Content uploaded by Dorji Gyeltshen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dorji Gyeltshen on May 06, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
&:/,6;85(36-:/,&:/,6;85(36-:/,
996*0(:065-68,7(3(5+996*0(:065-68,7(3(5+
04(3(?(5!:;+0,904(3(?(5!:;+0,9
$63;4, ;4),8 8:0*3,
;5,
8670:0(:05.:/,8670:0(:05.:/,
"9,5"9,5
!,(305.:/,6;5:(05644;50:?!,(305.:/,6;5:(05644;50:?
6;5:(05*369;8, 0:;(3(5+8(*:0*,05(9:,85/;:(56;5:(05*369;8, 0:;(3(5+8(*:0*,05(9:,85/;:(5
0(49(8(;?(2(565
#50<,890:?6-(4)80+.,
82*(4(*;2
6810?,3:9/,5
59:0:;:,6-(5.;(.,(5+;3:;8,!:;+0,9/;:(5
6336=:/09(5+(++0:065(3=6829(:/::79+0.0:(3*6446594(*(3,9:,8,+;/04(3(?(
,*644,5+,+0:(:065 ,*644,5+,+0:(:065
;?(2(565 0(49(8((5+?,3:9/,56810;?(2(565 0(49(8((5+?,3:9/,568108670:0(:05.:/,8670:0(:05.:/,
"9,5"9,5
!,(305.:/,6;5:(05644;50:?!,(305.:/,6;5:(05644;50:?
6;5:(05*369;8, 0:;(3(5+8(*:0*,05(9:,85/;:(56;5:(05*369;8, 0:;(3(5+8(*:0*,05(9:,85/;:(5
&
<(03()3,(:<(03()3,(:/::79+0.0:(3*6446594(*(3,9:,8,+;/04(3(?(<63099/::79+0.0:(3*6446594(*(3,9:,8,+;/04(3(?(<63099
"/09=6820930*,59,+;5+,8(8,(:0<,644659::80);:0650*,59,
"/09 ,9,(8*/8:0*3,09)86;./::6?6;-68-8,,(5+67,5(**,99)?:/,0.0:(3644659(*(3,9:,8633,.,(:
0.0:(3644659(*(3,9:,8633,.,:/(9),,5(**,7:,+-6805*3;906505&:/,6;85(36-:/,996*0(:065
-68,7(3(5+04(3(?(5!:;+0,9)?(5(;:/680@,+(+40509:8(:686-0.0:(3644659(*(3,9:,8633,.,68468,
05-684(:06573,(9,*65:(*:9*/63(87;)4(*(3,9:,8,+;
8670:0(:05.:/,8670:0(:05.:/,
"9,5"9,5
!,(305.:/,6;5:(05644;50:?6;5:(05*369;8, 0:;(3!,(305.:/,6;5:(05644;50:?6;5:(05*369;8, 0:;(3
(5+8(*:0*,05(9:,85/;:(5(5+8(*:0*,05(9:,85/;:(5
*256=3,+.,4,5:9*256=3,+.,4,5:9
"6.,:/,8:/,(;:/689=6;3+302,:6(*256=3,+.,(5+:/(52:/,<033(.,896-!6,5(2/(8(9/665.(8
@65.+(!/,8()",5@05;4/6:,5'(5.46(5+-(403?(5+&,9/00+;7=/605<(806;9*(7(*0:0,9
/,37,+(5+(+<09,+;9786<0+,+(**6446+(:065(5+.(<,;9:/,08<(3;()3,:04,%,(396:/(52:/,
;4+,305.%03+30-,!(5*:;(8?(5+:/,,7(8:4,5:6-68,9:965.(8-68786<0+05.050:0(3(**647(504,5:
(5+:8(59768: 0(4(396,>78,99,9.8(:,-;3(*256=3,+.,4,5:(5+:/(529:6:/,#.?,5%(5.*/;2
59:0:;:,-68659,8<(:065(5+5<08654,5:(5+:6:/,0509:8?6-.80*;3:;8,(5+68,9:9 6?(3
6<,854,5:6-/;:(5-68,5()305./,88,9,(8*/:68"/053,?%(5.+0(5+8!65(4/;5:9/6-68
-(*030:(:05.A,3+=682:68(84(/;5:9/6-68/0930<,3?05:,8,9:(5+/,37=0:/:8(593(:0659(5+
8,-,8,5*,9(5+:68/0307!:0*23,8-68*(8:6.8(7/?
"/098,9,(8*/(8:0*3,09(<(03()3,05&:/,6;85(36-:/,996*0(:065-68,7(3(5+04(3(?(5!:;+0,9
/::79+0.0:(3*6446594(*(3,9:,8,+;/04(3(?(<63099
8 | HIMALAYA Spring 2017
Propitiating the Tsen, Sealing the Mountain: Community
Mountain-closure Ritual and Practice in Eastern Bhutan
This interdisciplinary study examines a
community ritual in Mongar, eastern Bhutan,
in connection to its socio-ecological context.
We provide an in-depth documentation of
the tsensöl (btsan gsol) deity-propitiation
ritual to ‘seal’ territory and prohibit entry to
higher mountain reaches. The ritual and the
community mountain-closure period (ladam)
that it precedes are first situated in context
of other documented (but now defunct)
territorial sealing practices in Tibet and the
Buddhist Himalaya. We then analyse and
discuss the syncretic, flexible, and place-based
nature of tsensöl, and show how the ritual,
the mountain god Khobla Tsen and ladam are
interrelated in expressing community concerns
for safe-harvests and wellbeing. We conclude
by examining what a ritual such as tsensöl
might tell us about village political ecology,
community concerns, and knowledge of the
environment.
Keywords: political ecology, environmental knowledge, ritual,
community resource management, Bhutan, mountain god.
Riamsara Kuyakanon
Dorji Gyeltshen
Introduction
Territorial prohibitions to do with deity worship exist in
many places and among many communities around the
world. In the Himalaya and Tibet, such prohibitions can re-
strict entry into a certain area, and are usually associated
with topographic features such as mountains, lakes, rivers,
and forest areas where deities are embodied or dwell.
Prohibitions may be temporal or spatial or a combination
of both, and are observed in diverse ways in different
communities, though similarities can exist in practice.
To our knowledge, there has been no detailed study of a
currently practiced community ritual centred on deity wor-
ship to close or seal1 territory and prohibit entry to higher
mountain reaches as it is practiced in Bhutan, or indeed
elsewhere in the Buddhist Himalaya and Tibet.
Our study is concerned with tsensöl (btsan gsol), a deity
propitiation ritual that is closely associated with ladam
(la bsdams), the customary ‘sealing’ or ‘closure’ of moun-
tains, as performed by communities in eastern Bhutan.
In the case of ladam as practised by the villagers of Soe-
nakhar, tsensöl is performed to mark the beginning of the
closure period. During tsensöl, the trail up into the higher
mountain reaches is symbolically sealed. Once the ritual
is completed, ladam is considered to have begun. People
are thereafter prohibited from passing through or other-
wise engaging in extractive or disturbing activities in the
‘sealed’ area. Ladam may mean a total prohibition against
entry into and passage through a specied area, or it may
restrict certain activities or actions within that area. This
HIMALAYA Volume 37, Number 1 | 9
customary practice predates the centralised Bhutanese
state (see Wangchuck 2000) and is still practiced in parts
of the country. It is also referred to as pudam (phu bsdams),
and as ridam (ri bsdams), or compounded as ladam-ridam
(and vice-versa). These terms all have the general mean-
ing of closing off a mountain or a high pass, though actual
practices may vary widely between communities and in
different parts of the country, and appear to exist within a
wider array of customary territorial prohibitions.
While the tsensöl ritual preceding some form of ladam-ridam
in Bhutan is mentioned in several ethnographic vignettes
(see Penjore and Rapten 2004: 25; Kinga 2008: 40; Choden
2004: 16), due to the lack of in-depth studies, we also draw
from literature on similar practices in ‘ethnographic Ti-
bet.’2 Within this literature, with the exception of Kath-
ryn March’s study on the Solu Khumbu Sherpa almost 40
years ago (1977), community mountain-closure rituals and
practices appear to have been defunct at the time of docu-
mentation, due to political and territorial upheaval (Huber
2004: 146) or to more gradual processes such as the loss of
knowledge or introduction of tourism (Diemberger 1995)—
although in the latter case, an attempt at revitalisation was
documented (ibid).
