A Monastery on the Move: Art and Politics in Later Buddhist Mongolia 9780824885700

Citation preview

A MONASTERY ON THE MOVE

A MONASTERY ON THE MOVE Art and Politics in Later Buddhist Mongolia

URANCHIMEG TSULTEMIN

University of Hawai‘i Press Honolulu

© 2021 University of Hawai‘i Press All rights reserved Printed in Canada 26 25 24 23 22 21    6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Uranchimeg Tsultemin, author. Title: A monastery on the move : art and politics in later Buddhist Mongolia / Uranchimeg Tsultemin. Description: Honolulu : University of Hawaiʻi Press, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020012107 | ISBN 9780824878306 (hardcover) | ISBN 9780824885700 (pdf) | ISBN 9780824885717 (epub) | ISBN 9780824885724 (kindle edition) Subjects: LCSH: Blo-bzang-bstan-paʼi-rgyal-mtshan, Jibcundampa I, 1635–1723. | Ikh Khu̇rėė (Monastery : Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia) | Buddhist art—Mongolia. | Art—Political aspects—Mongolia. | Buddhism and state—Mongolia. Classification: LCC N8193.M65 U7313 2020 | DDC 294.3/657095173—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020012107 University of Hawai‘i Press books are printed on acid-free paper and meet the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Council on Library Resources. Publication of this book has been aided by a grant from the Millard Meiss Publication Fund of CAA.

 

Design by Mardee Melton

To the memory of my father, eminent artist Nyam-Osoryn Tsultem, and my mother, Choijilin Ichinkhorloo.

Contents



ix List of Illustrations



xiii Acknowledgments



xvii Note on Transliteration



xix List of the Jebtsundampa Khutugtus

1 Introduction Mongolia’s “Great Encampment,” Ikh Khüree 13 Chapter One Zanabazar: A Khalkha Ruler 43 Chapter Two Zanabazar’s Art and Works: The Organized Practice of Dharma and the Art of Imperial Tradition 81 Chapter Three Why Zanabazar? A Géluk Disciple and the Jebtsundampa Ruler 106 Chapter Four Jebtsundampa Portraiture: Enshrinement in “Third Space” 143 Chapter Five Ikh Khüree: A Qing-Géluk City for the Khalkha Mongols 176 Chapter Six The Jebtsundampas’ Buddhist Government

213 Epilogue



217 Notes



253 Bibliography



273 Index

vii

Illustrations

Maps

1 2 3

Khüree migrations Jean Cóvens, Corneille Mortier, and Guillaume de l’Isle, Grand Tartary, 1757 [1706] Jacques-Nicolas Bellin, Map of Tartary, 1749

Figures

I.1 I.2 I.3 I.4 I.5 I.6 I.7 I.8 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12

Roy Chapman Andrews traveling in Khalkha Mongolia in Dodge cars, ca. 1923 Roy Chapman Andrews, Streets of Gandan Monastery in Ikh Khüree A painter and his viewers in Chinese Traders’ Town (Maimaicheng) N. Tsultem, Züün Khüree in Winter, 1979 Ger and tent. Photo by Georg Söderbom, 1938 Mongolian Buddhist painter, 1912 N. Tsultem, Temples and Colleges in Ikh Khüree, 1994 Archeological findings at Saridag Monastery, 1654–1689 Portrait of Köndölün Tsökhür Sain Noyan, 18th–19th century The Second Jebtsundampa, early 18th century Tāranātha, 19th century Puntsogling Monastery, Central Tibet, 2007 Tāranātha, 16th–17th century Tāranātha, 18th–19th century Example of khüree encampment: The Torghut Prince Sin Chin Gegeen’s camp at Khara Shar, before 1927 Three Zuu temples at Erdene Zuu Monastery Zanabazar’s Mongol portrait, 18th–19th century Zanabazar’s Mongol portrait, 19th century Züün Khüree at Kherlen River, general view, 19th century Assembly Hall, Züün Khüree at Kherlen River, 19th century

ix

x

List of Illustrations

1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 2.1 2.2 2.3

Mahākāla Pañjarnātha (also known as Gur Gompo), 16th century Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall, Ikh Khüree Asar-type tent for ceremonial or celebration purposes N. Tsultem, Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall. ca. 1980 Zanabazar, Vajradhāra, ca. 1680 Zanabazar, Vajrasattva, ca. 1680 Zanabazar, five Tathāgata set: Akṣobhya, Ratnasaṃbhava, Vairocana, Amitābha, and Amoghasiddhi, ca. 1680 2.4 Zanabazar, Amitāyus, ca. 1680 2.5 Tövkhön khiid. Övörkhangai province, 2018 2.6 Entrance to a meditation cave at Tövkhön khiid. Övörkhangai province, 2018 2.7 Unearthing Saridag Monastery 2.8 General reconstructive plan, Saridag Monastery 2.9 Zanabazar, Buddha, 1690–1699 2.10 Zanabazar, Mañjuśrī, late 17th century 2.11 Zanabazar, White Tārā, ca. 1680 2.12 Zanabazar, Green Tārā, ca. 1706 2.13 Attr. Zanabazar, Stūpa with Buddha Śākyamuni, late 17th or early 18th century 2.14 Vajradhāra seal, ca. 1691. 2.15 Set of Five Buddhas, Saridag Monastery, 1654–1689 2.16 Remains of standing Buddha or Bodhisattva, Saridag Monastery, 1654–1689 2.17 Large clay Buddha remains, Saridag Monastery, 1654–1689 2.18 Buddha remains in Yemar, Central Tibet, 11th century 2.19 Zanabazar, Vairocana, Saridag Monastery, 1654–1689 2.20 Mañjuśrī, 11th–early 12th century 2.21 Examples of surviving volumes of handwritten (Golden) Altan Kanjur in Mongolian, 1628–1629 2.22 Zanabazar, set of wealth deities (Jambhala and Vasudhārā), Saridag Monastery, 1654–1689 2.23 Roof tile with Kālacakra seed syllable, Saridag Monastery, 1654–1689 2.24 Attr. Zanabazar, Mārīcī, late 17th–early 18th century 2.25 Taklung Palgön, Sarvavid Mahāvairocana, ca. 1668–1669 2.26 Buddha sculpture, 1235/1256–1257 (restored in 1342 and 1346) 2.27 Five Buddhas, Shalu Monastery, Central Tibet, 14th century 2.28 Golden cup from Golden Horde with flower ornament relief, 16th century 2.29 Set of Green Tārā and White Tārā, Tibet, 17th century 2.30 Attr. Zanabazar, White Tārā, late 17th–early 18th century 2.31 School of Zanabazar, Mañjuśrī, 18th century 2.32 Zanabazar, Maitreya Bodhisattva, 18th century. 3.1 Portrait of Zanabazar (known as Self-Portrait), ca. 1723 3.2 Handwritten sūtra concerning the worship of Tāranātha’s head, 19th century 3.3 Maitreya Bodhisattva, 18th century 3.4 Sita Saṃvara, 18th century

List of Illustrations

3.5 Agwaan Sharav, Zanabazar, ca. 1830 3.6 The Cosmic Buddha Ratnasaṃbhava, Xumifushou Temple, Chengde, 1700–1800 3.7 Zanabazar, 18th–19th century 3.8 Inscription detail of Agwaan Sharav, Zanabazar, ca. 1830 4.1 Agwaan Sharav, The Fifth Jebtsundampa 4.2 The Seventh Jebtsundampa, 19th century 4.3 The Seventh Jebtsundampa, 19th century 4.4 The Eighth Jebtsundampa, 19th century 4.5 The Seventh Dalai Lama, early 19th century 4.6 The Eighth Jebtsundampa, late 19th century 4.7 The Bogd Gegeen, photograph, early 20th century 4.8 The Second Jebtsundampa with the lineage, 18th–19th century 4.9 The Second Jebtsundampa with parents, 18th–19th century 4.10 Zanabazar with his reincarnation lineage, 19th century 4.11 Ignatz Sichelpart, Yao Wenhan, et al., Ten Thousand Dharmas Return as One 4.12 Chinggis Khaan in Zawa Damdin’s texts, early 20th century 4.13 Three examples from the Jebtsundampa incarnation lineage set, early 19th century 4.14 Four examples from the Jebtsundampa lineage set, 19th century 4.15 Akṣobhya, ca. 1830 4.16 Jügder. Jügdernamjil (Three Deities of Longevity), late 19th century 4.17 Danjin, Damdin Yansan, 19th century 4.18 Gendendamba, Jamsran (Begze), late 19th century 4.19 Tsend, Vajrapāṇi, early 20th century 4.20 Khasgombo, Thirty-Five Buddhas of Confession, late 19th century 5.1 Balgan, Ikh Khüree, 1890s 5.2 Jügder, Capital Ikh Khüree, 1912–1913 5.3 The Yellow Palace, detail of Jügder, Capital Ikh Khüree, 1912–1913 5.4 Jean-Denis Attiret et al., Imperial Banquet at Wanshuyuan Garden 5.5 Ding Guanpeng, scene 16 of Pingding Zhunbu Huibu Desheng Tu 5.6 Daajav, plan of Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall 5.7 Dechingalbin (Kālacakra) datsan, late 19th century 5.8 Maitreya Temple, 19th century 5.9 Gandan Monastery, Ikh Khüree, ca. 1913–1914 5.10 Gandan Monastery, detail of Jügder, Capital Ikh Khüree, 1912–1913 5.11 Gandan, Tsogchin Assembly Hall 5.12 Maimaicheng. Detail of Jügder, Capital Ikh Khüree, 1912– 1913. 5.13 Streets in Maimaicheng, 1885–1886 5.14 Street of Western Porters (M. Baruun damnuurchin), detail of Jügder, Capital Ikh Khüree, 1912–1913 5.15 Russian consulate and St. Trinity Church in Ikh Khüree, 1912 5.16 Travel pass, 19th century 5.17 Ikh Khüree, late 19th century 5.18 Painting of temples and monasteries in Lhasa, ca. 1900–1920

xi

xii

List of Illustrations

5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5

Gandan, circumambulatory road, detail of Balgan, Ikh Khüree, 1890s The Green Palace, detail of Jügder, Capital Ikh Khüree, 1912–1913 Mañjuśrī monastery, detail of Jügder, Capital Ikh Khüree, 1912–1913 American Trading Company, 1913 Monumental Maitreya statue in Tashilhunpo, 1461–1463 Monumental Maitreya thangka, Gyantse, Pelkhor Chöde, Tibet, 1436–1439 Agwaan Khaidav, Maitreya statue, 1833 Maitreya procession, photos by Roy Chapman Andrews, ca. 1920. Gempelin Dorj, The Maitreya Procession at Lamyn Gegeeni Khüree, early 20th century 6.6 Zanabazar, Maitreya Bodhisattva, late 17th century 6.7 Danshig Naadam, early 20th century 6.8 Damdinsüren, Maitreya Procession, 1965 6.9 The Bogd Khan’s Arrival at the Yellow Palace, early 20th century 6.10 Double cityscapes of Ikh Khüree: Tsam and Naadam, early 20th century 6.11 One part of double cityscapes of Khüree, ca. 1912 6.12 Damdinsüren, Khüree Tsam and Khüree Naadam, 1966 6.13 Damdinsüren, Zanabazar, ca. 1970 6.14 The Jebtsundampas, 19th century 6.15 Zanabazar, woodblock print, 19th century 6.16 Zanabazar (based on the woodblock print), 19th century 6.17 Zanabazar, Tāranātha, ca. 1680 6.18 The Jebtsundampa with bell and vajra, woodblock print, 19th century 6.19 The Jebtsundampa with bell and vajra, late 19th century 6.20 Zanabazar’s mother, Khandjamts, ca. 1723 6.21 Ruyilun Guanyin (Cintamani chakra) Bodhisattva Seated on a Lotus Throne, Wenxian, Henan province, Guangshun (951–953 CE), Five Dynasties (907–960 CE) 6.22 Zanabazar and Khandjamts, 19th century 6.23 The Bogd Gegeen with his consort, late 19th century 6.24 B. Sharav, The Bogd Khan and Dondogdulam Ekh Dagina, ca. 1912–1924 6.25 Damdinsüren, The Bogd Khan and Dondogdulam Ekh Dagina, 1968 6.26 Ceremonial ger for the Bogd Khan, 1893

Acknowledgments

Throughout the long journey of working on and writing about Ikh Khüree (Urga), I have been fortunate to receive help and encouragement from many people and several organizations. First among them is Professor Patricia Berger, my dissertation adviser and a gifted scholar whom I greatly admire, deserves my most profound gratitude. It was due to our meeting and a trip to Amarbayasgalant Monastery in northern Mongolia in 1996 that I left my highly successful career path in native Mongolia and became a graduate student at Berkeley—a radical turning point in my life that I have never regretted. Our conversations throughout these many years remain meaningful beyond words, always inspirational, and highly motivating. My sincere thanks thus go first and foremost to Pat. I also express my sincere gratitude to the rest of my mentors at Berkeley, Gregory Levine, Jake Dalton, Whitney Davis, Alex von Rospatt, and Bob Sharf, for their unfailing responsiveness to my many queries, their continuous help, and their invaluable consultations and mentorship. Back home in Indianapolis, I am immensely grateful for the support provided by my colleagues at Herron School of Art and Design, with special thanks to Jennifer Lee, William Potter, Greg Hull, Danielle Riede, Cindy Borgmann, Youngbok Hong, Lola Thompson, Peggy Frey, among many others, and to my bright students who gave me many reasons to share and be excited about some of the many images that you will see in this book. This work has been shaped, transformed, and developed due to important academic conversations and exchanges of ideas with some scholars in the field of Mongolian and Inner Asian Studies. I am particularly grateful to Christopher Atwood, Johan Elverskog, Isabelle Charleux, Vesna Wallace, Karénina Kollmar-­Paulenz, Sh. Soninbayar, Sh. Choimaa, Agata Bareja-Starzyńska, Jeff Watt, Coyiji, Sung Soo Kim, and David Templeman for generously taking the time to discuss ideas; send me books, articles, and images; read draft chapters; and provide precious feedback—this last was of crucial significance to me. Their insightful comments,

xiii

xiv

Acknowledgments

their unfailing responses to my numerous queries, and the many important questions they raised ultimately helped me sharpen and expand my ideas in most exciting ways. This work has tremendously benefited from my formal and informal studies with Professor Christian Luczanits, a leading scholar of Tibetan art. His meticulous observation, careful reading, and generous comments were key to my work. Some important points in this work derive directly from my discussions with Christian either in person in Berkeley, Tibet, and Germany, or by email. His in-depth knowledge of Tibetan art remains exemplary, inspirational, and most encouraging. My sincere gratitude goes to friends and colleagues who have supported my work for years and with whom I continue to share information, research, and invigorating conversations. My huge thanks to Matthew King, Andrei Znamen­ ski, Erdenebaatar Erdene-Ochir, Erdenebaatar Myangat, Oyunbilig Borjigin, O. Batsaikhan, Bao Muping, G. Nyamochir, Stacey van Vleet, Marissa Smith, D. Ulzidelger, L. Tserenchunt, Wen-shing Chou, Yueni Zhong, Jaspal Sandhu, Sue Byrne, Amy Heller, Krisztina Teleki, Sunglim Kim, Sujatha Meegama, Rosaline Kyo, B. Lkhagvabayar, Jessica Lee Patterson, Ellen Huang, Sh. Baatar, Simon Wickhamsmith, Sunmin Yoon, Glenn Mullin, Lkhagvademchig Shastri, D. Burnee, D. Bulgan, Catherine Tsuji, and M. Bolortsetseg. I am immensely grateful for my friends Christoph and Enkhe Giercke, B. Lutaa, S. Tugs-Oyun, B. Altaa, J. Munkhtsetseg, M. Erdenebaatar, B. Nasantsengel, Mark Oppitz, Friedemann von Stockhausen, Sean and Tugsu Armstrong, and Ralph and Oyungerel Diaz for their support, for memorable times spent together, and for sharing sheer moments of joy and friendship. My special gratitude goes to Manduhai Buyandelgeryin for sharing resources and editors with me; to Jesse Sloane and Michael Hope at Yonsei University for helping with library access and resources; to Marilyn Rhie for important comments and generous discussions on style; to Khenpo Yeshi, Rabsal Gedun, and Karma Ngodup for their continuous help with my Tibetan translations; and to Nancy Lin for being a thoughtful friend whose support and warm words bring hope and brighten my day. I am indebted to several institutions for their support of my Ikh Khüree project and research. Professors M. Bayarsaikhan, D. Bayarsaikhan, O. Oyunjargal, E. Uchral, D. Zayabaatar, and U. Erdenebat at the National University of Mongolia and Sh. Soninbayar and N. Amgalan of the Zanabazar Buddhist University at Gandan Monastery were all instrumental in assisting me with finding, reading, and interpreting primary sources. I especially thank Dr. S. Chuluun at Academy of Sciences for his constant support and for generously sharing his new archeological findings and discussing their possible interpretations. Thanks also to B. Ichinkhorloo and M. Davaasuren at National Library of Mongolia, Chimeddelger and Bolormaa at National Central Archives of Mongolia. My deepest gratitude goes to Susan Meinheit in Asian Reading Room and the staff at Kluge

Acknowledgments

Center for their assistance with resources at the Library of Congress throughout the duration of the project, but especially in 2013, when I was a Kluge Fellow, and during the summer of 2017, when I completed this manuscript at the Library of Congress. My warm gratitude also goes to professors Juhyung Rhi and Eunjeong Yi for giving me an opportunity to present some parts of this work at Seoul National University in December 2018. I owe a great deal of gratitude to the museum directors and curators who kindly showed me their archived images, objects, catalogs, and databases and supplied me with information and high-resolution images when necessary. Thanks especially go to O. Mendsaikhan and Ts. Gunchin-Ish, and D. Altannavch at Bogd Khan Palace Museum; D. Otgonsuren and M. Darkhanchimeg at Choijin Lama Temple Museum; U. Sarantuya, T. Enkhjargal, and R. Chinzorig at Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art; G. Ochbayar at Ulaanbaatar Museum; Pagmadulam at Military Museum of Mongolia; Dr. D. Enkhbat, director of the Center for Cultural Preservation. I am grateful to all the museums that promptly responded to my requests for images to be included in this book, and in particular I thank Luo Wenhua and Liu Yuehan at Palace Museum in Beijing; Stephanie Reeves at Asian Art Museum in San Francisco; Emily Nazarian at Rubin Museum of Art; Tibor Krauss at Situation Kunst in Bochum; Stacey Sherman at Nelson-Atkins Museum in Kansas; Jovanka Ristic at the American Geographical Society Library; the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Libraries; Nicola Woods at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto; Magdalena Pinker at the National Museum in Warsaw; Venerable Lama Baasansuren of Erdene Zuu Monastery; and O. Angaragsuren at Erdene Zuu Museum for unfailing correspondences throughout the process. A special thankyou as well to B. Sergelen, director of the Agency for Cultural Policy at the Ministry of Education, Culture, Science and Sports, for her letter supporting this project, which enabled me to obtain reproductions of images from Mongolian museums. I thank able editors Molly Mullin and Jennifer McIntyre for helping me to finalize and proofread my manuscript and for assisting me with the text, images, and all other work involved in making the process smooth. At the University of Hawai‘i Press, I am thankful to acquisitions editor Stephanie Chun for considering my book proposal and for her efforts in seeking possibilities for its publication, to the editorial board members, and to managing editor Cheryl Loe. Two people who helped me immeasurably throughout this long research project, supplied me with files of primary sources, and discussed questions and ideas with me, are the late Mongolian Tibetologist L. Khurelbaatar and the Buddhist Digital Resource Center’s founder and late former director, Gene Smith. While they were not able to see this work in its final publication, I am immensely grateful for their continuous faith and interest in my work, as well as for the privilege of knowing them and discussing my ideas with them in person. When Gene decided to come to Mongolia during my year of research there in 2007–2008,

xv

xvi

Acknowledgments

it was my honor to assist his travel and organize his meetings with scholars of the National University, Zanabazar Buddhist University at Gandan Monastery, Dashichoilin Monastery, and National Library. I will cherish this warm memory of knowing these great scholars for the rest of my days. My research project was financially supported by several generous grants. I am heavily indebted to research fellowships granted by the Khyentse Foundation and the ACLS/Ho Foundation, and to a John W. Kluge Fellowship at the Library of Congress that allowed me to conduct research and engage in full-time writing. My family in Mongolia has been the firm, loving, supportive background throughout my life and my academic work in particular. With their unconditional love, positive outlook, and unwavering faith in my success, my brothers Enkhjin, Munkhjin, and Bumandorj and my sisters Narmandakh, Altantsetseg, and Ganchimeg deserve my warmest gratitude for promptly responding to my numerous requests, patiently listening to my complaints about the bumps I encountered on the academic pathway, and re-energizing me with their positive attitudes and humor. My kind-hearted and talented son, Soyoko, has ridden with me through all the bumps and potholes of the research process, from fieldwork through writing, from scattered notes to completion. This book would have been truly inconceivable without the loving support and dedication of my husband Ron, whose patience with my late nights, the hardships of academic life, and the increasing number of papers in various forms in our home was essential. These two men are my life and deserve my utmost love and warmest gratitude. I sincerely thank our extended family members, who include Aubri, Kevin, and Owen Lang and Dylani Marchesani, for warm memories I cherish. This book is about Buddhist art, and Buddhism teaches that death constitutes another state of existence. My deepest gratitude and appreciation are to my parents. My own father, Nyam-Osoryn Tsultem (1923–2001), an eminent artist and art historian of Mongolia, was the first to introduce me to the richness of Mongolian art; my mother, Ichinkhorloo (1927–2018), read this book in its Mongolian version and shared with me her joy and anticipation of its final publication by University of Hawai‘i Press. My passion for art and for Mongolia is due to them. And it is to them, old residents of Ikh Khüree, that I dedicate my present work with love and gratitude.

Note on Transliteration

This book follows Christopher Atwood’s transliteration, outlined in 2004. In general, efforts have been made to assist English reading and to follow modern spellings and Khalkha pronunciation of letters. Thus, kh is used for k/q, g for g/ ġ, ch or ts for č, and j or z for ǰ. Exceptions have been made for the names Abatai and Jebtsundampa, as several modern spellings exist. Dugang and Dagina also follow Atwood 2004. The transliteration language is indicated if it is not clear from the sentence; for example, monastic institution (Tib. gdan sa) and Mongolian reincarnation (khutugtu). For titles of pre-1940 literature written in Classical Mongolian in the References and Bibliography, Mostaert’s transliteration is used omitting diacritics and replacing γ with ġ. Tibetan names and terms use the Wylie transliteration, in which the terms are italicized, whereas proper names are not; for example, Tsongkhapa (tsong kha pa), Bensa (Tib. dben sa). For Chinese, the Pinyin transliteration is used. The terms Khaan (qaγan) and Khan (qan) are differentiated and explained. The following abbreviations are used: Cl. M. (Classical Mongolian), M. (Mongolian), Skt. (Sanskrit), and Tib. (Tibetan). Measurements

Measurements of artwork in the captions follow Bartholomew and Berger 1995; N. Tsultem 1982, 1986, 1988; and Fleming and Lkhagvademchig 2013. Where sizes differ, measurements according to Fleming and Lkhagvademchig are in parentheses.

xvii

List of the Jebtsundampa Khutugtus (with modern Mongolian spellings)

1635–1723 Zanabazar Öndör Gegeen Luvsan Dambijantsan (blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan) 1724–1757

Luvsan Dambidonmi (blo bzang bstan pa’i srgon me)

1758–1773

Ishdambinyam (ye shes bstan pa’i nyi ma)

1775–1813

Luvsan Tüvdenvanchig (blo bzang thub bstan dbang phyug)

1815–1841

Luvsan Tsültemjigmed Dambijantsan (blo bzang tshul khrim ’jigs med bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan)

1843–1848

Luvsan Tüvdenchoijijantsan (blo bzang thub bstan chos kyi rgyal mtshan)

1850–1868

Agwaan Choijivanchig Prinleijamts (ngag dbang chos kyi dbang phyug ’phrin las rgya mtsho)

1869–1924

Agwaan Luvsanchoijinyam Danzanvanchig Balsambuu (ngag dbang blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma bstan ’dzin dbang phyug dpal bzang po)

xix

Introduction Mongolia’s “Great Encampment,” Ikh Khüree No town in the world is like Urga [Ikh Khüree]. —Danish traveler to Mongolia Henning Haslund-Christensen (1896–1948)

In the summer of 1918, American explorer Roy Chapman Andrews (1884–1960) traveled to Mongolia, scouting for a possible location for a scientific expedition to the Gobi Desert (fig. I.1). His paleontological discoveries there would soon make him world famous. During this trip, he visited the capital monastery-city, Ikh Khüree, for the first time and made the following observation: Far up in northern Mongolia, where the forests stretch in an unbroken line to the Siberian frontier, lies Urga, the Sacred City of the Living Buddha. The world has other sacred cities, but none like this. It is a relic of medieval times overlaid with a veneer of twentieth-century civilization; a city of violent contrasts and glaring anachronisms. Motor cars pass camel caravans fresh from the vast, lonely spaces of the Gobi Desert; holy lamas, in robes of flaming red or brilliant yellow, walk side by side with black-gowned priests; and swarthy Mongol women, in the fantastic headdress of their race, stare wonderingly at the latest fashions of their Russian sisters. . . . Palisaded compounds gay with fluttering prayer flags, ornate houses, felt-covered yurts, and Chinese shops mingle in a dizzying chaos of conflicting civilizations. . . . The Mongol yurt has remained unchanged; the Chinese shop, with its wooden counter and blue-gowned inmates, is pure Chinese; and the ornate cottages proclaim themselves to be only Russian. . . . Almost every race of Central Asia might be seen on the streets of Urga. It was a Mecca for the pilgrimages of devout lamaists, and in its kaleidoscopic mass of life and color the city

1

2

INTRODUCTION

I.1. Roy Chapman Andrews expedition traveling in Khalkha Mongolia in Dodge cars, circa 1923.

Courtesy of American Museum of Natural History Library.

I.2. Roy Chapman Andrews, Streets of Gandan Monastery in Ikh Khüree. Courtesy of American

Museum of Natural History Library.

INTRODUCTION

3

was like a great pageant on the stage of a theater, with the added fascination of reality. . . . [There are also] many strange costumes and half-dazed nomads from the steppes of Tibet or the deserts of Turkestan.1

These words express excitement similar to that experienced by the Danish explorer Henning Haslund-Christensen, whose words are briefly quoted in this section’s epigraph. One of Andrews’s contemporaries, American statesman William Woodville Rockhill (1854–1914), while stationed in Beijing as the US ambassador to China, expressed a longing to visit Ikh Khüree (fig. I.2). Rockhill spoke Tibetan and had traveled to Mongolian and Tibetan lands several times as an explorer, yet he did not make it to Ikh Khüree, the one site he most desired to see, until 1914, shortly before his untimely death. In Ikh Khüree, Rockhill and Andrews found a peculiar mixture of cultures, technologies, and people. There, the Buddhist architectural styles of Tibet, Russia, China, and Mongolia were blended together, while Western innovations, such as the telegraph, telephone, and Ford and Dodge cars, existed together with a Russian hospital, a Russian Orthodox church, and Chinese temples and shops (fig. I.3). Known as Urga by foreigners, the site is referred to as Ikh Khüree in textual sources, literally meaning “great encampment,” while commoners called it Bogdiin Khüree (Bogd’s Khüree). When Westerners like Haslund, Rockhill, Andrews, and many others visited and lived in Ikh Khüree, it was a bustling monastery-­city with colorful rituals and an immense production of arts and architecture (fig. I.4). Sadly, it would soon be destroyed by the Bolsheviks, who transformed it into a Soviet-­ style city they renamed Ulaanbaatar (Red Hero) in the twentieth century. I.3. A painter

and his viewers in Chinese Traders’ Town (Maimaicheng). Courtesy of American Museum of Natural History Library.

4

INTRODUCTION

I.4. N. Tsultem, Züün

Khüree in Winter. Oil on canvas, 80 × 180 cm, 1979. Courtesy of Tsultem Family Archive.

Gone and Destroyed: The Re-creation of the Mobile Monastery Ikh Khüree was the most important Buddhist monastery for ethnic Mongols throughout the three hundred years of its existence, and numerous temples and artworks were produced at the site. Yet how do we study the site when it no longer stands, and when a completely new city was erected that eradicated the memory of its Buddhist history and culture? This book opens a discussion of this monastery-city and its most important resident, the Jebtsundampa Khutugtus, on the basis of its surviving artworks, architecture, archeology, oral histories, and writings as well as archival records that have been previously unknown or which heretofore have been consulted to only a limited extent. The illusive nature of Ikh Khüree as an international site of cross-cultural contacts shapes the framework of my inquiry: how, and why did a ger (yurt) develop into the largest and most important monastery in Mongolia, and how did it support the authority of its main resident, the Jebtsundampa Khutugtu (fig. I.5)? Ikh Khüree’s demise is only one case, yet the socialist destruction throughout Mongolia was massive and left behind only two monasteries out of over a thousand. The phenomenon of Ikh Khüree is that, as a place, it was for a great many years entirely portable and movable. The preeminent Mongolian monastery, it was initially built in 1639 by Khalkha Mongolian nobles as the ger-­ residence for the First Jebtsundampa reincarnate ruler, Zanabazar (1635–1723), and it gradually became Mongolia’s political, social, and cultural center. Between 1639 and 1855 it migrated, changing locations and sometimes traversing vast distances, settling in different parts of Mongolia and expanding its size, functions, architecture, arts, and population. It was a dazzling site, mobile and versatile,

INTRODUCTION

continually building and expanding its architectural constructions and art, and it remained the main seat of the Jebtsundampa lineage. Yet despite its unusual history, Ikh Khüree has only recently begun attracting scholarly interest. While we know that itinerant artists and monks traveled from one monastic site to another, a case of an entire monastery on the move is unique, especially considering the importance it maintained, the multiplicity of its functions, and the international population it embraced. Whereas a Buddhist monastery typically begins its existence with a community (Skt. saṃgha) of Buddhist practitioners, Ikh Khüree’s founding was tightly woven with the complex politics of Khalkha Mongolia’s positioning in Inner Asia. From its early years, the monastery produced art for its many new temples and colleges. How art became an active agent within Mongolian history and politics has not yet been studied, and thus is the focus of this work. Ikh Khüree’s artworks (fig. I.6)—paintings, sculptures, maps, architecture, and photographs—are key objects that can help us understand the long-extinct monastery and the Buddhist tradition that has been severely attacked in the past century. It is my hope that this book contributes to the steady revival of this tradition, a revival that has been developing over the past two decades with the help of surviving texts and works of art.

I.5. Ger and tent. Photo by Georg Söderbom, 1938. Courtesy of National Museum of Denmark.

5

6

INTRODUCTION

I.6. Mongolian Buddhist painter, 1912. Courtesy of Kotwicz collection, Polish Academy of Arts

and Sciences.

The Premise of This Study and Its Resources While the name “Urga” is frequently mentioned in travelogues and in maps, in-depth research and scholarship about Ikh Khüree remains limited. Mongolian art historian Nyam-Osoryn Tsultem was the first scholar to spearhead the study of Mongolian Buddhist art in the 1970s and especially in the 1980s, pioneering lavishly illustrated publications in multiple languages.2 In his analysis of Mongolian Buddhist art in 1971, Tsultem wrote extensively about his concept of “schools”— including the School of Zanabazar and the School of Ikh Khüree—which he based on Mongolian ger-based education, artists’ teacher–disciple/preceptor– apprentice relationships, and monastic workshops for rituals and production of arts. The very concept of “schools” and its underpinning methodology derives from the medieval European practice of workshops and the model of scuola as found, for example, in Italy, and Tsultem borrowed this methodology from Russian and Soviet art-historical literature. While research about Mongolian Buddhist art is still in its infancy, it is still debatable how a scuola model can be applied to Mongolian monasteries, where numerous temples within one monastery had their own workshops. However, as Tsultem argued, the unusual style, color spectrum and combinations, uncanny, sometimes even grotesque, subject matter, and the overall high quality can be seen as a hallmark of this particular monastic site, the so-called “School of Ikh Khüree.”

INTRODUCTION

7

Tsultem was also the first scholar to discuss and bring to the fore the art of Zanabazar and to connect the later sculpture of the eighteenth century to his name in what he termed the “School of Zanabazar.” 3 Further illuminating and aiming for clarity in the heretofore broadly used notion of “School of Zanabazar,” chapter 2 shows that there is no doubt that the best artists and artisans came to Ikh Khüree and that they and their works contributed to making this site the indisputable center of Mongolian Buddhism in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (fig. I.7). Little is still known about Mongolian Buddhist art and architecture in general; insufficient research has been conducted in the field, and publications are limited to mostly encyclopedic catalogs, with the exception of articles and recent monographs by Isabelle Charleux.4 This book thus aims to fill this gap and, as an addition to the field of New Qing History, analyzes Mongolian Buddhist art within the context of the rise of the Géluk authority among the Khalkha Mongols and the Qing Empire, which based its interactions with these peripheral people on the concept of the “Buddhist government.” Each of the book’s six chapters looks into a particular set of images that raise questions beyond the iconographic and stylistic analyses that previous art historians conducted and which compel us to consider their sociopolitical history and intentionality.5 The earliest substantial analyses of Ikh Khüree were conducted in two doctoral theses, one of which was subsequently published as a book.6 The first was by Hungarian scholar Krisztina Teleki, whose remarkable research into primary and modern sources produced an encyclopedic survey of information about Ikh Khüree and its multiple functions. In her subsequent 2015 survey, Introduction to the Study of Urga’s Heritage, Teleki expanded her findings and topics related to Ikh Khüree, and included a brief section on art.7 I.7. N. Tsultem,

Temples and Colleges in Ikh Khüree. Oil on canvas, 100 × 210 cm, 1994. Courtesy of Tsultem Family Archive.

8

INTRODUCTION

Some of the ideas this manuscript explores come from my own PhD dissertation, completed in 2009, but I take the discussion of Ikh Khüree to the next level by placing it into the sociopolitical and cultural context of Inner Asia. In doing so, I also seek to illuminate the nature of what is really “Mongolian” in the arts and architecture of Ikh Khüree during the era when the “Qingification” of shared artists, styles, and productions was intentionally carried out to establish the unified and cosmopolitan Qing Empire. As several art historians, including Charleux and Marsha Weidner, have clearly stated, the massive loss and destruction of Mongolian artworks and architecture underscore the obstacles that continue to hinder scholarly analysis thereby perpetuating the stereotypical, or dismissive, views of the Mongol art tradition.8 The transformative process described as Qingification has also contributed to essentializing views that relate all Mongolian sculpture to Zanabazar and categorize all Mongol arts within the single subject of “Himalayan art.” 9 I hope this contribution helps to illuminate a more nuanced understanding of Mongol traditions as placed within the dialogue and context of Inner Asian arts and politics. In its composition and key ideas, the book is indebted to the work of recent scholars. Korean historian Sung Soo Kim (also known as Jin Cheng Xiu) discussed the role of Tibetan sectarian affiliations outside of Tibet, and of the Géluk in particular, in the power struggle of what she termed as “shifts of centers” (zhongxin zhuanyi 中心转移) between the Tümed, Tsakhar (Chakar), Oirat, and Khalkha Mongols.10 Specifically, in these politics, she saw the development of the concept of so-called “Buddhist government” (M. shashin tör; Tib. chos srid), which led to the “supremacy” of certain Mongol communities within Inner Asia. In Our Great Qing (2006), Johan Elverskog showed how the study of Mongolian language sources brings fresh perspectives to the transformative processes that established the Mongols as inalienable from the Qing. Analyzing pre-Qing and Qing-era Mongol texts, he argued that dismantling original Mongol perceptions of political authority and communal (M. ulus) identities, in addition to “Buddhist explanations,” was indeed more significantly at the core of how “being Mongol and Buddhist had become conflated with being part of the Buddhist Qing.” 11 Elverskog emphasized the strategies that the Qing court employed to dismantle Chinggisid conceptualizations of power and also recognized Géluk agency by suggesting “it [Géluk] initiated the process wherein what it meant to be a ‘Mongol Buddhist’ was defined by the Tibeto-Manchu religiopolitical authorities,” namely the Dalai Lamas and the Qing emperors.12 The initial Mongol openness to different sectarian affiliations during the time of Altan Khan (1507–1582) and thereafter was soon replaced by “hardline dge lugs pa orthodoxy promoted by both the Great Fifth and the Qing court for their own political ends.” 13 I have taken two approaches to the vast visual material of Mongolian Buddhism to contribute new perspectives on these scholarly discussions. As this book elaborates, the art and architecture of Ikh Khüree demonstrate the transformation process of what Elverskog has termed the “Qingfication” of Mongol cultural

INTRODUCTION

identity.14 These transformative processes effectively placed Mongol traditions at the periphery of the Qing Buddhist culture. The foundation of what has developed into the quintessential center of Khalkha politics and of Mongol Buddhism, Ikh Khüree, was Zanabazar’s basic portable architecture ger, which was gradually altered and expanded with mainly Tibetan Géluk constructions, as shown in chapter 5. Lacing together textual and visual records, I discuss in chapter 3 the Géluk presentation and the vision of Khalkha nobleman Zanabazar, now enmeshed in the political system of reincarnations in Géluk terms. Zanabazar’s so-called “self-portrait,” painted within the Tibetan thangka tradition, and the biography of Zanabazar by his disciple Zaya Paṇḍita Luvsanprinlei (Jāya paṇḍita blo bzang ’phreng las, 1642–1715) are the first sources that perpetuate a linear, Géluk vision of the Jebtsundampa, who otherwise is proclaimed as Jonang Tāranātha’s (1575– 1634) reincarnation.15 It was precisely the Géluk placement of the nascent Dalai and Panchen Lama institutions as highly ranking “eminent teachers” in the hierarchy vis-à-vis Khalkha “disciples” that started the gradual process of cultural transformation of Mongolian beliefs and artistic and architectural traditions (chapter 3). The ultimate success of this Qing-Géluk project can be seen, as argued in chapter 4, in the maneuvering of the Jebtsundampa lineage from the Qing court and its presentation within the intentional internationalism of Qing styles (Patricia Berger’s “quotation of styles” or Paola Mortari Vergara Caffarelli’s “international Gélukpa style”) and the mix of selective symbols of power borrowed from all three cultures.16 On the other hand, this book sees the late Dharma dissemination in Khalkha Mongolia based on Zanabazar’s temples and art as independent from the QingGéluk discourse. In doing so, the book aims to distinguish between the political aspects of Buddhist conversion in the early years of the Jebtsundampas and the cultural and ritual appropriation of Buddhism as seen in Buddhist architecture and artistic objects that testify to the establishment of Yoga Tantra foundations for collective practices and the invocation of Mahāyāna teachings (chapter 2). As in Tibet, art and architecture were vital instruments in the Buddhist conversion and Buddhist appropriation in Mongolia, and the presence of Indic deities, specific Mahāyāna iconographies, and Yoga Tantra in the art of Zanabazar suggests aims and practices explicitly different from the engrossing Qing-Géluk political discourse. As this book is focused only on Mongolian Buddhism and its culture, the umbrella term “Tibetan Buddhism” is not used; the term “Vajrayāna Buddhism” is used to refer to specifics of the Dharma practice.17 One of the aims of this work is to further contribute to a growing field of Mongolian Buddhism that studies the specifics of Mongol appropriation of Buddhism beyond Tibet’s single influence. In these efforts I draw on such recent scholarship as Vesna Wallace’s numerous publications and a well-grounded study of the Mergen Monastery by Caroline Humphrey and Hürelbaatar Ujeed.18 Peter Schwieger’s most recent book has focused on the formation and the use of shashin tör, the “Buddhist government,” as a new model of governance in

9

10

INTRODUCTION

Inner Asia and as such serves as an essential historical foundation for this study.19 According to Kim and Schwieger, certain Mongolian primary sources indicate that the origins of shashin tör lie in the early seventeenth century, in which such sources as Tsagaan tüükh (M. Caġan teüke; White History), Altan Khan’s biography, and Setsen Khan’s letter to Hong Taiji in 1633 all use the term and promote its implementation. Architectural and visual records show, as this book illuminates, a different perspective on the “Buddhist government” as perceived and used by the Khalkha Mongols. Based on the visual and architectural sources of Ikh Khüree, I suggest the shasin tör is markedly different from the concept of khoyor yos (Cl. M. qoyar yosu; Tib. lugs gnyis), the equal fusion of religious and secular authorities to form a balanced dual rulership. The paradigm of khoyor yos was first exercised by Khubilai Khaan (1219–1294) and Chögyal Pakpa Lodro Gyeltsen (Tib. chos rgyal ’phags pa blo gros rgyal mtshan 1235–1280) at the Mongol imperial court during the Yuan dynasty, 元朝. Altan Khan’s alliance with a Géluk monk, Sonam Gyatso (bsod nams rgya mtsho, 1543–1588), in 1578 is also seen as another instance of khoyor yos, and Altan Khan’s aims now referred to as tör shashin (literally, government-religion) in his biography (discussed in chapters 1 and 2). This latter term marks a subtle yet important shift to the otherwise equal balance of dual rulership by bringing the secular authority as the primary aspect. Japanese historian Yumiko Ishihama has argued that shashin tör was a shared concept between the Tibetan, Mongolian, and Qing courts.20 Taking a broader perspective of the Qing Empire, however, the statecraft concept of shashin tör was only rhetorical and one of those shared realities that brought the Khalkha to complete submission and acceptance of the Qing secular dominance. Whereas khoyor yos highlights the equal importance of the two aspects of rulership, secular and religious, shashin tör dismantles the balance of such vision. During the Qing, as Schwieger writes, shashin tör was “the total subordination of the secular sphere to the religious sphere”; it enabled the vision of a Buddhist ruler—in this case, the Jebtsundampa—as allegedly the highest authority. However, according to Schwieger, the “Buddhist government” did not exist in effect, as the secular rule of the Qing court was the single political power over the Mongols and the Tibetans alike. Ultimately, as part of the “Qingification,” other shared concepts and realities included creating new genealogies in the texts and designing new art styles and sets, which dislodged the Mongols from their own genealogies, led them to India, Nepal, China, and Tibet, and included Géluk teachers (chapter 4). My second approach, and the main argument of this book, is to suggest that the two parallel—Chinggisid and Buddhist—conceptualizations of political power, referred to in textual sources as shashin tör, can be traced in the arts and architecture of Ikh Khüree throughout its history, but more prominently in the oeuvre of Zanabazar, Jebtsundampa portraits, and the double cityscapes (chapter 6).

