea cup is white] is not established, [the Challenger responds,] “It follows that the subject, the color of a white [tea cup] is white because of being one with the color of a white [tea cup].”

If he accepts the basic consequence [that the color of a white tea cup is red, the Challenger responds,] “It follows that the subject, the color of a white [tea cup,] is not red because of being white.”

If he says there is no pervasion [i.e., even though it is true that the color of a white tea cup is white, it is not the case that whatever is white is necessarily not red, the Challenger responds,] “It follows that there is pervasion [i.e., whatever is white is necessarily not red] because a common locus of the two, white and red, does not exist; because those two [white and red] are mutually exclusive.” (Perdue 222-23)

This debate is the first monastic students are given to consider when being

introduced to debate as a method of analyzing a subject and demonstrating

one’s understanding of why, in this case, the hypothetical Defender’s initial

premise is a “mistaken view.” The purpose of this debate is not so much to

understand that a thing that is white cannot be red so much as it is to

introduce students to the structure of debate and to preview topics that will

be studied later, in this case, “established bases.”

This model of debate, as a pedagogical tool, is quite effective in

1 The Tibetan Buddhist tradition is comprised of four major schools, or lineages: Nyingmapa, Kagyupa, Sakyapa, and Gelugpa. In the Gelugpa lineage, Purbujok Jampa Gyatso (1825-1901, commonly referred to as “The Tutor”) was tutor to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama and composed The Collected Topics for his instruction.

Carter 4

teaching critical reasoning skills. As additional topics are introduced

(established bases, identifying isolates, opposite-from-being-something and

opposite-from-not-being-something, etc.), students are presented with

model debates which refute mistaken views, followed by explication by the

Tutor of his own view of the subject of the debate along with necessary

definitions, and responses that dispel objections to the Tutor’s view (Sithar

32). These three parts—refutation, explication and dispelling of objections—

comprise the method of debate. Throughout, students are required not only

to analyze the model debates, but to engage in their own debates on similar

subjects.

ACTIVITIES, RESEARCH , TRAVEL & FINDINGS

One of the primary questions I sought to address with this project is

how students are introduced to the dialectic of Tibetan Buddhist inquiry.

Prior to my leave, my understanding of Tibetan debate was fairly superficial

and largely abstract. However, it was apparent that there were

implications for critical thinking instruction in the courses I teach and

throughout the Cosumnes River College community. In the Tibetan model,

students learn by listening and studying, reflecting, and then meditating on

the topics and texts presented. According to Lopon Trokpa Trulku, a monk

and instructor at the Centre for Buddhist Studies at the Rangjung Yeshe

Institute (RYI) of Kathmandu University, the former two are activities of the

conscious mind while the latter is an activity of the subconscious mind. The

knowledge obtained by the conscious mind through study, upon meditation,

Carter 5

changes a habitual pattern which then allows the student to embody that

knowledge. In the monastic university, or shedra, a student’s learning is

assessed by observation of his conduct—has the student internalized the

concepts learned in such a way that they now inform his practice, which is

equivalent to how he conducts his life? (Trokpa Trulku, Choephel). Of

course, in the community college setting instructors are not able to assess

students by observing the conduct of their lives, and we are required to

quantify any assessment. However, we do assess their intellectual conduct

—has the student internalized the concepts learned in such a way that they

now inform the student’s practice within the discipline?

To investigate how the Tibetan method might influence my own

teaching, I traveled to Kathmandu, Nepal, and Dharamsala and Bylakuppe,

India, to observe and interview teachers and students in monastic colleges

and universities. I also engaged in close study of the work of Daniel E.

Perdue, an American scholar of Buddhist Studies specializing in Tibetan

debate. Perdue’s Debate in Tibetan Buddhism is a seminal text on the

subject in English that is drawn from copious research and direct

experience, as Perdue spent more than fifteen years studying within each of

the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism at the primary monastic universities

of the Tibetan exile communities in India. Furthermore, while in

Kathmandu, Nepal, I was able to interview one of Perdue’s students, Sam

Vanneman, who currently facilitates Tibetan debate in English for students

at RYI.

Carter 6

Also at RYI, in addition to interviewing Lopon Trokpa Trulku on

changing habitual patterns of mind in order to facilitate students’ genuine

interest and understanding, I had the opportunity to sit in for a week on

Lopon Tsundru Sangpo’s Buddhist Philosophy and Hermeneutics II class.