This paper describes the tsensöl ritual that marks the
commencement of the ladam period, as it is observed
in Soenakhar, eastern Bhutan. While ladam in Bhutan
has received some mention in works and studies (e.g.,
Wangchuk 2000; Ura 2002; Choden 2004; and Wangdi et
al. 2014), as far as we know there has been no detailed
ethnographic description of the tsensöl which precedes
ladam, nor an attempt at interdisciplinary analysis that
examines the ritual in connection to its socio-ecological
context. Thus, through an analysis of tsensöl, we also hope
to establish a better understanding of the socio-ecological
context of community mountain-closure practice. In sum,
this paper is a documentation and analysis of the ritual
to close the mountain (tsensöl) and the insights it offers
into the practice of mountain-closure (ladam) in eastern
Bhutan. It is not an analysis of the practice of ladam itself,
which will be the subject of another study.
Since observing ladam means a de facto restriction against
causing disturbance (physical and spiritual) in the sealed
area, whether by passing through, herding cattle or col-
lecting resources, and because it is particularly discrimi-
nating towards ‘outsiders,’ this ritual has been identied
as a form of community natural resources management
through environmental sanctions (cf. Messerschmidt 1999;
Wangchuk 2000; Giri 2004; Wangdi et al. 2014). To date,
mentions of ladam-ridam in Bhutan appear most frequently
in studies on natural resources management. Of the ten
or so primary sources that refer to this practice, all do so
in connection to its perceived ecological aspect, and none
mention it primarily in terms of deity propitiation.3 While
this may be due to communities not performing a libation
ritual (gsol kha) in relation to ridam-ladam, we believe it is
also a result of the preponderantly instrumentalist inter-
pretations on the part of researchers, to ‘the dominance of
environmental and ecological models over all others, such
as spiritual and cultural’ (Vitebsky and Alekseyev 2015:
519), as well as to disciplinary divides that hamper holistic
analyses.
In what follows, we rst distinguish tsensöl and ladam
in Soenakhar from similar mountain-closure practices
documented in Nepal and Tibet. We then describe the
Figure 1. Map of study site.
Cartography by Philip Stickler
10 | HIMALAYA Spring 2017
community of Soenakhar and Khobla Tsen, discussing him
in relation to a general Tibetological understanding of
the tsen (btsan) class of deity. We then describe the tsensöl
ritual as we observed it performed, and comment on its
nature. Finally, we suggest what observing the tsensöl ritual
as a marker for the ladam period might tell us about com-
munity political ecology and ladam practice. In short, we
demonstrate how examining and understanding a ritual
closely, in addition to being a contribution to knowledge in
itself, can give valuable insight into the beliefs and practic-
es of mountain community livelihood. In so doing, we hope
to redress the tendency in contemporary environmental
literature to allude to such community practices somewhat
one-dimensionally as a mode of ‘community natural re-
source management’ and instead to situate such environ-
mental knowledges and practices within what Toni Huber
and Poul Pedersen (1997) term a ‘moral climate’ or moral
space. This is a signicant intervention because it claries
what the community considers to be important rather
than imposing an exogenous, instrumentalist rationale for
ladam practice, and demonstrates the value of interdiscipli-
narity in understanding human-environment interactions.
Other ‘Sealing’ Practices: Gnas go sdoms pa and Ri rgya
lung rgya sdoms pa
‘Sealing’ or closing off a mountain is a practice that has
been mentioned in studies on sacred mountains and moun-
tain-deity worship in the Buddhist Himalaya and Tibetan
cultural sphere (e.g., Karmay 1996; Diemberger 1994;
Blondeau 1998; Huber 2002). Hildegard Diemberger (1994;
1995) and Toni Huber (1999) have written about seasonal
rituals conducted to open (gnas go phye ba), and to close
(gnas go bsdams) routes to sacred mountains (gnas ri) and
hidden lands (beyul, sbas yul). Soenakhar and the surround-
ing communities that observe ladam are located on the
route to Beyul Aja Ney (a brgya gnas), a sacred pilgrimage
site and hidden land. While ladam in the villages effective-
ly closes the route into Aja Ney, there is no gnas go sdom
for Aja Ney as such. Further, ladam does not begin in the
same month among the different villages (as demarcat-
ed by their mountains) around Aja Ney. For the villagers
that graze their herds in Aja Ney, there does not appear
to be a gnas go sdom that regulates seasonal passage times
for taking animals to high-altitude pasturage as noted
by Diemberger (1994), nor is there a ritual that might
act as a space-divider between popular pilgrimage and
esoteric practices as described by Huber (1999). However,
though there is no ritual to mark the beginning or end of
pilgrimage season into Aja Ney per se, the observation of
ladam plays a role in marking the spaces and times of the
agricultural and pastoral year, which inuences pilgrimage
patterns.
In textual sources, the codied practice of sealing a
mountain is ‘ri rgya klung rgya bsdams.’4 Huber’s critical
study of monastic and state-level territorial sealing (2002)
discusses how, from the 15th century onwards, Buddhist
ideology behind the practice in Tibet incorporated
concepts of abhayadāna (mi ‘jigs pa’i sbyin pa), performing
the ten virtuous actions, cleansing of effects of negative
actions as well as other motivations including compassion
for sentient beings and sparing oneself of lower rebirths.
In Bhutan, this phrase (or a variation, ri rgya klung rgya
btsugs) appears in several works. The earliest mentions
that we have found are in Pema Lingpa (1450-1521)
treasure texts such as the lung bstan kun gsal me long
(Prophecy of the All Illuminating Mirror), and the
guidebook to Beyul Khenpalung (sbas yul mkhan pa lung gi
lam yig), where the phrase appears in context of practising
Buddhist virtues in order to establish peace (especially
with Tibet), social harmony, and happiness. In the rin
spungs mgron gnyer gyis zhus ngor gnang ba bslab ston gyi
rim pa dge legs ‘dod ‘jo (Wish-Fullling Righteous Advice)
written during the reign of 13th Desi (1744-1763), the Je
Khenpo Yenten Thaye instructs the people of the country
to observe ‘ri rgya klung rgya bsdams’ during the rst and
seventh months, and warns of punishment in accordance
with the Zhabdrung’s Code of Law or Katrim Chenmo
(zhabs drung gi bka’ khrims chen mo). The phrase also appears
in Pema Tshewang’s ‘Brugs gsal ba ‘i sgron me (1994) cited in
Karma Phuntsho’s History of Bhutan. Jigme Namgyel, father
of the First King of Bhutan Ugyen Wangchuck, proclaims
sealing the mountains and valleys (c1855-1856) as an act of
purication so that his lama Janchub Tsondru would come
from Tibet to visit him. In addition to printing Buddhist
scriptures and proclaiming that all citizens in his domain
should observe the ve precepts, he ‘sealed the mountains
and rivers from hunting, shing and the like’ (Phuntsho
2013: 437). The reasoning given for Jigme Namgyel’s act of
sealing here is ‘in order to protect life,’ (ibid) which ts in
with the soteriological reasoning that forms the contexts
for the codied practice of ri rgya klung rgya bsdams.
While Jigme Namgyal couched his declaration in terms of
spiritual aims, it also had the more pragmatic motive of
getting his powerful lama to come to Bhutan and support
him, which in turn had a benecial political outcome.
However, these were not the reasons given by the villagers
of Soenakhar and surrounding communities for their
customary practice of mountain-closure, or ladam.
The villagers of Soenakhar explicitly stated that they per-
form tsensöl and observe ladam in order to not disturb Kho-
bla Tsen and to protect their crops. Their concern was to
prevent retribution from Khobla Tsen for a type of offense
that, as has been pointed out, is usually retrospectively
identied (Huber 2004). Additionally, unlike notions sur-
HIMALAYA Volume 37, Number 1 | 11
rounding karmic causality where intention is a signicant
factor, retribution or punishment might also result from
unintentionally committed offenses.5 Unlike karmic cau-
sality (las rgyu ‘bras) which may play out over lifetimes, the
effects of offending Khobla Tsen have identiable immedi-
acy. Villagers related how weather calamities such as hail,
rain and wind storms occurred immediately after ladam
came into effect when someone went into the sealed area.
This causality between action and result and its perceived
inescapability can be a source of humor. Interlocutor Aum
Choten Zangmo recounted with much animation and hi-
larity how, when she was young many decades ago, Meme
Lhundup was in Aja Ney and tried to come out after ladam
had begun, but that evening there was a terrible storm, so
he was afraid other villagers would scold him, so he hid in
the forest and stayed in the ‘sealed’ area. He waited until
the next morning to come out, but when he did so, another
storm happened! (Interview, May 2011).
Community and Deity: Soenakhar and Khobla Tsen
Soenakar is located in the Sherimung ‘administrative
block’ or gewog (rged ‘og) of Mongar district (rdzong khag)
in eastern Bhutan.6 The people here are referred to as
Sharchop, or ‘Easterners’ (shar phyogs pa) in the national
language Dzongkha (rdzong kha). They speak Tshangla
(tshangs la), the dominant language of eastern Bhutan.
Soenakhar lies a gruelling climb up from the rushing Sheri
Chu (‘crystal river’) that courses along the valley oor.