INTRODUCTION

Zanabazar’s own architectural and artistic endeavors, I argue in chapter 1, were really based on traditional Mongol perceptions of political authority that date back to Chinggisid times. These architectural spaces of the Mongol ruler, and his widely proliferated portraits, which were made specifically for mass production as woodblock prints, evince a Khalkha vision of Zanabazar as a theocrat comparable and equal to the contemporaneous Fifth Dalai Lama (1617–1682) of Tibet. The Khalkha vision of the “Buddhist government” as its own theocracy, sustained throughout the history of the Jebtsundampas, did not conform with the Qing rhetorical shashin tör, and was eventually realized with the Eighth Jebtsundampa (1869/70–1924) in 1911. The planning of Ikh Khüree, which included secular and religious architecture, and its daily Buddhist rituals and regular worldly activities (as duly observed by Western travelers; discussed in chapter 6) all were meant to embrace and represent the Khalkha vision of the union of two systems, as chapter 6 shows. Double portraits of the Jebtsundampas were made on many occasions, and I argue in chapter 6 that they were designed to represent them as visual embodiments of the Khalkha theocracy. The move of a religious center from Höhhot to Erdene Zuu and finally to Ikh Khüree also meant, as Kim would have put it, the strategic shift of political power centers for supremacy in Inner Asia. The very conception and ambivalent, often nebulous, development of Zanabazar’s ger into “Ikh Khüree” was meant to create the political center of the ruler theretofore absent in northern Mongolia. The Khalkha theocracy, initiated with Zanabazar in 1639 and realized only in 1911 with the Tibetan-born Jebtsundampa, further corroborates David Sneath’s point that “ruling lords were not always related by descent to the people they ruled.” 21 The main textual and archival resources for this study are, for the first time, all from Khalkha. Most of the primary sources have been used to some degree by Mongolian scholars in Mongolia, yet they have been unknown in Western scholarship. The book also introduces several texts and writings that have not heretofore been used in any scholarship, such as a rare handwritten manuscript on Tāranātha’s ritual in Ikh Khüree; writings by Ikh Khüree’s abbot Agwaan Luvsan Khaidav (Agwaan Khaidav, Ngag dbang mkhas grub, 1779–1838); Ikh Khüree’s Code of Regulations (Tib. bca’ yig); and some of the Jebtsundampas’ writings and hagiographies. This book is also the first to show and bring to scholarly discussion many important artworks from Mongolia. In building on earlier studies of how political powers and borders were shaped in Inner Asia with the instrumental role of Buddhism and arts, this study gives voice to the protagonists, residents, and builders of the quintessential center of Mongolian Buddhism in Khalkha Mongolia by also discussing oral histories maintained in memory until modern times.22 Here I specifically distinguish oral histories as different from myths and as parts of “collective or social memory” that are maintained in epics and long-term narratives by pastoral nomads. By discussing, for instance, numerous oral histories, which are ways of maintaining the

11

12

INTRODUCTION

I.8. Archeological findings at Saridag Monastery, 1654–1689. Courtesy of S. Chuluun, History and

Archeology Institute, Mongolian Academy of Sciences.

memory of Tāranātha in Khalkha Mongolia, I demonstrate that these are as important as the written records and thus equally worthy of our attention and investigation (chapter 1), I draw on the recent work of anthropologists such as Rebecca Empson (2011) and Manduhai Buyandelgerin (2013).23 The information in these oral “narratives of continuity revolving around the tracing of clans and genealogies” represents other realities and as such, is substantially, and thought-provokingly, different from the textual records.24 What do these oral histories tell us, and what realities do they reveal to shed light on the matter of the Jebtsundampas? I am aware that I am questioning some textual sources while simultaneously using other archival information to support my views. My main point is that the truth cannot be found in one text or another. This book is therefore deliberately interdisciplinary in its methodology and research materials, as I strongly believe it is only through comparative analysis of various sources—of written and oral language, visual and architectural records, myths and facts—that a fuller picture of art and politics can be gleaned. Only recently available museum resources and archival documents and maps as well as new archeological findings (fig. I.8) are used extensively in this book. They bring us new perspectives and allow the long-destroyed Ikh Khüree to live again in our imagination and our knowledge.

Chapter One

Zanabazar A Khalkha Ruler

Gandan Monastery in Mongolia’s capital city of Ulaanbaatar houses a magnificent statue of Vajradhāra, considered to be Mongolia’s most sacred image. The statue, which primary sources record as being made in 1683 by the First Jebtsundampa Zanabazar (rje btsun dam pa, 1635–1723), must once have been located in one of Zanabazar’s mobile temples in Ikh Khüree (Cl. M. Yeke Küriy-e), most likely in the Vajradhāra Temple. After the complete destruction of Ikh Khüree in the early twentieth century, the Vajradhāra image was moved to Gandan Monastery, an institution unique in being spared during the upheaval that marked the beginning of the socialist period (1924–1992). Today, Gandan continues its mission of maintaining and reviving Buddhism, with the memory of Zanabazar important to the revival process. It is believed that Zanabazar brought the tradition of Vajrayāna Buddhism to Mongolia, introduced important rituals, authored influential texts, constructed temples, created works of Buddhist art, and even designed Mongolian monastic robes. Much of what we know about this prodigy comes from a number of hagiographies, with only one account written during his lifetime—a biography (Tib. rnam thar) by Zaya Paṇḍita Luvsanprinlei—and the rest written decades or centuries after Zanabazar’s death.1 On the basis of information in these texts, Zanabazar is reputed to have been a strict adherent of the Géluk school, one of the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism, founded by Tsongkhapa (tsong kha pa 1357–1419). These texts limit Zanabazar’s experiences to the Géluk and the Qing, presenting his exclusive Géluk identity blessed and shaped by Géluk leaders—the Dalai and Panchen Lamas–and describing him as a close and an admired friend of the Qing Kangxi Emperor (康熙, 1654–1722). The secondary literature and modern-day scholars adopted this knowledge and did not question the extent to which Zanabazar’s artworks, architecture, oral histories and his own writings are not compatible with the hagiographies his followers wrote about him.

13

14

CHAPTER ONE

1.1. Portrait of Köndölün Tsökhür Sain Noyan. Colors on cotton, 38 × 28.5 cm, 18th–19th c. Courtesy of

National Museum in Warsaw.

Zanabazar lived during a historical period that was formative for the early Qing (1644–1912) and for the Géluk political establishment; his times proved to be definitive in Inner Asian politics that shaped borders across Asia. The Géluk political authority was built and reinforced, especially after 1642, by the Fifth Dalai Lama (ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho, 1617–1682) and his regent, Desi Sangye Gyatso (sde srid sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, 1653–1705), who

ZANABAZAR

sought to formulate their relations with the Khalkha Mongols on their own terms.2 Such associations between the rising Géluk leaders and the similarly striving Mongols were by no means simple acts of alliance and teacher-disciple relationships. Luvsanprinlei was Zanabazar’s main disciple and a reincarnation of a Mongol Buddhist layperson, Köndölün Tsökhür Sain Noyan (d.u.) (fig. 1.1). He wrote his master’s biography between 1698 and 1702, and his narrative is constructed around such concepts as yab sras (eminent teacher and spiritual son) and the political system of dual power, known as shashin tör (“Buddhist government”), which is based on the fusion of Buddhist doctrine and the state. These terms suggest that Zanabazar’s relations with the Qing and Tibetan leaders involved critically important political moves and cannot be interpreted as simple descriptions of the devotion of new Mongol Buddhist reincarnates to the Géluk teachers and the Qing court. By the time of Luvsanprinlei’s text, the process of creating Zanabazar’s Géluk identity had been activated; thus, a fuller understanding of the new Jebtsundampa lineage requires a more comprehensive approach, which includes consultation of visual, architectural, and oral traditions in addition to the texts.3 As we shall see—and this is worth noting—oral histories transmitted and preserved throughout Mongolia and passed down until the modern day offer important information that appears to have been intentionally excluded from the official textual records. Paintings and architecture, on the other hand, as discussed below, also illuminate other critical aspects of Zanabazar as a new Buddhist ruler of the Khalkha Mongols. Truth cannot be found in one source or another; my approach here entails a comparative and interdisciplinary analysis that includes art, architecture, oral histories, and textual sources. A Khalkha Reincarnation of Jonang Tāranātha In the summer of 1639, a five-year-old boy participated in an extraordinary event in Khalkha Mongolia. Kings, noblemen, nomads from near and far, his parents, and other relatives gathered and brought the little boy to the site of Usan (Yesün) Züil at Shireet Tsagaan Lake,4 then in the domain of the boy’s father, the Tüsheet (Cl. M. Tüshiyetü) Khan Gombodorj (1594–1655). Only the rarest of occasions would bring the Khalkha Mongol aristocracy of the three aimags (provinces) to assemble,5 along with their subjects, on the lake’s shore, and this was one such occasion. A ceremonial ger, Örgöö,6 had been built for the Tüsheet Khan’s son, Zanabazar, who was to be ordained and enthroned to receive his new title, Öndör Gegeen, the “Exalted Saint.” 7 The Tüsheet Khan, supported by Gegeen Setsen Khan Sholoi (1577– 1652),8 was to initiate and to lead this assembly of the nobility, with his young son, at Shireet Tsagaan Lake, an act that appeared to be part of their strategy to establish a new primary authority in Khalkha. The nobility chose Zanabazar, a descendant of Chinggis Khaan (ca.1162–1227),9 to introduce a new type of ruler

15

16

CHAPTER ONE

in Khalkha that would be different from the secular title of khan. As the boy’s biographers would relate, he was no ordinary human being; while his Chinggisid origins justified his early elevation and distinction, in textual sources his identity would be closely narrated and presented within a new schema of authority that now linked legitimacy to Tibetan high authorities and Tibetan schools. The boy, we are told, was a Mongol reincarnation of Tāranātha (kun dga’ snying po, 1575– 1634), a Tibetan historian of the Jonang school, who, according to Mongolian beliefs, died in Western Mongolia a year before Zanabazar was born. At Shireet Tsagaan Lake, the Setsen Khan passed his title, Gegeen, to the boy, and thus the event was indeed miraculous: not only was a young reincarnated boy enthroned, but a newly established Öndör Gegeen, a teacher and a saint, was proclaimed. As the boy’s biographers tell us, his birth and extraordinary childhood were endlessly rich with incredible events and miraculous occasions. For example, his father found a white dog giving birth on Usan Züil, a piece of fertile land with spring waters (hence its name: “water,” or usan in Mongolian), where his great-grandfather, Abatai Khan (Abadai; Avtai Sain Khan, 1554–1588),10 had previously met with the Third Dalai Lama, Sonam Gyatso (bsod nams rgya mtsho 1543–1588).11 Early in life, Zanabazar proved to be a versatile prodigy: at the age of three, for example, he could recite by heart the prayers and holy texts of the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti—one of the major early texts of Mañjuśrī—which had been translated into four languages and printed by Choijamts (d. 1656?), the grandson of Altan Khan.12 Subsequently, at the age of four, he was given his Dharma name, Zanabazar or Ishdorj (Tib. ye shes rdo rje; Skt. Jñānavajra), and undertook the vows of a genen (Tib. dge bsnyen gyi sdom pa; Skt. upāsaka samvara), the first rank of Buddhist monkhood, by a certain Jambalin Nomin Khan, about whom the hagiographies do not reveal further information.13 He was promoted to the next monastic rank, rabjung (Tib. rab byung; Skt. pravrajita), from Bensa Bürülgü (Tib. dben sa sprul sku) or Kedrub Sangye Yeshe, and was given his second Dharma name, Luvsandambijantsan (blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan).14 He went to Tibet twice, first in 1649–1651 and again in 1655–1656, via Kumbum (sku ’bum) and Amdo (a mdo), and he spent most of his time in Central Tibet. The texts mention the monasteries—mainly of the Géluk school—that he visited there. After his first visit to Tibet, starting in 1649, Zanabazar returned to Khalkha in 1651. As Luvsanprinlei informs us, Zanabazar, now aged sixteen and recognized—or shall we say, “confirmed”—by the Dalai and Panchen Lamas as the First Jebtsundampa reincarnate (cl. M. Khutugtu), started building his temples in Khalkha. Zanabazar’s name, Ishdorj, or “Wisdom Vajra,” was chosen because the name Ishdorj appeared along with the name of Kṛṣṇācārya (Tib. nag po spyod pa); Nāgārjuna (c. 150–c. 250 CE), the founder of the Buddhist Madhyamaka thought of Mahāyāna Buddhism, in the predictions and divinations of the Kālacakra Tantra, as Agwaan Khaidav (ngag dbang blo bzang mkhas grub, 1779–1838) wrote in

ZANABAZAR

1837.15 In other words, Ishdorj was in the same lineage as the Indian adept (Skt. mahāsiddha) Kṛṣṇācārya, an important Buddhist philosopher and scholar in ancient India who belonged to the same lineage as Tāranātha.16 Zanabazar’s later biographer Agwaan Ishtüvden Ravjampa (ngag dbang ye shes thub bstan, also known as ngag gi dbang po), retells the same information in 1839,17 further perpetuating that the lineage was predicted in an early (eleventh-century) Tantric text. While Luvsanprinlei mentions the Fifth Dalai Lama as the one who recognized Zanabazar as Tāranātha’s reincarnation, Bareja-Starzyńska raises an important point, saying that “Zaya Paṇḍita dealt with the very sensitive problem of recognition . . . At first . . . Zaya Paṇḍita states that the son of Tüshiyetü Khan was enthroned when he was five years old, without any information about the name or title of the reincarnation of which he was enthroned.” 18 Samten Karmay, analyzing the Autobiography of the Fifth Dalai Lama, rejects the frequently reiterated view that the recognition came from the Fifth Dalai Lama.19 Gene Smith also shared Karmay’s view.20 As the Dalai Lama was not even in power in 1639, it is hard to accept Luvsanprinlei’s account of the Dalai Lama’s recognition of Zanabazar literally and unquestioned. It was only in 1645 that the Dalai Lama hastened to write a letter to the ten-year-old Zanabazar as “reincarnation of Tāranātha,” referring to him as Tsongkhapa’s famous disciple Jamyang Chöje (’jam dbyangs chos rje, 1379– 1449) and admonishing him to uphold the Géluk teachings (we shall discuss this in more in detail in Chapter 3). The Mongol histories, which now are preserved only in oral transmissions, and material evidence all testify to the Khalkha nobility’s efforts to import the lineage of a Jonang leading master Tāranātha into the Borjigid (Chinggisid) family line, initially to keep it independent of the emerging power of the Qing-Géluk alliance. As the boy was born prior to the Géluk victory in Tibet, the Khalkha khans planned to play an active role in Inner Asian political games by shifting the center of Mongol power to the Khalkhas with their Chinggisid descendant Zanabazar, now chosen by the nobility to initiate a new type of ruler. As Sung Soo Kim rightly notes, the political agents among the Mongol groups in Inner Asia were the Tümed Mongols, who produced the first Mongol Khutugtu (reincarnation, Tib. sprul sku)—Altan Khan’s great grandson Yondonjamts (Tib. yon tan rgya mtsho, 1589–1617)—as well as the Tsakhar (Chakar) Mongols. The Oirat and Khalkhas also vied to become major political players during the seventeenth century.21 In addition to texts, paintings and sculptures also testify to the young Chinggisid descendant’s persistent presentation as being linked to Tāranātha. In one of the early thangka paintings in Mongolia (fig. 1.2), dated to the early eighteenth century, the new Jebtsundampa lineage is depicted in its entirety, with the Second Jebtsundampa (1724–1757) in the center of the composition surrounded by his previous masters, including Tāranātha. Here Zanabazar appears as the sixteenth reincarnation, directly beneath the Second Jebtsundampa. As is typical for Mongolian thangkas, the figures

17

18

CHAPTER ONE

ZANABAZAR

19

1.2. Opposite page, The Second

Jebtsundampa. Colors on cotton, early 18th c. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum. 1.3. Left, Tāranātha. Gilt bronze,

88 × 76.7 × 57.5 cm, 19th c. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

are depicted without any inscriptions, and yet their specific iconography and Zanabazar’s image are distinct and are also similar to their depictions in other other portraits (which are analyzed in chapters 3 and 4). In Mongolia, Tāranātha is often depicted with bushy eyebrows, a mustache or beard, and a distinct rectangular shape (fig. 1.3). The painted portrait of the Jebtsundampa resembles a sculptural visage of Tāranātha in a remarkable way, to remind us of one person reborn and living in different times and places. These men’s paṇḍita hats, depicted either as yellow Géluk hats or with red edges (indicating a red interior) and a yellow exterior, testify to their unstable times and changing conditions during which the Gélukpas, who typically wear yellow hats, overtook the Jonang school and refurbished the monasteries as their own. Mongolian historian A. Ochir, referring to Sumba Khambo Ishbaljir (sum pa mkhan po ye shes dpal ’byor 1704–1788), notes that when sectarian conflicts in Tibet intensified in the early seventeenth century, the monks had their yellow Géluk hats made with red interiors so that they could wear them either as red or yellow according to the political situations at their sites.22 And, remarkably, the Jebtsundampa portraits illustrate this attitude. This painting presents a new iconography, in which depicting the new Khalkha lineage surrounding a master was seamlessly adopted as a new tradition

20

1.4. Top left,

Puntsogling Monastery, Central Tibet. Photo by author, 2007. 1.5. Top right,

Tāranātha. Wall painting, Puntsogling. National Central Tibet. 16th–17th c. Photo by author, 2007. 1.6. Opposite

page, Tāranātha. Colors on cotton, 18th–19th c. Private collection, Mongolia. Source: Tsultem, 1982.

CHAPTER ONE

in the Jebtsundampa portraiture for the specific reasons we shall see in chapter 4. This iconography had been established in Tibet by the eighteenth century; it is clearly visible in the famed Panchen Lama portrait by Chöying Gyatso (17th c.) in Tashilhunpo (bkra shis lhun po) Monastery, which was visited by Zanabazar.23 At the pinnacle of the vertical axis sits Cakrasaṃvara, who has a special significance in the Sakya tradition and reminds the erudite viewers about the Jonang’s inherent connection to the Sakya teachings. Is it possible, then, that the Tüsheet Khan chose an alliance with Tāranātha on the Jonangpa’s historical and doctrinal association with the Sakya? This Mongolian portrait of Tāranātha presents him with two main attributes, a book and a flaming jewel, that are different from those in the Jonang master’s portrait on the wall of Puntsogling Monastery in Tibetan Autonomous Region (figs. 1.4 and 1.5), where Tāranātha has only a book above his shoulder. Tāranātha’s portraits were made throughout Ikh Khüree’s history mostly as part of Jebtsundampa’s lineage, with a few important exceptions. One portrait depicts the master as surrounded by his incarnations, with Zanabazar below with the White Mahākāla (fig. 1.6). Here Tāranātha appears akin to Vajradhāra, holding the two essential attributes of Vajrayāna Buddhism—bell and vajra; this iconography is one of the rare visualizations of the Jonang master. Tāranātha’s likening with Vajradhāra is first seen in a set of his incarnations carved in woodblock; this set places Vajradhāra in the center as the progenitor of the lineage— very similar to Kagyu portraits.24 Zanabazar himself executed a splendid portrait of Tāranātha as Vajradhāra holding a bell and vajra in huṃkāra mudrā , and the sculpture appears to be contemporaneous to the woodblock set (see fig. 6.17).

ZANABAZAR

21

22

CHAPTER ONE

Both men shared rare prominence in religious, scholastic, visionary, and later political spheres, as textual and visual records demonstrate. Tāranātha was a distinguished figure in Tibetan history, known particularly for his teachings of zhentong (Tib. gzhan stong) views and his encyclopedic, biographic, and historical writings.25 From 1588 onward, Tāranātha was based at the Jonang Monastery in Tsang, and in 1619 he founded the Takten Damchöling (rtag brtan dam chos gling) Monastery, which became the major site of the Jonang school.26 Luvsanprinlei relates that Zanabazar said this about his reincarnation: Now, if [one] asks about the reason of issuing [a statement] about [me] being assembled with Tāranātha, although the assembly is not a deity (deva), it is like giving authorization, etc. by visualizing [oneself] as him—the two [notions] are similar.27

In addition to Zanabazar’s account, Luvsanprinlei also wrote biographies (rnam thar) of Zanabazar’s previous incarnations. In his short biography of Tāranātha, Luvsanprinlei includes very concise information about Tāranātha’s secret hagiography, which relates Tāranātha’s vision of being reborn in the “northern land” where his name would further prosper.28An undated short, secret autobiography (Tib. gsang ba’i rnam thar) of Tāranātha in a private collection in Mongolia is the only text where he acknowledges his rebirth in Mongolian lands in this way: Then, in India, [I] was born as the Lesser Kṛṣṇācārya, and propagated the teachings of Kṛṣṇācārya. Here, in Tibet, [I] was also the king called Za rnam ze lde, and it says that [I] have the same life-continuum as Dbas Mañjuśrī, a student of Buddhaguhya. And [I] was also a Lo tsa ba (translator) called Sbong zho gsal ba grags because [I] remember clearly about meeting with Acarya Abhayākara and translating the Ornament to the Intent of the Buddha (Tib. thub pa’i dgongs rgyan, Skt. Munimatālaṃkāra). In Mongolia, near a Vinaya monastery [I] was born a mantrika called Go rum blo ldan, and by means of Cakrasamvara, the Sworn Enemy of [Yamāntaka], and [Mañjuśrī] Nāmasamgīti, brought numerous beings onto the [path of] ripening and liberation. During that time, [he] was not well known yet, but in fact [he] had benefitted beings greatly. Places and so forth in those days appear very vividly [to me].29

David Templeman maintains this text is not a stand-alone composition but likely a short compilation of some selected information from his larger autobiography, which was translated, as we shall see, into Mongolian in the seventeenth century and revised and reprinted in the early twentieth century. It is this anonymous editor of this short compilation who identified the “northern land” as being Mongolia for Tāranātha’s next reincarnation, replacing the word “north” used in the original autobiography.30

ZANABAZAR

Apart from these few textual sources, there were persistent beliefs in Khalkha that Tāranātha spent some of his later years in Mongolia, where he was revered and supported by the Khalkha khans and founded several Buddhist temples, and died there in 1634. The persistence of these views in Mongolian oral histories, narrated in the Mongolian hagiographies of Zanabazar and transmitted through the legends, rituals, and art of Ikh Khüree, were also noticed and recorded by later travelers and writers, including Wang Sen and Aleksei Pozdneev.31 Several Mongolian scholars, including Tibetologist G. Nyam-Ochir, teacher and Buddhist scholar Sh. Soninbayar, and historians Ts. Tserendorj and S. Ichinnorov, have studied and directed our attention to these oral histories and rituals of Tāranātha in Mongolia. According to Nyam-Ochir, who collected oral transmissions in Bulgan, Zavkhan, and Khuvsgul provinces, Tāranātha was a meditation master of the Tüsheet and Setsen Khan Sholoi, on whom Tāranātha bestowed the title of Gegeen (“Holy”).32 Tāranātha was equally highly revered among the Oirat Mongols, and died in Mongolian lands a year before the boy Zanabazar was born. The Tüsheet Khan’s wife and Zanabazar’s mother, Khandjamts (Tib. mkha’ ’gro rgya mtsho), was an Oirat.33 It is in his belief that Zanabazar was a reincarnation of Tāranātha, that Setsen Khan had passed on his title Gegeen to the boy. According to Mongolian historian Tsegmedin Tserendorj, the Tüsheet Khan’s title (M. tüshikh, “support, supporter”) originates from his meetings with Tāranātha.34 According to another historian, D. Gongor, however, textual sources and formal records about the title of the khans lead to the Géluk: Gongor mentions the Third Dalai Lama Sonam Gyatso (bsod nams rgya mtsho, 1543–1588) as the source of the title “Ochirbat tulgar Tüsheet” (“firm vajra support”) bestowed upon Gombodorji in the sixteenth century.35 I do not suggest that oral histories tell us the facts, or that the information in the oral histories is more reliable than the written records. However, I do suggest that in the study of people like the Mongols, for whom oral traditions are essential to their culture and everyday livelihood, it is important to understand that oral histories were intentionally maintained and should not be completely ignored. In such a convoluted history as Zanabazar’s, all information, whether in oral, written, or visual form, must be considered together. The ritualization of some oral histories into a text, as we shall see in chapter 3, does suggest that keeping the memory of Tāranātha alive continuously throughout the history of Ikh Khüree was crucial to the very nature of who the Jebtsundampas were for the Mongols. While no archival documentation supports the beliefs that Tāranātha indeed visited Mongol lands and died in Mongolia, histories of his alleged presence in Mongolia date to the times prior to the Qing Empire and include stories of Zanabazar’s ancestor Abatai Khan’s connection to the Jonangpa scholar. According to these histories, mostly transmitted orally and recorded in Mongolian-language hagiographies, at least two versions of how Abatai met with Tāranātha exist.36 In one version, Abatai Khan saw Tāranātha at a site in Khalkha Mongolia

23

24

CHAPTER ONE

where the Tibetan teacher was burning incense, and where Abatai Khan would later build the first Khalkha monastery, Erdene Zuu, in 1586. According to the other legend, Abatai paid homage to Tāranātha in person and invited him to come to Khalkha, whereupon the master replied with his famous prophesy: “I surely can come to the Khalkha. This time I can’t as I am an old man. In future, I will come as a young man to Khalkha.” 37 Moreover, as Soninbayar states, a head believed to be Tāranātha’s was worshipped in Khalkha Mongolia for centuries in a special ritual called böndgöriin takhilga, or the “worship of the head.” 38 The Fifth Jebtsundampa (1815–1841) had a sculpture of Tāranātha made (fig. 1.3), and as a part of its consecration, the head was placed inside the statue.39 The worship of a deceased prominent person’s head had been part of traditional Mongol beliefs even prior to Buddhism and is also mentioned in the thirteenth-­century Secret History of the Mongols. In this text, Tayan Khan worships a head of his former ally Ong Khan (original spelling “Ong Qan”) in this manner: Gürbesü, the mother of Tayang Qan of the Naiman, said, “Ong Qan was the great old of former days. Bring his head here and if it is really his we shall sacrifice to it!” She sent a messenger to Qori Sübei and had him cut off and bring back his head. She recognized it and placed it on a large white felt rug. She had her daughters-in-law perform the rites pertaining to a daughter-in-law, ordered that the ceremonial wine be drunk and the horse fiddle be played, and, holding the cup, made an offering to the head. The head, being then so honored, laughed. “It laughed,” said Tayang Qan; he stamped on it and crushed it to pieces.40

Covered with corals and pearls, Tāranātha’s head was kept at Gandan’s Badmayoga Datsan, where it appears to have been worshipped in a similar way; it also “laughed” at Zanabazar at their first encounter, according to a preserved text (see chapter 3). As Nyam-Ochir maintains, Tāranātha’s head worship was carried on during the times when the reinforcement of vows and assembly of ordained monks in Ikh Khüree was necessary.41 Moreover, Nyam-Ochir records oral histories narrated by three old people (likely former monks): Gombojavin Myagmarjav in Saikhan soum of Bulgan aimag; Byambasuren of Zavkhan aimag; and Dashjal of Shine Ider soum of Khuv­sgul aimag. All of these individuals remembered that in Ikh Khüree, a second head was worshipped, deemed to be that of Jonangpa Kunga Drolchok (kun dga’ grol mchog, 1507–1566), one of fifteen incarnations in the Jebtsundampa lineage. Nothing is known about this head, however. Yet, according to these men, the second head was not a complete skull, but only a cranium.42 This belief in the Kunga Drolchok’s head worship in Ikh Khüree is also known and well maintained in the memory of monks in modern-day Mongolia.

ZANABAZAR

Around 1640, the time of Zanabazar’s recognition as Tāranātha’s reincarnation, the Autobiography of Tāranātha was first translated by Altangerel Ubasi (17th c.). A revised and edited new version of the same text was printed for the second time in Ikh Khüree by the Eighth Jebtsundampa (1869/70–1924), who involved his translators Tsültem and Sanjai, led by the Dalai Setsen Khan Tserendondovin Navaanneren (1877–1937).43 These texts, in addition to Tāranātha’s portraits, rituals, and oral histories, make it abundantly clear that the worship of Tāranātha was carefully carried out in Ikh Khüree from its foundation till its demise in the early twentieth century. Such persistent Mongol devotion to Tāranātha’s worship further corroborates the view that Zanabazar’s recognition as a Jebtsundampa reincarnation was a Mongol idea. As Zanabazar was born prior to the victory of Géluk in Tibet, the Khalkha khans likely planned to play an active role in Inner Asian politics, with their Chinggisid descendant Zanabazar, now chosen by the nobility, initiating a new type of a dual rulership. It is also possible that Jonangpa’s historical connection to the Sakya played a role in the Khalkhas’ decision making in favor of the Jonang, as the culture and traditions from the imperial past were not abandoned during the Qing period. Identifying Zanabazar as Tāranātha’s reincarnation was a strategy to stay independent from Qing-Géluk political power games. It also points to the aim of the Khalkha nobility (primarily the Tüsheet and Setsen Khans) to establish their own supremacy, led by a Chinggisid nobleman who was now also promoted as a reincarnation of Tāranātha, the lineage holder of all sects. Their struggle for supremacy was not only vis-à-vis the emerging Qing and Géluk political entities, but also vis-à-vis other Mongol powers, including the Tümed Mongols and the Oirats. The serious attention to preserving the memory and honor of Tāranātha among the Khalkha Mongols throughout the rule of the Jebtsundampas should not be discounted, given the overwhelming body of information, only some of which I have mentioned in the previous section. Mongols remained loyal to the Tüsheet and Setsen Khans’ vision of Zanabazar as a new theocrat, and in the following section, I will discuss evidence that further supports this hypothesis and presents Zanabazar in a different light than the singular view of him as a Géluk adherent. Ikh Khüree’s Foundation and Zanabazar’s Early Sites: Baruun Khüree, Shar Ord, Bat-Tsagaan, and Abatai Khan’s Ger Zanabazar’s Khüree-Type Architecture and Mobility as Strategy

Luvsanprinlei’s account presents his teacher primarily as the great Buddhist master who built temples, sculpted Buddhist images, wrote texts, and was an active and close ally of the Géluk and Qing hierarchs. Thangka paintings, contemporaneous with this textual information, corroborate this source. However, an examination of the early architecture that is associated with Zanabazar’s name reveals other important aspects of this man’s critical role and highlights Luvsanprinlei’s

25

26

CHAPTER ONE

1.7. Example of khüree encampment. The Torghut Prince Sin Chin Gegeen’s camp at Khara Shar,

before 1927. The photo was given to the members of the Sino-Swedish expedition by Sin Chin Gegeen. Courtesy of The Swedish National Museums of World Culture and Sven Hedin Foundation.

other informations delivered in his account. Namely, in addition to his Buddhist activities, Luvsanprinlei also tells of the devotion of the Mongol nobility to Zanabazar—their undisputed recognition of him, and their vision of him as their leader. Such fusion of the religious and secular aspects of rulership is neither new nor unique, and had been implemented since the time of Khubilai Khaan as khoyor yos. During Altan Khan’s times, his biographer refers to this fusion as tör shashin (literally: “Government-religion”), with the secular sphere standing at the first mentioning as the primary concept. The Jewel Translucent Sūtra emphasizes the equal importance of the twospheres, secular and religious, by stating that Khubilai Khaan and Phags pa lama established equal (Cl. M. tegsi) “dual systems” of state and religion (Cl. M. qoyar-un yosuġar tegsi törö sasin-i bayiġuluġsan).44 Luvsanprinlei’s account shows an important shift, as his shashin tör (literally: “religion-government”; usually translated as “Buddhist government” or “religion-state”)45 elevates the religious aspect of rulership as the primary one. By focusing on the Buddhist identity of Zanabazar as shaped by the Géluk and Qing hierarchs, we see that textual records written in Tibetan do not consider the

ZANABAZAR

crucial ways in which Zanabazar was seen as the ruler of khoyor yos (“dual rulership”), which is based on equal fusion of two concepts. Even if he was not titled as “khan,” the evidence, as I will continue to elaborate, demonstrates that Zanabazar was a true heir to, and a loyal adherent of, the Mongol traditions and their imperial symbolism of power and rulership. Was he, then, seen and treated as a theocrat starting from his enthronement in 1639? At the time the boy Zanabazar was enthroned, his father and the Khalkha nobility built Örgöö for him. This became his main residence and the foundation of his main seat Ikh Khüree. It is not surprising to see a ger erected for a member of the family, and Örgöö was Zanabazar’s traveling encampment (Cl. M. küriy-e qota); it is referred to in the textual sources as khüree or Khutugtu’s Örgöö. This latter term, khüree, also pertains to traditional nomadic architecture (fig. 1.7). Guillaume de Rubruck (ca. 1220–ca. 1293), an envoy of King Louis IX of France (1214–1270) who was sent to the Mongol imperial capital Kharkhorin in 1253–1254, writes about his impression of a Mongol encampment, which he calls a curia, appearing to him like a town, or even like “a great city on the move.” 46 Zanabazar and the Khalkha nobles were not alone in resorting to khüree mobile architectural types for developing Buddhist sites. As Isabelle Charleux maintains, most of the monasteries among the Mongols were initially mobile; Altan Khan built permanent temples to enshrine icons, but had a mobile monastery.47 The first Buddhist monasteries in Mongolia, such as Altan Khan’s Ikh Zuu (Cl. M. Yeke Juu; Ch. Dazhao, 大昭寺, est. 1579); Shireetü Juu (est. 1585– 1602; Ch. Xilituzhao 兴盛街), which were initially felt structures; and Abatai Khan’s Erdene Zuu (est. 1586), were all stationary, walled monasteries that were built to enshrine Buddha (Juu/Zuu/Jo bo) images (fig. 1.8). In Southern Mongolia there were mobile monasteries in Ordos and Alashan, and among the Torguts of Xinjiang.

1.8. Three Zuu temples at Erdene Zuu Monastery. Founded by Abatai Khan in 1586. Photo by Soyoltoi

Uranchimeg.

27

MAP 1. Khüree migrations. By Yo. Oyudai, 2018.

ZANABAZAR

Khüree developed as an architectural type during and after Zanabazar’s time in Khalkha, and many khüree monasteries were built thereafter, as attested by maps of other local monasteries, such as Zayin Khüree, the seat of Zaya Paṇḍita Luvsanprinlei in Arkhangai province.48 Most Khüree monasteries were originally organized in a circular arrangement, with portable gers and a central temple. Individual temples and small temple compounds were called süm, as evidenced by the imperial-period Tsogt Ikh süm (Ch. Xingyuan Ge 興元閣), built between 1235 and 1256–1257, and restored in 1342 and 1346.49 At the time of Zanabazar, Erdene Zuu was the major Buddhist monastery and pilgrimage site for growing numbers of Vajrayāna Buddhist converts in Khalkha. As both a mobile monastery and the nomadic encampment of a reincarnation, Örgöö was a unique space, distinct from the stationary and well-established Erdene Zuu. While texts suggest that the numerous migrations of Örgöö throughout its history were necessitated by a simple nomadic quest for new pastures and natural resources,50 its development and the use of mobility as a strategy helps shed light on the Tüsheet Khan’s aims to distinguish his son as the new Khalkha ruler in the presence of many other reincarnations who also enjoyed Tibetan support.51 Zanabazar and his followers gradually developed the concept of a mobile monastery into a clever political strategy, especially after the destruction caused by the Dzungar armies in 1689. The strategy, very similar to what Alicia Campi and Baasan Ragchaa call “itineration” in the work of missionaries in the later period,52 saved Zanabazar and served his Dharma dissemination goals, but it also had far more beneficial results. The frequent migration granted Örgöö and its residents advantages that a stationary monastery could not afford. A number of textual sources provide us with the names of Örgöö’s different locations, thus allowing us to follow its migrations (map 1).53 Örgöö traversed the Khalkha region from Khentii in the east to Dagaan Del, which was close to the Russian border in the far north, and to Inner Mongolia, south of the Gobi Desert. These migrations across great distances must have entailed much more time, expense, and labor than local migrations. Tremendous labor resources were required to relocate many gers, temples, Örgöö, their numerous residents, and all the material properties of the encampment. Some statistics give us an idea of how burdensome and costly Örgöö migrations were. According to a manuscript text, for instance, in 1777, when Örgöö moved from Khui Mandal to Selbe, a distance of about 35 miles, the trip required 20,475 camels, 178,336 oxen, and 990 loaders, in addition to 30 carpenters and 15 ironsmiths, who were employed and supplied with equipment and food for two months.54 Through the critical first fourteen years of early migration, Örgöö needed, and was able, to reinforce its authority among Mongol countrymen, and to place itself politically and strategically within the new Inner Asian powers as well as among the nomadic communities. As a moving settlement, Örgöö reached a greater number of people across ever-greater distances. In less than a decade after

29

30

CHAPTER ONE

its establishment, the name of Zanabazar and his abode became so widely known among Mongols that Örgöö came to be referred to by alternate names, such as “Jebtsundampa’s Örgöö” and the “Khutugtu’s Örgöö,” among others, although the ruler and his location often remained unknown.55 For Zanabazar, it was essential, then, to maintain his migration “policy,” whether he was in residence or not, in order to sustain the presence of the “Jebtsundampa’s Örgöö,” to spread his teachings, and to recruit new disciples (that is, the shabinar, the supporters and followers). The Jebtsundampa’s shabinar were not only pious followers; they were also subjects of the Jebtsundampa Khutugtus, and they formed a special network of his supporters. Following the Tüsheet Khan’s initiative to allocate 108 men from his own subjects, Zanabazar’s three brothers appointed thirty families as the core shabinar to the newly proclaimed saint. Zanabazar, however, saw the importance of the shabinar and continued to augment their number beyond the Tüsheet Khan’s territory and even more so throughout Khalkha through his frequent relocations. The monastery’s mobility enabled Zanabazar and later Jebtsundampa reincarnations to establish their presence throughout Khalkha through their network of disciples.56 Despite the migrations’ high cost, they helped the Jebtsundampa establish his role as both the legitimate secular ruler (given his pedigree as one of the “golden lineage”) and the Buddhist ruler of the Mongols. His status as an embodiment of two authorities, religious and political, was gradually made known and secured. It was only in 1778 that Örgöö relocated to the Selbe River Basin; from that time forward, it restricted its movements to the immediate vicinity. In 1855, the monastery finally stopped migrating due to its overwhelming size and the increased number of stone buildings, and perhaps more importantly because the Tibetan-born Jebtsundampas were no longer keen on nomadism. Abatai Khan’s Symbolic Sanctuary and Zanabazar’s Mongol Portrait

We can learn a great deal about the Mongol imperial architecture and the imperial symbolism of power and rulership from early travelers’ accounts. A good example of this is the writing of John of Plano Carpini (ca. 1185–1252), a Franciscan friar who was an envoy of Pope Innocent IV to the Mongol court in 1246 and who witnessed the enthronement of Güyüg Khaan (b. 1206, r. 1246–1248). Carpini wrote about the different colors used in imperial encampments, explaining, for instance, that the golden ord (palace) was the site of the emperor’s enthronement and the Shar Ord (Cl. M. sira ordu; Yellow Palace) was the court. Carpini wrote the following of the enthronement of the young Chinggisid Güyüg Khaan at his encampment: And we believe that the election was celebrated there, if not announced there; and therefore it was widely believed to have happened every time

ZANABAZAR

that Cuyuc left the tent and so he was hailed by pretty virgins in scarlet wool clothes. They bowed to him, which was not done to any other leader however long he waited outside. They called this the Sira Horde [Yellow Palace]. ... There was another tent prepared in a beautiful plain next to a river between hills, which they call the golden horde, where Cuyuc was to be enthroned on the day of Assumption of Our Lord. . . . The tent was supported by columns which were covered with gold leaf affixed with golden nails and other woods and the ceiling above and the interior of the walls were made of a silken fabric though the exterior was of woolen cloth.57

Carpini also mentions that the white ord was the place where the great khaan and his wives resided.58 He mentions white again on another occasion when a “huge tent of fine white cloth was pitched” for a great assembly of the Güyük Khaan’s people. He writes, We saw a huge tent of fine white cloth pitched, which was, to our judgement, of so great quantity that more than two thousand men might stand within it, and round about it there was a wall of planks set up, painted with divers images.59

He goes on to describe how this huge white tent was a gathering place for “all the chiefs” who assembled to consult on the matters of the emperor’s election and drank mare’s milk in great quantity. Of the two gates in this tent, one was for the attendants and the other for only the emperor to enter. These elements of Mongolian traditions and architecture that are crucial to the Mongol perception of authority are also relevant to the foundation of Ikh Khüree and are traceable in its construction. The Jebtsundampa’s Yellow Palace was established as the center of Ikh Khüree in eighteenth-century Mongolia and was the Jebtsundampa’s main enclosed seat where his main ger-temples were built (we will discuss this in more detail in chapter 5). Zanabazar’s first assembly hall followed the Mongol tradition in its design and its imperial precedents; it was called Bat-Tsagaan, or “Firmly White,” 60 and also featured separate gates for the ruler and other visitors. Moreover, Zanabazar’s great-grandfather Abatai Khan’s empty ger, which had been maintained for centuries within the Erdene Zuu Monastery’s compound, was now detached and included in Zanabazar’s Örgöö compound to testify to Zanabazar’s “golden lineage” imperial pedigree (M. Altan urag). Maintaining a deceased khan’s ger was part of the khorig (Cl. M. qorig, “forbidden sanctuary”) tradition that again dates back to the imperial period.61 The khorig tradition was to protect and sanctify the spaces and territories of deceased rulers by forbidding

31

32

CHAPTER ONE

hunting, settling, or other ways of utilizing and disturbing those locales. Chinggis Khaan’s empty ger, or Ikh khorig (Cl. M. yeke qorig), the Great Forbidden Sanctuary of the Chinggisid nobility, was maintained in the Khan Khentii Mountains, where images were placed and incense continually burned in front of them.62 It was meaningful and intentional that Zanabazar also built his main Dharma seat, as we will see, in the Khan Khentii Mountains. Abatai Khan’s khorig was placed on the auspicious western/right, or Baruun, side of the Jebtsundampa’s Yellow Palace and subsequently received the name Baruun Örgöö, or western/right ger of imperial pedigree. Baruun, meaning both right and western, historically and traditionally designates a most auspicious and hierarchically higher position. Pozdneev visited Baruun Örgöö twice, in 1877 and 1892, and mentions that it could easily contain three hundred people. He remarks that an “ordinary ger looked like a toy next to it.” 63 Baruun Örgöö was, according to Pozdneev, rather empty, and could not have been considered a religious place. Nor, however, could it be considered strictly a residential dwelling. The whole interior rather resembled a sort of museum, as he noted, filled with antiquities, among which were various weapons hanging on the walls in the presence of the central, albeit unoccupied, throne of Abatai Khan, accompanied by metal sculptures of the “ancient heroes, Abatai’s companions.” Their terrifying physiognomy, each about two meters high and with red-painted faces and gilded bodies clad in armor, Pozdneev recalled, were astonishingly frightful and reminiscent of ferocious Tantric deities. For the Mongols, these warrior statues were of great significance and invoked awe; visitors felt compelled to receive a blessing from them by touching their shoulders with their foreheads.64 In fact, during the fire in Baruun Örgöö in 1892, Abatai Khan’s throne and the statues of his heroic companions were the first items to be saved, and they were removed to the Jebtsundampa’s Summer Palace. This move suggests that these objects likely signified that Abatai Khan’s presence as a secular ruler, now combined with Tantric practices, was permanently established in Ikh Khüree. For every subsequent Jebtsundampa reincarnation, who were discovered in Tibet and brought to Ikh Khüree as young boys, Abatai Khan’s ger was the first place to visit upon arrival. Only then was the Jebtsundampa reincarnation symbolically “inaugurated” as the new ruler of the Mongols at Baruun Örgöö. These emblematic functions of Baruun Örgöö, therefore, suggest that, from the onset, Abatai Khan’s ger was meant to be a symbolic space that connected Zanabazar’s Örgöö to the secular ruler’s identity. As such, it was a necessary ingredient in constructing an architectural space that was seen and built as central in the Khalkha Mongol understanding of power and authority. In this new political rulership system, Zanabazar’s Örgöö would not have been complete without a tight connection to the secular past of the Mongol imperial heritage and the symbols of Mongol power, as represented by Abatai Khan’s empty ger. The detachment of Abatai Khan’s ger from Erdene Zuu and its permanent relocation at Baruun auspicious right was a strategic move on the part of

ZANABAZAR

Zanabazar and Ikh Khüree’s developers, intended to reinforce the legitimacy of Jebtsundampa’s authority and of the Jebtsundampa lineage vis-à-vis many other reincarnation lineages that appeared in Khalkha Mongolia during the Qing period.65 The Tüsheet Khan and the Khalkha nobility, with their Chinggisid pedigree, retained their privileged position in Ikh Khüree through Abatai Khan’s symbolic residence, Baruun Örgöö. Abatai Khan’s ger seemed to fulfill the function of both a private and symbolic space specifically for the Tüsheet Khan’s family, the descendants of Abatai Khan, who had previously maintained the Baruun Örgöö; here in Ikh Khüree, the Abatai Khan’s ger was kept by twenty specially designated lamas who conducted daily services. An additional four lamas, who were Chinggisid descendants, tended the fire burning continuously in the ger,66 part of an ancient nomadic ideology and belief system in which fire symbolized the maintaining of life itself. These lamas did not belong to any monastic community (M. aimag) and were appointed by the Tüsheet Khan to maintain the regular, thrice-monthly worship of the deity Jamsran (lcam sring; also known as Begze), along with the special tangrak (Tib. btang rag) pūjā service to Jamsran, while the khangal (Tib. bskang skul) service was simultaneously performed at the Jebtsundampa’s main compound, the Yellow Palace. Zanabazar’s authority was also visualized in his unusual visage, which I suggest was that of a public, unofficial Mongol (M. engiin) portrait (fig. 1.9). It is based on an oral legend and is intended specifically to be seen, owned, and worshipped by Mongol devotees. The legend concerns Zanabazar’s holy effigy, as recounted first by S. Ichinnorov, a modern Mongolian historian, and later by L. Khurelbaatar.67 As the legend goes, Zanabazar’s disciples asked their master what imagery of him would be appropriate to worship.68 Zanabazar allegedly replied that his “learned image” should show him seated in a Mongolian robe clasping a sword of knowledge in his right hand, akin to Mañjuśrī, and holding fat from a sheep’s tail in his left hand, in keeping with an old Mongolian head-of-household tradition.69 These “attributes” would symbolize to his disciples the attainment of enlightenment by defeating the darkness of ignorance (with the sword) and would perpetuate his authority as leader. In the Mongolian perception, only a chief, a leader, has the right to slice a sheep’s tail to commence a feast and celebration. This tradition served as the basis for the woodblock print and closely aligns with what the tradition had prescribed. The medium of a woodblock print suggests the portrait was intended to be widely distributed. Indeed, numerous thangka paintings, ranging in size from intimately small for private viewing to large thangkas (fig. 1.10), portray Zanabazar slicing a sheep’s tail. Baruun Khüree and the “Firmly White” Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall

The development of Zanabazar’s residence, Örgöö, into the main Khalkha monastery, Ikh Khüree, is central for the understanding of how shashin tör

33

1.9. Zanabazar’s

Mongol portrait. Woodblock print, 30 × 23 cm, 18th–­ 19th c. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

(Buddhist government) was built in Khalkha Mongolia with the Jebtsundampa Khutugtus. Early visual or textual evidence of Örgöö and its development into Ikh Khüree is scarce, however, so to fully reconstruct the long-extinct site, we must rely on later visual and textual resources. Two early maps of Khalkha Mongolia note Örgöö as Khutugtu’s residence (Fr. Khutuctu ou demeure d’un Grand Lama) (maps 2 and 3). These maps were made in France by versatile cartographers Guillaume de l’Isle (1675–1726) and Jacques-Nicolas Bellin (1703–1772) as part of the Kangxi Emperor’s grand cartographic project to showcase newly annexed territories.