The lopon (assistant professor, roughly equivalent to an A.B.D.) lectured in

Tibetan with translation by Catherine Dalton, director of the RYI Translator

Training Program. During these lectures, I was able to observe techniques

used to bring students intellectually, spiritually and emotionally into the

classroom as well as to anchor the day’s lecture to the preceding class and

to place it in the framework of the course as a whole. This anchoring and

framing is not review in the way we might typically begin a class by

reviewing the previous day’s lecture. Rather, it helps students to “set their

motivation”—to remember why they made the commitment to study and to

focus their minds for the task at hand. Initially, it may seem tedious to

review the course framework at the beginning of each class meeting;

however, such review serves to activate prior learning as a consequence of

setting one’s motivation. This was, in practice, precisely what Trokpa

Trulku had described during my interview with him. If prior habitual

patterns are to be changed, it is unlikely to happen by distributing a course

syllabus and introducing the course on the first day of class. Regular

reinforcement is necessary.

Another of the primary questions driving this project is how students

are enculturated to the monastic university. To address this question, I

Carter 7

consulted with Geshe Tashi Dondup, headmaster of the Kopan Monastery

school (primary education) and shedra in Kathmandu. When developing

this project, I had an assumption about the attitudes of students entering

the monastery that was based primarily on contact with numerous high-

achieving representatives of the tradition who had come to the west to

teach. These individuals—all of them geshes or khenpos, the highest degree

available in the Gelugpa and Kagyupa monastic universities, respectively—

had committed their lives to study and practice of dharma (Buddhist

philosophy), and most of the individuals I met entered the monastery as

young men, not boys. Learning of these monks’ motivations and

experiences in entering the monastery, I developed a fairly romantic view of

monastic life that had all novice monks entering the institution with a fully-

formed motivation to dedicate their lives to the dharma for no other reason

than achieving Buddhahood. However, this is not the case. Geshe Dondup

described many of the same issues in monastic education that are

encountered in the community college: under-preparedness, poor attitude

toward education (low valuation), disrespect of teachers, and desire to “get

answers” rather than understand and explore questions. What is necessary,

according to Geshe Dondup, is to change the mind of the student in an

organic, internal, philosophical way. In the monastic college this is done

through non-academic and spiritual advising—directly and indirectly—and

conversations and interviews with geshes (literally, “spiritual friend”), and

lamas (literally, “teacher”).

Carter 8

This view was echoed by Geshe Tashi Tsedar and Venerables Tenzin

Thinley, Karma Samten, Jampa Tonden, and Thupten Gyaltsen, all of whom I

interviewed at Sera Jey Monastic University in Bylakuppe, Karnataka State,

South India. Geshe Tsedar described the layperson’s entry into the

monastery as being a gradual process whereby the individual is given into

the care of a senior teacher. The student cares for and is cared for by the

teacher who models appropriate conduct and introduces the student to the

way of life and expectations at the monastery. The close relationship that

develops between novice and teacher creates the “spiritual friendship” that

facilitates the student’s successful assimilation into the institution. An

example of this was apparent when I was invited for dinner to the home of

Geshe Tsultim Choephel (brother of my own teacher and facilitator of my

access to Sera Jey, Geshe Thupten Phelgye) at Sera Jey. Two monks—one

an adolescent and the other (who came late to monastic life) in his mid-30s

—lived with Geshe Choephel. They prepared the meal, dined with Geshe-la

and me, then cleared the table. The young monks were not simply servants.

They participated in the dinner discussion to the extent their English

allowed. The respect they bore their teacher and his fondness for them was

apparent in the interaction I witnessed. Eventually, both young monks will

move into the khangtsen—the dormitory for their particular school within

the monastery. Of course, in the community college we cannot have this

level of intimacy and interaction with our students, but to the extent we can,

perhaps we should encourage more non-academic contact between faculty

Carter 9

and students. We do have some structured programs that pair students

with mentors (i.e., Puente, Diop, Sister-2-Sister); however, these provide an

artificial relationship between student and teacher. Campus activities that

might foster more organic relationships between students and teachers

might include those made possible by a “college hour” during which the

campus community is encouraged to freely associate together. Additionally,

encouraging faculty to get out of their offices—perhaps even dining in the

cafeteria—may provide opportunities for students to see their teachers

outside of the classroom, not engaged as teachers, but as fellow citizens.