The village is made up of some 87 registered households,7
which extend across the upper reaches of a mountain sur-
rounded by maize elds and broadleaf forest. They usually
sit in distinct locales with their own place names.
The mountain on which Soenakhar is located is called
Khob La (etymology unknown), and the inhabitants refer
to their mountain god as Khobla Tsen, though his seldom
used and less known name is Norbu Drakpa, ‘Illustrious
Jewel.’ All the people who come from Soenakhar must pro-
pitiate Khobla Tsen, as he is the territorial deity (yul lha)
of those who live there and the birth deity (skyes lha) for
those born there.8 For this reason, he is also commonly re-
ferred to by Soenakharpas as their skyes btsan, or birth tsen.
As the main deity of the area, Khobla Tsen has power over
his territory, including over the wellbeing of those who
inhabit it as well as those who were born there. It may be
just as accurate to say that the Soenakharpas are Khobla’s
people as he is their mountain god or local deity.9
Tsen have been generally characterised as somewhat
fearsome male deities, red in color, warrior-like and
associated with cliffs, high rocky outcrops and mountain
passes (see for example, Nebesky-Wojkowitz 1956;
Pommaret 1995; Diemberger 1998; Ura 2004).10 It is
commonly believed that tsen should be red, as most tsen
appear to be so, and they are also associated with the color
(Diemberger 1998). For example, it was said that when
Dodrup Rinpoche’s reincarnate (sprul sku) could not be
found, advice was taken from a lama who dreamed that
the path to the Rinpoche’s reincarnate was indicated by
a man riding on a buckwheat colored horse and bearing a
red lance banner in hand. This meant Siew Mar (Tsi’u dmar)
tsen rst had to be propitiated. According to Cornu, they
are “‘red spirits who live in the rocks. They are all male,
and are the spirits of past monks who have rejected their
vows. Tsen who have been tamed by great practitioners
often become protectors of temples, sanctuaries, and
monasteries. One makes red offerings to them’” (in Samuel
1993: 162). As we shall see, it is not always the case that
tsen are red, male, and that red offerings are made to them.
Many tsen exist in Bhutan, and despite most scholarly
accounts of tsen being male, female tsen are not unusual
(Ura 2004).11 Tsen are generally considered to be worldly,
unenlightened deities (’jig rten pa’i srung ma) who have
been oath-bound (dam can) by Padmasambhava to observe
and uphold the Buddhist doctrine. To complicate this
however, some tsen have not been bound, and so remain
more dangerous, while others appear to be enlightened.
For example, Siew Mar, the main protector deity of
Mysore Namdroling Monastery is a tsen, who is believed
to be enlightened, as he was protector deity (chos skyong,
Sanskrit dharmapala) of Samye. However, unenlightened
beings can also be protector deities, while others progress
through different forms. Tandin Dorji’s fascinating study
of Wangdue Phodrang district’s protector god Radrap
Nep documents how he was a tsen in Tibet who was made
into a terdag (treasure-guardian) by Guru Rinpoche, and
then in the 13th century he became dam can (oath-bound)
at Ralung by Phajo Drugum Shigpo. Later he was invited
by a Bhutanese trader to move to Bhutan to be their god
and general, and he came, tempted by descriptions of the
mountain peak which would be his abode (Dorji 2008).
In addition to being found in various states of enlighten-
ment, as well as both male and female, tsen can be tem-
peramental and passionate, as illustrated by the following
story from Soenakhar:
Khobla Tsen is one male tsen. Opposite to the Khobla—
which is the name of the pass—there is a pass called
Tshaphu which is located above Muhung village, opposite
to Soenakhar. We believe there is also a male tsen called
Tshaphu Tsen. And beside the Tshaphu pass, there is
12 | HIMALAYA Spring 2017
another pass called Tshewang Lhamo. We believe there is a
female tsen called Tshewang Lhamo. So, village people have
a story to tell about how Khobla Tsen and Tshaphu Tsen
had a ght over the Tshewang Lhamo Tsen…
Generalisations regarding tsen evidently can be
problematic. From one perspective this may be seen
as reective of the ‘extreme typological complexity’ of
protector divinities (Blondeau 1998: 8). From another
perspective, ‘This could lead to questioning our need
for classication—classication that might not have any
relevance in the Tibetan popular context where deities
exist without anybody having the urge to understand,
in an intellectual way, how they relate to each other’
(Pommaret 1995: 40). And yet again, we have seen that how
protector deities are classed or identied can be matters
of profound political importance, historically and in the
present day (e.g., Dreyfus 1998; Kay 2004).
Once a year, in the early spring, a tsensöl (‘libation to the
tsen’) ritual is held outdoors on the mountain to propiti-
ate Khobla Tsen on behalf of the community. This ritual
is pronounced ‘sansoi’ by the Soenakharpa and marks the
commencement of the ladam mountain-closure period,
more commonly referred to as ‘tadam’ in Soenakhar.12 As
an action, going to close the mountain is ‘tadampey dele’ or
sometimes ‘phudampey’ in colloquial speech.
The main text used during the tsensöl ritual is the Pho lha
chen po nor bu grags btsan mchod p’i cho ga (Ritual Text to
Propitiate the Great Male Deity Norbu Draktsen). The text
is in accordance with the traditional formula for gsol kha
texts, but notable in its description of Khobla Tsen. His ap-
pearance is described as clear as the autumn moon, and he
is handsome, splendid and magnicent. This description
of Khobla Tsen as a white and non-wrathful deity (though
he is of course wrathful to enemies) is notable in that it
is in contradiction to the general imagery of tsen as red,
wrathful deities.13
Oh! Manifestation of initial wisdom,
Free from the deception of dualistic perception of
this world,
Lord of the entire lha srin dregs pa (gods and spirits),
We praise you, obedient to Padmasambhava
As white and bright as the puried autumn moon,
Your supreme body majestic and charming,
Adorned by varieties of precious garlands,
And owing brocade, we praise you.
Holding a sword in the right hand to conquer the
enemy forces,
In the left hand, holding a lasso to subdue the three
realms,
And a wish fullling jewel,
We praise you.
In the text, Khobla Tsen is referred to as chief of the eight
classes of deities and demons lha srin sde brgyad,14 and his
retinue also includes other kinds of tsen—river, tree, etc.
He is a ‘jig rten pa’i srung ma or ‘protector of the world’
(meaning that he is a worldly deity). As he is subjugated by
Padmasambhava and ‘oath-bound’ he is reminded of this
in the ritual. While the origin of Khob La Tsen is unknown,
he may be an autochthonous deity whose worship exist-
ed prior to the advent of Buddhism, or he may have once
been a clan god who over time became identied with a
geographical area, as suggested by Aris of other territorial
gods (1979: 109). However, until more evidence comes to
light, such speculations in the Bhutanese context are dif-
cult due to reasons discussed by Françoise Pommaret, who
has noted that the ‘question of ancestorship is too complex
and too linked to each local history to be answered easily’
(2004: 64).
Tsensöl: Propitiating the Tsen and ‘Sealing’ the Mountain
Tsensöl is conducted on the 15th day of the third month
in Soenakhar. Ladam begins immediately after this ritual
sealing of the mountain. The exact dates are determined
according to the traditional Bhutanese calendar. When we
attended tsensöl in the female iron rabbit year (2011) the
ritual date fell on the 17th of May.
The ritual is held in a forest clearing along the trail lead-
ing further up the mountain, out of sight above the last
settlement. While there seems to be no particular name
for this location, it is referred to as the place where tadam
Figure 2. Eulogy of Khobla Tsen excerpted from the Ritual Text to Propitiate the Great Male Deity Norbu Draktsen. (Shejun archive)
HIMALAYA Volume 37, Number 1 | 13
(or ladam) is held, tadamsa (rta bsdam sa). On the uphill side
of the clearing an assemblage of stones is used as an altar.
It is weathered and moss-covered. The main offering sculp-
ture or torma (gtor ma), the btsan gtor, is placed on top of
this altar. At the base of the main boulder an offering shelf
is made by resting a plank on logs. It is lined with banana
leaf and holds food offerings in tifn tins and traditional
bangchung, a woven-bamboo circular container, as well as
water and rice offerings (mchod pa), money offering (snyan
dar), a butter lamp (dkar me) and three offering torma (zhal
zas). The drinks offerings and a bag of mixed grains (‘bru
sna) that will be used later for the harvest prediction are
placed on the ground.