ZANABAZAR

1.10. Zanabazar’s Mongol portrait. Ground mineral pigment on cotton. 28.88 × 22.86 cm, 19th c.

Courtesy of Rubin Museum of Art, Gift of Shelley and Donald Rubin. C2006.66.587 (HAR 1089).

35

36

CHAPTER ONE

MAP 2. Jean Cóvens, Corneille Mortier, Guillaume de l’Isle (1675–1726), Grand Tartary, 1757[1706].

Örgöö’s location is marked in red. Courtesy of American Geographical Society Library, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Libraries.

L’Isle’s map, made in 1706 (and reprinted in 1757), marks Örgöö’s location near the Orkhon River; on Bellin’s map, from 1749, it is located on the Selenge River.70 In the context of Mongolia, demeure would mean an encampment, and thus the maps corroborate later textual references to Zanabazar’s encampment and Örgöö as the foundation of what would become the great Mongolian monastery of Ikh Khüree. However, Örgöö is not the only site from the early years of Zanabazar. A monastery called Baruun Khüree is also noted as having been built for (or by) Zanabazar in 1647, who was then thirteen years old, near his great-grandfather Abatai Khan’s Erdene Zuu monastery.71 Baruun Khüree’s learned Tārā Lama Agwaan Tsültemjamts (ngag dbang tshul khrims rgya mtsho; 1880–1937) writes that the site name became Baruun (right/western) in relation to the location of

ZANABAZAR

MAP 3. Jacques-Nicolas Bellin, Map of Tartary, 1749. Örgöö’s location is marked in red. Geography and

Map Division, Library of Congress.

Örgöö/Ikh Khüree, which had moved to the eastern regions.72 Likewise, another later writer, Zawa Damdin Luvsandamdin (1867–1937), suggests that Zanabazar moved to the Khan Khentii Mountains to establish a monastery in 1654, and hence the names of the sites changed to Baruun and Züün (left/eastern) Khüree.73 However, Pozdneev’s information sheds another light on these names. During the Second Jebtsundampa’s time, another monastery was built farther east at Kherlen (Cl. M. Kerülen) River, and was thus named Züün (eastern/left) Khüree (fig. 1.11).74 This monastery also included an assembly hall built in accordance with Zanabazar’s design (fig. 1.12) As Pozdneev notes, Züün Khüree was established by either the Jebtsundampa or his father, and belonged to the Tüsheet Khan’s family line as their “ancestral” monastery. According to Pozdneev, Züün

37

38

CHAPTER ONE

1.11. Züün Khüree

at Kherlen River, general view. 19th c. Courtesy of National Central Archives of Mongolia.

1.12. Assembly

Hall, Züün Khüree at Kherlen River. 19th c. Courtesy of National Central Archives of Mongolia.

Khüree’s main worship was focused on Mahākāla Pañjarnātha (also known as Gur Gompo, or Lord of the Pavilion; Tib. gur gyi mgon po). Both architecturally and administratively, it was similar to Ikh Khüree; clearly, the two monasteries were closely linked.75 We may deduce, then, that Örgöö was seen as the center between Baruun and Züün Khüree, that all three belonged to the family of Tüsheet Khan, and their geographical positions in relation to Örgöö decided the names of these sites.

ZANABAZAR

While no sources exist to illuminate specifics of the early structures and functions of Örgöö and Baruun Khüree, as Tusheet Khan’s ancestral sites, they likely comprised only portable architecture. As late as 1892, when Pozdneev visited Baruun Khüree, he noted the distinct and exclusive character of the monastery as “nomadic Mongolian” without any references to Chinese or Tibetan styles.76 He further writes that Baruun Khüree’s oldest and most revered section is called the “White Khüree,” as it included five grand gers covered with fine felt and could host 150 to 200 people inside. Here, in the White Khüree, the main deity of Baruun Khüree was once again Gur Gompo, who was also the main deity for Khubilai Khaan, for the Erdene Zuu Monastery (fig. 1.13), and for Züün Khüree. Gur Gompo is particularly revered in the Sakya tradition, as he is part of the Hevajra cycle of Tantras; he was introduced to Khubilai Khaan in the thirteenth century by his national preceptor, Phags pa.77 Other than this Mahākāla, as Pozdneev laments, there is “nothing else noteworthy” in the monastery, and yet he also observes that the monastery is quite active and persistent in attracting and competing with nearby Erdene Zuu, as the monks from Erdene Zuu often end up relocating to Baruun Khüree. 1.13. Mahākāla Pañjarnātha

(also known as Gur Gompo). Stone, 16th c. Erdene Zuu Monastery. Courtesy of Erdene Zuu Museum.

39

40

CHAPTER ONE

Furthermore, Pozdneev notes the special architecture in the style of Zanabazar. The great Assembly Hall in Baruun Khüree (fig. 1.14), all the other main temples in the four monastic regional houses within the monastery, and the Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall in Ikh Khüree all follow this special design that was based on Mongolian tent structure (M. asar) (fig. 1.15). Most interestingly, and thought-provoking, the official name of Baruun Khüree today is Ribogejai-Gandan-Shaddubling; this, however, according to Luvsanprinlei, was the name of the Dharma seat that Zanabazar built in 1654 in the Khan Khentii Mountains. Baruun Khüree was completely destroyed, and in the reconstructed smaller Baruun Khüree, today known as Shankh Monastery, the monks continue to maintain the site as Zanabazar’s Ribogejai-­­Gandan-­ Shaddubling. We do not know when exactly this early Géluk name, Ribogejai-­ Gandan-Shaddubling,78 was brought into Mongolian architecture, yet Baruun 1.14. Bat-Tsagaan

Assembly Hall, Ikh Khüree. Courtesy of National Central Archives of Mongolia.

1.15. Asar-type

tent for ceremonial or celebration purposes. Source: Tsultem 1988.

ZANABAZAR

41

Khüree, Örgöö, Bat-Tsagaan, Shar Ord, and other sites prove that all early constructions of Zanabazar were Mongolian both in name and form (more on this in chapter 5). When Zanabazar’s biography mentions his “residence” (Cl. M. saġurin küriy-e; Tib. bzhugs sgar), it likely refers to his Örgöö, and it is this Örgöö that would be developed and turned into the Jebtsundampa rulers’ main seat and the political center of the Mongols. In 1700, Örgöö moved from Inner Mongolia to Khalkha Mongolia’s geographic center at Erdene-Tolgoi in Tsetserleg; shortly after that, Zanabazar is said to have built another Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall, in 1706.79 Not only was Erdene-Tolgoi the geographic center of Mongolia (as it still is), but it also stood at the highest altitude (1710 meters above sea level) of all Örgöö’s locations; it remained here for a substantial period of time—nineteen years, from 1700 to 1719. In other words, the location where Örgöö camped the longest was chosen because of its distinct features; this long stay gave Zanabazar enough time to strengthen his site with new temples, including Tārā Temple, and new artworks.80 We may speculate, then, that the architecture of the first Assembly Hall in Baruun Khüree was designed to be portable, based on asar; this fits with Pozdneev’s observations of exclusive Mongolian styles in Baruun Khüree as well as Züün Khüree at Kherlen River. This design by Zanabazar was again used in 1654, and after that structure was destroyed in 1689 (discussed in later chapters), a new one was constructed in 1706 and became a central part of Ikh Khüree. The Assembly Hall in Ikh Khüree, the Firmly White Bat-Tsagaan, also served as an administrative and financial center, a center for lay rituals (Skt. pūjā) and for rituals for the entire monastery, where all the monks of Ikh Khüree took part (fig. 1.16). 1.16. N. Tsultem,

Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall. Watercolor. ca. 1980. Tsultem Family Archive.

42

CHAPTER ONE

The Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall, according to historical accounts and surviving photographs, was a large, white architectural structure supported by 108 columns, an auspicious number. It received light from its top four windows, and the 108 columns were kept intact, as Pozdneev witnessed in the 1890s. What changed, Pozdneev asserts, was that an additional gallery was attached to the old structure on all sides, creating a more spacious assembly hall, with three main entrances facing south and the middle gate serving only the Khutugtu.81 Zanabazar’s initial plan, based on an asar (tent) structure, was unique not only in its transformation of the portable architecture of nomads into a religious building for a large population, but also in terms of his instructions for its expansion.82 In addition to Bat-Tsagaan’s ritual functions, discussed in detail in chapter 4, it is noteworthy that Bat-Tsagaan also served as Zanabazar’s symbolic space, reminiscent of Abatai Khan’s khorig. Bat-Tsagaan held a wide range of objects that preserved Zanabazar’s propitious presence for the Mongols. Among these items were his personal belongings, including his matted throne placed on four lions, his hat and crosier, the holy books that he allegedly brought from Tibet, and statues, some of which he had made by hand. Bat-Tsagaan, in other words, was Zanabazar’s reliquary.83 The oral tradition of the Ikh Khüree monks preserved many legends about the special significance that Zanabazar allotted to the Bat-Tsagaan Temple from its beginnings. For example, there was the hierarchical order among the monks, in which the Khambo Lama of the Assembly Hall and the mentoring disciplinarians, the gesgui (Tib. dge bskos), placed at Bat-Tsagaan had the highest rank in Ikh Khüree’s administration and presided over its monastic population.84 That is to say, Zanabazar instituted this particular monastic hierarchy, where the monks of Bat-Tsagaan administered the religious life of Ikh Khüree, and all the monks in Ikh Khüree were governed by Bat-Tsagaan’s Khambo Lama and its four gesgui lamas. This arrangement suggests that even in the early years, Bat-Tsagaan’s monks administered new temples built in Khalkha. Did Zanabazar’s Firmly White Assembly Hall follow the imperial tradition of “huge white ger” for the gathering of the Mongol chiefs, as observed by Carpini in the thirteenth century? Portable ger dwellings are covered by felt and white cotton and thus are mostly white. However, as Carpini observed, the gers are not all the same: they vary in size and function, and their appellations suggest their intended uses. What is evident from these sources, more significantly, is that Zanabazar’s first architectural constructions and their terms were all basically Mongol in form, terminology, and specific symbolism of authority and power. How Zanabazar designed his Buddhist images, and what his other temples demonstrate, we shall discuss in the next chapter.

Chapter Two

Zanabazar’s Art and Works The Organized Practice of Dharma and the Art of Imperial Tradition [The statue] is the producer of unfeigned reverence and faith [The statue] was created with knowledge in the real truth of speaking and listening. All the destined gods invited this statue that had become the splendor and glory of humans And it resided and aided in the land of the gods for five hundred years — From The Jewel Translucent Sūtra

The lines quoted above from The Jewel Translucent Sūtra describe “the powerful statue of Bhagavan Śākyamuni Buddha” made in India by “the holy sculptor Viśvakarman.” 1 Statues are part of “three supports” (M. gurvan shüteen; Tib. rten gsum), and making them is regarded as essential to the foundation of Buddhist practice. Zanabazar made sculptures at his temples and, according to some hagiographies, the Bat-Tsagaan Firmly White Assembly Hall held Zanabazar’s Zuu (M. Juu, Tib. jo bo) Buddha, which represents a young Buddha Śākyamuni.2 This statue did not survive, nor did the Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall. Yet, Zanabazar’s many other statues and temples did survive, and for the Mongols, Zanabazar became their own native “holy sculptor,” whose sculptures are still maintained and are highly revered and worshipped because they are seen as representative of Mongol Buddhist authenticity. Zanabazar’s Vajradhāra has survived and is housed (as previously mentioned) in Ikh Khüree’s only surviving site, Gandan Monastery (fig. 2.1). Another of Zanabazar’s splendid sculptures, that of Vairocana, once in the Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall of Ikh Khüree, today is on permanent display in the Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art in Ulaanbaatar (fig. 2.3).

43

2.1. Zanabazar, Vajradhāra. Gilt bronze with

colors, ca. 1680. Source: Tsultem 1982.

2.3. Zanabazar,

five Tathāgata set, left to right, Akṣobhya, Ratnasaṃbhava, Vairocana, Amitābha, and Amoghasiddhi. Gilt bronze. 71.4 × 44 cm, ca. 1680. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

2.2. Zanabazar, Vajrasattva. Gilt bronze, 158.5 × 101 × 53.2 cm, ca. 1680. Courtesy of Choijin Lama Temple Museum.

ZANABAZAR’S ART AND WORKS

This Vairocana belongs to a set of five Tathāgatas believed to have been made by Zanabazar. Among these Five Buddhas, Ratnasaṃbhava has been detached and placed alone in a different location, the Choijin Lama Temple Museum in Ulaanbaatar. What once was a set and, as such, had served the initial goals of its production, has been rudely scattered as separate images by socialist-­era reformers. Zanabazar’s Vajradhāra and Vairocana are statues with indisputable historical pedigrees and authorship, and in the current display they exemplify the instability of what constitutes a work of art due to the images’ constantly shifting historical contexts. A historian of India, Richard Davis, has shown how “the identities of religious icons are constructed and reconstructed” within religious, cultural, political, and economic circumstances.3 Any discussion of Zanabazar, therefore, needs to reconcile and recognize the situatedness of Zanabazar’s images in a retrieval of the past based on a critical analysis of primary sources and visual analysis of the deities and Zanabazar’s choice of their specific forms for representation. Many scholars, including Nyam-Osoryn Tsultem, Patricia Berger, Terese Tse Bartholomew, Luo Wenhua, and Gilles Béguin, have published excellent studies about Zanabazar and his sculpture.4 Discussing each statue as disconnected and separate, these scholars have suggested that Zanabazar’s bronzes reflect the significance of the Newari style, yet the reasons for the use of Nepalese styles have been left open to question. Berger suggests that Nepalese artists may have been among the fifty people who, according to hagiographies, accompanied Zanabazar from Tibet to Mongolia in 1651, and this could be one of the reasons for Zanabazar’s Newari-inspired jewelry and ornamentation.5 Not only is the

45

46

CHAPTER TWO

Newari style one of the salient features of Zanabazar’s works, but the deities he chose, as well as their forms and iconographies, were specific only to him and were not followed by later artists. A simple question, heretofore never considered, is why Zanabazar engaged in arts and art-making in the first place. Given the turmoil period of the civil war between the Khalkha and the Dzungar Mongols and the attacks by Galdan Boshogtu (1644–1697), how can we understand the master’s intentions for his art production and the fact that his style and iconographical forms were not followed by later artists? Although several biographers left us records about Zanabazar and his art, many issues remain unclear. Biographies and hagiographies mention several sculptures as being made “by his own hands,” as well as several other images, both painted and sculpted. Moreover, the Mongolian art historian Nyam-Osoryn Tsultem claimed that a “complete list of Zanabazar’s works is not yet done,” 6 as many of his statues—such as, for instance, his Vajrasattva and Amitāyus (figs. 2.2 and 2.4)—were not mentioned by his biographers and were only identified as Zanabazar’s works by modern scholars who augmented the list of works with the “forty odd sculptures . . . [that] constitute the core of Zanabazar’s oeuvre.” 7 Although Zanabazar’s biographies specify the works done by the master’s “own hands,” the actual workshop for casting the sculptures has not yet been found, and therefore how and where Zanabazar made the sculptures remains unclear. Tsultem advances Iven Burgaltai in Central Mongolia as a possible casting site,8 whereas L. Khurelbaatar has suggested Zanabazar’s actual casting site was at the so-called “Ivleh” site in Khujiin-am Valley.9 Luvsanprinlei suggests that “outside the monastery [Ribogejai-Gandan-Shaddubling] it was the time when majority of objects were manufactured.” 10 Given the fact that Buddhist monasteries and temples before and during Zanabazar’s time engaged in their own local production of Buddhist images, it is most certain that Luvsanprinlei’s account here can be trusted and that certain sculptures were made locally in the Khan Khentii Mountains.11 Besides Zanabazar’s distinct styles, the forms and iconographies of the deities that he introduced—such as his Five Tathāgatas, standing Maitreya, Twenty-­One Tārās, Jambhala and Vasudhārā—constitute another important hallmark of his work. How can we understand Zanabazar’s choice of these particular deities and connect his art to the textual and architectural records? Despite the fragmentary nature of what remains and what is recorded in the primary sources, I will offer a perspective that sheds light on Zanabazar’s intentions by reconnecting the images as sets that were planned as such from the outset. I will thereby attempt a reconstruction of Zanabazar’s overall plan for what was essentially a new transmission of Buddhism into Mongolia. I base my analysis on and derive conclusions from the works that are in Ulaanbaatar’s state museums and Gandan Monastery and are distinct in terms of their extraordinary finesse of Zanabazar’s style; I will also discuss several images outside of Mongolia that are very likely his works as well. By lacing together the textual records, archeological findings,

ZANABAZAR’S ART AND WORKS

2.4. Zanabazar, Amitāyus. Gilt bronze, 158.5 × 101 × 53.2 cm, ca. 1680. Courtesy of Choijin Lama

Temple Museum.

modern attributions of Zanabazar’s works and historical contexts, and analyzing his selective choice of deities and their forms, this chapter will demonstrate how even the fragmentary evidence can be used if it is fitted back into a larger system of Buddhist practice and dissemination in Khalkha. Zanabazar’s new transmission of Buddhism, I argue here, was a carefully organized and systematized practice of Dharma and did not begin with the Géluk Dalai and Panchen lamas, as his

47

48

CHAPTER TWO

biographers state; rather, his works and deeds were persistently inclusive of various teachers and schools of thought and were not limited to the Géluk. Let us see why art was so important for Zanabazar and how art and architecture can help us understand the history of Mongolian Buddhism. Zanabazar’s Khiid-Type Retreat Temples In addition to Baruun Khüree and Örgöö, there are other two sites that we know for certain were associated with Zanabazar’s name from his youth. These are Tövkhön khiid and the recently discovered Saridagiin khiid (monasteries). Tövkhön khiid and its location have long been known, and the name Tövkhön is a Mongol rendering of Tibetan dubkhang (Tib. sgrub khang), which literally translates as “meditation place,” and thus prompted its Mongolian appellation as Büteelin süm (“temple for creation”). Büteelin süm, or dubkhang in Tibetan, suggests a meditation site, where creation implies a mental production based on visualization praxis. The site, currently consisting of several small reconstructed temples, is located in Övörkhangai aimag, in the same province as Zanabazar’s birthplace (fig. 2.5). 2.5. Tövkhön

khiid. Övörkhangai province. Photo by Ronald Marchesani, 2018.

ZANABAZAR’S ART AND WORKS

Hungarian surveyors of Mongolian monasteries note that the site was also known as Ewam Gachilin (e waM dga’ khyil gling), the Monastery of Purity of Method and Wisdom, and as Joyful Isolated Place (M. Bayasgalant Aglag Oron).12 Zsuzsa Majer points to the oral history maintaining that the site, situated in the heart of Shireet Mountain (or Shiweet, literally, “Mountain with a Throne”), was named such because the peak resembles an armchair in which the small monastery is nestled. Tövkhön khiid is situated within a densely forested area that ascends into the hills, where caves, ger, and Tövkhön khiid appear to form one monastic site. The main characteristics of the site, including its difficult and, at times, complete inaccessibility, suggest a Dharma retreat where Zanabazar could concentrate on his meditation practice. The remote and inaccessible nature of Tövkhön khiid is rare and unique in Mongolia. Most monasteries are located in the steppes, valleys, or hills and are generally accessible. Recently revived sites in the hills and caves, such as Avalokiteśvara Temple in Terelj (Aryabala süm) or Danzan Ravjaa’s (1803–1856) meditation caves in the Gobi aimags—which are clearly recreated and reconstructed old meditation sites—are also accessible, and easy to walk to. Compared to those more accessible places, Zanabazar’s Tövkhön khiid presents a completely different structure. Its remote and detached location and its designation as Tövkhön “creation temple” attest to Zanabazar’s following the roots of what a Buddhist temple was originally intended to be: a site entirely detached from worldly life to allow undisturbed concentration on the practice. Even in modern times, the site is used as a meditation retreat for both local monks and the monks from Gandan Monastery (fig. 2.6). 2.6. Entrance to a

meditation cave at Tövkhön khiid. Övörkhangai province. Photo by Ronald Marchesani, 2018.

49

50

CHAPTER TWO

Tövkhön khiid is close to the sixteenth-century Erdene Zuu Monastery (some 60 km away), which was built by Zanabazar’s great-grandfather, Abatai Khan, in 1586. Oral histories mention Tövkhön as having been built for Zanabazar in 1653–1655 to provide him with a space for “creation” soon after his return from Tibet.13 Situated on top of a forested mountain, there are three meditational caves at Tövkhön, which include so-called “mother’s cave” and “Padampa’s cave.” The latter suggests that Zanabazar’s meditation site is situated in and identified with what has been known in oral histories as “Padampa’s cave,” referring to Indian yogin (Skt. mahāsiddha) Padampa Sanggye’s (d. 1117) mysterious travels to Tibet, Nepal, and finally China, where he spent extensive time meditating in a retreat at Wutaishan until his death.14 According to the legends, Padampa Sanggye came to Mongolia and had his own meditation site during some of these frequent travels. The oral histories suggest, then, that Tövkhön had a history of over one thousand years as a meditation site by the time Zanabazar arrived as a new contemplative. The caves at Tövkhön are notably quiet and damp, ranging in size from the inaccessibly tight Padampa’s cave to a larger cave the size of a four-walled ger.15 After its destruction, Tövkhön was rebuilt in 1990 and currently consists of several ger and smaller temples built of logs; it is now an active meditation and public pilgrimage site. An imprint of Zanabazar’s palm can still be seen in a rock, and his wooden prayer beads are still kept there. After Zanabazar’s death, Shireet Lama Tsorj Luvsandagvadarjaa (1734–1803) from Erdene Zuu is known to have maintained the site while also staying there for a meditation retreat. Luvsandagvadarjaa

2.7. General view of unearthing the Saridag Monastery. Courtesy of S. Chuluun, History and Archeol-

ogy Institute, Mongolian Academy of Sciences.

ZANABAZAR’S ART AND WORKS

made new important additions: he built a prayer hall dugang (Tib. ’du khang), lavran (Tib. bla brang; lama’s residence), and financial unit jas (Tib. spyi so),16 essentially developing the retreat into a monastery for public attendance.17 The recent discovery of Zanabazar’s main Dharma seat, the renowned Ribogejai-Gandan-Shaddubling, reveals a similar Buddhist retreat, yet on a larger scale (fig. 2.7). As Luvsanprinlei states, young Zanabazar undertook the construction of his main Dharma seat, Ribogejai-Gandan-Shaddubling, at the foot of Saridag Mountain in the Khan Khentii mountain range in 1654. He spent more than thirty years building it, between 1654 and 1686.18 Known to locals as Saridag (or Saridagiin) khiid, the monastery appears to be the second major Vajrayāna complex built in Mongolia, after the sixteenth-century Erdene Zuu Monastery (fig. 2.8).19 However lofty Zanabazar’s goals and achievements were, the Ribogejai-­ Gandan-Shaddubling Monastery was not spared from the attacks by the Dzungar armies in 1689.20 Today the monastery is being excavated, and recent work has revealed its plan, numerous Buddha statues, twelve buildings, three stūpas, and stone walls from three temple compounds. While the excavation of the main temple is ongoing, it is clear that the site was surrounded by a rampart of about 1 meter in depth.21 The main temple, a two-story limestone building on a 1.5-meter-high platform, was 92 × 75 meters in size with doors to the south, west, and east.22 Current findings indicate that each building had a different architectural style, design, and structure.

2.8. General reconstructive plan, Saridag Monastery. 1654–1689, northeastern Mongolia. Courtesy

of S. Chuluun, Academy of Sciences.

51

52

CHAPTER TWO

If a visitor needs to climb up a hill about an hour through dense woods to reach small Tövkhön khiid, Saridag Monastery is even more difficult to reach. While the location and existence of Saridag Monastery was known, and a preliminary expedition visited it a few times in the twentieth century, no further excavations were launched because of the harsh and impenetrable terrain.23 Zanabazar’s major Dharma seat was once again a very remote retreat site that he built intentionally far away from any visitors. Even in the modern era, with advanced technology and equipment, visitors can only reach Saridag Monastery by traversing dense woods and marshlands on foot, on horseback, or by helicopter. While Dzungar attacks influenced the decision to build his temples in remote areas, the Dzungars were not the only factor. Even though Buddhist monasteries and temples are often built away from cities to enable retreat from worldly life, it is only in Zanabazar’s sites we see temple functions so distinctly separated: inaccessible sites for complete seclusion to enable undisturbed absorption, meditation, and production. By contrast, his other sites, such as Baruun Khüree and itinerant Örgöö, were open for lay outreach and collective practices. The development of Zanabazar’s Örgöö into Ikh Khüree is even more striking in this context, as Ikh Khüree, the largest and most important monastery of Khalkha, did not shun worldly life but was, rather, enmeshed in very secular activities, as we shall see in more detail in our next chapters. Zanabazar’s Art and Pantheon of Deities

The time Zanabazar spent at his Dharma seat, Ribogejai-Gandan-Shaddubling in the Khan Khentii Mountains, appears to have been his most prolific and creative period as an artist. He produced many images there, dated circa 1680, “made by his own hands,” as recorded by Luvsanprinlei, who writes, . . . In summer of the Iron Monkey ear (1680) called drag po, I went to pay respects to the Lord Master . . . Later [the Master] departed to the monastery Ribo Gegye Ling and [I] followed him . . . Outside the monastery it was the time when majority of objects [of cult] were manufactured . . . . . . A great hanging brocade image was made and offered to the Jakyung monastery. The image Buddha, [called] the Meaningful to Behold (i.e. seeing that which bring merits) was made according to the description of the Mañjuśrīmūlatantra and moreover three other golden images [of the Buddha were made] and they were offered to the Dalai Lama. . . . Moreover, [in 1683] the Vajradhāra [image] was made by the Lord with his own hands and numerous golden cast images starting with those of the “five great families” of the Victorious [one] were well produced under the Lord’s direction, and moreover, eight great silver stūpas of the Enlightened One and very many of the three kinds of relics.24

ZANABAZAR’S ART AND WORKS

Luvsaprinlei also notes that in addition to making art, Zanabazar spent much time around images, either restoring some of them, such as in Erdene Zuu,25 or visiting statues, as he did in Chengde.26 In other hagiographies, written by different writers, Luvsanprinlei’s information about Zanabazar’s artworks is amended and augmented with new details. Several nineteenth-century writers, such as Agwaan Ishtüvden Ravjampa and Agwaan Luvsandondov, among others, suggest that “a great hanging brocade” is an image of Tsongkhapa and that Zanabazar also made statues of Twenty-One Tārās and of Amitāyus.27 Additionally, from oral histories of former Ikh Khüree residents and Mongolian hagiographies, which, as Bareja-Starzyńska aptly points out, are not translations of Tibetan texts, we learn about the following sculptures in Ikh Khüree that were also considered to be key images made by Zanabazar: a monumental Jowo Buddha Śākyamuni statue for his Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall,28 Rigsumgombo (Three Buddha Families with Avalokiteśvara, Mañjuśrī, and Vajrapāṇi), Eight Medicine Buddhas (Skt. Bhaiṣajyaguru), Mahāpratisara, wealth deities Jambhala and Vasudhārā, Mahākāla of Baruun Khüree, Vajradhāra of Erdene Zuu, and Ḍākinī, which is the size of a three-year-old child.29 A splendid Buddha statue, which is currently at the National Palace Museum in Beijing (fig. 2.9), appears to be the image Luvsanprinlei mentions as being made by Zanabazar for the Qing Emperor,30; additionally, a new statue (see fig. 6.17), currently in a private collection in China, also appears to be Zanabazar’s work.31 Agwaan Ishtüvden also mentions “three gilded sculptures of Mañjuśrī ” that Zanabazar made for the Qing Emperor, at least one of which is still in the Palace Museum in Beijing (fig. 2.10).32 While some of these sculptures, such as Three

2.9. Zanabazar, Buddha. Gilt bronze, 1690–1699,

The Palace Museum, Beijing, PRC.

2.10. Zanabazar, Mañjuśrī. Gilt bronze, late

17th c., Palace Museum, Beijing, PRC.

53

54

CHAPTER TWO

2.11. Zanabazar,

White Tārā. Gilt bronze, 68.9 × 44.8 cm, ca. 1680. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Arts.

Buddhas, Jowo, and the eight silver stūpas, have not survived, scholars have identified others based on stylistic analysis. These include Amitāyus, Vajrasattva, and White and Green Tārās (figs. 2.11 and 2.12), in addition to Twenty-­One Tārās, three Maitreya Bodhisattva statues in three different locations, and a White Tārā painting, which became a model for novice artists in Ikh Khüree for learning and for testing their skill. Some collectors in Mongolia have claimed ownership of sculptures by Zanabazar, but these claims have not yet been proven.33 Considered together, these images have allowed us to distinguish several sets in Zanabazar’s iconographic program, all foundational and basic, yet central to Yoga Tantra practices.34 Here, well-established sets of Vajradhāra and Vajrasattva top the pantheon, and are followed by Three- and Five-Buddha Families (Skt. kūla), White Tārā, Green Tārā, and Twenty-One Tārās, and enhanced by sculptures of Amitāyus and Maitreya and a small, portable, golden stūpa for household shrines (fig. 2.13). The well-known and ubiquitous sets, such as Eight Stūpas, Twenty-One Tārās, and Eight Bhaiṣajyagurus, are the most basic and foundational to Buddhist practices of both the Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna traditions.

2.12. Zanabazar, Green

Tārā. Gilt bronze. 76 × 48 cm, ca. 1706. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

2.13. Attr. Zanabazar,

Stūpa with Buddha Śākyamuni. Gilt bronze, late 17th–early 18th c. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

56

CHAPTER TWO

Zanabazar’s Vajradhāra and Vajrasattva

Zanabazar’s bronzes demonstrate visual elements of connection that tie them to well-established sets. Consider how the size and physical aspects of Vajradhāra and Vajrasattva (figs. 2.1 and 2.2) are nearly identical, while their doctrinal relation is shown artfully through the Buddha crowns: Vajradhāra’s crown contains tiny sculptures of Five Buddhas (Tathāgatas, Jinas), whereas Vajrasattva’s crown shows their respective dhāraṇī syllables.35 Not only did Zanabazar, according to his later biographers, receive initiations into Vajradhāra,36 he also received further Tantric teachings of Vajradhāra from a number of lamas, including teachings based on the visualization praxis, sādhana (Tib. sgrub thabs), of Ratnasaṃbhava.37 The existence of a Vajradhāra temple in Zanabazar’s sites and textual references to Vajradhāra as being essential to Zanabazar’s teachings and Tantric practices all suggest the master’s personal relationship with Vajradhāra. Vajradhāra is a primordial deity of the highest authority in the Vajrayāna pantheon. Akin to Tibetan schools, especially the Kagyu school (Tib. bka’ brgyud ), which visually illustrate Vajradhāra as their progenitor and list him in their lineages,38 the reasoning for Zanabazar’s affiliation with Vajradhāra is not surprising. As David Snellgrove has stated (italics are original), The highest state of all, in which all Buddha-emanations ultimately dissolve and yet continually reemerge, is the Adamantine Being (Vajrasattva) and thus it is defined as Vajra, meaning diamond or thunderbolt. . . . Thus . . . he is also referred to as Vajradhāra and with this name becomes the supreme Buddha of Tantric traditions. He may also be acclaimed as Vajrasattva (Thunderbolt Being), but this is more logically understood as a general appellation of the highest state of Tantric being, a term formed on the analogy of Bodhisattva (Enlightened Being).39

If the Chinggisid pedigree provided Zanabazar with an unquestionable secular legitimacy, a new affiliation with Vajradhāra would have brought his legitimacy and hierarchy to the highest spiritual and doctrinal levels. And this point would be displayed, as we shall see in the following chapters, in the main iconography, which portrays the two rulers as theocrats: Zanabazar and the Eighth Jebtsundampa Bogd Gegeen (see chapter 4 for portraits). In his hagiographies, an honorary appellation of Vajradhāra is attached to Zanabazar’s name. An appellation such as Ochirdar Bogd Öndör Gegeen (literally: Vajradhāra Holy Brilliance), often abbreviated as Ochirdar Bogd or Vajradhāra Holiness, is added to Jebtsundampa’s title as a means of elevating the Jebtsundampa lineage. On the original seventeenth-century seal of Zanabazar (fig. 2.14), which survived the turbulent years and is now in the Bogd Khan Palace Museum, the text refers to Zanabazar as Vajradhāra: “Vajradhāra Jñānavajra’s

ZANABAZAR’S ART AND WORKS

57

2.14. Vajradhāra

seal. Wood and silver. 21.5 × 17.7 × 17.7 cm, ca. 1691. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

seal Victory.” 40 This epithet places its owner in the highest echelon of the spiritual hierarchy, and it also supports the conviction that Jebtsundampa is a manifestation of Vajradhāra. According to James Bosson, this seal was closely modeled on the Altan Khan’s seal, which he conferred on the Third Dalai Lama, Sonam Gyatso, along with the title “Vajradhāra Dalai Lama.” 41 The seal was thus named the “Golden King” seal (“Altan Khan” in Mongolian), after the Mongol patron, and it carried the same inscription: “Vajradhāra Dalai Lama’s seal Victory.” As Altan Khan’s biography states, “The Khan, with all the lords, glorified All-knowing Dalai Lama as Wonderful, Vajradhāra, Good and Glorious, Meritorious Ocean, and presented him with a golden seal.” 42 If Bosson’s date of 1691 for Zanabazar’s seal is accepted, then it dates to Zanabazar’s capitulation to the Qing and could well have been a Qing gift given to him at the time. The high-flown title is typical of other seals given by the Ming 明 emperors to Tibetan lamas, and thus indicates the Qing contribution in honoring Zanabazar as the number one Mongolian incarnation.43 This was crucial for the Khalkha, as it was Altan Khan’s son who was recognized as the Fourth Dalai Lama and was thereby the first reincarnation discovered among the Mongols. This vision of Zanabazar as the highest spiritual authority, similar to Vajradhāra, would be crucial for later Jebtsundampas, as the Qing court would install non-native rulers from Tibet, beginning with the Third Jebtsundampa (1758–1773) to rule the Khalkha. In all texts and portraits of Zanabazar, his appellation would be Vajradhāra Holiness (M. Ochirdar Bogd), and only he and the Eighth Jebtsundampa would be portrayed as Vajrasattva. The Khalkha Mongol vision of these two rulers as theocrats explains such construction of this specific iconography: textual and visual union of two supreme deities in the iconography of the two Mongol rulers. When Zanabazar brought the Khalkha into the Qing’s embrace, the Qing Kangxi Emperor referred to him with respect as his close friend and teacher, following the example set by Khubilai Khaan and Phags pa. The Qianlong Emperor (乾隆帝, 1711–1799) and his Mongol guru and friend Jangjia Khutugtu Rolpé Dorjé (lcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje 1717–1786) followed these

58

CHAPTER TWO

historical precedents, establishing a similar bond. Now, as the part of the Qing appropriation and as the part of Zanabazar’s pantheon, the Vajradhāra would be carried on with the Jebtsundampa Khutugtus to mark their prominence above all other reincarnations in Mongolia. The New Visual Evidence and Systematization of the Dharma Practice

Hagiographic information states that Zanabazar created a set of Three Buddhas, known as Rigsumgompo (Tib. rigs gsum mgon po), which form the Three Buddha Families (Lotus, Vajra, and Tathāgata), as the foundation for understanding the basic Buddhist teachings. The Three Buddha Families were extended into five, with the addition of the Ratna and Viśva-vajra families, forming the Five Buddhas and Five Buddha Families. This set of Five Tathāgatas represents an early effort to systematize the pantheon based on the Five Buddha Families and, as such, lays the foundation for Tantric practices and initiations based on the structure of a maṇḍala, which is built upon these five families (kūlas).44 We see these efforts in the multiple production of Zanabazar’s clay and bronze sculptures, where Vairocana is indeed the central figure with bodhiagrī mudrā (hand gesture of highest enlightenment, Tib. byang chub mchog gi phyag rgya) thus referencing the Yoga Tantra text of Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha. I discussed elsewhere Zanabazar’s systematic approach to the practice of Dharma he introduced to Mongolia, and how his systematization also enabled the solid, long-term development of Buddhism and Buddhist art in Mongolia.45 These earlier discussions are now further corroborated by abundant archeological evidence unearthed at Saridag Monastery. These include three thousand small clay statues of Five Buddha Families, 15 cm in height (fig. 2.15); ten medium-size

2.15. Set of Five Buddhas. Clay, H, 15 cm, Saridag Monastery. 1654–1689. Courtesy of S. Chuluun,

History and Archeology Institute, Academy of Sciences.

ZANABAZAR’S ART AND WORKS

sculptures of 1.5 m height (fig. 2.16); and a monumental 4-meter Buddha that was placed on a double 50-cm-tall pedestal with another 50-cm-tall lotus tier (fig. 2.17).46 Offerings to the deity were also found; these included grains, walnuts, fruits with large seeds, and yellow grain, as well as the eight auspicious symbols carved into wood. These sizes testify to a hierarchical organization of the iconographic program: sculptures of medium height likely belong to another popular set that often appears among Mahāyāna groups, namely the Eight Mahābodhisattvas; these typically accompany a central Buddha, as is seen in early thangkas and at early Central Tibetan sites (Ü-Tsang), such as the eleventh-century Yemar (ye dmar) and Kyangbu (rkyang bu) (fig. 2.18). The central Buddha in these compositions is usually marked by the sculpture’s large size, and is generally accompanied by four bodhisattvas on either side. As broken parts of monumental Buddhas have also been discovered at Saridag it is difficult (if not impossible) to identify and to reconstruct, the presence of compositions reminiscent of early sites in Ü-Tsang, 2.16. Standing Buddha

or Bodhisattva feet remains, H. 105 cm, Saridag Monastery, 1654–1689. Courtesy of S. Chuluun, History and Archeology Institute, Academy of Sciences.

2.17. Large clay Buddha

remains. Clay, Saridag Monastery, 1654–1689. Courtesy of S. Chuluun, History and Archeology Institute, Academy of Sciences.