Engaging in conversation with students in an informal, unstructured way

can provide informal advising and modeling of what we seek, as an

educational community, to engender in our students.

The final question undertaken with this project sought to understand

the philosophical, cultural, social and financial imperatives that drive

curriculum and its implementation in the monastic university. This is not a

question that was directly addressed by any of the individuals interviewed.

However, it was implied—uniformly so—by all of those individuals. The

Tibetan people live in exile in India and Nepal. They have a unique culture

and spiritual tradition that is endangered by politics in China. The stories

of escape from Tibet told to me by the Venerables Thinley, Samten, Tonden,

Gyaltsen, and many others I encountered in both Nepal and India describe a

desire for preservation, not just of self, but of culture, language and

spiritual practice for which thousands of Tibetans are willing to risk the

Carter 10

natural dangers of crossing the Himalayas on foot as well as the political

and military dangers from China. Tibetans have found refuge in India and

Nepal that allows them to preserve their way of life. Tibetan culture and

spiritual tradition are largely inseparable (Tsedar). Families who send

children to monasteries gain prestige and accumulate positive karma for

future lifetimes (Tonden). Thus, even “cultural Buddhists” among the

Tibetan people (those who do not actively practice but do participate in

public spiritual events and festivals) have a deep respect for the tradition

and a desire to see it continue.

The monasteries and the universities associated with them are the

keepers of the philosophical heart of the Tibetan culture, and in this regard

maintain the educational tradition in unbroken lineages that can all be

traced back to the historical figure Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha

Shakyamuni. While adaptations in methodology have occurred over the

millennia, the core teachings and aims remain true to their origin (Tsedar,

Choephel). In fact, the core teachings call for adaptation. A story of the

historical Buddha says that he taught in 84,000 ways in order to make the

Dharma accessible to anyone interested. This idea is emphasized in the

monastic university in that students, regardless of age, are placed in classes

(primary or shedra) according to their ability. There is no stigma borne by

the new 25-year-old monk who cannot read or write who is placed into the

first class at the primary level (Gyaltsen). Preconceptions or expectations of

what someone should be capable of are largely absent from the monastic

Carter 11

tradition. This removes pressure that might otherwise discourage students

from persevering.

In the current economic climate of California, we are losing our ability

to offer the widest range of basic skills instruction that our students need to

move forward toward achieving a college education. Now, therefore, is not

the right moment to call for expansion of offerings. However, we certainly

must consider how we can best accommodate our student population with

the resources we have and look to the future to anticipate what might be

done to maintain rigor in transfer level courses and remove the stigma of

placement in remedial basic skills classes. The politics around this issue

are quite complex. However, if we want to create the most conducive

learning environment for our students, we must be able to meet them where

they are and give them what they truly need—even if this clashes with our

perception of what we are doing presently.

What I observed that inspired this project was an overwhelming

tendency amongst students to want only to “get the right answer” rather

than understand why the questions themselves are important. In many

ways our culture reinforces this notion as synonymous with getting an

education. It appears to be about securing a document (a degree or

certificate) that allows an individual to “get on with one’s life” or “get out

into the ‘real world.’” It devalues genuine learning that will add to itself

once the student has left the institution. As Robert Frost wrote, “Once we

have learned to read, the rest can be trusted to add itself unto us.”2 2 Parini, Jay. Robert Frost: A Life. New York: Holt, 1999. 37. Print.

Carter 12

Requiring our students to demonstrate in more than a cursory way that they

have learned to read and, thus, to think critically is our mission at CRC—to

“seek knowledge.” We can do this in a conscientious way by having a

conversation—as an institution—about the way we educate our students.

What is the “CRC way”? Is there one? If not, do we want to establish a

collective philosophy of educating the student that will guide our praxis at

this college?

What I have observed in the Tibetan model is motivated by

compassion—the desire to free others from suffering. Whether that

suffering is caused by lack of education and its attendant poverty or by geo-

political differences is irrelevant. Providing remedies in the most effective

way possible is what is needed. The compassionate thing to do is recognize

where we are, where our students are, and how we can work together with

our communities—civic and political—to change the way education is

perceived. Is it a means to an end, or an end in itself? Of course it can be

both, but I would like to posit that latter is genuinely “education” while the

former might be better described as “training.”