Because Soenakhar does not currently have a village lama,
the ritual is performed by the caretaker of the temple, who
takes on the role of gomchen (sgom chen) or ‘lay monk.’ He
sits facing the altar, reading the ritual texts and chanting
to the accompaniment of the bell (dril bu) and drum (Da
ma ru) held in his hands. The text can be divided into six
parts, and is in the same form as other tsen libation texts,
with the invocation (spyan ‘dren), reminder of vows (dam
zhag), offering rite (mchod pa), torma offering (gtor bsngo),
eulogy (bstod pa) and offering fullment (bskang ba). In
the invocation, Norbu Draktsen (i.e., Khobla Tsen) and his
retinue are called upon, and he is described as ‘protector
of the glorious auspicious village’ (presumably Soenakhar),
and ‘genyen,’(dge bsnyen), as most mountain deities who
have taken vows to Buddhism are called. His abode (pho
brang) is a specic place, but it is not clear whether it is
a cliff or a peak. In the dam bzhag he is reminded of his
obligation to solve problems and bring harmony to the
village. His offerings are then presented and the torma is
blessed so that the spirits who are non-physical entities
can consume it and the offerings. This time Khobla Tsen
and other beings invoked are reminded more forcibly
of their vow to Padmasambhava and their obligation
to uphold the dharma and ensure the well-being and
harmony of sentient beings, especially in the village, and
in the country more generally.
Specically, Khobla Tsen and his retinue are reminded
that they should keep away illness and discord, bring rain
on time, make the harvests and cattle thrive, and make all
affairs and activities ourish. The eulogy then places him
in the hierarchy of non-human entities. He is obedient to
Padmasambhava’s command, and chief of the eight classes
of spirits. It praises his physical attributes, his very beau-
tiful consort who is a menmo (female water deity) and his
protective actions. He is petitioned to promulgate religious
and worldly activities, to ensure bountiful harvests, and to
annihilate those who destroy the happiness of the people
or harm the dharma. Finally, the bskang ba makes symbol-
ic offerings to the ve senses in addition to the offerings
made earlier. The text ends with a formulaic soteriological
petition to Khobla Tsen that he help the petitioners in
their practice of the dharma.
As the gomchen recites in front of the altar, the villagers sit
behind him in the clearing on piles of lopped branches. Ev-
ery household is supposed to send one representative with
offerings of tshogs (a rice dish with meat). The dish should
Figure 3. Tsensöl offerings,
Soenakhar, Mongar.
(Kuyakanon, 2011)
14 | HIMALAYA Spring 2017
be cooked, should include dairy products, and should be
the rst portion (phud). Beef and sh can be offered if they
are available, and beans and red chilli are an acceptable
substitute if there is no meat or sh available. Pork should
not be offered as it is considered unclean (btsog pa). Smoke
offering (bsangs) is also made, and a small re is kept
burning throughout the ritual, with leaves occasionally
added to it to produce smoke. While the gomchen chants,
another villager who knows the procedures acts as ritual
assistant and tends to the altar, making sure that offer-
ings are correctly placed. At a certain point, the women
perform prostrations in the clearing. One of the ladies
brings a ceremonial scarf (Dz: rachu Ts: sari) and dons it
before prostrating. The rachu is then passed on and used
by another female villager as she prostrates in turn. Upon
nishing, each takes a small step in the direction of the
altar and bows from the waist, with bent head and covered
mouth, as if receiving a blessing.
Just as the women nish prostrating, the sound of bamboo
collectors (she jang pa kan) rushing down the mountain
trail with their last loads of the season becomes audible.
The rhythmic slap of bamboo rafts jouncing on the trail
can be heard long before the collectors come into sight.
They do not halt until they have passed the clearing.
They have been up in the mountain since the early hours,
leaving their houses after the rst cockcrow around 4:00
am. The ‘rafts’ are bundles of bamboo stems secured at
the top and split at the bottom, about 3-4 meters long and
dragged behind the collector. Each man uses a bamboo
pole to keep balance and navigate, pushing off the sides
of the trail as he rushes down. The collectors know that
they have to reach beyond this point before the tsensöl is
completed. After unyoking their loads, they sit down at the
edge of the clearing and partake in the food offerings that
the ritual assistant removes from the altar and shares with
all present.
Once the food has been eaten, the bamboo collectors
continue with their loads down the mountain. The gomchen
and several of the men go some 10-15 meters up the trail,
within easy sight of the clearing, just beyond a stone iden-
tied as Tsheringma (one of the Long-Life sister goddesses,
popularly considered to be a goddess of wealth). They
bring with them two tall saplings (shing) stripped of lower
branches and topped by a crown of foliage. Each bears a
roughly carved replica of a weapon—one a sword (patang)
and the other a club (kharamshing ga teytha)—in addition
to two free-standing carved wood phalluses (kharamshing).
The saplings are planted on either side of the trail, and
the phalluses are staked at their base. According to one of
the men present, the ‘sword’ is to warn trespassers off and
intimate their punishment should they trespass.15 A length
of vine is cut, stripped, and strung across the trail between
the two saplings to cordon off the path up the mountain.
There is laughter and ribaldry as the ensemble is put in
Figure 4. Ap Tshewang Rinzin,
the gomchen or caretaker of
Reling lhakhang, recites the
text in front of the altar to the
accompaniment of hand bell
and drum.
(Kuyakanon, 2011)
HIMALAYA Volume 37, Number 1 | 15
Figure 5. A picnic lunch
at Tadamsa is shared out
from the tshogs once the
offering has been made.
(Kuyakanon, 2011)
Figure 6. Sealing the trail
leading up the mountain.
(Kuyakanon, 2011)
16 | HIMALAYA Spring 2017
place. Once this part of the ritual has been completed,
bawdy things (tsokha) are usually yelled out.
The group then moves back to the Tsheringma stone
whose moss-and lichen-covered slabs protrude from the
ground. The stone looks like a vulva, with clefts and folds
facing up to the sky, and what one informant points out as
the clitoris. It is robed in moss, lichen, and ivy, and dappled
with sunlight. Last year’s wood phallus stands lopsidedly
in one of the folds. The gomchen uses his patang to clear off
the foliage around the stone, making it more outstanding.
Ara (fermented grain alcohol) is then poured on the stone
as libation (gser skyems) accompanied by high-pitched
calls and repetitions of acclamations to the deities ‘chi su
chay ho lha ge lo’ (ki swa phywa’o lha rgyal lo, ‘the gods are
victorious’).
After the ‘seal’ has been put up and the libation made,
the group moves back to the clearing and the gomchen
continues to chant from the text. Once he completes the
prayers and puts away the ritual text and instruments, the
gomchen takes a handful of grain and tosses it at the main
btsan gtor on the altar. Those present each take three turns
to toss a handful of grain at the same torma. Some make an
invocation beforehand. The grain that sticks on the torma
signies how the harvest will be for the year, and it will
be best for the grains that stick topmost. Of all the grains
thrown (wheat, rice, barley, buckwheat, maize, and millet),
the forecast is that for the year of the female iron rabbit
the harvest would be best for rice, followed by maize. This
marks the end of the ceremony, and after a group photo
the participants disperse to their houses and chores while
our group slowly heads down the mountain with many tea
stops at the houses of relatives en route.16
Observations of a Folk Ritual17
Having described the ritual as we observed it performed,
we now reect on its characteristics as a exible, place-
based, folk ritual. It is clear that the tsensöl is syncretic,
with obviously Buddhist elements such as the text and its
performance by a lama or lay monk rather than ‘shaman-
ic’ persons such as pawo (dpa’ bo), pamo (dpa’ mo) or nejom
(rnal ’byor). It has been noted that Tantric taming (dul
ba) is closely associated with agriculture and associated
with seasonal and agricultural equilibrium. Prior to Guru
Rinpoche’s rst visit to Bhutan, the grieving Sindhu Raja
had neglected to propitiate Shelging Karpo and ‘there was
climactic disorder which in turn induced crop failures and
famine’ (Ura 2004: 6). Guru Rinpoche then came and sub-
Figures 7a & b. Le, a harvest prediction (Bruna yaphay), or literally ‘throwing grains’; and right, a btsan gtor offering
with grains adhered to it, forecasting that the rice harvest will be best this year, followed by maize. (Kuyakanon, 2011)
HIMALAYA Volume 37, Number 1 | 17
dued Shelging Karpo and this was associated with bringing
order back to the land for human welfare. The Soenakhar-
pa propitiation of Khobla Tsen echoes this legendary event
with its archetypal themes of Tantric taming, propitiation
and putting the land in order.
Tsensöl also contains non-Buddhist elements (in the doc-
trinal sense) that derive from folk practices: the deities in-
voked, meat offering, phalluses, and harvest prediction. It
is a renewal of bonds between the community by praising,
reminding and petitioning Khobla Tsen of his obligations
from his vow to Padmasambhava. Diemberger has noted
that the gsol ceremony ‘establishes thereby an alliance
(linked to ritual commensality) between people and gods
which has to be puried again and again. This aspect
includes the territory itself (and the natural environment
in general), which is characterized by the identication of
its features with deities’ (1994: 147), and indeed the tsensöl
is addressed not only to Khobla Tsen, but to his consort as
well as all deities in his retinue who inhabit various parts
and features of the landscape.