59

60

CHAPTER TWO

with large Buddhas flanked by the Eight Bodhisattvas, is not only plausible but highly likely. The most impressive findings in this complex are the more than three thousand clay Buddha statues of the Five Tathāgatas, all of similar style, make, and size. All of these statues represent the Five Tathāgatas with Vajradhātu Vairocana and were likely produced using a single mold, as the features are identical in size, shape, and detail. Their style and iconography do not represent any specific sectarian connections, however, and they do not follow seventeenth-century Géluk-favored models. The Five Tathāgatas are typically depicted in sambhogakāya (body of bliss) form—and the bronze statues follow that tradition. The clay Five Buddhas, however, represent Buddhas without much ornamentation in nirmāṇakāya (emanation body) form;47 all are seated on double-lotus thrones that are similar to those in Zanabazar’s gilt bronze sculptures of the Twenty-One Tārās. Their bodies show the fine symmetry and robust character of the Five Buddhas, who differ only in their hand gestures (mudrā). These two sets are significantly different in style, modeling, and subsequently, their iconographic concepts. In the gilt bronze set of the Five Tathāgatas, Vairocana is visually distinct, with a larger body and enhanced ornamentation that takes up a major part of his upper torso, whereas in the clay set, Vairocana is not visually distinguished, as the set was made based on a mold. (fig. 2.19). Based on Luvsanprinlei’s information about its being produced locally (just “outside the monastery,” as we saw quoted earlier), we may deduce that the gilt bronzes of the Five Tathāgatas, White Tārā, Amitāyus, and the

2.18. Buddha remains in Yemar, 11th c. Central Tibet. Source: Roberto Vitali 1990

ZANABAZAR’S ART AND WORKS

2.19. Zanabazar,

61

Vairocana, clay, H, 15 cm, Saridag Monastery, 1654–1689. Courtesy of S. Chuluun, History and Archeology Institute, Academy of Sciences.

set of Vajradhāra and Vajrasattva, all of which exhibit a similar style and high level of quality in their production, were likely made at Saridag Monastery. This hypothesis adds a possible new location for Zanabazar’s production sites to the previously suggested Iven Burgaltai and the Ivleh site in Khujiin-am Valley.48 The central Vajradhātu Vairocana with bodhiagrī mudrā refers to the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha, a Yoga Tantra scripture and one of the seminal texts of Buddhist Tantric practice. Yet the clay statues of the Five Buddha Families in nirmāṇakāya form only indirectly refer to the Yoga Tantra text and rather represent other configurations, such as the Buddhas of the Ten Directions; it may well be that they are used for the Thousand Buddhas of the bhadrakalpa (the current eon) as well.49 Zanabazar’s reference to Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha and his clay Buddha nirmāṇa forms in configurations with Thousand Buddhas are highly reminiscent of a similar approach and iconographic programs occurring more frequently in early Central Tibetan art.50 Consider, for example, an early painted thangka of Mañjuśrī and Five Buddhas dated to circa the twelfth century (fig. 2.20). In this painting, the Five Tathāgatas are placed above the central deity and appear similar

62

CHAPTER TWO

2.20. Mañjuśrī.

Distemper on cloth, 46 × 33.7 cm, 11th–early 12th c. Central Tibet. Private collection. Source: Singer and Kossak, 1998, pl. 7.

in form and shape, differing only in color. In this painting, Vajradhātu Vairocana refers not to Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha, as he is not central, but to Akṣobhya, who, in this case, refers to Mañjuśrī, in the center of the Five Buddhas. Another revealing aspect of Zanabazar’s doctrinal choices is his preference for peaceful deities over their wrathful forms.51 While the fragmented nature

ZANABAZAR’S ART AND WORKS

of what has survived does not allow us to entirely reconstruct Zanabazar’s oeuvre and his iconographic complexity; the bronze statues that have been identified as Zanabazar’s works and his unearthed clay sculptures all suggest a pattern of choosing peaceful deities. As Buddhism was not widespread in any part of Khalkha Mongolia until the Jebtsundampa lineage rose to power, the dissemination and representation of deities prominent in Mahāyāna and Yoga Tantras were likely more important for the spread of Buddhist teachings among broader masses, who in Mongolia comprised only nomads. The highly esoteric practices, with initiations and Mahāyoga and Yoginiruttara (formerly known as Anuttara)52 Tantras, would be gradually introduced by Zanabazar’s successor Jebtsundampas, especially the Second, Fourth and Fifth Jebtsundampas, who would build Tantric colleges of Buddhist philosophy in Ikh Khüree. The rituals, teachings, and practices of Mahāyāna and Yoga Tantra are foundational in Buddhism, and what we know of Zanabazar’s Baruun Khüree and Saridag Monasteries testifies to an opening of ritual services for collective practices with a broader outreach. This orderly approach to Buddhist practice echoes similar systematization efforts that took place during the Yuan dynasty in Inner Asia, where the Mongol khans played a decisive role in initiating and sponsoring grandiose projects. According to Christopher Atwood, “The Tibetans did not organize their extensive translations of the scriptures and Indian Buddhist scholarship until the reign of the Mongol Yuan emperor Ayurbarwada (titled Buyantu, 1311–1320). With the support of Ayurbarwada’s Tibetan chaplain Jamyang Bagshi, Narthang (snar thang) Monastery (near modern Xigazê) produced the first edition of the canon.” 53 In Tibet, Buton Rinchen Drup’s (bu ston rin chen ’grub, 1290–1364) is known for the division of Tantras into four classes, while several monumental Kanjur translation and printing projects in the Mongolian language took place starting from the Yuan era. These intensified in the post-Yuan period, referred to as the Northern Yuan period by some historians.54 A Mongol translation of Kanjur by thirty thousand clerks that took place in Höhhot, where the translators included Ayush Güüsh (fl. 1578–1609) and Shireet (Shiregetü Güüsh Chorjiwa, fl. 1578–1618), is another piece of evidence that testifies to organizational efforts in the development of Mongolian Buddhism. Ayush Güüsh completed a new set of transcription letters (M. galig) for the rendering of Sanskrit and Tibetan letters.55 The translation is said to have been finished in 1607 under the direction of Altan Khan’s grandson, Namudai Sechen Khan (1587– 1607). Altan Khan’s biography relays the information as follows: Namudai, Jünggen Khatan (Queen), Hontaiji [united] to assemble Shireet Güüsh Tsorj, Ayush Anand Mañjuśrī Güüsh and other 30,000 able scholars and by virtue of their talented skills all 108 volumes of Kanjur sūtra were translated into Mongolian from Black Tiger year (1602) to Red Sheep year (1607).56

63

64

CHAPTER TWO

2.21. Examples of surviving volumes of handwritten (Golden) Altan Kanjur in Mongolian language,

1628–1629. Institute of Social Sciences, Höhhot, PRC. Photo by Wu Tuya, 2017.

This early translation, however, regrettably did not survive in complete form even at the time of Ligden Khan (1592–1634; r. 1604–1634). A pious follower and supporter of the Kagyu school, Ligden Khan organized another Kanjur translation project with the help of Mañjuśrī Dharma King Gungaa-Odser Khutugtu Paṇḍita, Darkhan Lama Samdansenge, Biligt Erdene Dai Güüsh, Sanrav, and their team of fifty translators. The project was completed between November 1628 and midsummer of 1629 at Shireet Zuu Monastery in Höhhot.57 Their final product was a set of 113 volumes of Mongolian Kanjur, handwritten in golden letters on blue indigo double paper, of which twenty volumes and their three handwritten plain copies have survived (fig. 2.21).58 In spite of all these Mongolian translation activities and the Mongol engagement with Kanjur, in 1671 Zanabazar is said to have brought “from the government [of the Dalai Lama] one Kanjur of Gyeltse Thempang tradition (Tib. rgyal rtse them spangs lugs kyi bka’ ’gyur),” which is the special “master” copy used to make new Kanjur editions.59 Zanabazar used this special edition at his monastery as a model to write at least two copies of Kanjur, the first pages of which he wrote with his own hand.60 Making his own handwritten copies of Kanjur must have been very laborious work, given that the corpus consists of over one hundred volumes. And yet it was not sufficient; later, another precious edition of Kanjur was brought from Lhasa, known as the Lithang edition, pressed in bronze.61 To this information, an early twentieth-century writer, Davgajantsan (Sharchöje Dragpa Gyatso, Tib. shar chos rje grags pa rgya mtsho), adds that

ZANABAZAR’S ART AND WORKS

Zanabazar ordered from Desi Sanggye Gyatso (sde srid sangs rgyas rgya mtsho 1653–1705) the complete 225 volumes of the Tanjur (Tib. bstan ’gyur), which he also copied himself together with 470 disciples.62 Atwood calls these translations into the Mongolian language a “major achievement of Mongolian Buddhism.” 63 The 113 handwritten volumes of Mongolian Golden Kanjur served as the basis for similar projects of the Kangxi Emperor, notably the printing of an illustrated Kanjur in Mongolian in Beijing between 1717 and 1720.64 In Kangxi’s printed Kanjur, an extraordinary 756 images were made by Mongolian artists gathered from all parts of Mongolia, and Zanabazar likely took part in this project.65 Depictions of these printed images of numerous deities share many similarities with Zanabazar’s bronzes, both stylistically and in the rendering of proportions and shapes.66 During this time, when Zanabazar made frequent trips to Beijing and had close meetings with the Kangxi Emperor, it is likely he took part in this canonization of the visual aspects of deities, especially since the canonization of texts had been part of the Mongol appropriation of Buddhism since the Yuan period. Further, similar projects were undertaken by Zanabazar’s successors, as evidenced by several visual pantheons of Three Hundred Icons, Three Hundred and Sixty Icons, and Five Hundreds compiled by Rolpé Dorjé and Agwaan Sharav of Ikh Khüree; these also indicate serious efforts to systematize and organize knowledge.67 All these projects were driven by the similar and far-reaching goals of disseminating Buddhism among nomadic Mongol groups and fostering Dharma practice through organized and systematized teaching. The pantheon that Zanabazar’s bronzes and clay sculptures represent should be recognized as an attempt of a similar kind. Zanabazar’s Responses to Sectarian Affiliations and His Nonsectarianism

Zanabazar’s approach was not to exclude Géluk teachings from his practices. Although he did not adhere to the particular iconographic forms, styles, and deities associated with Géluk practices in his art, many of the supplication prayers and praises to Tsongkhapa in his collected oral and written teachings (Tib. gsung gtor) were written at the request of specific individuals. These teachings, collected in one volume, include the earliest guru yoga of Tsongkhapa composed by a Khalkha Khutugtu, titled Rje btsun Tsong kha pa la brten pa’i bla ma’i rnal ‘byor.68 The guru yoga describes Tsongkhapa in this way: Pray to Mañjuśrī Teacher Blo bzang Drags pa [who appears] above my head seated on the sun and moon layers of a lotus treasure throne. . . . Blo bzang Drags pa’s body color is bright, he holds in his hands a sword of wisdom that cuts the foe of ignorance, and a sūtra that grants the highest of wisdom. He wears the three Dharma garments and the golden paṇḍita hat.

65

66

CHAPTER TWO

He appears so radiant, peaceful amidst rainbows, surrounded by peaceful and wrathful bodhisattvas, seated in the vajra posture, adorned by the syllables Oṃ Ah Hūṃ, Inviting all wisdom Buddhas with the light of the Letter Hūṃ . . .69

This type of devotional text, like the presence of Géluk teachers in Zanabazar’s portrait (see chapter 3’s discussion of this image), might suggest that Zanabazar was primarily a Géluk adherent. It also provides a physical description of Tsongkhapa that became a standard iconography for all depictions of the Tibetan master. Zanabazar’s own writings, however, do not emphasize Géluk teachings over others. This attitude is supported by Zanabazar’s own art, where the selection of deities and their forms, iconographies, and styles suggest a ground-­ building, rather than a sectarian, approach, and that he meant to found a specific tradition of Mongolian Buddhist practice. His writings also include a substantial number of texts dedicated to nonsectarian deities essential to Buddhist teachings, such as Prajñāpāramitā; for example, he discusses Géluk views, such as the Three Principles of the Path—renunciation, enlightened mind, and wisdom—but also non-Géluk views, such as self-occurring gnosis, among others.70 He mentions protagonists and teachers of other sects, such as Nyingma scholar Rongzom Chozang (rong zom chos kyi bzang po, 1040–1159), and Sakya and Jonang lamas, including Tāranātha and Kunga Drolchok (kun dga’ grol mchog, 1507–1566), among his masters. This list, which is provided by Zanabazar himself in his gsung gtor, demonstrates that akin to Tāranātha, who was a lineage-holder in all sects, and Zanabazar viewed himself in the same way, as did his people. In keeping with his previous rebirths as masters of diverse schools, and by such listing of many non-Géluk lamas among his own teachers, Zanabazar’s writings reveal that his sectarian affiliation was in fact complex and multifold. A popular belief, based on some other Mongolian-language hagiographies, told of the existence of a Sakya teacher named Samdanjamts,71 thus allying Zanabazar with the Sakyapa and identifying him as a follower of the Mongol imperial precedent. The Jonangpa were not entirely hostile to the Sakyapa, as Jonang lineage holders (such as Kunga Drolchok) were also Sakya masters. In his own writings, Zanabazar further mentions the founding masters of the Kagyu, such as Marpa, Milarepa, Gampopa, and Pakmo Drupa, when he prays to the lineage lamas through whom he received teachings.72 In other words, he also echoes Tsongkhapa, known for his open attitude toward learning, which was specifically inclusive of texts with their origins in India.73 Zanabazar aligns himself with Tsongkhapa not by spreading Géluk practices but as a reformer and a builder of a new Buddhist tradition in Mongolia, where the focus is on the foundation of Mahāyāna and Tantric practices shared by various lineages and traditions. As a further example of this approach, a set of Jambhala and Vasudhārā images embossed in silver was recently discovered from Saridag Monastery (fig. 2.22).

ZANABAZAR’S ART AND WORKS

2.22. Zanabazar, a set of wealth deities, left, Jambhala; right, Vasudhārā. Silver, Saridag Monastery,

1654–1689. Courtesy of S. Chuluun, History and Archeology Institute, Academy of Sciences.

In these images, Jambhala and his consort Vasudhārā sit in the center of each of the mandalas, surrounded by eight repetitive images of the deity and concentric circles of the deity’s mantras and dhāraṇīs. Jambhala and his five manifestations are Mahāyāna deities who are mentioned in Kanjur, and these two images are highly reminiscent of early Central Asian mandalas discovered in Dunhuang.74 These mandala types, called proto-mandalas by Christian Luczanits and spell amulets by Paul Copp, do not exist in later periods, and they once again suggest the importance of Mahāyāna deities and rituals for Zanabazar. Besides these teachings, Zanabazar was also responsive to those of his predecessor Jonang Tāranātha. At the Assembly Hall at Saridag, there is evidence of the practice of Kālacakra; parts of the roof tiles were made with a Tibetan script reading rnam bcu dbang ldan (“Tenfold Powerful One,” the seed syllable of Kālacakra) (fig. 2.23).75 Furthermore, there is a specific attention to Tārā in Zanabazar’s art; he made numerous important sculptures of Tārās that include the Twenty-One Tārās set as well as the large White Tārā and Green Tārā sculptures. The Twenty-One Tārās are also an early established set; Tārās attracted a widespread following in Tibet during the sarma (new) period of the Sakya, Kagyu, Kadampa (bka’ gdams pa), and Géluk.76 In the early twentieth century, Davgajantsan mentions Atiśa (982–1054), Dromton (’brom ston 1005–1064), and Tsongkhapa and omits Tārā’s true follower Tāranātha in the devotion to Tārā, thereby suggesting a single Géluk connection with Zanabazar.77 Yet, although Zanabazar created the Tārā Temple in Ikh Khüree in 1706 as one of the primary foci of the Tārā cult, the Green Tārā, along with her two

67

68

CHAPTER TWO

2.23. Roof tile with

Kālacakra seed syllable. Clay, Saridag Monastery, 1654–1689. Courtesy of S. Chuluun, History and Archeology Institute, Academy of Sciences.

companions, Mārīcī and Ekajaṭī, was not the only image there (fig. 2.24). In fact, Zanabazar’s set of Twenty-One Tārās is from The Praise in Twenty-One Homages,78 one of the major canonical texts of Tārā, translated into Tibetan in the late eleventh century and revised and extensively commented on by a number of Tibetan Buddhist scholars.79 Zanabazar’s Twenty-One Tārās primarily follow the tradition of Nāgārjuna and Atiśa within the Suryagupta Tārā cycle, where the Tārās are similar in everything but the colors of their bodies (which, as metal sculptures, are all gilt).80 It is also possible that Zanabazar was exposed to the iconographic taxonomy of the Tārā representation at the Jonang Puntsogling Monastery, built by his pre-incarnation Tāranātha; he returned from Tibet in 1651 with an image and texts of Tārā.81 Zanabazar most certainly was familiar with the Tārā texts included in the Tanjur, which he likely had seen during his trips to Tibet, and later through his own copies, which he received from Tibet and from which he made his own copies. Zanabazar’s production of White Tārā circa 1680s, Green Tārā in 1706, and Twenty-One Tārās, all placed in Ikh Khüree’s Tārā Temple, evince his responsiveness to Tārānatha’s teachings. Tārānatha wrote extensively on Tārā, and was known as a leading proponent of the cult of Tārā in Tibet.82 In other words, in his devotion to the Tārās, Zanabazar faithfully followed the doctrinal roots common to all sarma schools and Tāranātha in particular. Zanabazar’s Style: The Art of the Imperial Tradition Any narrative of Buddhist foundation includes an image; a powerful statue of Buddha Śākyamuni made by the holy master Viśvakarman in ancient India was the first of these images, but not the only one. Zanabazar, as I mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, is also seen by the Mongols as their own native Viśvakarman. It is not only the superb craftsmanship and unsurpassed quality of his sculptures that made them so memorable. There were other reasons for this beyond Zanabazar’s aesthetic virtuosity. A complex combination of things and

2.24. Attr. Zanabazar, Mārīcī. Gilt copper alloy, H, 40.50 cm, late 17th–early 18th c. Courtesy of

Rubin Museum of Art. C2005. 16.26 (HAR 65449).

2.25. Taklung

Palgön, Sarvavid Mahāvairocana. Colors on cotton, 87.5 × 57.7 cm, ca.1668–1669. Courtesy of Situation Kunst (für Max Imdahl). Menri-style painting of the Fifth Dalai Lama made for the funerary rites for the Mongolian Tendzin Dayan Gyalpo (1596–1668 or 1669), son of Güüsh Khan (1582–1655).

ZANABAZAR’S ART AND WORKS

matters that Zanabazar brought into the production of his images were based on, and about, the vision of art as an inseparable part of gurvan shüteen or “three supports” for the Dharma practice, the practice that had to be built in consideration of the Mongol traditions and their collective memories. Many Buddhist scholars and artists in both Mongolia at large and in Ikh Khüree had a similar vision about the development of Buddhist art and practice in Mongolia remaining aligned with the Mongol traditions and their collective memories, but it was only Zanabazar who accomplished this vision at a high level. Here I will offer three insights that shed light on how he managed this. When Zanabazar traveled to Tibet in 1651, it was already under the dominant power of the Géluk. Both Luvsanprinlei and the Fifth Dalai Lama’s autobiography mention a certain “painter from Chenye” (Tib. spyan yas pa yin pa’i lha bris pa) in southern Tibet, who came to Mongolia as part of Zanabazar’s entourage;83 there are no further records of this individual. Tibetan artists favored certain styles in the seventeenth century, known as khyenri (Tib. mkhyen ris), menri (Tib. sman ris), and karma gadri (karma sgar bris), the latter prevalent in thangka paintings of Amdo and Kham. These styles were the main artistic trends in this period.84 They typically exhibit specific Chinese influences and are markedly different from the earlier styles in Tibet. The Fifth Dalai Lama is known to have particularly favored the menri style, named after Menla Dondrüb (Tib. sman thang pa sman bla don grub, ca. 1425–1505). Given this preference of the Tibetan hierarch, one wonders what could have prevented Zanabazar and the Tibetan “Chenye painter” from bringing these styles to Khalkha? The Dalai Lama’s painting of Sarvavid Vairocana both demonstrates the menri style visually and mentions it in the inscription85 (fig. 2.25). This painting was made for Tendzin Dorjé Dayan Khan (1596/97–1668), who was the Güüsh Khan’s son, and, like his father, a close supporter and ally of the Fifth Dalai Lama. He furthered the political prominence of the Gélukpas and the Dalai Lama as a commander of the Mongolian occupation forces in Tibet from 1655 to 1668. According to Andreas Kretschmar, this painting is part of a series of five thangka paintings mentioned as “Thousand Thangkas of Vairocana”—that is, a series of thangkas comprising a total of one thousand representations of Vairocana—in honor of Dayan Khan, who died on the 22nd of April 1668. There were ten artists involved in painting this thangka, led by a famed menri-style painter called Taklung Palgön (stag lung dpal mgon). The inscription highlights the style this way: . . . painters—of whom Palgön is the most important And who are, within the Menthang and the Khyentse schools, which constitute a unity like the sun and the moon, The best of the Menthang school—have demonstrated their artistic virtuosity. . . . 86

71

72

CHAPTER TWO

Given such historical context, it appears that Zanabazar, who was not in the service of the Dalai Lama, chose to stay independent from the seventeenth-­ century Géluk visual language by selecting styles and iconographies that are distinctly early and non-Géluk, and by taking his inspiration from Mongol traditions and histories. More evidences prove this view. At Panchen Lama’s main seat at the Tashilhunpo (bkra shis lhun po) Monastery, where Zanabazar spent longer periods of time receiving teachings and initiations from his teacher, there was another creative master.87 Chöying Gyatso (chos dbyings rgya mtsho, mid-17th century) was active painting murals in Tashilhunpo and Potala in the style that is now called New Menri. Chöying Gyatso’s style, which fuses Chinese-style elements and colors into the composition, must have been familiar to Zanabazar. While Tashilhupo had an important impact on Mongolian culture, with the rise of the Géluk among the Khalkha, Chöying Gyatso’s style does not appear to have had any direct impact on Zanabazar’s art. Rather, he produced his own characteristic “Zanabazar style,” which placed his art in a transnational context and served as a conscious reminder to the viewer of Mongol historical connections with India, Nepal, China, Tibet, as well as of the Mongol past. Unlike the Qing approach of combining the visual indices and styles of Tibet, China, and Mongolia (“quotation of styles”) as part of the Buddhist government—that is, built by and for the Qing—the “style” for Zanabazar was based on memories sustained for centuries among the Mongols.88 He created his style and iconographies as one visual idiom with the understanding that Buddhist learning and following are based on a very visual practice; thus, his images had to be visually inviting and welcoming to the Mongol eye on various levels. What memories and histories, exactly, did Zanabazar focus on in his works? When he made his sculptures, not only did he exhibit his knowledge of styles, but he also followed several precedents of Mongol imperial history. Specifically, his Five Buddhas with Vajradhātu Vairocana in the center has precedents in the Yuan dynasty, as evidenced by three sites. At the Yuan dynasty Juyong Gate (居庸關) near Beijing, Vairocana also appears in the center of the Five Buddhas and the mandala established by Toghon Tömör Khaan (r. 1333–1367). Recent archeological findings at a thirteenth- to fourteenth-century Buddhist temple, Tsogt Ikh Süm (Ch. Xingyuan Ge 興元閣), in the Mongol imperial capital Khar­ khorin, also indicate the presence of the Five Buddhas made in clay in a pagoda-­ like temple that has affiliations with East Asian architecture (fig. 2.26).89 Tsogt Ikh Khüree Süm was destroyed by Zanabazar’s time, but knowledge of it could have existed among the Khalkha noblemen. At the Sakya Monastery Shalu (zhwa lu), which prospered during the Yuan period in the fourteenth century and thrived due to Mongol imperial patronage in Central Tibet, a configuration and style similar to Zanabazar’s can be seen in the wall murals: Five Buddhas are shown, with Vajradhātu Vairocana in the center of the group, all exhibiting a Nepalese Newari style (fig. 2.27).90

2.26. Buddha sculpture.

Clay, 1235 /1256–1257 (restored in 1342 and 1346). Tsogt Ikh süm, Kharkhorin Övörkhangai aimag. Courtesy of U. Erdenebat and German-Mongolian Archeological Expedition. © DAI Bonn, M. Riemer.

2.27. Five Buddhas. Wall painting, Shalu Monastery, Central Tibet, 14th c. Photo by author, 2007.

74

CHAPTER TWO

Further study of a Mongol historical connection with Nepal is still needed, however, as Zanabazar’s work points at Newari Buddhist traditions in several ways—through his style, his preference for certain deities (e.g., Vasudhārā), and his focus on Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha. With the evidence currently available, however, it is apparent only that Zanabazar’s knowledge of the specifics of Newari style most certainly was acquired during his visits to Shalu and to Bejing. As Chinese art historian Luo Wenhua suggests, Zanabazar’s favoring of the Newari style testifies to his responsiveness to the achievements and tastes of his imperial ancestors.91 Nepalese Newari art was influential as a stylistic source in Central Tibetan art from the thirteenth through the fifteenth centuries within the Sakya dominion. While the Newari style is one among several styles identified in early Tibetan art, I agree with Berger, who was the first scholar to remind us of the work of the celebrated Anige (Anike/Araniko, 1245–1306), a Nepalese artist employed at Khubilai Khaan’s court who was also well known in Tibet.92 As Zanabazar spent years in Beijing as a close friend of the Kangxi Emperor, it seems logical to assume, as does Berger, that he must have heard of and seen Anige’s many constructions there for the Mongol court.93 The Fourth Panchen Lama, Blo bzang Chos kyi Rgyal mtshan (1570– 1662), mentions in his autobiography on several occasions how Khalkha nobles, including Zanabazar, went to Shalu. Thus, the illustrative production reminiscent of the Shalu Five Tathāgatas by Zanabazar should come as no surprise. As the Panchen Lama notes, during his visit to Shalu, Zanabazar donated garments and a trident for the Yama statue, along with garments and a lion for the wealth deity Vaiśravaṇa and his eight attendants. All this attests to Zanabazar’s equal dedication to and presence at both Shalu and Tashilhunpo, which he visited several times and where he spent a week learning the Panchen Lama’s teachings.94 Zanabazar’s numerous Buddha statues at Saridag were likely placed on the walls, akin to Shalu, where votive clay tsha-tsha and the clay statues of the Five Buddhas, possibly of the post-Yuan period, were also on the walls.95 The Nepalese connections for the Mongols did not end with the Anige and Yuan courts, but continued with Altan Khan and his successors; Anige’s Newari style was therefore seen as a historically and symbolically charged visual idiom to be maintained specifically as part of the dual rulership following Yuan and Altan Khan’s precedents. Zanabazar’s art, then, aimed to represent a meaningful continuation of this art tradition, with a special significance within the imperial foundations of Dharma and within the union of the secular and the religious (khoyor yos). Altan Khan of the Tümed Mongols, in declaring his intent to “purely and firmly establish the law of the Supreme Dharma,” also voiced his determination to “make the Supreme Juu Śākyamuni of various jewels.” 96 We are told that the “various jewels [were] collected and were then given to an outstanding craftsman in Nepal” to make the beautiful statue. Altan Khan’s successors, Sengge Düüreng (r. 1583–1586) and Namudai Sechen Khans, according to Jewel Translucent Sūtra, continued to employ Nepalese artists to make a stūpa and a jeweled

ZANABAZAR’S ART AND WORKS

75

diadem for the Zuu Buddha. On numerous occasions, Altan Khan’s Jewel Translucent Sūtra and Zanabazar’s biography (as we shall see) constantly refer to this dual system; Altan Khan “remembered the State and the unparalleled Dharma that was organized by the Supreme Phagpa Lama and Sechen Khan.” 97 The statue, in Altan Khan’s text, is seen as the embodiment of khoyor yos, which testifies to the fact that the “Alms-master (patron, öglige-yin ejen) and the Offering-site (priest, M. takil-un oron) met one another.” 98 Mongol connections with Nepal are also recorded in oral histories, and epics and eulogies indicate that the Mongols considered Nepalese and Kashmiri metalwork to be the best. A centuries-old oral tradition of performing a special eulogy to inaugurate a new ger suggests the Mongols’ early knowledge of high-­ quality Nepalese and Kashmiri craftsmanship and smithwork. Hence, according to this oral tradition, With four state supports With four iron props With steel-armored rings Praise to the Hearth! Metal beaten by the Nepalese smith Assembled together by the Kashmiri smith Praise to the fire scissors! 99

Besides these Mongol beliefs, some Mongolian scholars have stated, Zanabazar’s Vajradhāra and Vajrasattva, the White and Green Tārās, wear garments lavished with arabesque-like plant patterns that resemble designs seen in the material culture from the imperial period.100 Plant motifs and the specific symmetrical arrangement of the designs on the surface recall similar details of Zanabazar’s ornamentation (fig. 2.28). 2.28. Flower

ornament relief as seen in a golden cup from Golden Horde. 4.9 × 12.1 × 7.9 cm, 16th c. Source: Kessler, 1993.

76

CHAPTER TWO

2.29. Set of Green Tārā and White Tārā. Cast copper alloy (bronze?) with gilding pigment and inlaid

with semiprecious stones, 37 × 25 × 15.5 cm, 17th c. Tibet. With permission of the Royal Ontario Museum © ROM.

Zanabazar brought Buddhism to Mongolia in an unprecedentedly widespread manner and made it accessible to ordinary Mongol converts. It therefore makes sense that Zanabazar aimed to make his sculptures aesthetically appealing and natural, even familiar, or, as the Mongols would say, “warm to the eye” (M. nüdend dulaakhan). Zanabazar’s White and Green Tārās also exhibit distinctly Mongolian facial features (figs. 2.11 and 2.12). Two exquisite Tārās from Canada’s Royal Ontario Museum, described as Tibeto-Chinese in style, are contemporaneous with Zanabazar’s Tārās (fig. 2.29). They show that subtle, intangible, unworldly smile that often seals the lips of buddhas and bodhisattvas in visual representations.101 Here, the White Tārā avoids en face eye contact with a viewer and seems to retreat into her divine compassion for others as she stretches her right arm in a boon-granting varada mudrā as she meditates for the sake of her devotees. Zanabazar’s Tārā is different. Without violating any iconographic canons, his White and Green Tārās create a subtle and even unavoidable encounter at a deeply personal level. Although none of them demonstrates direct darśana eye contact, they nonetheless succeed in creating a delicate sense of an intimate connection with the divine.102 Even in the few surviving paintings attributed to Zanabazar, the imagery demonstrates the elegant simplicity of his approach and his highlighting of Mongol features wherever possible within the limits of the canon. The success of Zanabazar’s promulgation of the Tārā cult through visual representation was such that an Ikh Khüree artist was considered a “master” only if he could create an

ZANABAZAR’S ART AND WORKS

image of the White Tārā within the span of a day on the eighth day of the Lunar New Year.103 Zanabazar himself is said to have created a remarkable thangka showing the White Tārā as distinctly Mongolian with a splendid natural appearance and a simple, yet warm presence (fig. 2.30).

2.30. Attr. Zanabazar, White Tārā. Colors on cotton, 43 × 30 cm, late 17th–early 18th c. Courtesy of Bogd

Khan Museum.

77

78

CHAPTER TWO

A perfectly round halo and mandorla encompassing her head accentuate the circular shape of her face, revealing the Tārā’s ineffable charm. Rhythmic simplicity and acute symmetry of repetitive design appear prominently in the composition of the thangka in the shapes of the clouds, the mountains, and the deity’s ornaments. This White Tārā, in the form of one of her prolific reproductions available throughout Ikh Khüree, could well have found her way into the simple ger of ordinary Mongol herdsmen. All this evidence suggests that Zanabazar’s works embraced the traditions of Mongol historical knowledge and consciousness, and the visuality that was familiar to the Mongol eye. It is this visual familiarity of noble traditions and collective memories, and the “warm-to-the-eye” presence, as well as their significant belonging to the Khalkha vision of a dual rulership, that must have contributed to the new reality of the Jebtsundampa’s worship and consolidation of Ikh Khüree as a new center for Mongol pilgrims. Zanabazar’s School? Current scholarship ambiguously places all sculpture in Mongolia under the general rubric of “Zanabazar’s school,” suggesting that, first, all sculpture dates after Zanabazar; and second, that Zanabazar was the single source of emulation for all Mongolian artists. While there is no doubt that Zanabazar had a workshop of artists and followers during his lifetime, the term “Zanabazar’s school,” as it is currently applied to Mongolian sculpture, is totalizing and thus not particularly useful; among the existing sculptures, only limited numbers show close adherence to Zanabazar’s forms, style, and ornamentation. Based on those traits that make Zanabazar’s art distinct, it is possible to distinguish works by his immediate successors, who clearly aimed at closely following the master in his artistic idiosyncrasies as well as in his doctrinal preferences. Among numerous sculptures loosely labeled under the broad rubric “Zanabazar’s school,” a sculpture of Mañjuśrī demonstrates how Zanabazar’s ideas were closely followed for only a limited period of time. The standing Mañjuśrī is today housed at the Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art in Ulaanbaatar (fig. 2.31). Mañjuśrī is standing on a lotus pedestal assuming a dharmacakra teaching gesture. His main attributes, a Prajñāpāramitā sūtra and the double-edged sword to cut through delusion, are placed on the lotuses directly above his left and right shoulders, respectively. The youthful Mañjuśrī is stepping forward with his left leg, balancing the majority of his weight upon his right foot; thus, his body shows an elegant, slightly curved posture. While scholars such as Berger have contested this statue’s authorship, suggesting the possibility that it belongs to the “School of Zanabazar,” the museum currently labels it as Zanabazar’s work. This Mañjuśrī carries many distinct features of the master, yet the museum’s attribution of this statue to Zanabazar is contradicted by close observation of the somewhat sharp

ZANABAZAR’S ART AND WORKS

facial features, the ornamentation, as well as the heavy drapery that conceals the entire body and, thus, essentially differs from the master’s usual concept of the body. As Berger states, “He seems inspired by the lithe, youthful grace of Zanabazar’s standing Maitreyas, though his pose is more tentative and static, and lacks Maitreya’s exuberant sway” (fig. 2.32).104 The exquisite elegance of each detail in Zanabazar’s work makes the somewhat shortened sword of Mañjuśrī appear

2.31. School of Zanabazar. Mañjuśrī. Gilt

bronze. 57.8 × 20 × 19 cm, 18th c. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Arts, Ulaanbaatar.

2.32. Zanabazar. Maitreya Bodhisattva.

Gilt bronze, 73 × 24.8 × 23.5 cm, 18th c. Source: Tsultem 1982.

79

80

CHAPTER TWO

awkward and even crude. However, a bodhisattva form of Mañjuśrī and efforts to emulate Zanabazar’s style distinguish this work from later production in Mongolia. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, Zanabazar himself made several Mañjuśrī sculptures: one as a gift to the Kangxi Emperor in 1699,105 another as part of Three Buddha Families (currently extinct), and others likely in conversation with Mahābodhisattva images produced in the Mongolian Kanjur of 1717–1720, printed by the Kangxi Emperor.106 Many Mongolian sculptures in museums and private collections exhibit styles that indicate different sculptural workshops where any affiliation with Zanabazar is only distant.107 Later artists of Ikh Khüree abandoned the artistic precepts of Zanabazar to follow explicitly Géluk models. Thus, from the mid- to late nineteenth century, it becomes difficult to see any strong connection to Zanabazar in Mongolian sculpture. Besides local workshops, large repoussé images would be produced at Dolonnor, a new sculpture-producing center for the Tibetan Buddhist world in Inner Mongolia and under the control of the Qing court (and for much of the eighteenth century under the direct supervision of Rolpé Dorjé). Dolonnor-made sculptures were ubiquitous in Mongolian temples and monasteries, and they constitute their own style. Ikh Khüree’s abbot Agwaan Khaidav, for instance, had his Maitreya statue built in Dolonnor and recorded the production in his writings (as we shall see in more detail in chapter 6).108 While we have seen how Zanabazar’s artwork and his choices of styles demonstrate his intent to establish a visual idiom of Mongol imperial authenticity, he also aimed at a systematic teaching of Dharma in Mongolia. In his adherence to Mongol imperial precedents, those of Khubilai Khaan and Altan Khan specifically, Zanabazar adhered to the Mongol imperial tradition of dual rulership. We will now turn to an examination of how his identity was transformed into a single Géluk perspective in our next chapter.

Chapter Three

Why Zanabazar? A Géluk Disciple and the Jebtsundampa Ruler

Zanabazar’s Self-Portrait and the Construction of Géluk Identity As the most important Buddhist teacher and artist, and the First Jebtsundampa, Zanabazar is the subject of many portraits that exist in Mongolia. The earliest representation of the Jebtsundampa Khutugtu is a portrait of Zanabazar, which the oral tradition attributes to Zanabazar himself (fig. 3.1). It appears to be one of the first (heretofore known) thangkas made in Khalkha Mongolia.1 Zanabazar’s portrait is one of the earliest among thangka paintings, where the icons of the Dalai and Panchen Lamas appear together as the main teachers in the top register, here arranged with the deities closely related to the central figure of Zanabazar. These deities include Sita Saṃvara in the father-mother (Tib. yab yum) position right above Zanabazar’s head, and one specific “Géluk” deity, a six-armed Mahākāla. Below the Fourth Panchen and the Great Fifth Dalai Lamas, Sarasvatī, a female bodhisattva of music, poetry, learning, knowledge, and speech holds a lute and signifies Zanabazar’s excellence in the arts, while Vasudhārā, the goddess of abundance, marks his fertile work as an artist, statesman, and religious leader. This thangka is currently stored at the Zanabazar Museum of Fine Arts in Ulaanbaatar under the name of Self-Portrait, suggesting its date is contemporaneous with the depicted protagonist. This portrait is the earliest visual production that presents the relationship between Zanabazar and Tibetan religious leaders as a hierarchical one of disciple and teachers; as such, the portrait supports a Mongolian interpretation of the Tibetan term yab sras, understood as “eminent teacher.”2 In terms of written sources, Luvsanprinlei’s eighteenth-century biography is the first textual source that depicts Zanabazar as connected to the Géluk teachers in an intimate teacher– disciple relationship. However, it is striking how Luvsanprinlei’s text begins with Zanabazar’s and the Tüsheet Khan’s Chinggisid, or “golden lineage,” thus

81

82

CHAPTER THREE

WHY ZANABAZAR?

suggesting that the legitimacy of Zanabazar’s pre-eminent authority was based on his imperial pedigree. Luvsanprinlei thus writes: And from that one [king] in the twenty-seventh generation appeared a king [called] Batu Möngke Dayan. From his eleven sons the tenth was [called] Jalair Khung Tayiji. From his seven sons the third [was called] Üijeng Noyan. From his six sons the eldest was [called] king Abutai (or Abatai). . . . When he (i.e. Abutai) was thirty-five years old he proceeded to the heavenly realms (i.e. passed away), as it was known. His son was Erkei Mergen. His son was called Vajra-king, the Tüsheet [Khan]. He acted with full understanding of the two [kinds of affairs]: [regarding Buddhist] doctrine and state. He was the father of the present Lord (i.e., Zanabazar). His mother was a daughter of a daughter of a younger brother of the Lord’s own grandfather, the great Vajra-king (i.e. Abatai Khan).3

In later hagiographies written about Zanabazar, this “golden lineage” is completely omitted. Instead, it is common to see a hagiography commencing with Zanabazar’s new spiritual family, the Jebtsundampa lineage, and their ancient Indian-­derived pedigree from the times of the Buddha. Zanabazar appears to be the fifteenth (or sixteenth) reincarnation in this newly established lineage, which includes an Indian mahāsiddha (great adept) Kṛṣṇācārya; Jamyang Chöje, Tsongkhapa’s disciple and a Géluk adherent; as well as Jonangpa historian Tāranātha.4 In Luvsanprinlei’s text, immediately after providing the “golden lineage” in the first folios, he traces Zanabazar’s connection to the Géluk teachers and Géluk monasteries through a closely knit network, one in which the rising political leader of Tibet, the Fifth Dalai Lama, and the Fourth Panchen Lama are Zanabazar’s teachers. Luvsanprinlei lists other Gélukpas as the key actors in Zanabazar’s childhood, beginning when he was four years old, and he delineates their roles in this way: 1. When Zanabazar is four years old, the Thirteenth Abbot of Chamdo Jampaling Monastery (chab mdo byams pa gling) of Amdo is invited to renounce Zanabazar’s vows as a Buddhist layman genen (Tib. dge bsnyen, Skt. upāsaka).5 This affiliation is significant given that the Twelfth Abbot of this monastery (founded in 1437 or 1444) once invited Sonam Gyatso to Mongolia, who forged the historically crucial alliance of the Dalai Lamas with the Mongol khans. 2. When Zanabazar is enthroned at the age of five, the Panchen Lama’s disciple, Khedrub Sangye Yeshe’s (mkhas grub sangs rgyas ye shes 1525–1590) second reincarnation Luvsan Tenzin Gyatso (blo bzang bstan ’dzin rgya mtsho, 1605–1643/44), known in Mongolian sources as Bensa

83

3.1. Opposite

page, Portrait of Zanabazar (also known as Self-Portrait). Colors on cotton. 90.8 × 69.7 cm (64 × 47 cm), ca. 1723. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Arts.

84

CHAPTER THREE

Bürülgü, is said to have bestowed on Zanabazar the name Luvsandambijantsan (blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan) and Mahākāla’s empowerment (Tib. dbang; rjes gnang; Skt. abhiṣeka). Bensa Bürülgü is also said to have been his preceptor for the ordination of monastic vows, rabjung (Tib. rab byung, Skt. pravrajita).6 3. When Zanabazar was “enthroned,” it was reported to the Fifth Dalai Lama, who later identified him as the reincarnation of the Jebtsundampa. When Zanabazar was about ten or so, the Fifth Dalai Lama recognized him as the reincarnation of Tāranātha. 4. Around this time, Namkhai Sonam Dagva (nam mkha’ bsod nams grags pa), a teacher of the Tantric college of the Drepung Monastery, is invited to serve as Zanabazar’s teacher—as prophesied in the Kadam Legbam, or Scriptures of Kadampas. This teacher granted the boy the empowerment of Vajrabhairava. 5. The Panchen Lama confirms Zanabazar as a reincarnate of Jebtsundampa and bestows on him the vows of the monastic novice getsul (Tib. dge tshul, Skt. śrāmaṇera).

According to Luvsanprinlei, then, the young Khalkha nobleman of Chinggisid pedigree (Zanabazar) was surrounded and carefully educated by the Géluk teachers, and then left for Tibet at the age of fifteen. It comes as no surprise that the first monastery he visited, and where he is celebrated, is the site of Tsongkhapa’s birth, Kumbum (sku ‘bum), which was founded by the Third Dalai Lama Sonam Gyatso in 1578.7 The following monasteries, which he visited, are all of clear importance for Kadampa-Géluk and Mongol-Tibetan histories: • Jachun (bya khyung), founded by Tsongkhapa’s Kadampa teacher Dondovrinchin tsorj (chos rje don ’grub rin chen, b. 1309–?);8 • Janraden (byang rwa sgreng), founded by Atīśa’s disciple Dromton (’brom ston, 1004/1005–1064); • Rinchenbrag (rin chen brag), a Géluk monastery established by Tsongkapa’s disciple Nyenpo Shākya Gyeltsen (nyan po shākya rgyal mtshan, fourteenth century); • Tangsag Gandanchoinkhor (thang sag dga’ ldan chos ’khor), a monastery that, according to Dan Martin, was undergoing transformation to Géluk at the time;9 • Taglung (stag lung), a Kagyu stronghold built on an old Kadampa site and which was the seat of the Taglung Kagyu School, with ties to Altan Khan;10

• Sera (se ra), Drepung, Gandan, and Tashilhunpo. the four quintessential Géluk monasteries. The teachings that young Zanabazar received are ones that have special importance for the Géluk. His early empowerment into Mahākāla by Bensa

WHY ZANABAZAR?