CRITIQUE

This project was quite large in its scope. Larger than I realized, in

fact. Having spent more than 18 months working on various aspects of this

research, I have found that there is so much more to be explored. Part of

the intended work was not realized—that of spending time at a US college

in the Tibetan tradition to observe how other western teachers have

Carter 13

adapted Tibetan methods for western students. This was not possible as,

immediately upon returning to the US, I was summoned for jury duty and

was seated on a case that lasted over one month. This happened to overlap

the window of opportunity for that part of the project.

What was accomplished was quite fruitful. Had this effort been

undertaken as a study with no field research, it would have lacked a

substantial appreciation of the activities of the monastic university. The

opportunity to visit, and in some cases spend time in residence at several

monasteries and colleges was invaluable. Interviews with the several

teachers and students in Nepal and India provided insight that cannot be

had by reviewing others’ research. There were some hitches in this effort,

however. I now have an appreciation of “Tibetan time.” This phenomenon

is problematic for a westerner who expects an appointed time to be honored

within reason. On several occasions, appointments were abandoned or

substantially delayed by my intended subjects with little to no word given.

The primary goals of the leave were achieved, though there is plenty

of room to continue this project, which I intend to do. I have identified

several strategies that can be adapted for use in my classes and which

should be useful in other disciplines as well. Furthermore, having gained

an understanding of a truly holistic method of education, I am looking

forward to facilitating a conversation with faculty about how we teach our

students and, more specifically, if we can articulate a CRC way of

approaching educating the whole student. This will benefit the entire

Carter 14

college community insofar as having examined our practice as educators,

we will be better equipped to respond to the needs of our students and to do

so in a concerted fashion rather than piecemeal.

SHARING THE RESULTS

To share the results of this project with the campus community, I

intend to develop a series of professional development

workshops/discussions to share particular strategies learned and to invite

colleagues to consider how they might adapt them for their own use. As

mentioned above, I also intend to invite colleagues from all disciplines to

examine their approach to teaching critical thinking within their disciplines

and consider how we, as a college, might articulate a unified “way” of

approaching critical thinking instruction at all levels of instruction.

Carter 15

Bibliography

Choephel, Geshe Gendun. Personal Interview. Trans. Tenzin Thinley and

Thupten Gyaltsen. 16 Mar. 2011.

Denman, Brian D. and Singye Namgyel. “Convergence of Monastic and

Modern Education in Bhutan.” International Review of Education 54.

(2008): 475-91. ERIC. Web. 4 Aug. 2010.

Dondup, Geshe Tashi. Personal Interview. 23 Jan. 2011.

Gyaltsen, Thupten and Tenzin Thinley. Personal Interview. 21 Mar. 2011.

Lawton, Denis. "Introduction." Lawton, Denis. Class, Culture and the

Curriculum. London: Routledge, 1975. 6-8. Print.

---. "The Meaning of Culture." Lawton, Denis. Class, Culture and the

Curriculum. London: Routledge, 1975. 9-27. Print.

Perdue, Daniel E. Debate in Tibetan Buddhism. Ithaca: Snow Lion, 1992.

Print.

Phuntsog, Nawang. "Renewal of Tibetan School Curriculum in Exile: A

Tibetan-Centric Approach." (1994). ERIC. Web. 4 Aug. 2010.

Rinpoche, Phuntsok. Personal Interview. 24 Jan. 2011.

Samten, Karma, Thupten Gyaltsen and Jampa Tonden. Personal Interview.

17 Mar. 2011.

Sithar, Kunchok. "Introduction to Tibetan bsDus Grwa Logic." Tibet Journal

33.1 (2008): 29-39. Academic Search Premier. Web. 30 Jun. 2010.

Thurman, Robert A. F. "Tibetan Buddhist Monastic and Intellectual

Culture." White Lotus: An Introduction to Tibetan Culture. Ed. Carole

Carter 16

Elchert. Ithaca: Snow Lion, 1991. 107-13. Print.

Tonden, Jampa. Personal Interview. 20 Mar. 2011.

Trulku, Lopon Trokpa. Personal Interview. 18 Feb. 2011.

Trulku, Nyingma. Personal Interview. 24 Jan. 2011.

Tsedar, Geshe Tashi. Personal Interview. Trans. Karma Samten and Tenzin

Thinley. 15 Mar. 2011.

Vanneman, Sam. Personal Interview. 15 Feb. 2011.

Vevoorn, Aat. Re Orient: Change in Asian Societies. Melbourne: Oxford

UP, 2002. Print.