The ritual is part of community and livelihood mainte-
nance, and shows the widely remarked upon exibility,
negotiation, and pragmatism of folk ritual. Though tsensöl
should be completed by lunchtime, should it happen that
the bamboo collectors are late in descending, the ritual
would be extended to wait for them—i.e., they would not
be ‘sealed’ up in the mountain and unable to return with-
out trespassing prohibited area. While it should ideally be
performed by a lama or the village astrologer (tsipa), we
have seen that in default of one, it is performed by some-
one acting in the capacity of gomchen. Within living mem-
ory, its timing, location, attendance, and conduct have
been subject to modication. When Reling Lopen was the
village lama in Soenakhar some 30 years ago, he sometimes
performed tsensöl with many helpers, and with the full
complement of ritual instruments, while at other times it
appears that he was less well supported, and on occasions
held the ritual lower down the mountain at Dowatsemo,
nearer to the settlements.
The relative malleability of the ritual is one way that
tsensöl can be considered ‘place based,’ meaning that ab-
stracted procedure is not given precedence over pragmatic
contingencies. Another way we can consider the ritual
as ‘place-based’ is that Buddhist concepts with strong
soteriological connections such as ‘ritual pollution’ (grib)
or giving freedom from fear (mi ‘jigs pa’i sbyin pa) become
changed in emphasis or meaning when they are embedded
in specic community concerns. For example, while Bud-
dhist ideology is embedded in the codied sealing practice
of ri rgya klung rgya sdams discussed earlier, examining
tsensöl provides us with different insight. It is conducted
to petition Khobla Tsen for his protection and to remind
him of his obligations to the community, and subsequently
ladam is observed to not offend or disturb him rather than
to uphold the precept of not taking life (though if one
inadvertently killed wildlife that belonged to the deity,
retribution could be expected).18
Figure 8. Dowatsemo, or the
‘stone summit chorten,’ is located
further down the mountain, where
tsensöl was sometimes conducted
in the past. From Bumpoktor, the
trail passes the chorten on the
way to Reling Lhakhang, and to
Suma hamlet beyond that.
(Kuyakanon, 2011)
18 | HIMALAYA Spring 2017
Similarly, while the idea of ritual pollution is embedded
in the practice of sealing, and sgrip as a concept embodies
both mundane and spiritual forms of pollution or dele-
ment, ladam is not performed as an act of purication or
merit, and is concerned with the material well-being of
the community. During ladam in Soenakhar, the purpose of
sealing is to prevent both actions and pollution that might
anger Khobla Tsen, rather than for a more soteriological
end, such as sparing lives of wild animals that might oth-
erwise be hunted. It is believed that outsiders, or anyone
not from the community—including former inhabitants
who have moved elsewhere—can bring sgrip with them
that is offensive to the deity. (This has in some cases been
described as outsiders having bodily scents from perfumes
or deodorants.)
Ritual, Agro-pastoralism and Village Political Ecology
Tsensöl gives special insight into village political economy
and socio-ecology, in light of its role as a marker for the
beginning of the ladam period, when access to the ‘sealed’
area of the mountain is forbidden. Without assuming that
tsensöl originated at the same time as ladam, we suggest
that an understanding of tsensöl also provides a window
into past livelihood concerns which revolved around an
agro-pastoral system where cattle, forest and eld were in-
tegrated (Ura 2001; Moktan et al. 2008; Siebert and Belsky
2014; Wangchuk et al. 2014). It also allows for speculation
on some key actors and aspects of village political ecolo-
gy, meaning the politics surrounding the management of
natural resources, as well as environmental change and its
representations (Goldman and Turner 2011: 6).
The location of the ritual points towards its function in
regulating seasonal human-livestock movement and activi-
ties. It is held in the forest clearing, along the trail where
bamboo collectors (and in former times, the cattle herds)
must pass. In the past, it was sometimes held even lower
down the mountain in more trafcked areas. In addition
to the adjustment of locations in accordance with the
ofciant’s or the villagers’ practical concerns, there is the
exible timing, both in delaying the completion of tsensöl
until the bamboo collectors return down the mountain,
as well as in marking the beginning of the ladam period,
which usually lasts until the harvest is nished.19
Supporting the case that tsensöl and ladam are key aspects
of village political ecology is that ladam is a somewhat
more exible sanction for local inhabitants in terms of
movement. It is not unusual that when resource collec-
tors have come down the mountain and ladam has been
declared, cattle and cow herders still remain in the higher
reaches of the mountain, only to descend weeks later when
the fodder is exhausted. What is important is that when
they do come down, they do so discreetly, and not commit
behaviors offensive to Khobla Tsen. Meanwhile, messen-
gers may go up to deliver food and rations if needed with
no calamitous weather repercussion so long as they so
do in the right manner. What remains inexible is the
sanction against taking out forest products, and entry by
‘outsiders’ or people who are not recognised inhabitants of
the area.
The Bumpoktor family (so-called after the place-name of
their house, Bumpoktor) were koche (kho che), or local no-
bility, and pre-eminent settlers and major landholders on
Khob La mountain. Aum Choten Zangmo remembers that
as a child the Bumpoktor house was the only well-built,
permanent dwelling. They were also the area’s leading reli-
gious practitioners. According to local oral history, Sengge
Rinchen founded the Bumpoktor settlement in the time of
the First King Ugyen Wangchuck (r. 1907-1926) and had a
kasho (bka’ shog) or royal decree from the king granting the
Bumpoktorpa family the territory of Soenakhar, from the
Figure 9. The late Abi Tshering Wangmo (Tsampa
Kota’s daughter) with Lopen Dorji Gyeltshen and the
kasho from the Second King.
(Kuyakanon, 2011)
HIMALAYA Volume 37, Number 1 | 19
top of Khobla Mountain to the Sheri river in the valley be-
low. Another family member, Meme Garpa, was sent with
the old kasho during the reign of the Second King Jigme
Wangchuck (r. 1926-1952) to get a new kasho (for reasons
unknown), but unfortunately came back with no kasho at
all. This was later rectied.
Five generations ago Bumpoktor Tsampa (mtshams pa)
Jigme Choeing Rangdrol,20 also known as Tsampa Kota,
compiled an abridged version of the tsensöl text to be used
for daily offerings (see Appendix). We believe this was
done some 60 years ago. While we know that Bumpoktor
Tsampa compiled this abridged version, the history and
provenance of the actual Pho lha chen po nor bu grags btsan
text is unknown, and it has no colophon. Signicantly, it is
kept in the private family lhakhang at Bumpoktor and not
in the village lhakhang at Reling, which was also built with
the support of the Bumpoktorpa family.21 Tsampa Kota also
received a kasho from the Second King, which is still in pos-
session of the family. Especially signicant to understand-
ing the relationship between the local lama and resource
use and control, around the same time or slightly earlier,
Tsampa Kota shifted the tsensöl date from the second Bhu-
tanese month to the third in order to allow the villagers
more time for bamboo collection. Since tsensöl also marks
the commencement of ladam, as long as tsensöl has not
been held, villagers may still go into the higher reaches of
the mountain to collect forest products and graze cattle.
Three decades ago, when Lopen Thinley Norbu, also known
as Reling Lopen22 performed tsensöl, in addition to the main
text he also used two other texts: Tshong tshong btsan rgod
dgyes pa’i mchod sprin (Clouds of Offerings to the Delighted
Tshong Tshong Tsen) and Skyes bu chen po gdangs nga ling gi
gsol kha (Libation to the Superior Dangaling). Both texts are
commonly used in territorial deity propitiations in Bhutan,
and both Tshongtshongma and Dangaling are deities par-
ticularly associated with cattle and wealth (often synony-
mous), and are widely invoked in Bhutan. In particular, the
latter text to Dangaling is for the wealth and well-being of
livestock. The Bumpoktorpa family had a much larger herd
in the past by report and from the large size of the existing
cowshed (wa phae). While Mongar continues to have one of
the highest cattle numbers in the country, it is likely that
there were more cattle in the area prior to the nationali-
sation of forests (1969), subsequent restrictions placed on
migratory herding and other land-use changes. Customary
regulation of cattle movement through forests (where they
also forage), elds and pasture was very important, and in
some areas ridam-ladam appears to be solely related to such
regulations (cf. Ura 2001).
We see in these deeds of both Bumpoktor Tsampa and Rel-
ing Lopen the role of the local lama as community leader in
religious, political and livelihood matters. As Diemberger
observed, they are the ‘great men’ of the community who
‘often act as political intermediaries within the communi-
ty, among communities and between the community and
the state’ (1994: 149). In Tsampa Kota’s day, local concerns
and disputes were brought to him. In addition to lineage
and ability to reach out to regional and national authori-
ties illustrated in the story above concerning the request-
ing and receipt of the royal kasho, their authority in the
community derives from their knowledge of the Buddhist
textual tradition. This is also evident in Tsampa Kota’s
activity in creating an abbreviated text for the community
for daily use to invoke Khobla Tsen as their village deity or
birth deity.