Bürülgü at the time of his enthronement and rabjung ordination becomes of a special significance, as Mahākāla was believed to be the main protective deity in Tsongkhapa’s teachings; it also had historical significance for the Mongol kings. Likewise, Zanabazar’s early empowerment into Vajrabhairava by his teacher from Drepung Namkhai Sonam Dagva indicates the Jebtsundampas’ early association with this important Géluk meditational deity. His successor Jebtsundampas would eventually make Mahākāla worship important to all Mongolian monasteries.11 None of these texts mentions, however, that Mahākāla had numerous forms and many iconographies pertaining to different rituals and texts, and that it was important to several sectarian traditions, including the Géluk and the Sakya. Thus, Zanabazar’s own site, Baruun Khüree, as we saw in chapter 1, also had Sakya-­favored Mahākāla Gur Gompo as its main deity. In 1651, while in Tibet, Zanabazar participated in initiations based on forty-­t wo maṇḍalas of Vajrāvalī (Tib. rdo rje phren ba, “Vajra Garland”), which is a popular corpus of three texts that contain essential elements of Tantric Buddhist practice, mantras, mandalas and their detailed iconographies.12 In the Wooden Horse Year (1654), Zanabazar began constructing his main Dharma seat, Ribogejai-Gandan-Shaddubling, and the next year, that of the Wooden Sheep (1655), he undertook another uniquely speedy—in this case, completed within a week—visit to see the ailing Panchen Lama and offer him prayers for long life. During this “secret” visit, Zanabazar received explicitly Géluk teachings and empowerments from both the Panchen and Dalai Lamas, which included Lamrim, Vajrabairava, Narthang Gyatsa, and Kadam Legbam at Drepung.13 While Luvsanprinlei informs us that both the Dalai and Panchen Lamas recognized Zanabazar as the reincarnation of Tāranātha, their autobiographies repeatedly refer to Zanabazar as Jamyang tulku (’jam dbyangs sprul sku), referring to Mañjuśrī and Jamyang Chöje, the famous disciple of Tsongkhapa and the founder and first abbot of Drepung (’bras spungs). In his autobiography, for instance, the Great Fifth writes (original spelling): In the 12th month [of 1650] many travelers from Mongolia, including Jamyang Trulku (Zanabazar), the son of the king Thush Yethu of Khalkha and Dogolong Tshering from Oirat arrived. Jamyang Trulku was considered to be the trulku of Jamyang Chöje (founder of Drepung) and therefore a welcoming ceremony consisting of a procession of the great assembly of monks and cavalrymen received him. For about ten days Jamyang Trulku continuously distributed gifts among the monks and likewise I received many gifts as the ngoten. . . . Many officials of the leaders of Yonru in Khalkha came, such as Jamyang Trulku, Sharkhang Noyon Khan, Thushi Yethu Gyalpo, and Nomon Ejen. They gave me gifts such as silk, gold, and silver. Jamyang Trulku separately organized the auspicious ceremony of long life for me.14

85

86

CHAPTER THREE

The Fourth Panchen Lama confirms in his autobiography that Jamyang tulku (Zanabazar) attended him in March of the Year of Bong bu (1651) with his students, his father the Tüsheet Khan, lamas, and many other Khalkha laymen, and that he presented him with tea and numerous gifts. Panchen Lama mentions that the young Jamyang tulku received getsul vows and Vajrabhairava’s empowerment. In the following Year of Dga’ ba (1652), Jamyang tulku spent a week at Tashilhunpo receiving teachings from the Panchen Lama.15 All these efforts to perpetuate a singular Géluk identity in written language are justified by the fact that in 1639, when Zanabazar was enthroned, the Géluk school was by no means the leading power it would become in Tibet. The Géluk school was viciously vying for authority vis-à-vis the powerful Kagyu school, which had a stronghold over the Tsang region of Central Tibet. Each of these Tibetan schools sought beneficial alliances with Mongol khans to secure their support and to help them achieve the power and authority they sought. Sonam Gyatso, an abbot of Drepung and Sera whose family had ties to the Sakya and the Kagyu Pagmodru family, was instrumental in initiating the Géluks’ political prominence due to his successful alliance with the Altan Khan in 1578.16 And while Sonam Gyatso vigorously espoused Karma Kagyu, a civil war between the Karmapas and the rising Géluk took place during Sonam Gyatso’s lifetime and continued after his death in the early 1600s. The civil war ended with the Géluk victory in 1642, when the Fifth Dalai Lama had the support of the Güüsh Khan (aka Gushri Khan, 1582–1655). War and hostility between Tibetan Buddhist schools, especially between the Kagyu and the Géluk, extended into Mongolian lands and between different Mongol communities. According to Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz, “the polyphonic religious voices of seventeenth century Mongolian religious actors” included different sectarian elements in addition to indigenous religious concepts and religious agents.17 Güüsh Khan of the Khoshuut Mongols, for example, defeated a Kagyu-supporting Khalkha nobleman, Tsogtu (Chogtu) Hongtaiji, who had the hagiography of Kagyu founder Milarepa translated into Mongolian by Shireetü Güüsh in 1618.18 The year 1639, when Zanabazar was proclaimed Exalted Saint Öndör Gegeen, and the years 1649 to 1651, when Zanabazar traveled to Central Tibet, were definitive times for the Géluk political establishment. It comes as no surprise that the Géluk aimed at an alliance with Zanabazar, the Khalkha descendant of the Chinggisid pedigree, and that they sought to shape his identity with the Géluk narrative. This approach was not new and recalls a similar case in which the narrative of a Kagyu and Nyingma follower, a Torghud Mongol called Neichi Toin (1557–1653), was reshaped to state his alleged studies in Tashilhupo with the Panchen Lama.19 As Russian scholar Tatiyana Skrinnikova claims, a “fixed scheme” for educating Mongol monks in Tibet was well established by the time of Zanabazar.20 While in this very early period, the Géluk were open to other doctrinal

WHY ZANABAZAR?

views—Tsongkhapa himself was an exemplary outward-reaching and nonsectarian teacher in Tibet—from the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama and his regent, the Géluk exercised explicit intolerance toward other schools, seeing them as political rivals, despite the fact that the Fifth Dalai Lama was open to Nyingma and Bonpo practices. They worked to defeat their rivals by destroying them physically, as well as by refurbishing their temples and by absorbing their doctrines and teachers into their own affiliations. While Karmay describes the Fifth Dalai Lama as “an open-minded person always willing to learn from anyone,” his own autobiography shows that the Géluk surely did not behave in an inclusive and “open-minded” way toward other thinkers, in Mongolia in particular.21 In his autobiography, the Dalai Lama writes explicitly about how he “forced” Jonang Tagten Puntsogling to convert to Géluk in 1650, noting how it “remained like ‘gilt bronze’”: Not only did the senior (Jonangpa) monks not change, but the new ones also began to revert to the former litigation. I sent Drungchen of Nyethang to Tagten to expel the senior monks to other branches of the monastery, and to cleanse the monastery thoroughly by making it a Géluk establishment in both word and thought. I gave the name Gaden Phuntshog Ling to the monastery.22

In another document, addressed to Zanabazar, he instructs the ten-year-old Tāranātha reincarnate to spread Géluk teachings in Khalkha.23 The document, titled The Scent of Malaya Wafting to the Vajra Ear: A Message (springs pa) upon the Birth of Khalkha Tüsheet Khan’s Son, the Reincarnation of the Jonang tulku [Tāranātha] Kunga Nyingpo, [Already/Also] Famed as the [Re-]birth of Jamyang Chöje Tashi Pelden, states the following:24 From the ocean that possesses the ten powers (Buddha), Through the hundred thousand light rays of fame, [through] the noble-mindedness, the glorious sun (bcu gnyis bdag po’i dpal) 25 May the lotus of your wisdom bloom! The joyful youth of all the Victors’ wisdoms Mañjuśrī (zur phud lnga pa) who took a human form The savior of sentient beings in the times of degeneration (snyigs dus) Twice [re]born (gnyis skyes) 26 Tsongkhapa, the display of magical net, Equipped with wisdom for [your] duties to elevate the teachings [of the Lord Tsongkhapa] challenged with attributes to endure [as] youthful Jamyang [the reincarnation] ascend the supreme ladders [of the Buddhas] listening, pondering, and meditating, May the auspicious fortune (bkra shis dpal) 27 gather [numerous] svastika ornaments.

87

88

CHAPTER THREE

In that manner, in a youthful form, The manifestation of his birth is a new moon (chu shel dbang);28 Rises in the sky (lha lam) of the heaven-appointed (gnam bskos) 29 timeless lineage (rigs) 30 There is no other but this. The supreme teachings of the Jina unravels [all] at once the limitless knots of the nature of infinite phenomena. It is crucial that he must attend (sten) to the responsibility (khur) of long toil in this unerring way for the stages of entry [into spiritual practice] without delusion (’khrul). Moreover, he must also attend to the glorious fame of merit and skill in taking care of his disciples who are summoned to the doe-eyed [beautiful woman] of sūtras and tantras by the iron hook of learning [that consists] of long-term training. Further, words from the broad mind (thod yangs) of the ancients respect (brjod pa) as worthy (’os) flow of the River Ganges; The messenger Bhagīratha (skal ldan shing rta), Upon [his] leaving, may it not be forgotten. Held aloft (thogs) by hands [that play] the lute of poetic words, this Gandharva letter is embellished by a magnificent seal ornamented with indestructible vajras. [This letter was] written from the Ganden Phodrang (dga’ ldan pho brang), [at] The grand immeasurable Potala Palace, Built with precious emeralds, [and] empowered by Avalokiteśvara.31

The letter, written in 1645, demonstrates that the Dalai Lama wished to quickly establish the reincarnation as exclusively Géluk. The letter is intentionally ambivalent in that its title mentions Tāranātha, yet it clearly emphasizes Zanabazar’s association with Tsongkhapa’s close disciple Jamyang Chöje, who is in the same lineage as the Jebtsundampa and Tāranātha, and underscores young Zanabazar’s mission to bring Géluk teaching to Khalkha Mongolia from the time he was ten years old or shortly afterward.32 This letter also supports the likelihood of the Tāranātha reincarnation being a Mongol idea, and illustrates how the Dalai Lama promptly intervened in the Khalkha initiative made first in 1639 and swiftly acted on exporting the unfavored Jonangpa to the lands of Mongolia, away from the Tibetan plateau, referring to him as a Jamyang reincarnate and constructing his identity in Géluk terms. As Cyrus Stearns has stated, it is because of Zanabazar that in 1650 the Dalai Lama began the process of refurbishing Jonang Tagten

WHY ZANABAZAR?

Puntsogling into Géluk.33 In this refurbished model, in the Géluk view, the disliked Jonang, now the Mongol Zanabazar, would return to Tibet not as a Jonang but as a Jamyang reincarnate and would be part of the Géluk expansion into Mongolia under the benign auspices of the Qing. For the Mongol khans, who embraced the idea of Zanabazar as the reincarnation with the support of the Dalai and Panchen Lamas, Tāranātha presented a new possibility for the Khalkha supremacy, who would be able to nurture a reincarnation that would stand out from many other reincarnations of Tibetan masters in Mongolia. As we have seen, oral histories and rituals reveal how Tāranātha was consistently revered and honored in Ikh Khüree. The Khalkha worship of two Jonang scholars’ heads (Tāranātha’s and Kunga Drolchok’s) in a special ritual over several centuries in Ikh Khüree expresses the special attention paid to the preservation of such memory, which, as I discussed, points to Khalkha Mongolia’s own views of the Jebtsundampa rulers and their establishment of shashin tör. These views did not include the Jebtsundampas’ “exclusive service to the Gélukpa,” as presupposed by and expected from “ideal candidates for a donor–preceptor relationship” within the Qing-Géluk political alliance.34 The worship of Tāranātha’s head, known as böndgöriin takhilga, was later transformed to incorporate the Géluk leaders, akin to similar transformations observed in the Zanabazar portraiture. A single short text exists that records the head worship reminiscent of an old Mongol tradition that dates back to the thirteenth century (see chapter 1). This text (fig. 3.2) dates to the late nineteenth century, and was written by a certain Gu na sa ra in Tibetan, who wrote down oral histories narrated to him by Luvsan Senge gavj (blo bzang seng ge dka’ bcu pa) of Örluud aimag.35 The difference between the oral and written word is stunning and should not be disregarded. Luvsan narrates that the Fifth Dalai Lama as a baby was taken by his mother to the renowned lama Tāranātha, who poked him under his eyes and wounded him. When the Fifth Dalai Lama became the head of the Tibetan government, he punished Tāranātha by having him beheaded. Tāranātha’s poking under the Dalai Lama’s eyes was a symbolic act that aimed at blinding the Dalai Lama’s eyes, thus removing his ignorance and helping him reach enlightenment. The Fifth Dalai Lama sent [sic] Tāranātha to northern Khalkha lands; therefore, as Luvsan maintains, “Tāranātha did a great favor to the Great Fifth and the Great Fifth did a great favor to Khalkha.” When Tāranātha’s northern reincarnation was born as the Tüsheet Khan’s son, the new reincarnate (Zanabazar) went to see the Fifth Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama had Tāranātha’s head brought from his lavrang (lama’s residence, Tib. bla brang) and placed on a table facing the door. When the Khalkha reincarnate came in and saw the head, both the head and the Khalkha reincarnate (Zanabazar) smiled. And thus Zanabazar received the head and brought it back to Khalkha, and it has been worshipped since then to modern days (“it is now located in Khu re chen mo and known, in Mongolian, as Pung Te Ker”).36 The tradition, which itself is based on the worship of Ong Khan’s head,

89

3.2. Handwritten sūtra about the worship of Tāranātha’s head, 19th c. Private collection of

D. Ulziidelger. Courtesy of D. Ulziidelger.

WHY ZANABAZAR?

described in the thirteenth-century Secret History of the Mongols (see chapter 1), now is transformed into a tale that justified and paid honor to both Tāranātha and the Fifth Dalai Lama as equally important for Mongolian Buddhism and the memory of Zanabazar. Tāranātha’s lineage, depicted in the Jebtsundampa’s portrait (see fig. 1.2), includes not only Jamyang Chöje, but also protagonists and teachers of other sects, such as Rongzom Chozang, a Nyingma scholar, and Kunga Drolchok, who was also a Sakya and a Jonang master. This list of the teachers, compiled by Zanabazar himself in his gsung gtor (“scattered teachings”),37 demonstrates that Tāranātha was indeed a lineage-holder of all sects, which was one of the reasons the Mongol nobles chose to import his reincarnation lineage into Mongolia. Also noteworthy and significant is the Mongol choice of the Fourth Panchen Lama as Zanabazar’s root teacher mentioned in the hagiographies, who, in a similar vein, was also nonsectarian and open to all traditions reminiscent of Tsongkhapa, unlike the Great Fifth and his regent. As Gene Smith states, “He [the Fourth Panchen Lama] was completely free of the sectarian rivalries and hatreds that so marred his time . . . has written of the unity of all the Tibetan religious systems.” 38 For the Géluk, the strategies for intervening in the Khalkha Buddhist orientations were not only about spreading their teachings in Khalkha but also about gaining the important patronage and sponsorship of the Khalkha nobility. In the early years of the Géluk formation, it was only the Oirats and their leader, Khoshuut Güüsh Khan, who were important allies for the Géluk. According to Max Oidtmann, who analyzes texts by Géluk writers of Amdo, such as Sumbe Khambo Ishbaljir (sum pa mkhan po ye shes dpal ’byor, 1704–1788) and Belmang Paṇḍita Konchok Gyeltsen (dbal mang dkon mchog rgyal mtshan, 1764– 1863), Güüsh Khan is known for his sovereignty and the equal position he established with the Fifth Dalai Lama in their patron–priest alliance.39 The idea of a Mongol disciple at their “exclusive service to Gélukpa,” then, began in earnest with a Dzungar Mongol, Galdan Boshogtu, who had been educated by the Fifth Dalai Lama and, in 1678, received from him the honorable title Tenzin Boshogtu, “upholder of the doctrine.” Historian Peter Schwieger, drawing on the Dalai Lama’s autobiography from June 2, 1678, suggests that the Khalkhas were not followers of the Dalai Lama, yet Galdan Boshogtu was, and therefore he was instructed by the Dalai Lama, his mentor, to “settle the governmental [affairs] of the Khalkha and Oirats.” 40 Schwieger also notes that the Dalai Lama’s autobiographical notes indicate that he had contact with Galdan Boshogtu on a regular basis, unlike Zanabazar. Schwieger thus concludes that the Gélukpas had allied closely with the Oirats, as Güüsh Khan of the Khoshuut Oirats was instrumental in the Gélukpas’ gaining dominance in Tibet, and thus “Oirats were regarded as being more loyal and closer.” 41 Galdan Boshogtu, then, saw himself as a loyal defender of the Géluk school when he attacked Zanabazar, instigating war and destroying Zanabazar’s

91

92

CHAPTER THREE

Dharma seat in 1689, as “the Dzungars were expected to settle matters in the Mongol world according to the Gelugpa’s ideas.” 42 According to Luvsanprinlei, in 1689, The Erdene Juu monastery and other famous temples and monasteries were damaged one by one. Some were destroyed [completely] and at some [monasteries] images were destroyed. In the Lord’s [Zanabazar’s] encampment [Khüree], images, both great and small were destroyed, while the monastery Ribo Gegye Ling was demolished completely and many other wrong deeds were done.43

While Zanabazar was neither the only reincarnation discovered in Mongolia, nor did he spend as long a time in Tibet as Luvsanprinlei himself did, Zaya Paṇḍita narrates how he was seen as the designated leader of Khalkha Mongolia. Thus, shortly after his return from Tibet in 1656, Zanabazar “invited four divisions (M. khoshuu) of the eastern wing” 44 to Erdene Zuu Monastery for a meeting.” 45 These meetings with the noblemen of Khalkha, we learn from Luvsanprinlei, became regular events, as other meetings took place in 1659 with the representatives of seven Khalkha khoshuu (divisions), and Zanabazar organized another assembly of four khoshuu in 1681 at Erdene Zuu Monastery. In 1681 he performed for the four khoshuu, a religious ceremony (Skt. pūjā), the Prayer Festival, and the Maitreya Procession.46 At this assembly of Khalkha nobility, intervention from the Géluk establishment and their reinforcement of the Qing notion of “Buddhist government” is painstakingly explicit as Luvsanprinlei accounts: Kyarpone (Tib. skyar po nas), a representative of the Dalai Lama, was present and “appealed for peace among the Khalkha and Oirats” and for all to be in mutual agreement with dual rulership, shashin tör (Buddhist Government), a concept that Luvsanprinlei refers to throughout his account.47 From the beginning of his text, Luvsanprinlei states the centrality of dual rulership for Zanabazar— that is, for the Khalkha—with the emphasis on religion, as it was his great-grandfather Abatai Khan who “acted with full understanding of the two [kinds of affairs]: [regarding Buddhist] doctrine and state.” 48 Zanabazar would often be referenced with this mission throughout the text in his regular assemblies with the Khalkha seven divisions (meaning: the entire Khalkha people).49 Luvsanprinlei writes about yet another direct intervention from Lhasa, when another representative of the Ganden Podrang (Tib. gzhung gi sku tshab), an abbot of the Second Dalai Lama’s Gyel Metog Thang Monastery, sent a mediation letter and came to personally intervene.50 In spite of these combined forces aided by the Ganden Podrang, Galdan Boshogtu was unstoppable, and his attacks led Zanabazar to turn to the Qing: in 1691 he pledged allegiance to the Qing when the Khalkha were annexed to the Qing as a vassal state. Luvsanprinlei makes the critical point by placing Zanabazar as the lead in the discussion of the “Buddhist Government” with various Mongol communities,

WHY ZANABAZAR?

including a chieftain of the Oirats, who were at war with the Khalkha, and yet, as Luvsanprinlei highlights, his discussions were overseen by the Qing Emperor, the Holy Lord (M. Bogd Ezen): At that time some [powerful noblemen] headed by the chief of the eastern wing of the Ölets, called Rabten Khado Künsang, came to pay respect to this Lord Master [Zanabazar]. He bestowed the graciousness of the High Dharma to the majority of gathered monks and lay officials of Khalkha. During this meeting, central questions of Buddhist rule (government) were discussed [italics and translation are mine].51 At the request of His Majesty (Qing Emperor), Mergen Paṇḍita Rabjampa [Zanabazar’s Tibetan teacher]52 and [Zanabazar’s] nephew Ganden Dorji were sent to the Majesty King Lord (Qing Emperor; Tib. gong ma rgyal po’i sku gzhogs; Cl. M. boġda ejen-ü gegen) [to inform him about the results of the meeting].53

As this passage indicates, the secular entity, the Qing Emperor, was that highest authority to whom the “result of the meeting” was reported by a team composed of a Tibetan teacher and a Mongol relative who were subjected to a discussion of “central questions of Buddhist Government.” The concept shashin tör here contrasts with the patron–priest relationship exemplified by Khubilai Khaan and Phags pa in the thirteenth century, and as such, it was strategically promoted as a part of Qing imperial statecraft. “Buddhist Government,” as such, never existed in effect, as the secular rule of the Qing court was the controlling and dominating political power over the Mongols and Tibetans alike. In a later hagiography of Zanabazar by Agwaan Ishtüvden Ravjamba (1839), the author frames Zanabazar’s submission to the Qing as a service to shashin tör: “at the age of 57, in the year of Iron Sheep, Zanabazar brought Khalkha divisions to the Kangxi Emperor as vassals and thereby supported the shashin tör.” 54 Zanabazar’s “self-portrait” is an explicit visual embodiment of such a politically charged arrangement, which would provide a new legitimacy of unified rulership over the Khalkha disciples presided over by Tibetan teachers. Besides the Tibetan hierarchs at the top and the Géluk-favored six-armed Mahākāla, the painting contains elements such as the Indic deity Sarasvatī and the Mahāyāna deities of wealth, Jambhala and Vasudhārā, that reveal Zanabazar’s identity as rather diverse and nonsectarian. In the bottom register, two forms of Mahākāla clearly allude to a pivotal moment in the history of the Mongolian– Tibetan alliance. In 1578, Altan Khan of the Tümed Mongols had a historical meeting with an important teacher of the Géluk school, Sonam Gyatso, on whom he conferred the name Dalai Lama and a golden seal. According to Heather Stoddard, the Third Dalai Lama chose White Mahākāla as the special protector of the Mongols, as illustrated in the bottom register of Zanabazar’s portrait, together with the six-armed Mahākāla particularly favored by the Géluk order.55 This

93

94

CHAPTER THREE

particular form is widespread among the Gélukpas, yet the White Mahākāla is only depicted by the Mongols. Just like the Qing oversaw the Tibeto-Mongol connections in the text, here in the painting, it is the Qing style that creates the thangka closely affiliated with the Qing court. The style, recalling the style represented in Chengde (Jehol) with the dominance of grayish blue and green, is comparable to two other early eighteenth-century images, showing Maitreya Bodhisattva (fig. 3.3) and Sita Saṃvara (fig. 3.4), suggesting there was an early eighteenth-century style in Mongolia that reveals a solid knowledge of the artistic styles of the Qing summer court Chengde. The depiction of two stūpas on both sides just beneath Zanabazar, identified as a Parinirvāṇa stūpa (Tib. myang ’das mchod rten) (left) and an enlightenment stūpa (Tib. byang chub mchod rten) (right), suggests the thangka was made around, or shortly after, Zanabazar passed away.56 The stūpas appear to be reliquaries of the beloved teacher painted by his disciples and devoted followers to perpetuate his cherished memory in this particular setting. The Tibetan teachers 3.3. Maitreya

Bodhisattva. Colors on cotton, 54.7 × 39 cm, 18th c. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

WHY ZANABAZAR?

95

3.4. Sita Saṃvara.

Colors on cotton, 56 × 40 cm, 18th c. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum.

appearing above Zanabazar are all rendered in the later style familiar to the Qing production in Chengde with Chinese motifs of prosperity, such as peonies and ruyi-shaped clouds.57 Comparing this portrait with another thangka of White Tārā (see fig. 2.30) attributed to Zanabazar shows a striking difference between the two images and questions the attribution of the portrait to Zanabazar. Berger had also earlier

96

CHAPTER THREE

suggested a later date for the portrait and its production by artists who were associated with (or at least well informed of) painting styles at Chengde.58 I agree with Berger’s conclusion and argue this portrait is a later work completed at the time when, or shortly after, Zanabazar passed into nirvāṇa. The two stūpas on the two sides of Zanabazar in the portrait signal the vision of this portrait as a relic and, therefore, as a site of memory. This portrait was treasured at Noyon aimag (a monastic regional house) in Ikh Khüree and was believed to be Zanabazar’s own work. Clearly, Zanabazar’s followers tied these portraits irrefutably to Zanabazar’s name, his Géluk identity, and the Qing presence. By the time of the Ikh Khüree abbot Agwaan Khaidav in the early nineteenth century, Zanabazar is seen one-dimensionally as a Gélukpa, with the exclusive mission of proselytizing Tsongkhapa’s teachings in Khalkha Mongolia. Thus, in 1837 Agwaan Khaidav writes, “Savior Jebtsundampa Luvsandambijantsan with his lopon (preceptor Tib. slob dpon; Skt. ācārya) teacher … spread Géluk [teachings].” 59 By the early twentieth century, Zanabazar biographer Davgajantsan puts the same information in his own words and interprets Luvsanprinlei’s information in the following way: Overwhelmed by the desire to disseminate the faith of Bogd Tsongkhapa in the northern land of Khalkha [italics are mine], at fifteen [Zanabazar] visited such monasteries of the Bogd Lama [Tsongkhapa] as Kumbum Jambaalin, Jachun, Radin, Gandanchoinkhor, Taglung, where he was welcomed with respect and semburime (procession of lamas with offerings; Tib. ser sbrengs).60

These words, written nearly three centuries after Zanabazar’s time, testify to the success of the process that began with textual (Luvsanprinlei) and visual (the early portrait of Zanabazar) elements that aimed at perpetuating his identity and his vision as a determined Géluk adherent. The eighteenth-century portrait of Zanabazar was the earliest visual source that complemented Zaya Paṇḍita’s text by depicting all politically associated parties as connected in a hierarchical teacher–disciple relationship. It was the earliest portable representation of the Dalai and Panchen Lamas in Inner Asia depicted together as the highest authorities within a portrait and thus constitutes important evidence of how Zanabazar’s Géluk identity was built with texts and images. In a later portrait of Zanabazar by Agwaan Sharav, as we shall see in the next section, the image captures the Qing involvement on a more explicit level. Later Zanabazar Portrait and the Qing Involvement A second type of portraiture is what can be seen as an “official” portrait of Zanabazar made specifically with the Qing involvement. This portrait, which Nyam-­Osoryn Tsultem attributed to the nineteenth-century Ikh Khüree artist

WHY ZANABAZAR?

Agwaan Sharav, shows the Jebtsundampa as he was later depicted (fig. 3.5) within a particular Qing-Géluk affiliation.61 Agwaan Sharav of Dondovlin aimag is mentioned in the hagiography of the Fifth Jebtsundampa (1815–1841) as “Lama artist Sharav,” who “was commissioned to accomplish numerous thangka paintings” and was awarded a high rank.62 He was notably one of the most highly acclaimed artists in the first decade of the 1800s, who also appears to have been actively connected with the Qing court, participating in the Qianlong Emperor’s (乾隆帝 1711–1799) efforts to systematize canons and pantheons. Agwaan Sharav was the artist for illustrations in the pantheons of Three Hundred and Five Hundred Icons, produced under the supervision of Rolpé Dorjé.63 In the painting Zanabazar, the reincarnation is shown as a transcendental image, draped in a Tibetan-style sleeveless robe with square patterns similar to those in the images of Zhufo Pusa Miaoxiang Minghao Jingzhou (Marvelous images, names, sūtra, and dhāraṇī of the buddhas and bodhisattvas) of 1431;64 he sits under an elaborate mandorla with a luxurious, arabesque-like ornament. The large kirtimukha motif that tops the throne is an element that often appears in Tibetan and Sino-Tibetan paintings, including woodblock prints of Zhufo Pusa. Similar motifs of floral scrolls, dragons, and jeweled thrones are also often used in Tibetan portraits of the Dalai Lamas. In other words, Tibetan, Chinese, Qing, and Mongolian visual styles and motifs are all present in this distinguished image and thereby constitute the presence of all these parties, all here suggestively united. The ruler here appears very different from the type we saw earlier: Agwaan Sharav follows neither the Mongolian public image of Zanabazar as the head of the household (see fig. 1.9), nor his “self-portrait.” Instead, he borrows from a later Mongolian hagiography of 1859, in which Qing court eyewitnesses describe the reincarnate with a single line, as having a face “perfectly round like the full moon.” 65 This descriptive phrase, with its connection to the Qing court, and all the international styles and shared motifs of royalty and auspiciousness were carefully selected to serve as indices for his new, “official” image. Agwaan Sharav sits the reincarnation in a highly decorated shrine, different from the simple one in Zanabazar’s “self-portrait.” Here, gemlike roundels are intertwined with floral patterns, and the ornamental swirls end in colorful roundels, which artfully adorn the throne. This arrangement recalls similar patterns in Tibetan thangkas of Buddhist deities (fig. 3.6), often used, as Terese Bartholomew has shown, as a specific style of eighteenth-century thangka paintings produced by the Qianlong Emperor in Chengde.66 This motif of jeweled thrones originated in illustrations of Mongolian Kanjur produced between 1717 and 1720 by the Kangxi Emperor.67 Bartholomew notes that the monk painters of the Qing court were Mongols who were familiar with these Kanjur illustrations, and the motif of jeweled thrones was also applied in statues made by Mongolian artists. Given this precedent, as well as Zanabazar’s close connection with the Kangxi Emperor and Zanabazar’s likely participation

97

3.5. Agwaan Sharav, Zanabazar. Colors on cotton, 137 × 150 cm, ca. 1830. Courtesy of Zanabazar

Museum of Fine Art.

WHY ZANABAZAR?

in creating these Kanjur illustrations, it is no wonder that Agwaan Sharav resorted to ample use of the motif in reproducing the beloved reincarnate. His production, as recorded by the inscription, occurred under the auspices of the Qing court, and it commemorates the Kangxi Emperor and the two men’s guru–patron connection. The Qing–Khalkha relationship was of ongoing importance, and Zanabazar’s appropriate presentation was a significant matter for all parties, here implicitly represented in the mixture of recognizable styles. Luvsanprinlei’s last folios all describe Zanabazar’s close ties with the Qing court and his frequent travels to Beijing. Zaya Paṇḍita tells us that in 1691, when Zanabazar was forced to pledge allegiance to the Qing in the midst of attacks by the Dzungar, Kangxi greeted Zanabazar on equal terms, demonstrated by a mutual exchange of splendid gifts; Kangxi also extended private invitations of special attention and kindness, such as having Zanabazar stay as a guest at his own residence. Zanabazar’s presence in Beijing is notably distinguished by his impressively inclusive retinue of Khalkha monks, aided by lamas of Höhhot, Beijing, and Tibet, including incarnations of Neyichi Toyin Chojor Rabjampa (Tib. chos ’byor rab ’byams pa), and lamas from Tsang (Tsangpa Kukye, Tib. tsang pa sku skye), previously all of Kagyu domain and affiliation.68 All these monks, now united with Zanabazar, performed rituals of Vajrabhairava, a main yidam meditational deity of the Géluk. In other words, their undeniable Géluk practice is accompanied by the Kangxi himself as a host. The elaborate service continued with a longevity pūjā ceremony and three-day recitations from Kanjur, followed by Zanabazar’s private meetings, “talks and discussions in full detail.” 69 Luvsanprinlei elaborates on Kangxi and Zanabazar’s meetings year by year, making clear their unusually intimate, trusted, and close bond as they exchanged numerous exquisite gifts, rested at each other’s palaces and tents, dined together, and rode together in the hunting fields. They met annually beginning in 1691. Zanabazar aided the emperor with several healing rituals, consecrating and repairing sacred images, and providing empowerments and rituals for imperial family members. They traveled together to Wutaishan and Ula (modern-­ day Jilin). After Galdan Boshugtu died in 1697, Zanabazar and his retinue were finally able to return to Khalkha, yet he continued to visit the Kangxi Emperor, for whom he made images (see fig. 2.9) and who praised him this way: And the Emperor said: “. . . among lamas I have not seen anyone who would be greater than Jebtsundampa.” I have personally heard him saying this two or three times for sure. “Among nobles this Lord alone is a unique embodiment of most excellent Khalkhas” he said and praised his vast knowledge.70

Luvsanprinlei immediately sees this relationship of the two in light of shashin tör, and the idea is also developed and eloquently visualized in the portrait by Agwaan Sharav. As Luvsanprinlei places religion first in his continuous

99

3.6. The Cosmic Buddha

Ratnasaṃbhava. China, Xumifushou Temple, Chengde, Hebei Province. Ink and color on cotton, 1700–1800. Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, Gift of John Sheldon Osborne, B83D6. Photograph © Asian Art Museum of San Francisco.

WHY ZANABAZAR?

mentioning of shashin tör, he suggests the emperor also sees Zanabazar first as a lama and only secondarily as a nobleman, thus elevating Zanabazar’s religious authority. All of Zanabazar’s activities that he recounts, in fact, are of a monastic character: he grants blessings and empowerments; conducts rituals and aids healing through special healing ceremonies; consecrates, makes, and repairs Buddhist images; and recites mantras, prayers, and texts from Kanjur. While with Kangxi, his retinue at first contained an equal number of secular men and monks, “[one] hundred of each,” 71 but later is said to have comprised mainly monks. Yet, the people who gathered around him upon his return to Khalkha from Beijing in 1699 would be primarily secular men. In other words, Zanabazar’s entourage, as well as his own personage, is consistent with the Khalkha vision of shashin tör; that is, Zanabazar is seen as their theocrat, whom the secular men and monastics all obey and pay allegiance to. Luvsanprinlei describes the Kangxi Emperor acting reverentially toward the Géluk teachers as they also turned to Tibetan Buddhism in their efforts for authority and legitimacy in Inner Asia. And yet, as Evelyn Rawski points out, as late as 1732 the Géluk school did not have a dominant presence at the Qing court, and Géluk-trained writers and artists sought to promote the high authority of the Dalai Lama among the Khalkha.72 According to Donald Lopez, it must be due to Kangxi’s engagement with the Khalkhas, and with Zanabazar specifically, that Kangxi’s imperial favor turned largely to the Gélukpas.73 Investigating further Zanabazar’s official Qing portrait, in addition to the Qing flavor in the nineteenth-century representation, we find an unusual motif of an image: Agwaan Sharav has painted a tiny thangka directly above his head that shows Zanabazar’s teacher.74 This tiny thangka, however, does not appear as hanging above his head, but rather as standing on its own in the manner of a tentlike structure. Similar structures were carried above Mongol emperors in the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries. The most explicit references to this tradition can be found in Plano Carpini’s firsthand account of the enthronement of Güyüg Khaan.75 Carpini notes that a structure reminiscent of a tiny tent or a parasol is carried over Güyüg Khaan at all times. Rubruck, a French king’s envoy to the court of Mönkh Khaan (Möngke 1209–1259) in 1254, also witnessed “effigies” made of felt fastened to the wall, with one over the master’s head and another over the mistress’s, and he reported that both effigies were revered as their “brothers.” Rubruck further notes that among many other effigies and statuettes inside the ger, a presence “higher up . . . is a small thin one, which is the guardian, as it were, of the whole dwelling,” 76 signifying traditional Mongol views of effigies as supports of spirits and sülde (“vital energy”) in their ancestral connections via “spirit-mediumship.” 77 In other words, what we see in Agwaan Sharav’s Zanabazar is a clear index of Zanabazar’s Chinggisid reality now fused with his Qing-Géluk Buddhist identity. It is only in Zanabazar’s portraits that we see this type of image-canopy above the head, signaling the Mongol representation of authority (fig. 3.7).

101

3.7. Zanabazar. Appliqué, 68 × 49 cm. 18th–19th c. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

WHY ZANABAZAR?

His Buddhist identity, as the portrait clarifies, is specifically linked to the Highest Yoga Tantra teachings of the Géluk school. Agwaan Sharav further places above, to the left and right, Amitāyus, the Buddha of Boundless Life, and Guhyasamāja Akṣobhyavajra, a Géluk yidam in yab-yum (father-mother) position. According to Richard Kohn, the Géluk school preferred Guhyasamāja Akṣobhyavajra due to the antiquity of his texts, which were translated into Tibetan in the eighth century.78 Guhyasamāja, one of the oldest and the most influential of the Buddhist Mahāyoga Tantras, was cited as authoritative in many other Tantric texts.79 Guhyasamāja is a unique manifestation of all Tathāgatas, each one represented by the attributes in the divine couple’s hands. The vajra symbolizes Akṣobhya, and together with a bell also represents the Vajrasattva/Vajradhāra concept. The wheel in the upper hands symbolizes Vairocana, and the blazing jewel is the attribute of Ratnasaṃbhava. The lower hands hold a lotus, a reference to Amitābha, and a sword is the symbol of Amoghasiddhi. In other words, the Jebtsundampa here resides in a Qing-Géluk space and is directly connected to all five Buddha families through the images hierarchically placed in the top register. As Guhyasamāja Akṣobhyavajra refers to Āryadeva (third century CE), a student of Nāgārjuna (ca. 150–ca. 250 CE), as opposed to the other tradition of Jñānapada with Mañjuvajra, here Agwaan Sharav signals that the Dharma in Khalkha also follows Nāgārjuna’s Ārya (Noble) tradition, where Guhyasamāja Tantra constitutes a subsequent development of Yoga Tantra Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha, and is a root text for Mahāyoga Tantras.80 The previous chapter showed how Zanabazar’s own art exhibits a clear manifestation of the practice of Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha among the Khalkhas. Thus, Agwaan Sharav has the Jebtsundampa embrace the essence of all Tathāgatas in the form of their unique manifestation of Guhyasamāja Akṣobhyavajra, secures the reincarnation’s longevity through the image of Amitāyus, and thereby places Zanabazar in the center of Dharma tradition in Khalkha Mongolia defined by specific Yoga and Mahāyoga Tantra practices. As Zanabazar’s art, writings, and architecture display no evidence of a focus on Géluk teachings, the presence of Guhyasamāja in this portrait points to the intentions of the patron, the Fifth Jebtsundampa, and the artist, both of the Géluk order. The image of Guhyasamāja in the top register, just like the inscription on the portrait, suggests that this portrait is one of the later revisionist attempts to construct the identity of Zanabazar in Qing-Géluk terms. The inscription (fig. 3.8), a prayer to Zanabazar (Tib. gsol debs) just below the main sitter, reads: By command: the verses of the ceremony of longevity offered to the rje btsun dam pa rinpoche. The northern Protector of Beings, the Lord of Dharma Lozang Tenpé Gyeltsen (blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan) eminent holder (or: Eminently holding the noble-minded victory banner of the teachings) 81 Your Excellency, in the nature of a changeless vajra, May you steadfastly remain for a hundred aeons.

103

104

CHAPTER THREE

3.8. Inscription

detail. Agwaan Sharav Zanabazar. Ca. 1830.

Jamyang (Mañjuśrī), the Emperor The Great Lord Shengzu Benevolent Emperor Request for the Jebtsundampa Lama’s prayer for long life Offered with the command.82

The artist provides a reading and translation of Zanabazar’s Dharma name, Blo bzang (noble-minded) bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan (victory banner of teachings). As the inscription states, the portrait was made “by command” of the Qing Emperor, in this case, by the Daoguang Emperor (道光帝 1820–1850) in memory of his great-great-grandfather, the Kangxi Emperor, and of his close relationship with Zanabazar. While the Daoguang Emperor is indicated only covertly with the Qing imperial epithet Jamyang, or Mañjuśrī, the Kangxi Emperor is mentioned directly with his temple name, Shengzu (聖祖), and the reference to him as “uu ru shiel thu,” or “benevolent,” in Mongolian, thus providing a literal translation of his posthumous name, Ren (仁), in Mongolian. The inscription suggests that the patron and the artist, the Daoguang Emperor and Agwaan Sharav, quote the Kangxi Emperor’s prayer for Zanabazar’s long life. This prayer is a well-known text and is broadly memorized and recited even today in Mongolian monasteries. As the inscription and the image make explicit, Zanabazar’s new image now appears directly related to the Jebtsundampa’s union with the Qing and the Géluk. Furthermore, Agwaan Sharav advances Zanabazar’s association with primordial Vajradhāra/Vajrasattva. This concept is the union of wisdom (prajñā) and method (upāya), the core essence of Vajrayāna Buddhism, as exhibited in its main attributes, the bell and vajra. Zanabazar is holding these attributes in the hand gesture of Vajrasattva, while in the inscription he is straightforwardly addressed

WHY ZANABAZAR?

as ’gro ba’i mgon po, “protector of beings,” which is also the epithet for Vajrasatt­ va, suggesting the attributes have been chosen carefully to create a new identity for the cherished ruler. We saw that Zanabazar had already established a spiritual identification with the Vajradhāra/Vajrasattva hierarchy through his own sculptures, with two deities united by an inseparable doctrinal and visual bond (see figs. 2.1 and 2.2). Adorned with symbols of power both from the Mongol imperial period and from Qing Chinese emperors (style and décor), embracing the Vajradhāra/Vajrasattva doctrinal concept, embellished with indices of the Qing imperial court culture, and seated on a lion throne (vehicle of the Buddha and of Vajradhāra), Zanabazar in this portrait represents a union of the secular (Chinggisid) and the religious (Géluk) identities integrated to portray the Khalkha ruler. In Zanabazar’s “self-portrait,” his new legitimacy was provided by his Tibetan teachers, who now presided over the Khalkha disciples. In the portrait by Agwaan Sharav, the Qing patronage and the Qing imperial inscription, which became a new “mantra” for the Mongols to memorize, indicate the power and authority above both the Mongol and Géluk realms. The two portraits of Zanabazar we have seen so far exemplify the complexity of the Mongolian appropriation of Vajrayāna visual culture. Although at first glance the portraits seem to adhere to the Tibetan thangka tradition, under closer observation they challenge the simplicity of “influence” as a single explanation. The paradigm of influence simplifies the process as one-way with inevitably pejorative connotations of “agent” and “recipient.” 83 The Zanabazar portraits demonstrate a “diachronic and synchronic process” of appropriation, by virtue of which, as we shall continue to see, the lay and monastic communities in Ikh Khüree consciously created and manifested a new cultural meaning.

105

Chapter Four

Jebtsundampa Portraiture Enshrinement in “Third Space”

Art historian Richard Brilliant has argued that “likeness” in portraiture is a value-­ laden term that does not refer to the subject but to the “compositions of memory from which identity . . . arises.” 1 While he referred to portraiture in general, and not to Mongolia in particular, his argument greatly applies to the Jebtsundampa portraits. With its power to influence viewers living both at the time of the original production and in the future, portraiture was one genre in which control could be exercised over a Mongol ruler’s new identity that established him (and his people) as part of the Qing Empire. We have seen how the round face of Zanabazar served as a “codified” index created by Agwaan Sharav for an official and Qing-endorsed visage of the Khalkha ruler by virtue of which his new, “Qingified” (to use Elverskog’s term) image was apprehended by Mongol viewers. This visual code was to allude to the popular hierarch who was to secure the necessary legitimacy for the Jebtsundampa lineage. At the same time as the Ikh Khüree artist Agwaan Sharav completed Zanabazar’s famed portrait with the inscription that became a daily mantra for the monks’ recitation (still used today), he also completed in the same refined manner a portrait of the Fifth Jebtsundampa (fig. 4.1). Unlike the portrait of Zanabazar, this image, while deifying the ruler, also aims to reproduce features of the Khutugtu’s physiognomy. While in the hagiographies we do not find descriptions of the physical appearance of this Khutugtu, the portrait depicts him as a slim young man, timid and reserved, seated within another shrine-like throne with an exquisite frame consisting of dragons coiled together in a complex design. The portrait shows the reserved personality of an accomplished ruler who died young. Among the Jebtsundampa reincarnate rulers, the Fifth stands out as one of the most accomplished, despite his short life.2 From his hagiography we learn that in 1838, at the age of twenty-four, the Fifth Jebtsundampa founded Gandan

106

4.1. Agwaan Sharav, The Fifth Jebtsundampa. Colors on cotton, 137 × 150 cm. Courtesy of Zanabazar

Museum of Fine Art.

108

CHAPTER FOUR

Monastery in Ikh Khüree, with its own temples and datsans (colleges),3 by moving some of those datsans from Züün Khüree to the western hills. He also established the curriculum of Gandan and increased the number of ordained monks in Ikh Khüree. It was also during his rulership, according to some hagiographies, that he ordered “Ribogejai-Gandan-Shaddubling Monastery [to] cease migrations.” 4 According to the hagiographies, he was an accomplished scholar and a prolific writer, whose writings were “pure and melodious . . . clear and deep . . . for many, kind and affectionate. Souls are attracted [to his words]. All would mention his wonderful words of faith as of a genuine teacher and of a relative friend.” 5 The Fifth Khutugtu was born in 1815 in Gedin Khansar in Tsang, Central Tibet, to the family of Gombo Dondov and Rigzinbutid and was recognized as the Fifth Jebtsundampa reincarnation by the Panchen Lama, who also bestowed on him the name Luvsan Tsültemjigmed Dambijantsan (blo bzang tshul khrims ’jigs med bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan). He arrived in Ikh Khüree in 1820 at the age of six and was enthroned as the Fifth Jebtsundampa, while his root teacher Luvsanjamyan (blo bzang ’jam dbyangs) was from Drepung’s Losaling datsang. He took his getsul monastic vows at the age of sixteen, and gelong vows from the Seventh Panchen Lama Palden Tenpai Nyima (dpal ldan bstan pa’i nyi ma, 1782–1853) at the age of twenty-one in Tibet, where he also met with the Tenth Dalai Lama Tsultrim Gyatso (tshul khrims rgya mtsho, 1816–1837). However, according to Pozdneev, popular hearsay depicted the Fifth Jebtsundampa quite negatively: Among the Mongols very few recollections are preserved concerning the fifth Gegen, without a doubt because he made no special impression whatsoever and was completely without character as a personage, having nothing of his own and being fully subject to the influence of the lamas around him. An inclination toward laziness, the absence of any system in his manner of acting, meager ambition, and a wretched servility and shyness of some kind.6

If the popular image of the Khutugtu was so unpleasant, Agwaan Sharav’s portrait and his hagiographies, with their bright view of the ruler, all testify to the continued effort in reconstructing and creating the “true image” of the Jebtsundampa ruler. Unlike the inscription on Zanabazar’s portrait, Agwaan Sharav does not specify anything about the patron’s “commands” in his inscription on the Fifth Jebtsundampa’s portrait, but instead provides a Tibetan reader with a eulogy in verse via another round of punning words: Good Intelligence (blo gros bzang po), treasury of all good qualities, With this supreme adornment of pure and clean morality (tshul khrims), You who are fearless (’jigs med) and compassionate in accomplishing the welfare of others, May you grasp the victory banner of the teachings (bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan)7

JEBTSUNDAMPA PORTRAITURE

The Fifth Jebtsundampa’s personal name, Blo bzang tshul khrim ‘jigs med bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan, is artfully embedded in the verse, subtly hinting at the reincarnation’s presence, yet acknowledging the religious connotations of the name as standing for the ruler’s preeminent qualities. The portrait’s eulogy and the artist’s carefully rendered composition with a selected group of deities altogether constitute the artist’s judicious echo of the ruler’s own verse: For all beings of the North May the Sun of the Savior Bogd [Qing Emperor] rise To protect with extreme compassion At the time when Rahu suddenly swathes the time 8

Agwaan Sharav’s choice of two of the essential Tantric deities of Vajrayāna Buddhism, Kālacakra and Cakrasaṃvara, depicted in the top register with the small portrait of the Panchen Lama above the Jebtsundampa’s head, directs the viewer’s attention to the universal and supreme nature of the visual realm rather than to the specifics of the reincarnation’s personal practice. Kālacakra is intended to inaugurate an era of universal salvation, and Cakrasaṃvara aims to spread the bliss of enlightenment through wisdom and method.9 The presence of Kālacakra also indicates seamless continuity in the lineage with his predecessors, Zanabazar and the Fourth Jebtsundampa, who initiated the practice of Kālacakra in Ikh Khüree at Dechingalbin Datsan. The Jebtsundampa, the painting suggests, is spiritually guided by the principal Heruka deities; this position elevates his authority beyond the ordinary status of a learned teacher: he is seated modestly holding a sūtra with the vase of immortality, and is shown related to the major Vajrayāna Tantric practices, which he and his predecessor, the Fourth Jebtsundampa, played a major role in establishing in Ikh Khüree. Akin to the portrait of Zanabazar (see fig. 3.5), Agwaan Sharav here too chooses indices of emperorship that are readable for the Qing Chinese audiences: the twisted bodies of the golden dragons encircling the shrine-like throne further enhance the reincarnate’s stately position. In this fusion of cultures we see a continuous exchange and interaction due to the Jebtsundampas’ regular visits to the Qing court and Tibet, the ongoing correspondence between the artists, as well as the circulation of the objects that enabled the artists to become fluent translators. The hagiographies inform us that the Fifth Jebtsundampa visited Tibet twice, in the Year of the Monkey (1836), where he took the genen monastic vows, and in the Year of the Ox (1841), when he spent time in Kumbum and Drepung. In the Year of the Pig (1839), he paid a visit to the Daoguang Emperor and traveled to Wutai­ shan.10 Representing a fine example of exquisite Qing style with a blend of visual idioms borrowed from all three cultures, the two portraits of Zanabazar and of the Fifth Jebtsundampa constitute a neatly woven set and resemble each other visually. We see similar cases of the Qing style of blended visual idioms in other portraits. There are no surviving stand-alone portraits of the Third, Fourth, and

109

4.2. The Seventh Jebtsundampa. Colors on cotton, 43 × 37 cm, 19th c. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace

Museum.

JEBTSUNDAMPA PORTRAITURE

Sixth Jebtsundampas, but there are several important images of the Seventh Jebtsundampa Agwaan Choijivanchig Prinleijamts (ngag dbang chos kyi dbang phyug ’phrin las rgya mtsho, 1850–1869) (fig. 4.2). The Seventh Jebtsundampa was born near Lhasa in the Year of the Iron Dog, 1850. His hagiographies follow the same pattern we saw in other hagiographies, confirming that the Dalai and Panchen Lamas recognized him as a Khalkha ruling reincarnate Jebtsundampa and granted him his name. Like several of his predecessors, the Seventh Khutugtu led a short life, spanning over only nineteen years. The hagiography of the Seventh Jebtsundampa describes him as a talented learner at a young age, whose goals are well summarized in his own words: “Do best in studying, pray for the welfare and prosperity of the Qing Emperor [Bogda Ejen]; spread the Yellow faith of Buddhism and pray for the pleasure of bringing the entire world to happiness.” 11 This hagiographic information once again contradicts what Pozdneev recorded based on popular discourse in Ikh Khüree, which offered a negative impression of the Khutugtu’s personality.12 As Pozdneev records (original spelling), Gay drinking bouts, tobacco, and finally the company of indecent women—this all gave rise to a large number of tales about the various episodes in the hutukhtu’s life. . . . He was in the company of a whole crowd of wealthy and loose lama youths.13

Nevertheless, a fine portrait shows him in a conspicuously refined manner and style, with plump cheeks and stout physiognomy, seated on a luxurious shrine-like throne. The portrait is as exquisite as all the other portraits of the Jebtsundampas. The explicitly Qing style of the ornamentalism, and the Chinese flavor of the whole setting, dominate the work, recalling the earlier thangka, saturated with Chinese-style ornament, by Agwaan Sharav.14 Above the Khutugtu, the images of Vajradhāra and Vajrabhairava in the yab-yum position appear in the left and right corners. Yāma, embracing his consort, and Jamsran (Begze), special protector of the Mongols, are placed in the two corners below the throne. A vase with the elixir of immortality, the attribute of Amitāyus, appears as a new attribute for the Jebtsundampa reincarnations who died at an early age: Having endured sins Having passed the destiny of Shambhala Will be reborn in Sukhavati Land Without any hindrance 15

In his other portrait (fig. 4.3), the Seventh Khutugtu is accompanied by an image of Tsongkhapa above his head and is attended by a devotee offering him a khadak (Tib. kha btags, offering scarf). The portrait is unusual because Tsongkhapa, with his attributes of a book and a sword (as an emanation of

111

4.3. The Seventh Jebtsundampa. Appliqué, 68 × 50 cm, 19th c. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

JEBTSUNDAMPA PORTRAITURE

Mañjuśrī), turns away from the viewer and looks straight down toward the reincarnation. The Jebtsundampa, on the other hand, who holds the vase of immortality, turns toward the devotee standing at his right. The wide-open eyes of all three are imbued with a caring attention as Tsongkhapa, the Jebtsundampa, and his Mongol disciple lock their gazes in silent, yet eloquent, expectation and patient devotion. The Khutugtu appears as approachable and distinct with his avuncular care for his disciples, whereas in reality, he was overtly and carelessly wanton according to popular hearsay recorded by Pozdneev.16 Such an unusual triangular composition draws an explicit visual connection between Tsongkhapa—the Jebtsundampa—and Mongol devotees. It is most attractive for a common viewer, one who needs to be reminded of a specific message: a Tibetan-born Jebtsundampa ruler is a caring teacher of the Mongols, he is proximate, and he is here watching and listening under the gaze of the Bogd Lama (Tsongkhapa). In another portrait of the Eighth Jebtsundampa (fig. 4.4), we see the reincarnation seated in the flexible posture of a three-quarter view, oriented toward his devotees, who are holding offerings for him; here, he appears in an unusual direct contact with the worshippers. In the portraits of Tibetan hierarchs, the devotees appear below and underneath, and they are minuscule compared to the grandiose size of the ruler depicted in the center (fig. 4.5). Here, in the Jebtsundampa portraits, however, the proximity of the teacher is highlighted in visual terms: his body is turned toward them, his gaze clearly rests upon them, and, likewise, the devotees turn and gaze in awe at him, extending offerings to their beloved teacher. All these elements suggest the teacher’s proximity and presence as real and tangible. Some of the disciples kneel down to the reincarnation and touch the hem of his robe, thus making apparent their awe of his deified personality. Pozdneev describes the frequent appearance of the Jebtsundampa for his devotees in this way (original spelling):17 The people can see him now only at celebrations and also when worshipping. . . . As far as . . . worshipping the Gegeen [the Jebtsundampa] by the common people is concerned, it is performed in the square in front of the Gegeen’s palace . . . every other day. . . . Crowds of worshippers find seats in long rows directly out from the gates of the Gegeen’s palace, and in that position they await his appearance. One may be surprised by the veneration with which they look in the direction whence the Gegeen is to appear. . . . And finally the Gegeen appears carried on a yellow litter by eight gelongs.18 . . . Having passed around the lines, the hutukhtu hides himself accompanied by the sounds of . . . instruments, and the people wait reverently. . . . The second worshipping, in which a maṇḍala is presented is performed daily and even several times a day, by various persons; it takes place, not in a temple, but the reception hall of the hutukhtu’s own residence. . . . The maṇḍala proper is a silver dish on which there is fashioned a representation of the entire world in the form

113

114

CHAPTER FOUR

4.4. The Eighth

Jebtsundampa. Appliqué, 65 × 46 cm, 19th c. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

in which it exists in the understanding of Buddhist cosmology. . . . It is this dish that the worshipper presents while kneeling on one knee and bowing his head, and the Gegeen gives him his blessing, expressed by placing his hand on [the worshipper’s] head. The symbolic meaning of the maṇḍala is the delivery of the whole into the Gegeen’s protection and intercession.19

The Eighth Jebtsundampa, commonly known as Bogd Gegeen (literally: Holy Saint), was born in Ü (Central Tibet), in the Earth Snake Year of 1869 (or 1870) to Gonchigtseren, a financial assistant to the Twelfth Dalai Lama Trinley

JEBTSUNDAMPA PORTRAITURE

115

4.5. The Seventh

Dalai Lama. Colors on cotton, 66 × 43 cm, early 19th c. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

Gyatso (phrin las rgya mtsho, 1857–1875).20 As was typical, the Dalai Lama recognized him as a new Jebtsundampa reincarnate and in the Male Wooden Dog Year of 1874, he was brought to “Ikh Khüree, where hundred thousands of adepts and wise men rejoiced” and enthroned as the Eighth Jebtsundampa.21 The Bogd Gegeen was the only Jebtsundampa who received the high title of a learned

116

CHAPTER FOUR

monastic degree of gavj (Tib. bka’ bcu pa), “the one who mastered ten texts or ten difficulties.” 22 He also established Yidgaachoinzilin datsan, a new tsanid datsan, in Gandan Monastery, where it joined the Badmayoga, Dashchoimbel, and Gungaachoilin datsans founded by his predecessors. The Bogd Gegeen lived in a tumultuous era marked by the decline of dynastic histories and the rapid rise of Western colonial powers, including Tsarist Russia, which would claim authority in Inner Asia. The Bogd Gegeen was actively involved in Mongolian politics, which now also included Russia more than in previous centuries. In such an unsettled period, it was crucial to maintain the indisputable authority of the Bogd Gegeen, a difficult task given that his notoriety was growing due to his unsavory personal habits. The Eighth Jebtsundampa was a true follower of the Seventh, also known for his debauchery. His open dalliances with both men and women were known in Ikh Khüree—and were not surprising, given the precedent—and resulted in his eventually being blinded by syphilis. He frequently disagreed with lamas, and that, along with his alcohol abuse, put his reputation at risk; all of this was noticed and recorded by a Russian consul to Ikh Khüree, Ya. Shishmarev (1833–1915), among other travelers to Ikh Khüree.23 The Bogd Gegeen’s writings, in which he offers instruction about devotion to faith and proper discipline, and his portraits, which show him first and foremost as a monk, suggest he took deliberate measures to create another image of himself for his people. The inscription in this appliqué portrait further testifies to this fact. It reads, Pure empowerment wisdom (Ngawang Losang)’s heavenly sky by means of Chökyi Nyima’s splendor Tenzin’s lotus grove expands three friends Pray to Great Venerable Great Lord (Jebtsun Wangchuk).24

The Qing style of these portraits takes an additional twist when the Bogd Gegeen’s artists employ realistic depiction in his portraiture. Consider this portrait, which, like some images of this Jebtsundampa, was based entirely on a photograph and presents another excellent, yet idiosyncratic, image of the Mongol ruler (fig. 4.6, also see fig. 6.24). Here the Bogd Gegeen followed the Qianlong Emperor in his specific tradition of a synthetic portraiture, where both the “quoted style” of Qing art and the Tibetan Buddhist doctrine were intertwined and enhanced with a realistic presence of the Jebtsundampa, useful for the emperor’s outreach to his people. In the Bogd Gegeen’s case, undoubtedly the new technology of photography, of which the Bogd Gegeen was fond, intensified his ambition for widespread, indisputable authority and thus affected the form of his representation (fig. 4.7). The Bogd’s internationalism echoes Agwaan Sharav’s intentional fusion of cultural indices and styles, and both cases recall the visual strategies of Qianlong that he used for outreach among his polyglot people. Akin to Qianlong, the Bogd

4.6. The Eighth

Jebtsundampa. Colors on cotton, 48 × 38 cm. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

118

CHAPTER FOUR

Gegeen is consistent in all his portraits in terms of his frontal, realistic image, remaining an ageless, youthful, and recognizable ruler and teacher (see more discussion and further portraits in chapter 6). The realistic style in this photograph-based portrait is another index and another “stylistic effect” that the artist, according to the sage Rolpé Dorjé, uses “to make up for the lack of strict equivalence.” 25 In other words, unlike the earlier portraits of Zanabazar, which were made after his death, and his codified image, invented by Agwaan Sharav who based it on the hagiographic line, the Bogd Gegeen’s portraits were made during his lifetime, and the artist’s realistic style here is used as the new visual idiom for the ruler’s new identity. Christian Luczanits has discussed a similar case with a Tibetan protagonist from Taklung Monastery, the once formidable Tashipel (13th–14th century) whose portraits date to the fourteenth century.26 As Luczanits has shown, Tashipel’s depiction en face with clear facial details was deliberately intended for political reasons to be different from the other numerous portraits of Taklung rulers. 4.7. Photograph of the

Bogd Gegeen. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

JEBTSUNDAMPA PORTRAITURE

This effort-laden building of the pictorial language for the Jebtsundampa suggests that these images were intended for public view; they maintained and further nurtured the Jebtsundampa ruler’s image among his people. In the portrait of the Second Jebtsundampa, the approach of presenting a visual memory of a caring Qing-Géluk teacher with some characteristics of the ruler’s physiognomy—the timid, slim Fifth Jebtsundampa, the stout and erudite Seventh, or the realistic and recognizable Bogd Gegeen—show a critical change. The Second reincarnate was the second and the last Mongolian-born ruler among the eight reincarnations. He was born into the Tüsheet Khan’s family line in a locale called Ögöömör to Khalkha parents: his father, Tseveendonduvdorj, and his mother, Bayar.27 As is typical for the Jebtsundampa narrative, the Panchen Lama bestowed his name, Luvsan Dambidonme (blo bzang bstan pa’i srgon me), on the boy when he was enthroned as the Second Jebtsundampa at the age of six in the Earth Rooster year of 1730. Örgöö then moved from Khujirtbulan to Argalt.28 His root teacher was an Amdowa from Kökenuur (modern-day Qinghai Lake 青海湖), Donkhor Khutugtu Agwaan Jambal Danzan (ngag dbang ’jam dpal bstan ’dzin), who came to be known as Mañjuśrī Khutugtu. The Second Jebtsundampa was in Dolonnor twice and attended the Qing Qianlong Emperor’s ascension to the throne, eventually meeting him at the age of thirteen and again later in Dolonnor. The Second Jebtsundampa was responsible for major changes in the Dharma practice in Khalkha, with Ikh Khüree maintaining its leading role. The Second reincarnate established the first Tantric datsans beginning in 1739 and encouraged the focus on the ritual of Hayagrīva in his very secret form, Damdin Yansan (Tib. rta mgrin yang gsang), which remained central to Ikh Khüree until its demise. In addition to his furthering Tantric practices in Ikh Khüree with additional datsans, the Second Khutugtu was also very active in the political and social life of his Khalkha countrymen, echoing the deeds of his predecessor. One important action he took was to formalize Ikh Khüree’s aimags as independent structural units, with their own practices and temples, by issuing them seals.29 The Second Jebtsundampa is the second of only two Mongolian-born Khutugtus among the total of eight reincarnations, and is known for his active political position and his anti-Manchu orientation.30 To deal with such a Khutugtu, the Qing used their usual strategy of granting special privileges, such as a golden seal and a golden diploma, as well as new titles; whereas in his portraits, they had the Second Khutugtu appear as a youthful Géluk monk without any reference to his physical features, unlike the other Jebtsundampas. Pozdneev recounts at least one occasion when the Qianlong Emperor had his guru and National Preceptor, the Rolpé Dorjé, write a letter to the Second Jebtsundampa. In the letter, the Manchu court required the Jebtsundampa “to pacify the Khalkha,” who were preparing another military campaign against the Qing.31 The portraiture of the Second Jebtsundampa (fig. 4.8) is another example of how the Qing handled the active Mongol ruler. By means of the variety of codes and indices used in the Jebtsundampa’s portraits in addition to the Qing style, the

119

4.8. The Second Jebtsundampa with the lineage. Colors on cotton, 54 × 38 cm, 18th–19th c. Courtesy of

Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

JEBTSUNDAMPA PORTRAITURE

Second Jebtsundampa is transformed into an indisputable authority of spiritual prominence by virtue of his new attributes. With his right hand making a gesture indicating discourse (Skt. vitarka) and his left hand holding an alms bowl (also a notable attribute of the historical Buddha Śākyamuni), he is depicted as an unworldly transcendental Yellow-hat (Géluk) teacher, who is given the attributes of bell and vajra, intrinsically symbolizing the Buddhist concepts of wisdom and method. None of the Second Jebtsundampa’s important activities and interests are reflected in his portraits. In a distinct contrast with the caring expression of the Seventh Jebtsundampa toward his Mongol disciples, or the realistic features of the Bogd Gegeen that make him recognizable to the disciples, the Second Jebtsundampa’s eyes and expression are mysteriously unworldly. Unlike Agwaan Sharav’s Fifth Jebtsundampa, the portrait shows a completely transcendental figure of a youthful Tibetan monk sitting with crossed legs, soles facing up, with no hints of age or the distinctive physiognomy we saw in Agwaan Sharav’s two portraits. The Buddhist notion of the flexibility and egolessness of the earthly body is fully deployed in these thangkas to accentuate the unworldly nature of the reincarnation, whose realm is composed of his fifteen divine predecessors: the Jebtsundampa, as the portrait proves, is not a Mongol after all, as his provenance is from India and Tibet. The earliest portrait that establishes this iconography with the entire lineage dates to the Second Jebtsundampa and to Tāranātha in particular (see also figs. 1.2 and 1.5). And yet, these portraits also show that Ikh Khüree artists did not ignore and forget about the Khalkhas’ choice and advancement of Zanabazar as their ruler: they often include visual indices that pertain to specific Mongol symbolic and historical meanings. In Zanabazar’s portraiture, two special depictions were created based on Mongolian meanings: the artists depicted him either slicing a sheep’s tail, to visualize his authority in Mongolian terms, or with an effigy in a tent-like structure above his head, referring to the imperial tradition (figs. 3.5 and 3.7). In the Seventh Jebtsundampa portrait (fig. 4.2), in addition to the Chinese and Tibetan elements, the Khutugtu is wearing a specific vajra-topped hat, which historically was granted to the Abatai Khan by the Third Dalai Lama. The vajra hat was inherited by Zanabazar from his great-grandfather Abatai Khan, and became an iconographical attribute for the Tüsheet Khan family line. In another portrait of the Second Jebtsundampa, the artist distinguishes the Jebtsundampa’s Mongol identity (fig. 4.9) by disrupting the closely knit visual space that was predominant in Tibetan Buddhist iconography. The scenes of the Second Jebtsundampa are located at both sides of the reincarnation, an important space usually designated for the entourage, accompanying bodhisattvas, and tutelary deities. In one scene, earthly Mongolian parents hold a baby Jebtsundampa, while in the other scene, the father clasps his hands in reverence of his reincarnate son. It is rare that a reference to the Jebtsundampa’s worldly life in a Mongolian context is visually and deliberately juxtaposed with the Buddhist space, which in the eighteenth century would be still esoteric for Mongol viewers.

121

122

CHAPTER FOUR

JEBTSUNDAMPA PORTRAITURE

In this portrait, the two main bodhisattvas—Avalokiteśvara and Mañjuśrī—who manifest the wisdom and the method, the key to Vajrayāna Buddhist doctrine, appear in the entourage of the Panchen Lama and Vajrabhairava in the yab-yum position in the top register. Below the Jebtsundampa is Yāma, the main yidam (meditational deity) of the Géluk; the wealth deity, Jambhala, is depicted in the bottom register. Vajrabhairava, both a yidam and a dharmapāla (protector), is a ferocious form of Mañjuśrī who conquers Yāma, the Lord of Death, and transforms him into a Buddhist protector deity. Yāma is believed to have a personal connection with Tsongkhapa specifically, and Vajrabhairava is an especially important deity in the Géluk school.32 This group of esoteric deities is depicted together with the divine body of the reincarnation, who can be recognized only by his attributes of the bell and vajra. This Tibetan-looking transcendental personage is a ruler, to whom his earthly Mongol father piously prays, and who presides in the center of his fifteen prior incarnations. If in the earliest version, the Jebtsundampa resembles Tāranātha in his visage, with bushy eyebrows and a prominent mustache (see figs. 1.2 and 1.3), in later portraits the Jebtsundampa is depicted as a youthful Tibetan monk bereft of any indices to suggest his Mongol association. Thus, the simultaneous contrast and union of the Buddhist and secular identities are remarkably evident here. Seen in a comparison with the other contemporaneous portrait (fig. 4.10), where the Jebtsundampa’s fifteen foreign predecessors are visually listed as his group, here the Mongol background is made starkly prominent by means of the distinctively Mongolian character of the figures (fig. 4.9), with their red cheeks and traditional ethnic costumes, and the placement of the scenes right in front of the ger. Because of the political danger posed by the Second Jebtsundampa Khutugtu, the Qing court did not want the Mongols to worship a Mongol ruler, and therefore arranged for the subsequent reincarnations to be discovered in Tibet. This act was, as Berger notes, strongly opposed by Khalkha’s nobles.33 Subsequently, the Third Jebtsundampa, Ishdambinyam (ye shes bstan pa’i nyi ma, 1758–1773), discovered in the eastern Tibetan region of Lithang, was brought to Dolonnor for his prompt and numerous—more than forty—different teachings and initiations from Rolpé Dorjé at Shar Süm at Dolonnor in 1771. At the age of thirteen, he was treated harshly by the Khalkha agents, who did not want him in Khalkha and whose request to install him away in Dolonnor was also denied by the Qianlong Emperor.34 The Third Jebtsundampa was brought to Ikh Khüree, where he soon passed away, and no portraiture of him exists in Mongolian archives apart from very late depictions of him as part of the Jebtsundampa sets. His rare depiction is preserved in the monumental Ten Thousand Dharmas Return as One, a screen painting made to memorialize the Mongol Torghut peoples’ historical “return home” to the Qing Emperor (fig. 4.11). In this painting, the Third Jebtsundampa is at the center of the imperial ritual in Chengde together with the Qianlong Emperor’s National Preceptor, Jangjia Khutugtu Rolpé Dorjé. Berger notes how the Qianlong Emperor’s court productions employed multinational

123

4.9. Opposite page,

The Second Jebtsun­d­ ampa with parents. Colors on cotton, 57 × 40 cm, 18th–19th c. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

4.10. Zanabazar with his reincarnation lineage. Colors on cotton, 46 × 31 cm, 19th c. Courtesy of Zanabazar

Museum of Fine Art.

4.11. Ignatz Sichelpart, Yao Wenhan et al. Ten Thousand Dharmas Return as One. The Palace Museum, Beijing, PRC.

126

CHAPTER FOUR

teams of artists—just like Khubilai Khaan’s court—and included Chinese, Tibetan, Mongolian, and Jesuit artists working together on different parts of a single painting, as we can see in this Qing production. Just as the team is multinational and united here under the benign gaze of the Qing Emperor, the new Tibetan-born Khalkha ruler Jebtsundampa’s identity was another case of Qing internationalism. Mongolian-born rulers ended with the Second Jebtsundampa; as Berger aptly notes, “Mongolia’s days of autonomy were long over.” 35 The Qing’s intentional mixture of styles and cultural indices in these portraits, however, did not happen because of the actual events, namely the regular travels of the Jebtsundampas (except the Eighth) to Beijing. These images are not works of only Agwaan Sharav or other designated artists. As in works with multiple authors, the “superimposition of the styles,” “complex syncretism,” or Caffarelli’s “international Gélukpa style” are unavoidable in this case.36 Agwaan Sharav’s and other artists’ use of styles from all three cultures was deliberate and reflects the contingency of the Jebtsundampa’s own identity, which allowed an active manipulation by the participants. The artist deliberately neglects the Mongol design of monastic robes, attributed in hagiographies to Zanabazar himself, and renders the Jebtsundampas in explicitly Tibetan garments and with the major attributes of Vajrayāna Buddhism. The artist depicts Géluk-favored deities and select well-established Chinese imperial indices, and he highlights the Jebtsundampa’s Buddhist identity as primarily that of a Yellow-hat Gélukpa lama. In this manner, the artist aims to be visually fluent, and properly read, in all three cultures, revealing a tangible effort at a “political negotiation,” 37 expressed in visual terms, among three parties: the Manchu court, which represented a hegemonic intervention; the Mongol community, which was entitled to venerate a QingGéluk ruler as an “image of power”;38 and the Géluk establishment, which sought to expand its political power and influence beyond Tibet’s borders. The artist here is the active translator, as Walter Benjamin would have put it,39 vigorously involved in reworking conventional forms into a new language based on his own agenda. This new Qing visual language is an intentional product of the parties involved in that it clarifies the notion of interaction as the requisite for the “international Gelugpa style.” In other words, the very notion of Mongol rulership here is inclusive of, and inseparable from, the Qing–Géluk alliance. In these portraits, the tacit presence of the three cultures once again suspends the moment of antagonism and contradiction.40 That is to say, neither the Khutugtu’s notorious debauchery nor his fabricated divinity are part of the causality and intentionality of the thangka’s execution. Instead, it is the lama-ruler’s enshrinement in a fictitious space, a neatly organized and Géluk-shaped enclosure that is lavishly embellished with Chinese décor and dabbed with a Mongol flavor through selected indices and the vajra-topped Tüsheet Khan’s hat, which together constitute and sustain the presence of an in-between space that unites the parties, the “Third Space,” to use Homi Bhabha’s term, where the image becomes a “political object that is new, neither the one nor the other [italics are Bhabha’s own].” 41

JEBTSUNDAMPA PORTRAITURE

A result of a successful translation of one cultural idiom (e.g., Chinese imperial dragons, Mongol imperial effigy-tents, Tibetan attributes and garments) into an artful fusion of visual indices is a purportedly seamless blend in one picture, where parts and components, like in a Lego puzzle, fit into each other to claim wholeness. This fusion recalls similar intentionality in the remarkable fusion of architectural styles in Ikh Khüree, as well as the Qing emperors’ frequent use of similar kinds of artistic productions—although, in the latter case, it was explicitly team-based. In other words, Jebtsundampa’s portraits are neither one nor two, but a whole constructed by an inseparable three.42 With the Tibetan-born reincarnations, the Khalkha vision of establishing their dual rulership (khoyor yos) with Zanabazar as their own theocratic ruler was irretrievably delayed as the Qing court aspired to direct Tibet’s Géluk authority for its own imperial supremacy and to cement the clear subordination and seamless integration of the Mongols into the Qing Buddhist government. The Khalkhas’ aims of their own khoyor yos were dismantled and appropriated into the Qing rhetoric of the Qing Buddhist government; the elevation of the Jebtsundampas’ Géluk authority over the secular were critical. The Qing Buddhist government was a cleverly arranged strategy that diverted the initial Khalkha aim for their own independent ruler, and reinforced the Jebtsundampa Khutugtu as a fictitious “ruler” with no political role whatsoever, directed and maneuvered by the Qing authority over the Khalkha and their relations with Tibet. A New Genealogy of Rulers and Painting Sets A woodblock portrait of Chinggis Khaan (fig. 4.12)43 in the Golden Book by Zawa Damdin proves two things. In addition to existing Buddhist thangka paintings of Chinggis Khaan as a deified protagonist, it provides new visual evidence for Elverskog’s argument that Chinggis Khaan was sanctified in the texts and began to be seen and addressed as part of Buddhist discourse.44 On the other hand, it also indicates that Chinggis Khaan’s memory was persistent and had never been obliterated as part of what it meant to be a Mongol, despite the overall success of the entire “Qingfication” process that assimilated the Mongol concepts of rulership into the Qing-ruled Buddhist government; this was also evidenced by widely circulating portraits and textual hagiographies of the Jebtsundampa rulers. The printed portrait of the Mongol emperor, designed for widespread reproduction, shows the Mongolian emperor as cakravartin, the universal ruler, akin to the cakravartin portraits of the Great Fifth Dalai Lama and of the Qianlong Emperor.45 While none of the Jebtsundampa rulers was depicted in the role of cakravartin, the long-passed Mongol emperor is visually revived by Zawa Damdin as the universal king. Turned in a three-quarter view and dressed in a secular costume, Chinggis Khaan lifts his right hand in an abhaya gesture and holds the wheel attribute in his left hand. Embellished with Buddhist attributes and hand gestures, the portrait displays a clear inscription in Tibetan, “Universal Emperor Chinggis

127

128

CHAPTER FOUR

4.12. Chinggis Khaan

in Zawa Damdin’s texts. Early 20th c. Photo by Sh. Soninbayar, 2007.

Khaan” (Tib. stobs kyi ’khor bsgyur jing gir rgyal), conveying an explicit message of authority. This portrait, printed in multiple copies with Zawa Damdin’s text on the history of Buddhism in Mongolia, demonstrates that the memory of the greater Mongol past was vividly nurtured not only by descendants of the imperial Chinggisid pedigree—including the Tüsheet Khan, who was first to begin the whole institution of the Jebtsundampas with his own son—but also by common Mongols. Also, more significantly, it presents a ruler as an embodiment of khoyor yos, the dual rulership, or the union of the secular and religious embodied in one ruler. On the other hand, this image also represents that “ideal” unity of Tibet and Mongolia discussed and expressed in textual sources, evidenced by an Amdowa scholar, Belmang’s writings, in the eighteenth century.46 It was necessary to create a new genealogy for Mongol rulers as an effective alternative to, and gradually a replacement for, Altan urag (“golden lineage”) as a means of appropriating the Jebtsundampas into the Qing-Géluk cultural and socio-political sphere. As portraits are often “sites of active public claim,” 47 it was important to remind viewers of both the divine and foreign “origin” of the Second Jebtsundampa; in the scheme of reincarnation, it is always one single Jebtsundampa who travels through time and space and takes up different bodies. This was especially the case because, as we have seen, there was a nonacceptance of and a lack of respect for some of the Tibetan-born Jebtsundampas, starting with the Third, either due to their foreign pedigree or behavior. Further cultivation of the Mongols by arranging their massive conversion to Vajrayāna Buddhism under the

JEBTSUNDAMPA PORTRAITURE

spiritual guidance of the Jebtsundampa rulers was thus a priority. If massive conversion to Buddhism was never accomplished in the past, the new rulers, the Jebtsundampa reincarnates and their allied political parties, hastened to exhibit the era of the Jebtsundampas as an alleged shashin tör (Buddhist government) and the fictitious rulers, governed from the Qing court, as a new lineage of Mongol hierarchs. In addition to portraits, the Jebtsundampa hagiographies now completely replaced the “golden lineage” of Zanabazar and of the Second Jebtsundampa with the list and hagiographies of the Indian and Tibetan Jebtsundampa predecessors. The importance of this lineage to Mongolia was highly promoted and commented upon in many works, including such learned scholars as Ikh Khüree’s abbot Agwaan Khaidav and his contemporary, Agwaan Ishtüvden Ravjamba. Both of these Buddhist scholars of Ikh Khüree wrote long hagiographies of Zanabazar and of the Fourth Jebtsundampa, yet also dedicated separate texts with hagiographies of all the Jebtsundampas as a continuous lineage of Ikh Khüree and of all Mongols. On many occasions, Agwaan Khaidav likened the Jebtsundampa lineage to mālas, or prayer beads; Ravjamba compiled a hagiography of five Jebtsundampas in 1839, following the precedent of Agwaan Khaidav two years prior. In their texts they provided a replacement of the Altan urag ancestry line provided by Zaya Paṇḍita Luvsanprinlei in his hagiography of Zanabazar with the Jebtsundampa’s own lineage tree, indicating its centuries-old age and transnational authority, beginning in ancient India with Paṇḍita Barwa’i Tsowo and mahasiddha Kṛṣṇācārya, continuing with the Jonang and Géluk schools in Tibet, and arriving in Khalkha Mongolia’s Borjigid family of imperial pedigree. The Jebtsundampa portraits corroborate textual hagiographies. The eighteenth-century portrait of the Second Jebtsundampa (see fig. 1.2) is the first to initiate the visual pedigree of the Jebtsundampas as a tightly knit group of Mongol rulers. All the reincarnations in the other portrait (figs. 4.8 and 4.10), are carefully inscribed, and the Jebtsundampa presides in the center as a youthful Géluk lama with his Vajrayāna attributes in his hand. The system of reincarnations was “to provide with a metaphysical lineage devoid of patrimonial connections,” and the Jebtsundampa, as this portrait and the textual hagiographies demonstrate, was not a Mongol, after all.48 In addition to these particular textual and pictorial sources, several sets of the entire Jebtsundampa lineage were made in Ikh Khüree, establishing a visual lineage history. The first extant set contains nineteen magnificent thangkas made in appliqué and embroidered (fig. 4.13). This set was made, as the imagery suggests, during the Fourth Jebtsundampa’s time, as he and Zanabazar are the only Jebtsundampas included. At the center of the set is Amoghasiddhi Buddha; he resides in the north, and the Mongols often associate themselves with this Buddha among the Five Tathāgatas. Next to him, in the center, we see Kṛṣṇācārya. The fifteen reincarnations appear in equal numbers of eight on each side of the central group. Each reincarnate is colorfully depicted together with his root guru, who appears above his head; both are identified with their Tibetan inscriptions.

129

130

CHAPTER FOUR

4.13. Three examples from the Jebtsundampa incarnation lineage set of appliqué paintings. approx.

69 × 49 cm, early 19th c. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

Another set comprises sixteen smaller paintings (fig. 4.14). Here, four images of Jebtsundampas appear in the center with a frontal depiction, accompanied by eight reincarnations on the left and three portraits on the right. This set does not have any inscriptions, and the portraits show a variety of accompanying deities that, in the course of the Jebtsundampas’ histories, became associated with each of them. This set thus suggests a late date and a truly established genealogy with all the attributes abundantly present. All these sets follow Tibetan Dalai and Panchen Lamas’ sets established by the Seventh Dalai Lama (bskal bzang rgya mtsho, 1708–1757),49 and all were made in truly unifying Qing style, mimicking the intentional internationalism of Khubilai Khaan’s Yuan court, all to convey the unquestionable togetherness of these political entities within the Qing Buddhist government. Ikh Khüree as Mongolia’s Art Center Portraits of the Jebtsundampas were instrumental in elevating the status and the fame of Ikh Khüree among the many hundreds of temples and over a thousand monasteries in Khalkha Mongolia. However, they were only a part of an incredible number of arts produced in Ikh Khüree by some of the most able artists of Mongolia who were brought into this site. A great many paintings ranging in size and media from monumental to small, from cotton to prints, along with appliqué and embroidered thangka images, were made in Ikh Khüree. Although many were destroyed, many others have survived to the present day. The surviving

4.14. Four examples from another set of the Jebtsundampa lineage paintings. approx. 59 × 49 cm,

19th c. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

132

CHAPTER FOUR

4.15. Akṣobhya.

Woodblock print on silk, 41 × 30 cm, ca. 1830. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

paintings testify to the exquisite quality of Mongolian Buddhist art in Ikh Khüree and the generous investment of time, labor, and other resources into the artworks, many of which are today considered masterpieces of Mongolian art. According to Tsultem, there were workshops akin to modern schools at Tsogchin, devoted to the learning of painting, carving, sculpting, the writing of lanza (Skt. Rañjanā) and soyombo (Skt. Svayaṃbhū) scripts, and Mongolian

JEBTSUNDAMPA PORTRAITURE

calligraphy, and these were supervised by Jebtsundampa’s Shanzodva and Ikh Khüree’s head abbot khambo lama.50 There, the monks were regulated based on aimag affiliations and, according to certain schedules, called to study specific skills with a designated master. Some archival documents mention the number of students to be recruited for each workshop, how many were in the process, and how many of them were making steady progress. The hagiographies of some Jebtsundampas and the writings of Ikh Khüree’s abbot Agwaan Khaidav provide more information about paintings in Ikh Khüree, along with many names of artists and titles of artworks. Agwaan Khaidav’s dedicated text on religious constructions and the commissioning of artworks in Ikh Khüree includes images of Avalokiteśvara and sculptures of Three Buddha Families (Tib. rigs gsum mgon po), made in the Year of the Wooden Tiger (1794), into which four kinds of relics known as rinsel (Tib. ring bsrel) were placed and sealed inside with one hundred dhāraṇī recitations. This set was placed next to Avalokiteśvara and the Temple of Rigsumgombo.51 In the Year of the Wooden Ox (1805), the Fourth Jebtsundampa visited Tibet and, among images that were brought back and made in Ikh Khüree, Agwaan Khaidav highlights images of Tsongkhapa with his famous retinue of eight disciples. One such image was made for the main temple at the newly organized Dondovlin aimag in Ikh Khüree.52 Prints, paintings, and sculptures of Thirty-Five Buddhas were also made in abundance, one of which, a sculptural set, was planned to be made during 1821, the year of the Daoguang Emperor’s ascension to the throne. As Agwaan Khaidav states, 1,274 lan (Ch. liang 兩; taels) of silver was paid for importing materials from the “south.” Among the printed images distributed in Ikh Khüree, the author mentions the following: • • • • • • • • • • • •

Akṣobhya (fig. 4.15)—50,000 prints Tsongkhapa—1668 Uṣṇīṣasitātapatrā—50 Uṣṇīṣavijayā—820 Tārā—60 White Mañjuśrī—618 Maitreya—1244 stūpas—618 Buddha Śākyamuni—18 Bhaiṣajyaguru—20 the Fourth Panchen Lama—120 Amitāyus—13

• Amitābha—120 53

This sample of a registry seems to represent a certain type of production for a period of time and gives us some understanding of the art production in Ikh Khüree.

133

134

CHAPTER FOUR

4.16. Jügder, Jügdernamjil (Three Deities of Longevity, Tib. tshe lha rnam gsum). Colors on cotton,

168 × 125 cm, late 19th c. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

The hagiographies of the Fourth Jebtsundampa and the Fifth Jebtsundampa highlight many special commissions of paintings made in Ikh Khüree during their time. Monk artists, including chant master umzad (Tib. dbu mdzad) Luvsandash, Agwaan-Ish, Luvsandorj, Tsultem, Choidor, Sodnomsharav, and Puntsagdorj, produced a set of paintings of dharmapāla protector deities in 1811, which are now placed in the Gandan Monastery and in the Zanabazar Museum of Fine Arts.54 Ikh Khüree’s famed artist, Jügder from Zoogai aimag, who is known to have created a set of three longevity deities—Uṣṇīṣasitātapatrā, White Tārā, and Amitāyus—known as Jügdernamjil (fig. 4.16), which exhibit the influence of Zanabazar in creating a distinct Mongolian-style thangka. This artist was privileged by the Bogd Gegeen in the second year of his theocratic government to map out his realm of Ikh Khüree (see more discussion on this in the next chapter). Jügder was from Gongor Daichin khoshuu (banner) of Setsen Khan province (modern-day Batnorov soum of Khentii aimag). In addition to these paintings, another thangka of Jamsran at Bogd Khan Palace is also attributed to Jügder. His fame was so widespread that he spent the last years of his life working on commissions in Tibet, where he died. As mentioned, artists in Ikh Khüree were known and recorded by their affiliations with their respective regional houses, or aimags. Besides Jügder of Zoogai aimag, other artists’ names are also found, such as Gendendamba umzad of Zoogai; Choijijantsan tsorj (Tib. chos rje) and Baldangombo umzad of Choin­ khorlon aimag; master of tsam ceremony (Tib. ’cham dpon) Puntsag-Osor of Erkhem toin aimag; agramba (Tib. sngags rams pa) Minjuur of Wangain aimag; Tsend of Toisumlin; Balduugin Sharav (1869–1939) of Bizya; Magwani Danjin

JEBTSUNDAMPA PORTRAITURE

4.17. Danjin, Damdin Yansan. Colors on cotton.

153 × 108 cm, 19th c. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

4.18. Gendendamba, Jamsran (Begze). Colors

on cotton, 153 × 108 cm, late 19th c. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

(1861–1942) of Sangai aimag; and Dorj of Choinkhor. Some works by these artists are known, such as a red thangka of Damdin Yansan by Danjin (fig. 4.17). A painting of Jamsran (also Begze), commonly known among Mongols as “Red Protector” (“Ulaan sakhius”), was the work of Gendendamba, who was a famed artist of his day, being awarded a long hatband (M. büch) for his service (fig. 4.18).55 The abovementioned artist Tsend of Toisumlin aimag, who was originally from Daichin beisiin khoshuu of Tüsheet province (modern-day Delgertsogt soum of Dundgov), is known to have composed and made the monumental drawing of Vajrapāṇi, which measures 12 × 16 m (fig. 4.19). Damdinsüren recalls that the artist set up a working space for this colossal image at the bank of the river (likely Tuul River), where he placed the thangka cotton on top of stretched felt mats and drew the lines of the deity with a long stick to which he had attached a piece of coal.56 Based on his drawing, a team of artists that included Tavkhai Bor, Danjin, Baldangombo, and Khasgombo, completed the appliqué using rolls of silk and brocade. This Vajrapāṇi thangka was regularly unfolded and shown at the Khüree Tsam ritual, as Damdinsüren shows in his later painting of Ikh Khüree (see chapter 6, fig. 6.12).