What does this depiction of a village ritual in eastern Bhu-
tan reveal about processes of historical change? It has been
observed that gsol implicitly denes essential relations—
between community and local resources, and local political
leadership, community and Buddhist textual tradition
(Diemberger 1994: 147).23 These are to an extent true in So-
enakhar, and we note these in a context of Buddhicisation.
The local story has Khobla Tsen behaving in a passionate
worldly manner, ghting with Tsaphu Tsen over Tshewang
Lhamo Tsen. Going back to a doctrinal understanding of
tsen as mundane deities we would not expect Khobla Tsen
to have a torma, yet he does. The tsensöl text and ritual
torma would have him be enlightened. He is treated as such
and held in high honour by the community as they petition
him and remind him of his vows. Situated among similar
rituals that have been described in Bhutan, tsensöl appears
to be more Buddhicised (for its text, supplication formula,
and practitioner) than other similar local community ritu-
als (cf. Centre for Bhutan Studies 2004; Pommaret 2009). It
seems that we are seeing both clerical and folk aspects of
Buddhism manifested in one powerful tsen.
If we are to speculate on a process of Buddhicisation in a
folk ritual using the lens of political ecology, we also note
the importance of individual actors such as Khobla Tsen
and Tsampa Kota to historical change and inuencing en-
vironmental management. It is worth observing that while
ridam-ladam type practices are or were also observed in the
northern, central and western areas of Bhutan, it is most
clearly connected with mountain deity worship in the east.
Could this be reective of the fact that eastern Bhutan was
the last region to be incorporated into the Drukpa polity?
Could it be that in Soenakhar’s tsensöl ritual preceding the
ladam mountain-closure as we observed it in 2011, we have
a snapshot, a moment in time, in a process of Buddhicisa-
20 | HIMALAYA Spring 2017
tion, state centralisation (and decentralisation) and more
recently, a shifting away from forest-dependent agro-pas-
toralism to a market-based economy? We don’t know for
sure, but this may be so. To support this last supposition,
comparing tsensöl as we observed it to its conduct in
past times (with more assistants, more instruments and
more ‘ceremony’), it would seem that for various possible
reasons,24 less resources are being directed towards the
proper performance25 of tsensöl.
Conclusion
Like most of Bhutan, Soenakhar is undergoing an unprece-
dented rate of social and material change due to on-going
modernization and developmental processes and recent
political transformation. In addition to the introduction
of constitutional democracy and party politics in 2008,
village activities must be considered as intertwined with
road-building, electrication, the introduction of a cash
economy, market integration, modern education and
healthcare, rural-urban migration, and a host of other
changes which affect the social fabric and people’s envi-
ronmental perceptions and behaviours and the ecological
composition of the land itself.
In our greater study area (which comprised Soenakhar
and several other villages on surrounding mountains), the
tsensöl ritual was not conducted by every community that
observed ladam. We were told that some of the commu-
nities used to conduct the ritual, but no longer. However,
while tsensöl may not be conducted by every community,
they still observe ladam on their respective mountains.
It is tempting at this point to remark on the process of
obsolescence and point to signs of it, but we cannot be
entirely sure this is the case. While tsensöl is not always
conducted, there were also times in the past when it was
omitted in Soenakhar, for example if no-one was available
to lead the ritual due to temporary absence. Most of the
villagers interviewed believe that ladam is as effective as
ever. Throughout the country, deity-belief remains strong.
‘Respect for mountains is very much alive in Bhutan,’
Pommaret remarked two decades ago (1995: 43). This gen-
erally remains true.
In this paper, we have described the tsensöl ritual as we
observed it in Soenakhar village of Mongar Dzongkhag in
2011, and commented on it relative to studies on ‘closing’
or ‘sealing’ mountains in the Buddhist Himalaya and Tibet.
We have drawn from studies on territorial and commu-
nity aspects of local and mountain deities in Bhutan, and
examined the ritual’s relationship to the socio-ecological
practice of ladam, mountain-closure. While tsensöl points
to ladam as culturally embedded ‘natural resource man-
agement’ practice that is considered a kind of traditional
ecological knowledge (TEK) by other knowledge commu-
nities including scholars, activists and consultants (Berkes
and Folke 1998; Berkes 2012), it is important to note that
this is not how those who practice it conceive of it, and
that community-based understandings may be glossed
over when ladam-ridam is referred to as Buddhist environ-
Figure 10. Bumpoktor Lhakang
is the large building with the red
stripe around the upper story.
It is flanked by houses of the
Bumpoktorpa family.
(Kuyakanon, 2011)
HIMALAYA Volume 37, Number 1 | 21
mentalism or TEK (Kuyakanon Knapp 2014; 2016).26 As it is
currently practiced in Soenakhar and surrounding commu-
nities, ladam does not hold without the logic of belief in the
mountain god. For the villagers, Khobla Tsen is the prime
protagonist, the ‘actor’—literally dened as ‘rst in impor-
tance’ (prōtos ‘rst in importance’ + agōnistēs ‘actor’). By
looking closely at tsensöl, we have demonstrated the prime
importance of Khobla Tsen to ladam.
Should ladam practice cease to be observed—as is possible
with changing livelihoods and the recent construction of
a motor road (meaning people cannot be stopped from
passing through), it would be an erroneous functionalist
assumption that there would be no more deity worship.
Firstly, for the people of Soenakhar, propitiating Khobla
Tsen has most immediately to do with plentiful harvests
and personal and community wellbeing. Secondly, in
conducting this research we have seen and been a part of a
revitalisation27 or at the very least a new virtual life where
through the internet and the creation of the Soenakhar
Society Facebook page,28 Soenakharpas are able to renew
their community ties through an entirely different setting
far from the forest clearing, which is nonetheless relevant
to a sense of community and belonging. In the different
valleys and mountains of Bhutan, such village and
territory-based communities are virtually springing up
like mushrooms.
Appendix
The following is an abbreviated tsensöl text compiled by Tsampa Kota, to be used for performing daily offerings.
Libation Offering to Khobla Tsen
O! ~ We offer pure libation ~ to the male father cliff Tsen deity, to the mother and to the retinue ~ in the palace
lled with radiant divine nectar ~ in the midst of forests with blazing owers ~ in the celestial sphere of high and
vast Khobla mountain ~ Please accept this offering ~ Help us full our wishes!
We offer this pure libation ~ to the nagas, demons and menmo spirits, chief and retinue, ~ to the attendants, depu-
ties and retainers who obey their orders and dwell ~ in the fearsome places of the mountains, lakes, meadows and
other such sites ~ in the lesser mountains which surround this mountain ~ Please accept this offering!
Help us full our wishes! ~ Specically, to the gathering of lords of the ground, village deities and protectors of
Buddhism, ~ to the gatherings of the eight classes of haughty gods and demons ~ and to all the retinue without
exception, ~ we offer this pure libation. Please accept it! ~ Help us full our wishes!
22 | HIMALAYA Spring 2017
Endnotes
1. In this paper we use both the terms ‘close’ and ‘seal’
in reference to ladam because we feel the former better
reects the vernacular aspect of the practice and is how
Bhutanese themselves most commonly translate the
term into English, while the latter is reective of its more
formalised, clerical and symbolic elements.
2. For use of this term see, e.g., Samuel (1993) and Huber
(1999).
3. The following sources contained what appeared to
be primary references to mountain-closure practice,
variously referred to as ladam/ridam/phudam/serdam, with
some also using different orthographies: (Messerschmidt
1999; Wangchuk 2000; Ura 2002; Choden 2004; Giri 2004;
Allison 2004; Penjore & Rapten 2004; Kinga 2008; Wangdi et
al. 2014; MoA, RGOB n.d.).
4. The phrase can be translated as ‘closed the seal of
mountains and valleys/rivers’, or ‘seal the width of
mountains and rivers.’
5. For a discussion on karma as intentionality refer to
Phuntsho (2004). Butcher (2013) discusses the relationship
between las rgyu ‘bras and sgrip in context of Ladakh, where
the oods of 2010 are understood as retribution from the
deities.
6. Administratively, Soenakhar is a chiwog (spyi ‘og), or sub-
unit, of Sherimung gewog.
7. The number of households registered in the census may
not accurately reect the actual number of inhabitants
as several generations may comprise a household, and
many members of a household may actually live and work
elsewhere.
8. Pommaret’s studies on local and mountain deities (1995)
and deities and territory (2004) in Bhutan discuss concepts
of place and settlement and the strong connections
between territory and deity in the Bhutanese context.