135

JEBTSUNDAMPA PORTRAITURE

Dorj of Choinkhorin aimag was an acclaimed artist in the early twentieth century. Even though he was disabled, with deformed arms and fingers, he was still active and painted on thangka cotton, placing it on his lap or hanging it above him on stretchers. Among his disciples was Navaandendev, who became Damdinsüren’s first teacher. The Bogd Khan liked to test the artists in his own way. He requested Dorj to paint a thousand elephants on a small surface of one tsün (about 3 cm in diameter), to which Dorj responded by painting two elephants on one tsün. A closer look revealed that each elephant was constructed of five hundred lines superimposed, thus adding up to one thousand elephant bodies. On another occasion, the Bogd Gegeen asked him to paint a tsogshin (an assembly of lamas in the shape of a tree, Tib. tshogs zhing) on five tsün. On a piece of paper just 1.5 centimeters square, Dorj painted dots that corresponded in number and composition with a typical assembly. The Jebtsundampa was greatly satisfied and agreed to provide him with food and supplies until the end of the artist’s days.57 Ikh Khüree deputy abbot (M. ded khambo) Lechin commissioned Dorj and Sodnomdarjaa of Duinkhor aimag to complete the massive three-dimensional Kālacakra maṇḍala in 1914 that is still preserved to this day in the Fine Arts Museum in Ulaanbaatar.58 Akin to Dorj, Sharav of Bizya aimag was another popular artist at the turn of the twentieth century. Unlike Dorj and others, however, more images are attributed to Sharav; his nickname was “Funny (M. Marzan),” and he is known to have participated in several important commissions of the Bogd Gegeen during the early decades of the twentieth century. The masterpiece of Mongolian art titled One Day in Mongolia is a surviving painting of his initial set of two paintings known as Daily Events.59 This set depicted the Mongolian countryside with many humorous and witty, sometimes disturbing, details, as it captures events and human activities and depicts them without any sense of privacy. As I have argued elsewhere, the paintings maintained Buddhist ideas, which were implicitly woven into the composition and evident in the sequence of the connections between the scenes. Very much like Dorj, here we again encounter evidence that the Bogd Gegeen and Sharav first developed mutual trust through the ruler’s testing of Sharav’s talent. As the legend goes, the Bogd Gegeen asked Sharav to paint a thousand elephants on a töö-sized60 square paper, recalling an earlier tale in which the Kangxi Emperor tested the virtuosity of Zanabazar in a similar manner.61 Sharav is said to have painted eight hundred elephants, which satisfied and pleased the Bogd Gegeen, bonding them in a way that would be sustained through many more artistic projects. Several portraits of the Bogd Gegeen and his consort (as we shall see in chapter 6 have also been attributed to Sharav). The Bogd Gegeen also recognized the exceptional talent of Tavkhai Bor. Tavkhai Bor of Amduunarin aimag was a man of exceptional talent and skills: he was a sculptor, painter, and appliqué master. The Bogd Gegeen sent him to Amar­ bayasgalant, where Zanabazar was buried, to take a copy from the shrine and make a life-size sculptural portrait of Zanabazar. The sculpture was then kept in a designated space at the White Temple on the banks of the Tuul River and was

137

4.19. Opposite page,

Tsend, Vajrapāṇi. Appliqué thangka, 1450 × 120 cm, early 20th c. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

138

CHAPTER FOUR

4.20. Khasgombo, Thirty-Five Buddhas of Confession. Part of the appliqué thangka in Bat-Tsagaan

Tsogchin Assembly Hall in Ikh Khüree, 195 × 250 cm, late 19th c. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

worshipped and maintained as a special image: the monks covered it with robes and a hat and changed the clothes from time to time.62 Tavkhai Bor was from Önjüül soum, in Töv province. He participated in many appliqué art projects, and also is known to have completed a life-size sculpture of the Bogd Gegeen’s spouse, Ekh Dagin Dondogdulam, upon her death in 1923. The sculpture was placed in Tsogchin Temple in a special case. Khasgombo gavj of Zoogai aimag was another versatile artist, particularly skilled in appliqué thangkas. He is mentioned in relation to many projects completed during the Bogd Gegeen’s time, among which a set of two very long appliqué paintings made for Tsogchin Assembly Hall is a special case.63 This set, from 1914, was a rich production involving many male and female artists of the time, and was collectively supervised by head artists Erdene umzad Chimed, Khasgombo’s teacher Gendendamba (whom I mentioned earlier), Jügder, and Khasgombo. Khasgombo, the mastermind of the production, also contributed to the painting set’s financing. Currently, only one quarter of one of the paintings survives in the Fine Arts Museum (fig. 4.20). As each monastery maintained large workshops for making images, ritual objects, monastic robes, and regalia for its temples, Ikh Khüree artists played a leading role in establishing standards for Buddhist artworks; consequently, the paintings produced in Ikh Khüree are distinguished by their high quality, impressive monumental dimensions, and the lavish use of precious materials. The Agency of Art and the Ritual of Circumambulation: Praise for the Authenticity of Ikh Khüree The many works of art that were produced in Ikh Khüree, and its main resident, the Jebtsundampa, were the reason the site was the major center for the Mongols to worship. According to Agwaan Khaidav, the Mongol pilgrims now had to go to

JEBTSUNDAMPA PORTRAITURE

Ikh Khüree to worship. There, they would circumambulate the sets of Jebtsundampa portraits that established and standardized the new genealogy of the Jebtsundampa rulers of Khalkha and that followed similar efforts of the Seventh Dalai Lama with his sets of Dalai and Panchen Lamas. Agwaan Khaidav writes (italics mine), Newly built statues numerous in numbers, rare objects blessed by generations of skyabs mgon [Jebtsundampas], filled these regions. If one believes that wisdom is simultaneously present, then it is filled with only blessed objects, and in this Ri bo Dge Rgyas Dga’ Ldan bshad Sdrub gLing, the mālas of generations of skyabs mgon rje btsun dam pa have lived and blessed this place, and also blessed by resident and guest [lamas] from everywhere. The monks abide in the pure practice of these grounds and maintain the three vows: study, reflect and meditate on the victorious teachings all the time. Therefore they become the sacred object of merit of all beings, including gods. If one makes offerings, circumambulations, and prostrations accordingly, one will get benefits.64

Here, as Agwaan Khaidav makes clear, two things are central in distinguishing Ikh Khüree as a special site: the continuous presence of generations (“mālas” or prayer beads) of Holy (Tib. skyabs mgon) Jebtsundampas, and the large quantity of objects made in Ikh Khüree that have adorned it since its early days. Zanabazar’s deeds were successfully continued by his succeeding Jebtsundampas: Due to the various activities of the Skyabs mgons [Jebtsundampas] from generations to generations, the teachings of Dharma, learning, monastic disciplines, and objects of Dharma were able to increase. Especially the activities due to the Fourth Skyabs mgon, the Vajradhāra, many of the three dharma objects (texts, monasteries, monks) increased in Khüree.65

Recalling the Lotus Sūtra, Agwaan Khaidav recounts how any engagement and interaction with an image, if it is a sacred object of the Three Jewels, will bring benefits of liberation and enlightenment because “the qualities of the Three Jewels are inconceivable without the supreme sacred objects.” The objects and images, then, make Ikh Khüree a distinct and preeminent place, and Agwaan Khaidav appeals for the circumambulation of Ikh Khüree as a required activity for everyone. It is through circumambulation that the power of the objects—and the deities residing within these images—is activated to bring benefits and merits for enlightenment. He writes, If one circumambulates objects of the Three Jewels, whether that be of fame or not, one will get benefits by doing so, as the Seventh Dalai Lama says: “To images that are either painted, or molded . . . , any broken

139

140

CHAPTER FOUR

pieces of tsha tsha or stūpa, or to a piece of cloth, even one that is not from pure ethical behavior, if one circumambulates, offers and prostrates with the body, and praises with speech, respects with mind, one will get benefits in accordance to the sūtras.” 66

In elaborating on the offerings, Agwaan Khaidav cites the “Commentary on the Ornament to the Mahāyāna Sūtras,” by Sāramati (Skt. Mahāyānasūtrā­ laṃkāra; Tib. mdo sde rgyan gyi ’grel bshad), one of Maitreya’s Five Texts,67 to explain that they consist of two kinds: the offering of wealth, or pleasing, and praising, which includes the offering of practices. While offering Dharma robes and alms bowls would satisfy the requirement of offerings of pleasing, circumambulation and dhāraṇī recitation would satisfy the requirement of praising. And circumambulation is the highest means of gaining merits, Agwaan Khaidav tells us, this time citing Atīśa.68 Therefore, similarly, the outer throne of the Victorious Vajradhāra, the principal statue in Khüree, measures in four arm lengths, and the outer circumference of tsha gang Khüree [Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall] has 176 arm lengths, so if one circumambulates tsha gang Khüree 2,175 times, it is then equivalent to circumambulating the throne of Vajradhāra over a 100,000 times. And the medium circumambulation is 520 arm lengths; if one circumambulates 770 times, it will be equivalent to over 100,000. The outer circumference of Maitreya is about 200,870 arm lengths; if one circumambulates 140 times, one will reach the standard accumulation counts.69

The accumulation of one hundred thousand circumambulations on one occasion, Agwaan Khaidav calculates, would take a full twenty-four hours, which, in Ikh Khüree, “has not been seen.” He thus mentions Lhasa as a model on which to organize the circumambulations, centering around the innermost, inner, and outer paths. In Ikh Khüree, Agwaan Khaidav suggests: Here (in Khüree) if one circumambulates the middle circle of the tsha gang Khüree, thinking that the inner circle of the principal statue is already included and satisfied by doing circumambulations around the middle circle, it is not so because in the twenty-six residences of generations of high lamas [aimags] in Khüree, there were many rare and precious Dharma objects from Tibet and India, and they are found inside the newly built ones and also inside the monks’ residences. There are countless Dharma objects, so when one circumambulates along the outermost path to include the monastic residences, this will generate an abundant excellence of merits. So if one has good health, make the effort to circumambulate the outer circle.70

JEBTSUNDAMPA PORTRAITURE

The text further elaborates on the innumerable benefits of the circumambulation rite: it can cure diseases, increase intelligence and wealth, and allow one to experience pleasure, happiness, rebirth, and a healthy pregnancy and delivery. Through circumambulation, one can attain the body of Tathāgata and, as the Seventh Dalai Lama said, “Even if one circumambulates one time around either a stūpa or a statue which possesses the essence of profound mantras, he will be liberated from the lower realms and will be certain to attain enlightenment.” 71 In several folios, as part of his devoted focus on the benefits of circumambulating stūpas, Agwaan Khaidav continues to substantiate his claims with direct quotes and citations from Mahāyāna root texts, such as the Heart Sūtra, King Prasenajit Sūtra, Circumambulation of Stūpas Sūtra, and Madhyamakāvatāra, and from Tantric texts, such as the Compilation of the Glorious Heruka Tantra, in addition to quotes from Buddha Śākyamuni, Kadampa, and Géluk teachers. He also notes on several occasions that the circumambulation of stūpas is equal to circumambulation of sacred statues.72 Agwaan Khaidav’s own teacher was the Fourth Jebtsundampa, who passed away while Agwaan Khaidav was still young, and his main accomplishments— such as building the Maitreya Temple and Maitreya statue—took place during the time of the Fifth Jebtsundampa. Agwaan Khaidav lists the images that were built by his teacher in Ikh Khüree, which included statues of Tsongkhapa modeled— according to him—after Lhasa images: Vajrapāṇi, Marici, and the protectors of the Three Tathāgatas in the Temple of Three Buddha Families. He writes that “the vajra palace of the skyabs mgon’s [Jebtsundampa’s] residence was filled with amazing statues of Kālacakra which is like combining all the beauties of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, and others, including statues of Buddha Śākyamuni and sixteen arhats.” 73 While referring to the Géluk teachers and the Tibetan sources to justify the importance of this Mongol monastery, Agwaan Khaidav goes back in time to Zanabazar as he talks about the “authenticity” of Ikh Khüree. Agwaan Khaidav describes Zanabazar as “Lord of Maṇḍala,” who embodies the essence of all the Buddhas and is the source of all blessings. Zanabazar, akin to a wealth deity Jambhala, “buil[t] three Dharma objects [who] opened the doors of Dharma that common people could not have conceived.” Thus he writes, In addition, most importantly, he gave Khüree Dharma objects of Tsong ka pa, Father and Son, and countless special Indian and Tibetan bronze statues. . . . So in large and small temples in Khüree, especially in the tent-temples of Tsha gang Khüree [Bat-tsagaan Assembly Hall], each one fully filled with inexpressible numbers. For the faith of offerings, circumambulating, and prostrating, I shall explain briefly. Inside the big tent-temple mentioned earlier, the bronze statue of Victorious Maitreya, the victorious Vajradhāra, was built based on the Indian bronze statue by the previous lord blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan [Zanabazar], and the

141

142

CHAPTER FOUR

Five Families Buddhas and eight stūpas were built based on eastern- and western Indian bronze statues, new and old. Many statues of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, three objects of dharma, big and small, countless in numbers—those are blessed by generations of skyabs mgons, again and again, so they are very sacred, sitting inside [the tent-temple].74

Agwaan Khaidav lists sculptures built by Zanabazar, which Agwaan Khaidav claims have an “authenticity that steals your mind once seen” 75: Five Buddha Families, eight stūpas, and Maitreya. He also states that “under his directives Twenty-One amazing Tārā statues like dakinis lining up, the statues of eight Medicine Buddhas and so forth, and many blessed objects were built, sitting inside the Tārā Temple.” 76 It is the presence of these “many statues and thousands of blessed objects” that, according to Agwaan Khaidav, make Ikh Khüree a special place: the images are an essential part of three Dharma objects (M. gurvan shüteen; Cl. M. ġurban sütegen) representing body, speech, and mind—statues (body), stūpa (mind), and texts (speech)—and of the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, and Saṃgha). This essential concept was also at the core of other rituals of Ikh Khüree, rituals that continued to maintain and enhance Ikh Khüree’s high status and its sacred identity.

Chapter Five

Ikh Khüree A Qing-Géluk City for the Khalkha Mongols

Zanabazar established several monasteries, and a textual source from 1841 specifies that Ikh Khüree, the main seat of the Jebtsundampa Khutugtus, was the outcome of the development of Zanabazar’s private Örgöö first erected in 1639. During the Qing period, however, some smaller portable monasteries also existed, as attested by at least two sites in Amdo: a portable Ürge (Örgöö) Datsan within Labrang Monastery and Namgyeling (rnam rgyal gling), a tent-monastery, established by Lamo Lodro Gyatso (la mo blo gros rgya mtsho), a reincarnation of Channga Tsultrim Bar (spyan snga tshul khrims ’bar).1 These and other sites testify to the fact that Ikh Khüree was not the only Buddhist site formed from portable nomadic architecture, yet it was the biggest and politically most important. A high-ranking Mongolian official (M. tuslagch), Galdan Tuslagch (active 1835–1855) of Tüsheet Khan Wangiin banner (M. khoshuu), who wrote his chronicle of historical events in Erdeni-yin erike (Jewel Rosary), mentions the following specific details: In the second year of Deed Erdemt (Hongtaiji, r. 1636–1644) of Red Rat Year (1636), Khalkha’s Tüsheet Khan Gombodorj, Setsen Khan Sholoi, Zasagt Khan Subudai pledged their goodwill allegiance to [Manchu] Taizong (太宗 1592–1643). At the age of four (1638), Jebtsundampa’s hair was cut, and [he] received genen samvaar (upāsaka) from Jambal Jimba Nomon Khan. At the age of five (1639) in the year of Female Earth Hare, Vanshin bürülgü (Tib. dben sa sprul sku) granted rabjun vows (Skt. pravrajyā). The same year, all Khalkhas gathered in Khalkha’s Shireet Tsagaan Lake and showed him a worship by enthronement and by granting him with the title “Gegeen,” and by [erecting him] an encampment (M. khot) made of yellow textile.2

143

144

CHAPTER FIVE

In Zanabazar’s biography by Luvsanprinlei this information is missing, yet Luvsanprinlei tells us that in 1651 Zanabazar returned to his khüree with a number of Tibetan teachers and administrative staff. In this year, according to Galdan Tuslagch, Zanabazar built his Nomin Ikh Khüree (Dharma seat Ikh Khüree) with seven datsans (colleges/monasteries), replicating Drepung’s model by Jamyang Chöje.3 In other words, the encampment was described and associated with the Géluk sites in much the same way as Zanabazar’s identity was recorded in his hagiographies. The next milestone in the development of Ikh Khüree is the year 1654, which all sources mention. Luvsanprinlei states that Zanabazar began building his khiid Ribogejai-Gandan-Shaddubling “in the place called Kentei Khan.” While assembly halls were erected at the early sites of the Tüsheet Khan family (i.e., Baruun Khüree, Züün Khüree at Kherlen, Saridag khiid) following the design of Zanabazar’s tent-based Bat-Tsagaan “Firmly White” temple (see fig. 1.16), now the texts record them as Ribogejai-Gandan-Shaddubling. The title Ribogejai-Gandan-Shaddubling, which Bareja-Starzyńska states “is connected to Ribo Gandenpa, the name of the Ganden monastery and an early name of the Gélukpa order,” 4 appears to be fluid and easily transferrable to other sites associated with Zanabazar’s early years. Luvsanprinlei’s term khiid denotes a sedentary type of a monastery, and ongoing excavations at Saridag have proved the site to be a retreat Dharma seat. A nineteenth-century Mongolian text with information about Khüree and Jebtsundampas, titled Boġda jibjundamba-yin angqan-u törül-ün ner-e orosibai, states the same information and notes 1654 as the year Ribogejai-Gandan-Shaddubling Ikh Khüree was established, stating: “In the 11th Year of Shunzhi Emperor of Blue Horse Year (1654), His Holiness Bogd Jebtsundampa established RibogejaiGandan-­Shaddubling Nomin (Dharma) Ikh Khüree to enhance Géluk teachings for prosperity.” 5 This view can be found in many texts, and is expressed clearly in Ikh Khüree Monastery’s jayig (Tib. bca’ yig), or Internal Regulations of Religion and of Gandan Khüree at the City of Ulaanbaatar (hereafter Regulations) dated 1925, which is one of the few jayig, the monastic constitution of Ikh Khüree, that have been found.6 Early twentieth-century scholar and writer Agwaan Tsültemjamts also clearly identifies Zanabazar’s Ribogejai-Gandan-Shaddubling as Ikh Khüree, established in 1654.7 Likewise, this information is reiterated in Zawa Damdin in his famous Altan Debter, or Golden Book, a chronicle of Mongolian history and Buddhism.8 It is only after Zanabazar’s lifetime, in Agwaan Khaidav’s early nineteenth-­ century writings, that Zanabazar’s Ribogejai-Gandan-Shaddubling khiid is first identified with the term Ikh Khüree, or Great Encampment. Consider the terms used in Agwaan Khaidav’s works, such as The Mirror of Treasures in Purifying the Substance of Faith, the Maitreya Statue Built in Ikh Khüree (Tib. khu re chen mo), and The Standard Accumulation for Circumambulation of Ri bo Dge Rgyas

IKH KHÜREE

Dga’ Ldan bshad Sdrub gLing (circa 1830): the two names—­Ribogejai-GandanShaddubling and Ikh Khüree—are used as two names for the same site, derived from Zanabazar’s Örgöö and continued as Jebtsundampa’s main seat throughout its history.9 Following Agwaan Khaidav, in 1839, Agwaan Ishtüvden Ravjampa explicitly states that at Erdene Tolgoi, newer ger-temples were added to Zanabazar’s site, and it thrived thereafter as Ikh Khüree.10 Tibetan Géluk and Qing Transformations in Ikh Khüree The Yellow Palace: Imperial Symbol of Power

Unlike these Qing-era sources, architectural constructions that were built during Zanabazar’s early years—such as the Yellow Palace, Bat-Tsagaan, (the “Firmly White” Assembly Hall), and Abatai Khan’s khorig—indicate Zanabazar’s reliance on the imperial tradition of kingship to corroborate a vision of him as a Khalkha ruler (as we discussed in earlier chapters). During the era of his successors, the Jebtsundampa’s Yellow Palace became the center of Ikh Khüree as well as the political and spiritual heart of the Mongols. Two Mongolian maps of Ikh Khüree, one made by Balgan in the late nineteenth century (fig. 5.1) and the other by Jügder in 1912–1913 (fig. 5.2), provide visual records of the monastery’s architectural organization. Both maps show Ikh Khüree located in a mountainous landscape with the Selbe River crossing the site and the Tuul River flowing to the south. By the time these maps were drawn, Ikh Khüree consisted of two distinct encampment circles, which these maps inscribe as “Ribo,” an abbreviation of Ribogejai-Gandan-­ Shaddubling, and “Gandan.” Pozdneev, who traveled in Mongolia in 1878 and 1893 and describes the site in great detail in two books, writes that Ikh Khüree consists of three parts: Urga (Khüree), Gandan, and the Traders’ Town (Maimaicheng).11 None of these accounts—the texts and the two maps—uses the common appellation of two circles as Züün (Eastern) and Baruun (Western) Khüree, which appear in the twentieth-century historical accounts of the site (i.e., Dügersüren 1956 and Pürevjav 1961). These appellations of Ikh Khüree’s parts—Züün (Eastern) Khüree, marked by the bigger circle with the Yellow Palace, the Hill of Consulates that identifies the area with the Russian Consulate (M. “Konsulin denj”), etc.—seem to have become popularized in the early twentieth century.12 Following these historians of Ikh Khüree, I will use the term Züün Khüree to refer to the large encampment with the Yellow Palace, which on Jügder’s map is marked as “ordu” (“palace”) and on Balgan’s map it is inscribed as “Ribo.” To reiterate, during the Jebtsundampas’ rule, this part of the monastery was known as Ribogejai-Gandan-Shaddubling, or Bogd’s Khüree (M. Bogdin Khüree), whereas Züün Khüree was the name of the Tüsheet Khan’s monastery at Kherlen River (see fig. 1.11). The two maps by Balgan and Jügder show the important elements in Ikh Khüree and emphasize Züün Khüree in great detail. The central encampment is

145

5.1. Balgan, Ikh Khüree. Colors on cotton, 1890s. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

shown on both maps within the large circle of Züün Khüree, surrounded by a yellow fence. Its two appellations, Ribo and Ordu, refer to the two identities of both the Jebtsundampas and their monastery, where the religious and the secular, the two conceptualizations of power, were united (fig. 5.3). Both maps also clearly show the central Yellow Palace and distinguish it visually from its surroundings. The Yellow Palace, based on the Chinggisid idea of an imperial court, was also embraced by the Qing emperors and used for their meetings with the Mongol dignitaries. As we have seen, Zanabazar’s early years were pivotal for the rise of Géluk power in ruling Tibet as well as its outreach.

5.2. Jügder, Capital

Ikh Khüree. 50 × 96 cm, 1912–1913. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

5.3. The Yellow Palace. Detail

of Jügder, Capital Ikh Khüree. 50 × 96 cm, 1912–1913. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

148

CHAPTER FIVE

Moreover, the year of Zanabazar’s birth, 1635, was historically significant for the Qing as well. It was in 1635 that Nurqaci’s (1559–1626) successor Hongtaiji (1592–1643) adopted the name “Manchu” and identified his people’s origins with the Mongols. Affiliating with the Mongols became an enduring imperial endeavor.13 As part of the Manchu adoption of Mongol material culture and ruling practices, Qing emperors began using tents and ger encampments, as well as travel palaces (行宮 xinggong) with a central yellow nucleus in the palaces that traveled between Chengde and Beijing.14 As part of his dealings with northern neighbors and his northern defense strategies, in 1681 the Kangxi Emperor built the Mulan hunting preserve on lands he had received from his Mongol allies north of Beijing near the Yuan summer capital Shangdu 上都 in Chengde. It was here that Manchu troops held their military exercises in addition to regular imperial hunting outings, and that the emperor met with Mongol dignitaries. So when Luvsanprinlei writes about Zanabazar’s meetings with the Kangxi Emperor, they likely happened here in Chengde and later at the emperor’s Summer Mountain Resort (Bishu Shanzhuang 避暑山莊), which the Kangxi Emperor built after 1702.15 As Cary Liu notes, the emperor built twenty travel palaces (xinggong) “along the route from Beijing to the northern hunting grounds to serve as rest, meal, and overnight stops for the imperial entourage, which numbered over 30,000 even during the Kangxi period.” 16 The Kangxi Emperor lived in tents and yellow camps during his northern tours and divided his traveling palace into inner (neicheng) and outer (waicheng) cities with 75 and 254 tents in each, respectively. In 1703, the Kangxi Emperor designed the Garden of Ten Thousand Trees, or Wanshuyuan 萬樹園 , at his Summer Mountain Resort, located halfway to the Mulan hunting grounds, and ordered trees planted to create a wooded Mongolian landscape.17 Wanshuyuan was later expanded by the Qianlong Emperor, who made it an important imperial Mongol campsite with gers and yellow fences surrounding the imperial ceremonial ger. The Qianlong Emperor met with Mongol nobles at this campsite; Mongol games of wrestling, horse races, and military exercises took place west of the campsite. The Qianlong Emperor sent his Jesuit artist, Father Jean-Denis Attiret (Wang Zhicheng, 1702–1780), to sketch the landscape for a court painting that would capture an imperial banquet party held there on July 5, 1754 (fig. 5.4).18 Father Attiret—with Jesuit artists Giuseppe Castiglione (Lang Shining, 1688/89–1766) and Ignace Sickelpart (Qimeng, 1708–1780), who were assisted by Chinese artists—completed a silk hand-scroll depicting the Qianlong Emperor’s encampment demarcated by a fence of yellow silk. Here, the Mongol ethnic groups stand in silent anticipation, waiting to meet with the emperor in front of his gigantic ger.19 Such yellow encampments with Mongol gers were routinely set up for the Qianlong Emperor’s meetings with the Mongol ethnic groups, as other paintings also testify (fig. 5.5).20 A historian of the Qing dynasty, Michael Chang, sees these imperial encampments employed on the northern and southern tours as a “quintessential symbol of Qing power in Inner Asia.” 21

IKH KHÜREE

149

5.4. Jean-Denis

Attiret et al., Imperial Banquet at Wanshuyuan Garden. Courtesy of the Palace Museum, Beijing, PRC.

There is little wonder that the Qing emperors were consistent in using and staying in yellow encampments during their inspection tours and meetings with tributaries as part of their traveling palaces. The very concept of what Chang calls “court on horseback” was a Qing-era development, with the Kangxi and Qianlong Emperors traversing across cities, towns, mountains, rivers, and valleys for their inspection tours, or “Western campaigns,” for military conquests of Dzungar Mongols in the latter’s case. Chang sees Qing mobile courts—which consisted of members of the imperial clan, the Mongol nobility, and senior Manchu officials and which excluded Han Chinese officials—as “ethnic detachments” that served as symbols of the ethnic authority of Inner Asian military prowess.22 The Qing mobile courts, then, appropriated this ancient Mongol imperial symbol of emperorship, and this Qing imperial development demonstrates how Ikh Khüree’s Yellow Palace also became an inseparable part of the Qing imperial space. At the time when Lifanyuan 理蕃院, the “Ministry Ruling the Outer Provinces,” took control of Chinggisid cult rituals at Eight White Gers in Ordos, it was likely in the mutual interest of both the Khalkha khans and the Qing bureaucracy to shift the center of the Mongol imperial cult to the Jebtsundampa’s Yellow Palace.23 As Elverskog notes, ordu (palace) replaced the term ger in naming Eight

150

CHAPTER FIVE

5.5. Ding Guanpeng, Banquet Held in Honor of Military Officers at the Hall of Purple Brilliance

(Ziguang Ge) in Celebration of the Qing Conquest of Dzungharia and Altishar (Scene 16 of the Pingding Zhunbu Huibu Desheng Tu). The Palace Museum, Beijing, PRC.

White Tents in the Qing-era texts. A similar shift is visible here in Ikh Khüree, too, with the transformation of Örgöö into ordu. Yellow was also a color of imperial power for many Han Chinese dynasties in China, as commonly represented in portraits of Chinese emperors. Yet, the Ming dynasty’s imperial color was purple, manifested in the purple of the Forbidden City, and the Qing chose yellow as the symbol of imperial power; the Géluk school also chose yellow for their color of distinction and authority. For these various reasons, both Chinggisid and Qing-Géluk in origin, the Yellow Palace in Ikh Khüree was chosen for the architectural space of the new Khalkha reincarnate ruler, as Galdan Tuslagch notes. Among later writers, Zawa Damdin follows Galdan in reiterating this information and referring to the nucleus as the “Yellow Encampment” (Tib. bzhugs sgar) in his Altan Debter.24 In all these mobile courts of the Qing and Khalkha rulers, the color yellow, in addition to the ger-based circular encampment structure, represented the distinctive identity of “ruling authority.”

IKH KHÜREE

The Yellow Palace in Ikh Khüree was closed to the public and was inaccessible to foreign visitors. As Pozdneev observed in 1880, Tibetan monks, brought to Khüree by the Jebtsundampa, held rituals at the Dechingalbin Temple here within the compound and lived nearby in the Yellow Palace as “bodyguards” of the Jebtsundampa.25 Tsogchin Dugang (Tib. tshogs chen ’du khang ): The Great Assembly Hall

As we have seen, Zanabazar’s design of the assembly hall in Baruun Khüree was based on a large tent. According to textual sources, a similar assembly hall was also built at his Örgöö camp in 1706 after his Saridag Monastery in Khentii Khan Mountain was destroyed by Galdan Boshogtu in 1689.26 The Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall, according to these later authors, is named Tsogchin Dugang, a term that is used only in Géluk monastic institutions. Temples and monasteries built in Mongol lands prior to the rise of the Géluk used their own specific terms, which include Juu/Zuu, süm, or Baishing (literally: “building”)—exemplified, for instance, by such sites as Maidar Zuu, Erdene Zuu, and Tsagaan Baishing. In Tibet, smaller temples and monasteries, as well as their main temples, were called lhakhang (lha khang), or dukhang (’du khang), and large or more significant monasteries, such as Jokhang, were referred to as tsuglakhang (gtsug lag khang). Among these, the Tibetan word dukhang became widespread in Mongolia in its Mongolianized version, dugang, with the general meaning of “a temple.” With the rise of the Géluk school, monasteries in Tibet took on a new architectural form of very large monastic institutions densa (gdan sa), which were intentionally built as monumental settlements for their engrossing mission of power and authority. Scholars call them monastic seats, monastic universities, or monastic institutions, as they included a larger network of recruits from all over Tibet. The Géluk densa had a standard plan that included regional houses (khang tshan) consisting of monks organized into communities; Assembly Halls, now called “great assembly” or tsogchin (tshogs chen); smaller monasteries called datsan (grwa tshang); and specific temples and colleges, such as Maitreya, Medical and Astrological temples, and tantric colleges. Gandan, Sera, and Drepung, the three main Géluk monastic seats, were established by Tsongkhapa and his two disciples, Sakya Yeshe (byams chen chos rje shAkya ye shes, 1354– 1435) and Jamyang Chöje. Each of the Géluk institutions had a substantial population from diverse regions of the Tibetan Plateau organized into regional houses with complex hierarchies.27 As George Dreyfus notes, each school in Tibetan Buddhism has its central monastery “which upholds its traditions scholastically, politically, socially, and economically. Each central monastery is at the heart of an extended network of affiliated local monasteries.” 28 Assembly halls were built in Tibetan monasteries regardless of any sectarian affiliation. In Sakya Monastery, for instance, the great assembly hall is called Lkhakang Chenmo (Tib. lha khang chen mo). Tsogchin, or Great Assembly, is a term that appears only in Géluk

151

152

CHAPTER FIVE

monasteries and is associated with large monastic institutions. The aims and functions of Géluk monasteries were not only centered on Buddhist teachings and education about Dharma, but also manifested and supported the Géluk power and authority. When the Mongols translated these Tibetan architectural terms into their own monasteries, the terms were imported merely to suggest a conceptual shift, yet the Ikh Khüree architecture remained primarily Mongolian in its form. Architectural translations were intended to shape the site and its identity in Géluk ways by exporting Tibetan Géluk terms and structures outside of Tibet to create what Caffarelli called “international Gélukpa architecture.” 29 When modern scholars assume that Zanabazar’s Saridag Monastery included a “Tsogchin Dugang” in the Khan Khentii Mountains, I wonder if these writers exclude other possible architectural models and terms prevalent in Mongolian architecture and available to Zanabazar in 1654, such as the seventeenth-century Tsagaan Baishing (literally: “White Building”) of Tsogtu Hontaiji or Abatai Khan’s Erdene Zuu, both in Khalkha, or Sakya Shalu Monastery in Tibet, all of which Zanabazar had visited or spent time at. Or, is it the case that later writers and chroniclers renamed in Géluk terms temples that Zanabazar could initially have called something like süm, baishing, or Zuu? We do not have enough evidence to be certain, but I think it is worth keeping in mind that Zanabazar’s early sites were all Mongolian traditional architectures, both in name and in design, including the Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall (fig. 5.6; see also fig. 1.15). One wonders, then, what was specific in Zanabazar’s Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall to call it Tsogchin Dugang by his successors? The use of these Tibetan Géluk terms in late Mongol architecture and textual sources during the Qing period, and thus Caffarelli’s notion of “international Gélukpa architecture,” demonstrates a pattern of Géluk activities beyond Tibet. Ikh Khüree’s Tsogchin Dugang developed as a public-serving, public-­ gathering main Great Assembly Hall, as nineteenth-century traveler and scholar Pozdneev observed. He writes that the primary function of the Tsogchin was as the location for a mass daily ritual conducted by novices from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., and that the entire Ikh Khüree monastic population gathered there four times a year: at Lunar New Year; at Choinkhor Duitsen, (Tib. chos ’khor dus chen), when the entire Kanjur was read from the ninth to the twelfth day of the last summer month; at the Maitreya celebration, held during the third or fourth months; and during Jebtsundampa’s danshig (Tib. brtan bzhugs) ritual, intended to ensure his long life.30 Tsogchin Dugang in Ikh Khüree had an abbot (Tib. mkhan po) and an organized structure of clergy and religious activities that were central to its economy, functioning, and organization. Pozdneev mentions a document that lists a number of monks in each monastic community (aimag) being submitted to the Tsogchin abbot to ensure the appropriate amount of food, tea, and other daily supplies distributed from Tsogchin to all monks.31 In Ikh Khüree’s Regulations, the duties at the Tsogchin Dugang also included training, supervising, and keeping order and

IKH KHÜREE

153

5.6. Daajav, plan

of Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall. Source: Daajav, 2005.

discipline among the monks of all Ikh Khüree. The Tsogchin was also in charge of activities and discipline in all twelve datsans of Ikh Khüree.32 In recording Zanabazar’s history and deeds from the Géluk perspective, Luvsanprinlei mentions the names of the Tibetan teachers and staff, all appointed by the Dalai and Panchen Lamas from Géluk sites. These included a preceptor (Tib. slob dpon) of Namgyel College Ngawang Logzang Tenzin (ngag dbang blo bzang bstan ’dzin), known as Sharkhan Khutugtu, who became the first Khambo (abbot) of Tsogchin in 1654; Zanabazar’s treasurer (Tib. phyag mdzod; M. shanzodba) and chant master, from Drepung; the general manager umzad (M. coyinzad; Tib. chos mdzad); the household official (Tib. gsol dpon); a painter from Chenye; and a physician.33 In other words, Luvsanprinlei’s account once again perpetuates the crucial importance of Géluk outreach in Khalkha, as it suggests that the main center of the Khalkha monastery was essentially already run by Tibetans at the time of Zanabazar. In addition, this direct connection with the Géluk was maintained throughout the history of Ikh Khüree, joining Zanabazar’s name firmly with theirs, as attested by a remarkable ritual of tea consumption observed by Pozdneev. As he writes, the Tsogchin Dugang was adjoined by a smaller temple, where holy tea from the Tibetan Drepung Monastery was allegedly brought by Zanabazar, bequeathed by him to the Tsogchin monks to be drunk at all times. His will was satisfied, as Pozdneev reports, and this two-­hundred-year-old tea was “drunk daily” by the Tsogchin Lamas as of 1878 and 1893!34

154

CHAPTER FIVE

In these written official histories, all roads led to Tibet—to the Géluk—and to the Qing court, whereas oral histories, collective memories. Mongolian texts, architecture, and arts reveal other Mongol traditions that adhered to the Khalkhas’ own aspirations, now made inconspicuous underneath the Qing yellow umbrella. Datsans

Dreyfus explains that datsans are really not “colleges,” as the term is often translated in modern scholarship, but monasteries within a monastic seat. As Dreyfus and José Cabezón have made clear with the examples of the Tibetan monasteries Drepung and Sera, each datsan is a monastery in its own right, with its own assembly hall and ritual services.35 These datsans further divide the monastic population into regional administrative divisions, called khangtsen, or regional houses, which “are organized chiefly along geographical lines, and monks from different regions of the country usually enter the house that corresponded to their specific region.” 36 In Ikh Khüree, Zanabazar’s initial seven aimags were steadily augmented to thirty regional houses, which surrounded the central Yellow Palace in Züün Khüree. Thus, Drepung had four datsans and Sera had three, whereas Ganden had just two. When the Mongols appropriated the datsans, they were first constructed as aimags. As Galdan Tuslagch states, Zanabazar built seven aimags, mirroring the seven datsans at the Géluk monastery of Drepung that were established by Tsongkhapa’s famous disciple Jamyang Chöje.37 Zanabazar’s seven aimags were not datsan monasteries, but the start of what would later be expanded into regional houses reminiscent of Tibetan khangtsen in Géluk monasteries. Later, when datsans were built in Khüree, they took the form of temples for special rituals—they were not monasteries. The first datsans were built by the Second Jebtsundampa in 1739, a tantric datsan called Dechen Sanaglin (bde chen gsang sngags gling) was built, and a philosophical datsan called Dashchoimbel (bkra shis chos ’phel) was founded in 1756.38 The Dechingalbin (or Kālacakra) datsan, established in 1806,39 was one of the most prominent. The Dechingalbin datsan (fig. 5.7), a significant part of Züün Khüree, was an elegant architectural structure built for easy disassembly and reassembly whenever needed, as its base was founded on the concept of a tent. It initially consisted of two floors, with images and offerings on each one.40 The Dechingalbin Temple focused primarily on Kālacakra Tantra,41 until the Fourth Jebtsundampa Khutugtu (1775–1813) expanded its service into other Tantras. The Fourth Jebtsundampa, who introduced Kālacakra Tantra, also gilded the roof and the upper floor, and the gers of the Khutugtu were built next to the Dechingalbin datsan to the south. The initial building was destroyed by fire in 1892, after which the new building, a three-story temple, was built in the northwesternmost corner of the Yellow Palace. The new Dechingalbin datsan had a refined upper part consisting of two smaller floors. Pozdneev considered the upper “mezzanine” in the

IKH KHÜREE

5.7. Dechingalbin (Kālacakra) datsan. Courtesy of National Central Archives of Mongolia.

Dechingalbin datsan as tiered, rather than constituting two separate floors; yet Damdinsüren’s paintings, as well as the research of architectural historian B. Daajav, suggest that the temple most likely had three floors.42 Akin to the Bat-Tsagaan Temple, the ground floor of the Dechingalbin datsan was supported by pillars placed at the length of the ger wall unit and, Daajav notes, was able to contain over forty monks. The second floor of the temple was a library or a storage room for books and objects, while the third floor was a tower, the walls of which were wrapped in gilded sheets. The ground floor consisted of ger wall units, which were covered with felt during the winter and with cotton during the summer.43 A ganjir (Tib. mdzod ldan; M. sang tegülder) and jaltsan (Tib. rgyal mtshan), as well as

155

156

CHAPTER FIVE

the Victory Banner in the shape of a stūpa, both filled with prayers,44 topped the building, along with many small bells, which produced a continuous, gentle sound heard all over Ikh Khüree.45 According to Agwaan Khaidav, the Dechingalbin Temple was full of splendid artworks, as follows: In the Palace of Virtuous Blessed Kapala [Dechingalbin Temple], it was filled with statues of utmost beauty of Kālacakra blessed by the Prince Vajradhāra and so forth, and statues of previous Jnana vajra [Zanabazar], previous lama statues and Cakrasaṃvara, Guhyasamāja, Bhairava, and great Vairocana, and all the deities of Vairocana, nine deities of Amitāyus and so forth—those are no smaller than life-size. Then there is a Buddha Śākyamuni statue that was said to speak to the Princess Rinpoche, and the Medicine Buddha and so forth, and six-arms of wisdom Mahākāla and so forth, and oceans of Mahākāla statues; these statues would take away the glories of the city of Ling ga pu ri, and force the evil ones to turn humble. They adorn the tent-temple like bubbles on water. The mother of Buddha—many bka’ ‘gyur and bstan ‘gyur and so forth, were written in silver and gold and so forth, and ink and in prints. Many copies of the collection of works of previous teachers were like all collections of Dharma filled without gaps, which is based on the degrees of blessing by regions of India and Tibet in appropriate ordering.46

Behind the Bat-Tsagaan Tsogchin Temple stood a famous Maitreya datsan (fig. 5.8) containing a large Maitreya statue that was forty “elbows” (M. tokhoi) high. The Maitreya Temple was built by learned monk and Ikh Khüree abbot Agwaan Khaidav in 1820–1822 and consisted of two architectural elements: the upper part of the temple, which was a ger-like structure, and the bottom part, a tall, rectangular building with a Tibetan-style façade. Akin to Abatai Khan’s ger, twenty lamas, who did not belong to any aimags, were appointed by the Jebtsundampa Khutugtu to maintain the ritual services at the Maitreya Temple (more discussion of this to follow in chapter 6).47 Zanabazar’s first seven aimags were Zoogain, Amduugiin, Darkhan emchi, Örlöguudin (Örlüüd), Sangai, Jasin, and Khüükhen noyon, and as these names suggest, they were functional units (likely gers) made to oversee various services at the camp; their respective names indicate the nature and function of the aimag, disclosing each one’s relationship with the ruler.48 Thus, the Amduugiin aimag consisted of constituents from Amdo, the Sangai aimag oversaw the treasury and economy of the Khutugtu,49 the Zoogain aimag took care of the food supply of the camp,50 the Jasin aimag looked after the overall organization and the discipline around the Khutugtu, the Darkhan emchi51 aimag included the distinguished physician monks, the Khüükhen noyoni aimag consisted of the confidential aides-de-camp, and the Örlöguudin aimag comprised the family