9. As has been pointed out by Pommaret (1995), there is
no Tibetan equivalent for the English generic ‘mountain
deity’ or ‘local deity,’ and this is also the case for our study
area. We use the English terms ‘deity’ and ‘god’ broadly
synonymously, but feel that in certain contexts ‘deity’
conveys a more scholasticized and impersonal quality of
existence, and ‘god’ conveys a more immediate presence.
10. The intricacies involved in the Western scholarly
attempt to identify and categorise tsen are dealt with in
Pommaret (1995).
11. While Tucci (cited in Pommaret 1995) said it was very
difcult to distinguish between nyan and tsen, Karma Ura
distinguishes them from tsen in colour and customary
dwellings and furthermore observes that nyan in Bhutan
‘seem to be relatively rare’ (Ura 2004: 8).
12. It should be noted that this distinction between tsensöl
and ladam is often not evident in speech, where ‘ladam’ is
also used to refer to tsensöl.
13. In the gönkhang (mgon khang) of Wangduetse lhakhang
in Thimphu, Chukha Dzong’s Thadra Tsen is depicted as
white (see Kuensel, ‘A House of Deities’, 1/8/2012). The
Riamsara Kuyakanon (PhD, Geography, University
of Cambridge, 2015) is a geographer who works at
the nexus of conservation, culture and development.
Her doctoral dissertation focused on the relationship
between environmental conservation, Buddhist culture
and sustainable development in Bhutan. She teaches
on sustainable development, cultural geographies and
geographical theories, and is affiliated with the University of
Cambridge’s Department of Geography, Mongolian and Inner
Asian Studies Unit, and Institute for Continuing Education.
She has published several chapters in edited volumes
on aspects of environmental conservation and culture in
Bhutan.
Dorji Gyeltshen (Masters in Buddhist Philosophy, Gangteng
Shedra, 2006) is a Buddhist scholar, researcher, and lecturer
at the College of Language and Culture Studies (CLCS),
Takse, Bhutan. Aer training to the highest level (Khenpo)
he became Dzongkha language editor for Bhutan Observer,
Bhutan’s first bilingual private newspaper. He has project-
managed the study and digital documentation of the Pad
gling tradition in Bhutan, and Bhutan’s monastic archives for
the Shejun Agency for Bhutan’s Cultural Documentation and
Research. He has translated various treatises and books,
co-authored biographies on the Second and Third Kings of
Bhutan, and wrien on early book production and printing.
Together the authors would like to acknowledge and thank the
villagers of Soenakhar, Dasho Mongar Dzongda Sherab Tenzin,
Aum Choten Zangmo and family and Yeshi Nidup, who in various
capacities helped and advised us, provided accommodation, and
gave us their valuable time. We also thank the Bumdeling Wildlife
Sanctuary and the Department of Forests, Mongar, for providing
initial accompaniment and transport. Riam also expresses grateful
acknowledgement and thanks to the Ugyen Wangchuk Institute for
Conservation and Environment and to the Ministry of Agriculture
and Forests, Royal Government of Bhutan for enabling her
research, to Thinley Wangdi and Sonam Phuntsho for facilitating
fieldwork, to Karma Phuntsho for his lively interest and help with
translations and references, and to Philip Stickler for cartography.
HIMALAYA Volume 37, Number 1 | 23
aforementioned Radrap Nep of Wangdue Phrodang who
began as a tsen in Tibet, manifested in white colour when
he became a terdak (gter bdag) or ‘treasure guardian’ (Dorji
2008).
14. See Pommaret (2003) for a study of Padmasambhava
and the eight classes of deities and demons in Bhutan.
15. The phallus is a ubiquitous and multivalent symbol in
Bhutan. See Pommaret & Tobgay (2011) for an insightful
overview and exploration of the place of the phallus
symbol in Bhutanese social history.
16. The group photo was made at the request of the
participants, and copies were duly printed out and
delivered. Our group comprised of Lopen Dorji and myself,
his mother who lives in nearby Yadi and who returns
to Soenakhar several times a year, and a cousin from
neighbouring Muhung, who was temporarily working
in Soenakhar as a muralist commissioned by Bumpoktor
family member Dasho Dzongda (see acknowledgements) to
decorate Reling lhakhang.
17. This blanket term covers a wide range of possibilities,
and our starting point here is Samuel (1993). We realise
that what is considered Bon or Buddhist or pre-Buddhist in
Bhutan is the subject of many differing opinions (Choden
2004 describes btsan gsol prior to ridam in Kurtoe as part of
the Lha Bon, while Aris (1987) and Chhoki (1994) suggest
that some folk traditions do not pre-date the introduction
of Buddhism but are rather contemporaneous ‘alternative’
expressions or reactions to the dominant discourse). Most
recently, Pommaret (2009; 2014) and Samuel (2013) have
engaged with what is ‘Bon’ in Bhutan.
18. We also state this for several reasons: illicit hunting
does occur in the area, respondents seldom gave the
precept of taking no life as a reason, and when further
probed referred to another village ritual period (lasting
three days) observed later in the year, which is centred on
the precept of taking no life.
19. The issue of when ladam ends is further complicated
by the fact that some communities have written
understandings with the local government, which makes
it difcult for them to adjust the dates in accordance with
agricultural needs.
20. Bumpoktor Tsampa was Lopen Dorji Gyeltshen’s
maternal great-grandfather.
21. The family’s patronage in this subsistence community
continues through renovations, development support and
sponsorship of various projects, rituals and events.
22. Reling Lopen Thinley Norbu was Lopen Dorji’s
father. He served as Soenakhar’s Lopen for over 20 years.
Both Lopen Dorji and his older brother Jigme Tenzin
apprenticed as gomchen under their father for a period of
time.
23. It should be noted that these generalised observations
arose from Diemberger’s observation of the gnas gsol
ceremony in the Gunsa community (1994). She also notes a
fourth, between men and women, which we do not address
here.
24. These will be further discussed in a forthcoming paper
on the ecological management aspects of ladam.
25. According to Tantric texts, rituals are more effective
when properly performed.
26. As March noted of the Solu Sherpa kangsol, ‘far more
than a public posting of a rule about crop-destroying
animals’ (1977: 91), it was about deity propitiation for
protection.
27. Diemberger (1995) and others (e.g., Sneath 2014) have
also written on the phenomenon of revitalisation under
different contexts.
28. <https://www.facebook.com/Soenakharsociety>.
References
Allison, Elizabeth Aileen. 2004. Spiritually Motivated
Natural Resource Protection in Eastern Bhutan. In The
Spider and the Piglet, edited by K. Kinga, 529–563. Thimphu,
Bhutan: Centre for Bhutan Studies.
Aris, Michael. 1979. Bhutan: The Early History of a Himalayan
Kingdom. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.
. 1987. ‘The Boneless Tongue’: Alternative Voices
from Bhutan in the Context of Lamaist Societies. Past &
Present 115 (May): 131–164.
Berkes, Fikret. 2012. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological
Knowledge and Resource Management. 3rd ed. London: Taylor
& Francis.
Berkes, Fikret, and Carl Folke. 1998. Linking Social
and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social
Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Blondeau, Anne-Marie, ed. 1998. Tibetan Mountain Deities,
Their Cults and Representations. Papers Presented at a
Panel of the 7th Seminar of the International Association
for Tibetan Studies Graz 1995. In Proceedings of the 7th
24 | HIMALAYA Spring 2017
Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies,
Graz 1995/Gen. Vol. VI. Tibetan Mountain Deities, Their Cults and
Representations. Wien: Öst. Akad. d. Wiss.
Butcher, Andrea. 2013. Keeping the Faith: Divine
Protection and Flood Prevention in Modern Buddhist
Ladakh. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology 17
(2): 103–114.
Centre for Bhutan Studies. 2004. Wayo Wayo - Voices from the
Past. Thimphu, Bhutan: Centre for Bhutan Studies.
Chhoki, Sonam. 1994. Religion in Bhutan I: The Sacred and
the Obscene. In Bhutan: Aspects of Culture and Development,
edited by Michael Aris and Michael Hutt, 107–122.
Stirlingshire, Scotland: Kiscadale.
Choden, Tashi. 2004. Ha: The Bon Festival of Gortshom
Village. In Wayo Wayo - Voices from the Past 1–23. Thimphu,
Bhutan: Centre for Bhutan Studies.
Diemberger, Hildegard. 1994. Mountain-Deities,
Ancestral Bones and Sacred Weapons: Sacred Territory
and Communal Identity in Eastern Nepal and Southern
Tibet. In Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of
the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Fagernes
1992: Volume I, edited by Per Kvaerne, 144–153. Oslo: The
Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture.
. 1995. Political and Religious Aspects of Mountain
Cults in the Hidden Valley of Khenbalung: Tradition,
Decline and Revitalisation. In Reections of the Mountain:
Essays on the History and Social Meaning of the Mountain Cult
in Tibet and the Himalaya, edited by Anne-Marie Blondeau
and Ernst Steinkellner, 218–231. Veröffentlichungen Zur
Sozialanthropologie 2. Wien: Verlag de Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaft.
. 1998. The Horseman in Red: On Sacred Mountains
of La Stod Lho (Southern Tibet). In Proceedings of the 7th
Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies,
Graz 1995/gen. Vol. VI. Tibetan Mountain Deities, Their Cults
and Representations, edited by Anne-Marie Blondeau, 43-55.
Wien: Öst. Akad. d. Wiss.
Dorji, Tandin. 2008. The Cult of Radrap (Ra Dgra), ‘Nep’ of
Wangdue Phodrang (Bhutan). Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 15:
357–370.
Dreyfus, Georges. 1998. The Shugden Affair: Origins of
a Controversy. The Ofce of His Holiness The Dalai Lama.
Retrieved September 22, 2015 (<http://www.dalailama.
com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/ganden-tripa/the-
shugden-affair-i>).
Giri, Seeta. 2004. The Vital Link: Monpas and Their Forests.
Thimphu, Bhutan: Galing Printing and Publishing.
Goldman, Mara J. and Matthew D. Turner. 2011.
Introduction. In Knowing Nature: Conversations at the
intersection of policial ecology and science studies, edited by M.
J. Goldman, P. Nadasdy, and M. D. Turner, 1–23. London:
University of Chicago Press.
Huber, Toni. 1999. The Cult of Pure Crystal Mountain: Popular
Pilgrimage and Visionary Landscape in Southeast Tibet. New
York: Oxford University Press.
. 2002. Territorial Control by ‘Sealing’ (Rgya Sdom-
Pâ): A Religio-Political Practice in Tibet.’ In Tractata Tibetica
et Mongolica: Festschrift Für Klaus Sagaster Zum 65. Geburtstag,
edited by K. Kollmar-Paulenz and C. Peter, 127–152.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
. 2004. The Chase and the Dharma: The Legal
Protection of Wild Animals in Premodern Tibet. In Wildlife
in Asia: Cultural Perspectives, edited by John Knight, 36–55.
London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Huber, Toni and Poul Pedersen. 1997. Meteorological
Knowledge and Environmental Ideas in Traditional and
Modern Societies: The Case of Tibet. The Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 3(3): 577–597.
Karmay, Samten G. 1996. The Cult of Mount Murdo in
Gyalrong. Kailash 1–16.
Kay, David N. 2004. Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain:
Transplantation, Development and Adaptation. London:
RoutledgeCurzon.
Kinga, Sonam. 2008. Reciprocal Exchange and Community
Vitality: The Case of Gortshom Village in Eastern Bhutan.
In Towards Global Transformation: Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Gross National Happiness 31–64.
Thimphu, Bhutan: Centre for Bhutan Studies.
Kuyakanon Knapp, Riamsara. 2014. Contemplations on a
Bhutanese Buddhist Environmental Narrative. In Bhutanese
Buddhism and Its Culture, edited by S. Kumagai, 183–205.
Kathmandu, Nepal: Vajra Publications.
. 2015. Environmental Modernity in Bhutan:
Entangled Landscapes, Buddhist Narratives and Inhabiting
the Land. PhD Thesis. University of Cambridge, Cambridge,
UK.
March, Kathryn S. 1977. Of People and Naks: The
Management and Meaning of High Altitude Herding among
Contemporary Solu Sherpas. Contributions to Nepalese Studies
4(2): 83–97.
HIMALAYA Volume 37, Number 1 | 25
Messerschmidt, Don. 1999. The Forest in Bhutanese
Culture: Contribution to Mountain People, Forests. In
Mountain People, Forests, and Trees: Strategies for Balancing
Local Management and Outside Interests. Synthesis of an
Electronic Conference, April 12 - May 14, 1999, edited by
Nathalie Butt and Martin Price. Franklin, West Virginia:
Mountain Forum and The Mountain Institute.
MoA, RGOB. n.d. Bumdeling Wildlife Sanctuary. Brochure.
Thimphu. <http://www.moa.gov.bt/moa/downloads>.
Moktan, Mani Ram, Lungten Norbu, Harilal Nirola,
Kencho Dukpa, Tek Bahadur Rai, and Rinchen Dorji. 2008.
Ecological and Social Aspects of Transhumant Herding in
Bhutan. Mountain Research and Development 28 (1): 41–48.
Nebesky-Wojkowitz, Réne de. 1956. Oracles and Demons of
Tibet: The Cult and Iconography of the Tibetan Protective Deities.
London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Penjore, Dorji, and Phuntsho Rapten. 2004. Trends of
Forestry Policy Concerning Local Participation in Bhutan.
In Policy Trend Report 2004, edited by Kazuhiro Harada and
Martinus Nanang, 21–27. Kanagawa, Japan: Institute for
Global Environmental Strategies.
Phuntsho, Karma. 2004. Echoes of Ancient Ethos:
Reections on Some Popular Bhutanese Social Themes. In
The Spider and the Piglet: Proceedings of the First International
Seminar on Bhutan Studies, edited by Karma Ura and Sonam
Kinga, 564-579. The Centre for Bhutan Studies.
. 2013. The History of Bhutan. Noida, Uttar Pradesh:
Random House India.
Pommaret, Françoise. 1995. On Local and Mountain
Deities in Bhutan. In Reections of the Mountain: Essays
on the History and Social Meaning of the Mountain Cult in
Tibet and the Himalaya, edited by Anne-Marie Blondeau
and Ernst Steinkellner, 39–56. Veröffentlichungen Zur
Sozialanthropologie 2. Wien: Verlag de Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaft.
. 2003. Etres Soumis, Etres Protecteurs:
Padmasambhava et Les Huit Categories de Dieux et Demons
Au Bhoutan. Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines n°2, Revue électronique
de l’UMR 8047 no. 2: 40–66.
. 2004. Yul and Yul Lha: The Territory and Its Deity in
Bhutan. Bulletin of Tibetology 40 (1): 39.
. 2009. Local Community Rituals in Bhutan:
Documentation and Tentative Reading. In Buddhism Beyond
the Monastery: Tantric Practices and Their Performers in Tibet
and the Himalayas, edited by Sarah Jacoby and Antonio
Terrone, 111-144. Leiden: Brill.
. 2014. Bon in Bhutan. What Is in the Name? In
Bhutanese Buddhism and Its Culture, edited by Seiji Kumagai,
111–126. Kathmandu, Nepal: Vajra Publications.
Pommaret, Françoise, and Tashi Tobgay. 2011. Bhutan’s
Pervasive Phallus: Is Drukpa Kunley Really Responsible? In
Golden Jubilee Conference of the Namgyal Institute of Tibetology,
Gangtok : India (2008). Vol. 1, edited by Alex McKay and Anna
Balikci-Denjongpa. Gangtok, Sikkim: Namgyal Institute of
Tibetology.
Samuel, Geoffrey. 1993. Civilized Shamans: Buddhism in
Tibetan Societies. Washington; London: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
. 2013. Revisiting the Problem of Bon Identity: Bon
Priests and Ritual Practitioners in the Himalayas. Journal of
the International Association for Bon Research 1: 77–97.
Siebert, Stephen F., and Jill M. Belsky. 2014. Historic
Livelihoods and Land Uses as Ecological Disturbances and
Their Role in Enhancing Biodiversity: An Example from
Bhutan. Biological Conservation 177 (September): 82–89.
Sneath, David. 2014. Nationalising Civilisational Resources:
Sacred Mountains and Cosmopolitical Ritual in Mongolia.
Asian Ethnicity 2014: 1–15.
Ura, Karma. 2001. The Herdsmen’s Dilemma. Journal of
Bhutan Studies, July. Thimphu, Bhutan: Centre for Bhutan
Studies.
. 2004. Green House Deities and Environment. Thimphu,
Bhutan: Karma Ura.
Vitebsky, Piers, and Anatoly Alekseyev. 2015. Casting
Timeshadows: Pleasure and Sadness of Moving among
Nomadic Reindeer Herders in North-East Siberia. Mobilities
10 (4): 518–530.
Wangchuk, Kesang, Maria Wurzinger, Andras Darabant,
Georg Gratzer, and Werner Zollitsch. 2014. The Changing
Face of Cattle Raising and Forest Grazing in the Bhutan
Himalaya. Mountain Research and Development 34 (2): 131138.
Wangchuk, Sangay. 2000. Local Perceptions and Indigenous
Institutions as Forms of Social Performance for Sustainable
Forest Management in Bhutan. Zurich: ETH.
Wangdi, Sonam, Nawang Norbu, Sangay Wangchuk, and
Kinga Thinley. 2014. Social Restriction in Traditional Forest
Management Systems, and Its Implications for Biodiversity
Conservation in Bhutan. Proceedings of the Bhutan Ecological
Society 1 (1): 112–122.