IKH KHÜREE

5.8. Maitreya Temple,

19th c. Courtesy of National Central Archives of Mongolia.

members of Zanabazar’s wet nurse.52 These together seem to have formed Zanabazar’s encampment. They were later referred to as, and likened to, Géluk datsans in Drepung. By the middle of the eighteenth century, the number of aimags, temples, and residences in Ikh Khüree had risen enormously, as Russian travelers witnessed in the 1730s, mentioning several hundred gers in Örgöö. In 1772, there were twenty-three aimags in Örgöö.53 This number grew to twenty-eight by the late nineteenth century, and by the early twentieth century thirty aimags surrounded the Yellow Palace of the Khutugtu, with later aimags in Ikh Khüree following regional affiliations similar to Tibetan khangtsen, or private connections to specific individuals.54 The establishment of philosophical colleges tsanid (Tib. mtshan nyid) took place during several periods, according to Pozdneev. It began during the time of the Second Jebtsundampa, first taking place at Tsogchin Dugang at Khui Mandal from 1736 to 1740, and then for a short time at Erdene Zuu; later tsanid datsan study was established in Ikh Khüree in 1756.55 The Datsan of Medicine and Physicians (M. mamba datsan; Tib. sman pa grwa tshang) was built in 1760, and the Datsan of Astrology (M. zurkhai) was built in 1779. This broad expansion testifies to the fact that Ikh Khüree was gradually becoming the central city for educating lamas and ethnic Mongols in Khalkha and beyond. Also, more significantly, this set of datsans was present at Géluk monasteries elsewhere: in Tibet proper, at Beijing’s Yonghegong 雍和宫, at Labrang and Kumbum in Amdo, and at Ikh Khüree in Khalkha. Caffarelli’s “international Gélukpa style” was more than

157

158

CHAPTER FIVE

a matter of architectural style; Géluk monasteries developed a standardized plan inclusive of specific structures—tantric datsan, khangtsen, and temples of Maitreya, Medicine and Astrology—wherever they were built throughout Inner Asia. They belonged to, and formed altogether, one large chain of the Géluk political establishment. Gandan Monastery

The founder of the Géluk school, Tsongkhapa, built his monastery near Lhasa and named it Ganden (dga’ ldan), after the Future Buddha Maitreya’s Tuṣita Heaven. It is here, in this preeminent Géluk monastery, that Tsongkhapa’s ashes were placed in a stūpa and maintained as the teacher’s sacred presence. As the heart of Géluk-ruled unified Tibet, and a place that housed the relics of the sacred teacher, it was Ganden that became the main target of Chinese armies during the Cultural Revolution: it was completely destroyed and burned to ashes, while other great Géluk sites, such as Drepung, Sera, Potala Palace, and Tashilhunpo, were spared. This quintessential monastery of Tsongkhapa found its remote relative in Mongolian Ikh Khüree, where a new monastery was built to focus strictly on Buddhist teaching, rituals, and theology. After tsanid were established in Ikh Khüree, the study required strict discipline, and during the time of the Third Jebtsundampa (1758–1773) the monks of Khüree began petitioning to move tsanid datsans away from areas open to public access and to merchants. The expansion of tsanid datsans during the Fourth Jebtsundampa brought further critical attention to the matter of monastic discipline in the proximity of worldly life. During the Fourth Khutugtu, the Gungaachoilin datsan (kun dga’ chos gling) was established in 1809 and focused on Damdin Yansan (Tib. rta mgrin yang gsang: Skt. Hayagrīva), which had been founded in 1745 by the Second Jebtsundampa and renamed by the Fourth Jebtsundampa as Badamyoga.56 What began with the Fourth Jebtsundampa was carried on by his successor: his biography by Agwaan Ishtüvden Ravjamba maintains that the Fifth Jebtsundampa Khutugtu relocated the tsanid schools in Earth Dog Year (1838), and the schools formed a separate, new monastery, Gandan Tegchinling, with “several thousand of lamas” (fig. 5.9).57 According to Ikh Khüree historian L. Dügersüren, the “several thousand of lamas” initially referred to 2,250 lamas.58 In addition to these, Lamrim datsan was established in 1844; Yadgaachoinzinlin datsan (Tib. yid dga ’chos ’dzin gling) in 1910–1911; and Megjid Janraisig, or Avalokiteśvara datsan (Tib. mig ’byed spyan ras gzigs grwa tshang), in 1912. Each had a different set of rituals and different historical contexts. The latest one, for instance, had a special meaning as it was built with donations from the entire Khalkha population to commemorate Khalkha Mongolia’s independence from the Qing in 1911.59 In 1838, the Winter Palace of the Fifth Jebtsundampa Didinpovran/Didan Lavran (bde stong pho brang; bde stong bla brang) was built within Gandan Monastery, not only to place it “higher above the contaminated wind of the merchants,”

IKH KHÜREE

159

5.9. Gandan

Monastery in Ikh Khüree, ca. 1913–1914. Courtesy of G. Ochbayar, Ulaanbaatar Museum.

but also to bring the ruler’s presence into Gandan. Several shrines with stūpas of the Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Jebtsundampas were also built in Gandan. If Zanabazar’s Örgöö followed Drepung’s seven datsans in its initial structure—­as it was believed—and Ribogejai-Gandan-Shaddubling was led by Géluk teachers from Namgyel and Drepung, Gandan was a unique place in Ikh Khüree that maintained explicit connections to the Géluk’s third main seat, Sera Monastery. Sera’s main deity, Hayagrīva, in the form known as Damdin Yansan, or “very secret,” became the focus of two colleges at Gandan: the datsans Badamyoga and Yadgaachoinzinlin maintained Damdin Yansan as the main tutelary deity. The latter was specifically formed by relocating 486 monks from the other two colleges of Gandan (Dashichoimbel and Gungaachoilin) to form this new Yadgaachoinzinlin datsan, where Tibetan teacher Serji Jetsun Choijijantsan’s (ser gyi rje btsun chos kyi rgyal mtshan, 1469–1546) commentaries were the texts used from the Sera Jé (se ra byes) datsan of Sera monastic seat. Worshipped by Padmasambhava and thus belonging to the Nyingma School, this particular form of Hayagrīva was mainly practiced in Sera, and in its remote Khalkha relatives, Gandan’s two datsans following Sera Jé’s texts (Tib. yig cha). Gandan initially did not have aimags, but gradually, with the increasing number of monks in Ikh Khüree, many aimags of Züün Khüree formed regional houses at Gandan; thus, the two circles mirrored each other (fig. 5.10).60 This formation of regional houses in Gandan was also similar to Sera, as Sera’s tantric monastery Ngak pa (sngags pa) did not have its own houses, and its monks belonged to khangtsen in the other two datsans of Jé and Mé.

160

CHAPTER FIVE

5.10. Gandan Monastery.

Detail of Jügder, Capital Ikh Khüree. 50 × 96 cm, 1912–1913. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

Gandan was a smaller encampment mirroring Züün Khüree, with another central ordu (palace), aimags encircling it in a khüree arrangement, and another Tsogchin Dugang, built in 1838 in the style similar to the Bat-Tsagaan (fig. 5.11). Gandan created an even more explicit Géluk presence with a clear connection to Tsongkhapa’s Ganden, Tsongkhapa’s Lamrim teachings, and to the Sera Monastery in Tibet, all situated, auspiciously, to the western (or to the right) side of the Yellow Palace. The building of a new Gandan Monastery resulted in Ikh Khüree’s division into three parts, as noted by Pozdneev. And yet, the two maps, and especially Jügder’s depiction of Ikh Khüree, as we shall see in the next section, contributed to a vision of the site as all-inclusive. The Jebtsundampa’s monastery now came to embrace what the Tüsheet Khan initially built as two separate sites: Baruun Khüree (1647) and Züün Khüree at Kherlen (ca. 1735 or 1761) were now united in one conglomerate site of Ikh Khüree, and the maps by Balgan and Jügder show clearly how the two encampments

IKH KHÜREE

5.11. Gandan, Tsogchin Assembly Hall. Courtesy of National Central Archives of Mongolia.

constituted the intrinsic wholeness. When Mongolia was politically ruled from the Qing court, and when numerous other monasteries were developed all across the Mongolian steppes with similar Qing-Géluk architectural structures, it became important that Ikh Khüree become the major site in Mongolia and in Inner Asia. The building of monasteries became a regular activity from the seventeenth century onward, and, based on recent studies, their number exceeded a thousand by the turn of the twentieth century.61 Similar to Tibetan monasteries, which also “have not been just residencies for monks or nuns but corporate bodies whose identities are maintained across generations and are enmeshed in politico-­ economical relations that can involve complex bureaucratic structures, mandatory activities and onerous duties,” 62 all of the Mongolian monasteries included numerous temples, monks, ritual objects and artworks, complicated structures of hierarchy and governance, and land and cattle holdings, as well as powerful patrons. How, then, did the Jebtsundampas’ Ikh Khüree become the major city as well as the most authoritative Buddhist sanctuary? In our final section, therefore, we will first examine the development of the site into Mongolia’s major commercial center. Then, we shall see how the artists and their maps assisted in the transformation of Ikh Khüree and the Jebtsundampas into the great foci of spiritual and secular authority of Khalkha Mongolia.

161

162

CHAPTER FIVE

All-Inclusive Ikh Khüree Ikh Khüree’s Development as a Trade Center

The construction and other changes at Ikh Khüree that followed Zanabazar’s death demonstrate that the monastery continued to expand and fortify its role and position in Mongolia. The growing authority of Ikh Khüree superseded that of the earlier stationary institutions of importance, such as Erdene Zuu Monastery and the city of Uliastai. Founded in 1733 as a Manchu military base and an important trade center, Uliastai held the Military Command Office and the Governor General, which made Uliastai the most important administrative city directly connected to Beijing in Outer Mongolia. Ikh Khüree gradually assumed Erdene Zuu’s and Uliastai’s respective roles as a monastic and commercial center, advancing the Khalkha Mongols’ vision of the central authority, or, as Sung Soo Kim would have put it, “Khalka centrality,” supported by constructions of the Yellow Palace (shar ord), the Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall, and Abatai Khan’s khorig. Robert Rupen suggests that the prominence of Ikh Khüree in the mid-­ eighteenth century was based on the fact that the “military situation [had] eased” 63 and, subsequently, Uliastai became less important for the Manchus. However, he overlooks the fact that anti-Manchu perturbations never really ceased in Mongolia, as testified by the largest Khalkha rebellion, which took place in 1755. Instead, what truly made Ikh Khüree a central city for the Mongols was Zanabazar’s commitment to reaching out to and connecting with the common people. Not only did Ikh Khüree’s mobility support this aspiration, but so did the establishment of the ministry of the disciples, the shabinar, which was indeed a strategy of far-reaching foresight. In the history of Ikh Khüree, trade was the essential factor that facilitated the growth of the city: first when it became equal to such trade centers of the time as Khiagt and Uliastai, and later when it emerged as Mongolia’s main commercial center, consequently resulting in a steady rise in the population. In 1720, therefore, the Manchu court installed in Ikh Khüree a representative of the “Ministry Ruling the Outer Provinces,” which had been established in 1638.64 Moreover, in 1758 the Manchu court decided to install a Mongolian representative of the Manchu amban 昂邦 in Ikh Khüree, followed by a Manchu amban in 1761.65 The improved position of Ikh Khüree in the Manchu court reflected the growing power of the Jebtsundampas. In 1786, the rights of these ambans were expanded, and they were granted the right to supervise the matters of the Khalkha provinces of the Tüsheet Khan and the Setsen Khan, a privilege previously held by Uliastai. A textual note reading “Wherever Örgöö moved, merchants followed it” 66 seems to demonstrate this important financial and commercial reality of Ikh Khüree, which the artists also inevitably had to depict in their maps. In Jügder’s maps, the blue-gray color coding demarcates the market areas and the commercial streets, mostly run by the Chinese traders. The high number and steady flow of merchants and travelers who chose to stay in or near Ikh Khüree gradually led

IKH KHÜREE

to the formation of a new district in the city, which was called the Traders’ Town (Maimaicheng) (fig. 5.12).67 The merchants left the Traders’ Town (fig. 5.13), located on the city’s outskirts, every morning to bring their goods to the monks and the lay city residents in Züün Khüree. These street vendors became such a regular feature of everyday urban life that they generated new streets, Western Porters and Eastern Porters. In both Jügder’s and Balgan’s paintings (fig. 5.14),

5.12. Maimaicheng. Detail of Jügder, Capital Ikh Khüree. 50 × 96 cm, 1912–1913. Courtesy of

Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

163

164

CHAPTER FIVE

5.13. Streets

in Maimaicheng. George Kennan, 1885–1886. Prints and Photo­ graphs Division, LC-USZ62–128117, Library of Congress.

we see the Traders’ Town outside the main circle, Züün Khüree, and the Western Porters and Eastern Porters (M. Baruun Züün damnuurchin) streets running from north to south between Züün Khüree and Gandan Monastery. Historian O. Sukhbaatar argued that the abundance of travelers and merchants in the vicinity of Ikh Khüree necessitated some of Ikh Khüree’s migrations, such as, for instance, along the major trade route toward Khiagt in Burgaltai, in Töv aimag.68 After the signing of the Russian-Chinese trade treaty in 1725, the Qing chose Ikh Khüree and the border town of Khiagt as the only two places for Chinese merchants to trade in Outer Mongolia. The Khiagt Treaty, as it became known, established regular trade between the two countries, triggering regular mercantile traffic along the Khiagt–Beijing route, on which Ikh Khüree was an inevitable way station. By 1742, Ikh Khüree issued permission to Chinese merchants to trade in specific areas outside the city. Those areas were allocated by the Office of the Municipal Trade Regulator, which would evolve into the Ministry of Lawsuits, and started to control the trade towns emerging all over Mongolia. Dügersüren quotes an economic document from 1757, which lists the names of the trade centers established in each province where merchants could trade with permission from Ikh Khüree.69 This list includes all four provinces of Mongolia, suggesting that Ikh Khüree’s influence and power stretched far beyond the Khalkha, and that now Ikh Khüree was more than simply Khutugtu’s demeure and a monastery; it was an international trade center and a worldly city, with its own bifurcated system of jurisprudential and demographic control. American statesman William

IKH KHÜREE

165

5.14. Street of Western Porters

(M. Baruun damnuurchin). Detail of Jügder, Capital Ikh Khüree. 50 × 96 cm, 1912–13. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

Rockhill refers to several treaties, such as Article I and II in an 1869 Russo-­ Chinese treaty and Article XII in the 1881 Treaty of Saint Petersburg, that opened Mongolia as “free trade zones of 100 li (30 miles) between China and Russia, with Russians privileged to trade in any part of Mongolia and be exempt from the levy of duty.” 70 The first Russian Consulate was established in Ikh Khüree in 1861, based on the Sino-Russian Treaty of 1860 (fig. 5.15).71 The Russians decided to open consulates not only in Ikh Khüree but also in Uliastai, Khovd, and Shara soum in 1905.72 As Rupen comments, “The Urga [Ikh Khüree] lamas never truly reconciled themselves to the development of Urga [Ikh Khüree] as a great Chinese trading center, and quarrels occurred regularly until the final crisis in 1911–1912,

166

CHAPTER FIVE

5.15. Russian Consulate and St. Trinity Church in Ikh Khüree, 1912. Courtesy of Kotwicz Collection,

Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences.

when the Chinese were (temporarily) forced out.” 73 Even earlier, in 1763, Khüree Shanzodva issued new regulations that strictly prohibited the hitherto loose interactions of the monks with the laypeople; it forced the establishment of a lay district just outside of Züün Khüree to the south and separate from the Traders’ Town.74 The new district was called the Laymen’s District.75 A travel pass for international travelers in the region further testifies to the secular authority of Ikh Khüree. It partially reads (fig. 5.16), A report by Mr. Agdambu, border officer in Kyakhta, on the inspection and release of Mr. Bishunei from Fa (France) and Mr. Filus from Mei (America): The report is addressed to the minister in charge of administration based in Khüree. A letter received earlier from the Ministry of International Affairs forwarded a request of the Ambassador Ge from Fa to provide assistance to Bishunei from Fa and his accompanying person, Jan Shu, in a transit through Kyakhta to Russia. It ordered that travel pass be provided for a smooth transit. The relay posts along the way were asked to provide a fresh horse at every station and necessary provisions at the traveler’s expense. When Bishunei with companion passes through the White Gates [Great Wall], the pass should be checked and, if there he doesn’t need other things, he should be immediately released. Further, the border officer in Kyakhta, should take care of him and make sure that all relevant officials provide carts, horses, camels, and other necessary provisions at his own expense. Stealth inspection and illegal charging of money is prohibited. Relevant officials should be ready.” September 11, the First Year of Tonzhi Emperor (1862).76

5.16. Travel pass. Handwritten document, 19th c. Asian Reading Room, Library of Congress. Source: Susan Meinheit.

168

CHAPTER FIVE

As these documents show, Ikh Khüree—as a nomadic city, a central monastery, and a trade and education center—became gradually far more popular and important than Uliastai, which, by the nature of its stationary location, gradually fell into oblivion, “remote” as opposed to Ikh Khüree’s centrality. This broad expansion testifies to the fact that Ikh Khüree was also gradually becoming the central city for the secular and monastic communities in Khalkha and beyond. If Ikh Khüree’s centrality in education secured its preeminence in the growing Buddhist church in Mongolia, then trade contributed to the increasingly urban nature of Ikh Khüree, supplying its material welfare and providing an important connection to the laity as well as enabling its control of the country’s lamas and the lay population. Cartography and Mapping of Ikh Khüree

Among the one thousand monasteries existing in Khalkha by the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many were depicted from a bird’s-eye view by artists attempting to convey a holistic vision. Ikh Khüree, however, was unique in the way it was depicted several times in large cartographic and panoramic works by esteemed artists (fig. 5.17). The two maps by Balgan and Jügder, which we saw earlier, were made about two decades apart, based on the buildings each included. Balgan’s painting is serene with a limited palette, and Jügder’s map evokes grandiosity with color and dazzling details, but both follow patterns that differentiate these maps from others. Not only do they aim to provide a monumental overview and the spatial expanse of Ikh Khüree, they also pay meticulous attention to scenes, people, and architectural elements, and, unlike any other depictions, they offer detailed inscriptions regarding each part of the monastery. In Jügder’s map, an inscription clarifies the motives and the goals of the mapping in this way: In the second year of All-Inaugurated [1912], Lord Bogd Khan ordered Jügder from Zoogai aimag of Züün Khüree, who is good at and renowned for painting deities, to paint the Capital Khüree, Gandan, and so on, the surrounding mountains, water, and even temples, and monasteries in the true reality of that time.77

This inscription is a striking statement that implies the involvement of the Eighth Jebtsundampa in the production of the maps. Both Balgan and Jügder highlight the complexity of Ikh Khüree’s circles by using colors as codes to distinguish between various communities resident in Ikh Khüree, and by portraying the circular encampments, each with the Yellow Palace of the Jebtsundampa in the center as a sacred and forbidden sanctuary. The Bogd Gegeen, the patron of both maps, faced political challenges unknown to any of his predecessors apart from Zanabazar. The decline of the

IKH KHÜREE

5.17. Ikh Khüree. Colors on cotton, 113 × 153 cm, late 19th c. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

Qing dynasty was already apparent in the late 1890s, when Balgan’s map was made. Even before the Chinese Wuchang uprising in October 1911 that led to the Qing dynasty’s ultimate collapse, the Bogd Gegeen collaborated with the Mongolian nobles in advancing their initial statecraft ambitions for the Khalkha theocracy.78 According to Mongolian historian O. Batsaikhan, the Bogd Gegeen was instrumental in the Khalkha Mongol movement for independence and reached out for support to Japan and even to the United States during these critical years of the Qing Empire’s collapse.79 The Jebtsundampa’s aims for theocracy, a fusion of religious and the secular, evident in the deeds and works of Zanabazar, now came to be realized with

169

170

CHAPTER FIVE

the Eighth reincarnation; he was proclaimed as the Sun-Lit, All-Inaugurated Mahāsammata (“Elevated by Many” or “the Great Elect”) Bogd Khan of independent Mongolia on December 29, 1911. In China, imperial history ended in 1912, and in Russia the Bolshevik revolution overthrew imperial rule in 1917. Although occupied with their own radical social and political changes, these neighbors did not lose interest in Mongolia. China refused to recognize Mongolian political independence. Yuan Shikai, the first president of the Republic of China (袁世凱 1912–1916), sought to bring Mongolia back under Chinese control through military force.80 The fall of the Qing, and the Bogd Gegeen’s inauguration as the theocratic ruler of Mongolia in 1911, eligible now to carry the indigenous title “Khan,” prompted him to follow Zanabazar and the Qing closely in their state-building strategies. The Qing court produced paintings with multiple perspectives, and it is likely that Bogd Gegeen would have wanted something with such an imperial precedent. He did, after all, take over the prerogatives of the Qing (e.g., realistic facial features based on photographs that follow Qianlong’s portraits painted by Giuseppe Castiglione, which we shall see in the next chapter), if only superficially, and he would have recognized the importance of maps in the Qing scheme of things. By mapping monastic space, a Mongolian ruler could situate his realm in the world. Balgan, and later Jügder, consciously used a variety of markedly dissimilar mapping techniques, including planar and bird’s-eye views side by side, to create a clever balance of the facts, value, reality, and perception of Ikh Khüree’s existence. Although the maps were ostensibly produced to convey the factual realities of geography and of the architectural landscape, they also convey implicit messages by and for the new ruler, constructing the visible and “invisible landscape of ideas” of both the artists and the Jebtsundampa. Each part of Ikh Khüree possesses its own unique spatial arrangement and its own perspectival viewpoint. While Balgan portrayed every structure in Ikh Khüree from one stationary planimetric viewpoint, Jügder employed a variety of perspectives and changeable angles of representation in depicting different structures. Similarly, mixed modes of representation are typical, even for very early maps found in China.81 The Qing held cartography in particular favor, and these early mapping practices were then enhanced by the Western cartographic knowledge that the Jesuits introduced at the court. The Qing Mongol maps of various khoshuu and of the monasteries that were made during the nineteenth century relate to this Qing interest in cartography. Maps of monasteries, such as these two, also relate to the Tibetan practice of producing panoramic maps of monastic sites, a practice that flourished during the period of the Dalai Lamas. While mapping Ikh Khüree and thereby aiming at a general and panoramic overview of the monastery, both Balgan and Jügder highlighted the distinct features of the architecture in both circles of Züün Khüree and Gandan. The ger fences in Gandan all appear as monotonous, uniform rectangles enclosing only a

IKH KHÜREE

5.18. Painting of temples and monasteries of Lhasa, gouache on cotton, 184.6 × 135.4 cm, ca. 1900–1920,

Kham region, eastern Tibet. With permission of the Royal Ontario Museum © ROM.

few of the ger, yet the artists offer elaborate, detailed depictions of Züün Khüree, especially its Yellow Palace. This approach is reminiscent of some panoramic picture maps of Lhasa that show a hierarchical ordering of sites, illustrating them from a bird’s-eye view (fig. 5.18). Two maps of Ikh Khüree display a similarly biased attention to different elements. In eighteenth-century Lhasa maps, the Potala is shown in the center as the largest structure, followed in size by Jokhang and the three Géluk seats.82 Likewise, in Mongolian maps, the author’s—both the artist and the ruler’s—presentation of the size determines the relationships and hierarchy among the sites. Both maps highlight Züün Khüree with a meticulous attention to the details of the representation. A private residence and a monastery with a dozen

171

172

CHAPTER FIVE

temples for Tantra rituals, the study and practice of sūtras, astrology, medicine, and so forth, were not the only functions of Züün Khüree. A number of buildings intended for “state affairs” (M. töriin tügdem) located within the Yellow Palace, as well as the rituals that were for the “spirit of the state,” testify to the political prominence of Ikh Khüree.83 Both maps also emphasize Züün Khüree as a major pilgrimage site by explicitly demarcating the circumambulatory paths encircling this encampment. Züün Khüree, reminiscent of Potala in the Lhasa map (fig. 5.18), is undoubtedly empowering, above all, the dominant part of Ikh Khüree. However, the two maps show subtle yet important differences that also illuminate the development of Ikh Khüree into the exclusive monastery of the Mongol Buddhists. In Balgan’s map, there is a careful approach to representing the two sections as inseparable and mirroring each other, while different in size and authority. Gandan is a pilgrimage site equal to Züün Khüree in the nineteenth century; Balgan, unlike Jügder, depicts its surrounding stūpas quite distinctly, accentuating their location along the circumambulatory route (fig. 5.19). By including meticulous inscriptions of each of Gandan’s fenced rectangles and private households, Balgan’s effort makes known and identifies Gandan’s properties. Balgan’s map also elevates the status and positioning of Gandan by using a similar color scheme to depict the two circles, and they appear as inseparable and inherently connected. Jügder’s approach is quite unlike that of Balgan: for Jügder, Züün Khüree is of utmost significance and of domineering authority above all. Without giving any particular attention to Gandan, Jügder depicts all other districts and divisions of Ikh Khüree as smaller satellites of Züün Khüree. Indeed, Ikh Khüree had a jurisdictional authority in relation to other sites. Andrews mentions, for instance, that Ikh Khüree directly controlled Delgerin Choriin Monastery, 152 miles to the south,84 and according to Teleki, monks from Ikh Khüree were invited to give initiations in rural monasteries on a regular basis.85 All this further suggests that Ikh Khüree gradually established its own greater authority over all four provinces of Outer Mongolia.86 In Jügder’s map, the Laymen’s District, the Western and Eastern markets, and the new Choijin Lama Temple (M. Örshööliig khögjüülegch süm), built in 1908, all appear as situated close to the Züün Khüree encampment. This new temple in Züün Khüree was built for the Bogd Gegeen’s younger brother Luvsan Khaidav (blo bzang mkhas grub, 1872–1918), who was identified as the State Oracle and thus had his own site, the Choijin Lama Temple, built in the Chinese style, to the south of the encampment.87 Jügder also depicts in great detail other temples built in Ikh Khüree for the Bogd Gegeen during his reign in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These include three temples south of Züün Khüree, situated on the bank of the Tuul River. Among these, the Bogd Gegeen’s Green Palace (M. Biligig Khögjülün Badruulagch Temple, also commonly known as the Winter Palace), first built in 1893 as a meditation retreat

IKH KHÜREE

5.19. Left, Gandan, circumambulatory road.

Detail of Balgan, Ikh Khüree. Colors on cotton, 1890s. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art. 5.20. Above, The Green Palace. Detail of Jügder,

Capital Ikh Khüree. 50 × 96 cm, 1912–1913. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

temple, is shown as a colorful new addition and as the most significant after the two circles. Jügder uses a different scale and perspective to represent the southernmost temples on the riverbank, especially the Green Palace, whose central temple is clearly exaggerated in size (fig. 5.20). The Green Palace is meticulously represented as another central locus for pilgrims: a circular road surrounds it and Züün Khüree, and the two are connected by another, clearly discernible path. The Chinese-style complex of the Green Palace is visually accentuated by dark roof tiles connected in continuous bold lines.88 Pilgrims surrounding another yellow-­fenced compound to the left of the Green Palace designate another locus of preeminent significance. With this approach, Jügder diverges from Balgan, who instead aimed at highlighting the central compounds of both circles, emphasizing Ikh Khüree’s unique circularity, especially evident in comparison with neighboring temples. It is quite possible that the Green Palace, built 1893–1905, was a modest compound in Balgan’s time. However, the overt simplification of architectural forms and explicit lack of detail are eloquent indices of the artist’s mindscape, revealing his intention to re-create the efforts of establishing a hierarchical order in the representation akin to the Tibetan cartographic thangkas.

173

174

CHAPTER FIVE

5.21. Mañjuśrī

monastery. Detail of Jügder, Capital Ikh Khüree. 50 × 96 cm, 1912–1913. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

Jügder employed not only a variable perspective and a variable angle of representation, but also an inconsistent scale in his ordering of things. Now painting for a new theocrat, the artist details the Bogd Khan’s new temples and palaces, thereby also implying that the ruler is present everywhere: as the Jebtsundampa’s sites, residences, and temples multiplied within Ikh Khüree, he appears migratory (just like all Mongol khans were), therefore invisible and elusive, pervasive and yet ever-present. It was not only the ruler who was implicitly present everywhere and anywhere, according to the maps. The artists use the strategic vantage point of Ikh Khüree’s architectural orientation to demonstrate how Züün Khüree’s buildings and the neighboring monasteries all face southeast, creating the sense that Züün Khüree powerfully incorporates all neighborhoods within its reach. Indeed, the maps illustrate the Bogd Khan’s powerful outreach beyond Ikh Khüree.

IKH KHÜREE

175

5.22. American

Trading Co. Source: Korostovets 1913.

Balgan’s map incorporates other monasteries in the north, and Jügder shows how Ikh Khüree had expanded to the south by visually annexing the eighteenth-century Mañjuśrī Monastery (fig. 5.21), initially built without the involvement of the Jebtsundampa Khutugtu. The Mañjuśrī Monastery, here made visually part of the Bogd Gegeen’s Ikh Khüree and also blue in color, like other monasteries in the north, in reality was situated behind the hills in the south. The two monastic circles of Ikh Khüree in both maps visually dominate and control the entire space, with the distant monasteries appearing as satellites of Ikh Khüree. Not only do roads connect Züün Khüree with the northern monasteries, but the Mañjuśrī Monastery also seems to emerge from the greenery of the thick forest as a seamless continuation of the surrounding landscape. That is to say, Jügder relied on color juxtapositions of blue and red to connote distance—whether geographical distance or mentally perceived distance.89 Even when distinguished and acknowledged by color difference, Ikh Khüree appears as an extremely inclusive site with communities of monks, merchants, lay nobility, lay commoners (M. khar khün or borchuud), and foreigners­­­—­Russians, Tibetans, Chinese, Americans, and Europeans. Both maps use maroon for monks and blue (or bluish-gray) for merchants, laypersons, and alien residents. Akin to the internationalism of the Qing style in the Jebtsundampa portraits, Ikh Khüree was a colorful blend of architectural styles that represented these diverse communities, as evidenced by photos (fig. 5.22). Two dominant colors thus also appear to indicate the duality of functions intrinsic to Ikh Khüree, that is, as a religious site and as a worldly city of political significance.

Chapter Six

The Jebtsundampas’ Buddhist Government Georges Dreyfus emphasizes the role of rituals in Tibetan monasteries, noting that “it is not an exaggeration to say that Tibetan monasteries are first and foremost ritual communities.” 1 The pilgrims were anxious to make it to Ikh Khüree and perform bodily prostrations for the circumambulation. Circumambulation of Ikh Khüree, however, did not include only individual pilgrims. The other important public ritual in Ikh Khüree was the Maitreya Procession, which was an annual circumambulation of Züün Khüree by the community, in which people would walk carrying images and texts of Maitreya, the Bodhisattva (or Buddha) of Future. Before we discuss the ritual procession, I will discuss how images of Maitreya came to be shared across borders inspired by the Dalai and Panchen Lamas. A Colossal Maitreya for the Buddhist Government The Géluk paid special attention to expanding the Maitreya cult based on Tsongkhapa’s own engagement with Maitreya. According to his hagiography, during Tsongkhapa’s famous four-year retreat at Ölkha Chölung (’ol kha chos lung) with his retinue of eight students, where the teacher performed half a million full-length prostrations and made 1.8 million maṇḍala offerings, he had a vision of a golden Maitreya. Later, on New Year’s Day after the retreat, they went to Dzingji Ling, where Tsongkhapa performed the first of his Four Deeds: he restored a great Maitreya statue under the guidance of Mañjuśrī and with the help of Vaiśravaṇa.2 Hagiographical paintings of Tsongkhapa show him in front of the Maitreya statue. Tsongkhapa’s main monastery was named after Maitreya’s Paradise Ganden, where the teacher’s remains were entombed. The most active engagement with Maitreya occurred at Tashilhunpo, as the First Panchen Lama’s autobiography illuminates. In 1461, the first Dalai Lama Gedün Drup built a monumental seated Maitreya statue at Tashilhunpo’s Maitreya Lhakhang (fig. 6.1), which reportedly measured 25 cubits (Tib. khru; M. tokhoi), or roughly 11 meters high (although the figure is actually 7.3 meters tall); the

176

JEBTSUNDAMPAS’ BUDDHIST GOVERNMENT

177

6.1. Monumental

Maitreya statue in Tashilhunpo, 7.3 m (H), 1461–1463. Photo by Michael Henss, 2014.

Panchen Lama donated 37 bolts of silk for its garments in 1623.3 He also restored and renewed the gilding of this old copper statue of Maitreya, and the “artistry was magnificent.” 4 As he tells us, in the second month of the year kun ’dzin (1648), a master named Chöying Gyatso prepared proportional gridlines (Tib. thig) for a monumental thangka of Maitreya, and in the sixth month the consecration of the image took place (fig. 6.2).5 Tashilhunpo housed several monumental Maitreya statues, as the monastery was the main seat of the Panchen Lama. Here in Tashilhunpo, we are told that the soivon (Tib. gsol dpon; attendant) Lobsang Danzan (blo bzang bstan ’dzin) had a dream of Jetsun Maitreya, [seated] on a tall throne, with a decoration on his head, with dharmacakra mudrā (teaching gesture) and with a rainbow emanating from his heart. In the dream, the Panchen Lama was seated in front of Jetsun

178

CHAPTER SIX

6.2. Monumental Maitreya thangka, Gyantse, Pelkhor Chöde, Tibet. 1436–1439. Photo by Michael

Henss, 2014.

Maitreya on a fine pedestal garbed in Three Dharma clothes, his hands in añjali mudrā (a veneration gesture). Maitreya’s rainbow was merging into the Panchen Lama, with some rays [entering] into the Panchen’s head. Lord Tsongkhapa also appeared above his head, and rays of light merged into Lobsang Danzan himself and into the heads of his other companions. In another dream, when the Panchen Lama was ill, he went to Maitreya, who instructed him to build a Maitreya statue out of gold to cure his illness. A statue of Maitreya in a seated position was made, and Lobsang Danzan recalled his dream. The Panchen Lama’s illness was healed and Dharma peacefully prospered.6 On another occasion, the Panchen Lama ordered the artists to make statues of three monumental Maitreya sculptures, accompanied by Buddha Śākyamuni on one side and Jowo Atīśa on the other. This group was surrounded by one thousand Buddhas and many bodhisattvas.7 Interestingly, the names and dhāraṇī were

JEBTSUNDAMPAS’ BUDDHIST GOVERNMENT

written in lanza (Nepali Rañjanā) and Mongolian scripts, thereby suggesting the patrons of these statues included Mongol noblemen.8 The Panchen Lama’s autobiography lists numerous occasions when Khalkha and Oirat noblemen visited him and brought gifts and donations. These many cases of the Panchen Lama’s personal engagement with Maitreya, following the Tsongkhapa’s precedent, established a specific Géluk predilection for this important Mahāyāna deity. Agwaan Khaidav gives a list of the temples and people who built Maitreya statues and concludes in this way: “All over Tibet, the statues of Maitreya are like mountains decorating the earth.” 9 Monumental Maitreya statues were also built in early temples throughout Tibet, as exemplified by Alchi Sumtsek. Yet, in these early sites, Maitreya as a Bodhi­ sattva is part of an iconographic configuration without any sectarian affiliation. At Alchi, for instance, Maitreya shares the space with similarly monumental Avalokiteśvara and Mañjuśrī, and the arrangement indicates the iconographic program of the site.10 It is quite different with Maitreya statues at later Géluk sites. Besides Tashilhunpo and Panchen Lama’s Maitreya constructions, the Dalai Lama was active in building Maitreya statues in Tibet and beyond. The Mongols were soon to erect new temples and images of Maitreya, inspired by the Third Dalai Lama’s meetings with the Mongol Altan and Abatai Khans. Maitreya Temple (Maidar Zuu) near Höhhot in Inner Mongolia, the site of Altan Khan and his family members, contained murals and statues of Maitreya as well.11 Many Maitreya images were made, starting with Zanabazar and continued by his successors in Ikh Khüree, where the later images from the mid-nineteenth century depict Maitreya as a monumental image of a cakravartin with visually imposing, colossal measurements as described in the texts.12 Monumental statues of Maitreya were erected throughout Inner Asia in Géluk monasteries to reinforce Géluk power, such as, among others, Lhasa’s fifteenth-century Barkor Jampa Lhakhang,13 Tashilhunpo’s monumental Maitreya, Beijing’s colossal Maitreya, and Ikh Khüree’s nineteenth-century Maitreya images. In the making of a Mongolian sculptural form of a colossal Maitreya, Ikh Khüree’s khamba lama Agwaan Khaidav follows the same iconography to depict Maitreya as a cakravartin.14 Agwaan Khaidav’s interest in Maitreya resembles the abovementioned Panchen Lama’s associate Lobsang Danzan’s dream, where he saw Maitreya and Maitreya’s emanating rays of light entering the Panchen Lama and his heads.15 Similarly, Maitreya appeared in a dream Agwaan Khaidav had at the age of seventeen, and he went on to become a major protagonist in the propagation of the Maitreya cult. His dedication resulted in a Maitreya temple and several sculptures, including the prominent Maitreya statue in Ikh Khüree’s Medical College and a human-sized, gilded-copper Tongwa Donden (Tib. mthong ba don ldan) Maitreya statue. None of these works has survived.16 Unable to forget the vision of a large Maitreya in his dream, Agwaan Khaidav remained determined to build a monumental statue of Maitreya in Ikh

179

180

CHAPTER SIX

Khüree that would be forty tokhoi (elbow lengths), or roughly 54 feet, high.17 In the year of the Female Wooden Bird (1825), discussion of a Maitreya statue began in Ikh Khüree, and the Fifth Jebtsundampa offered his advice and instructions for the removal of obstacles.18 Agwaan Khaidav accomplished his masterpiece, a colossal sculpture of Maitreya, in Ikh Khüree in the Year of the Female Water Snake (1833).19 Maitreya was already a special project for the Fourth and Fifth Jebtsundampas, who built a new monastery named after Maitreya’s Tuṣita Pure Land. The Maitreya statue was made in pieces at Dolonnor20 by twelve Chinese artists.21 Long since destroyed, Ikh Khüree’s colossal Maitreya statue now can only be observed in two reproductions made by Western travelers (fig. 6.3).22 To support his production of Maitreya images, Agwaan Khaidav wrote many texts on Maitreya that include praises, sādhana visualization texts, detailed accounts of recitation prayers (Skt. dhāraṇī), and texts about the consecration rites of the Maitreya statue. Agwaan Khaidav reports that the statue was consecrated in 1833 by the Fifth Jebtsundampa, and was housed in the Maitreya datsan that he built for that purpose in Ikh Khüree (see fig. 5.8). Agwaan Khaidav, together with his colleague Lama Agwaan Tsering (ngag dbang tshe ring) and the astrologer monk Luvsanjantsan (blo bzang rgyal mtshan), led the foundation rites in the Year of the Dragon (1820).23 6.3. Agwaan Khaidav,

Maitreya statue. Gilt répoussé, Dolonnor and Ikh Khüree, 1833. Photo by Dmitri Pershin 1933. Dimitriĭ Petrovich Pershin papers, Box 2, Folders 1–4, Hoover Institution Archives. Source: First published in Pershin, Dmitri. Baron Ungern, Urga i Altan-­ Bulak [Baron Ungern, Urga and Altan-Bulak]. (Samara, Russia; Agni Press, 1999).

JEBTSUNDAMPAS’ BUDDHIST GOVERNMENT

The three-story building that housed the Maitreya statue, now also extinct, was a fine blend of the architectural styles of Tibet, Mongolia, and, according to Agwaan Khaidav, also of India.24 According to oral beliefs of that time recorded by Pozdneev, Maitreya himself chose to reside in a Tibetan-style building, since all the earlier temples built for the colossal Maitreya statue were astonishingly short-lived; finally, a new building was erected combining Mongolian and Tibetan architectural styles, a true unity of Tibet and Mongolia.25 The construction of the temple took two years, with a salary of seven thousand silver liang paid to the carpenters and artists.26 If the building was of Indian origin, Maitreya’s face, according to Agwaan Khaidav, was Tibetan, and the main artist was a Khalkha Mongol. This Maitreya project demonstrates another fine example of the Qing internationalism intentionally united here for the Qing Buddhist government. In his devotion to the Géluk, Agwaan Khaidav speaks of the old pilgrimage site of Jowo Atīśa and a Kadampa monastery at Drag Yerpa (brag yer pa) Lhari near Lhasa as his inspiration.27 The face of the statue, made by “top artists” in Ikh Khüree, emulated the Maitreya image at Yerpa Lhari in Tibet,28 which was one of the four most powerful Maitreya statues located in Jampa Lhakhang (byams pa lha khang) in the Yerpa cave site near Lhasa. It was miraculously expanded to seven arms’ length to fit the rest of the statue.29 Pozdneev, who saw the statue during his trip to Ikh Khüree in 1892, recalls the enormous Maitreya statue inside what was the tallest building of the time in Ikh Khüree, and remarks that the interior of the building seemed quite narrow due to the size of the statue. We see a similar case at Yonghegong, where a colossal statue of Maitreya was made by the Qianlong Emperor out of a huge trunk of sandalwood given by the Seventh Dalai Lama and encased in the Pavilion of Infinite Happiness.30 The statue was more than a depiction of the Buddha of the future or a reference to the Géluk engagement with Maitreya. It was made to celebrate the Qianlong Emperor’s designation of the Seventh Dalai Lama as an administrator of Tibet as now part of the Qing empire, “marking the beginning of Tibet’s two hundred years’ unity of religion and politics to rule [the people].” 31 In these cases, not only does Maitreya imply the Géluk authority projected into the future, but it also marks the fusion of secular and religious spheres, with the religious entity acting as a supporter of the Qing secular kingship. The doctrine was also useful for justifying the Qing court as the supreme unifying government. The Maitreya Procession

Colossal Maitreya statues made in Tashilhunpo, Ikh Khüree, and in Beijing were not only objects of imposing grandeur and size. Maitreya was also a part of a grand annual celebration that brought together both the monastic and lay communities. One of these rituals, the Maitreya Procession, was one of the oldest and

181

182

CHAPTER SIX

most celebrated events of Ikh Khüree. The procession was seen by several foreign visitors, including Pozdneev in 1892 and Andrews in 1922. The Maitreya Procession is a special ritual of circumambulation, which involves the image of Maitreya and Maitreya’s texts being carried by the monks and followed by the lay public. It is staged every year to honor and celebrate Tsongkhapa’s—and therefore the Géluk’s—special connection with Maitreya. The Géluk paid special attention to regulating these Dharma-based events, which turned into massive gatherings of lay crowds, thus popularizing the Géluk monasteries that organized the rituals and carried them out. The Géluk rituals found fertile soil in Khalkha monasteries, where they flourished with grandiosity, richness, and fervor, especially in Ikh Khüree. Pozdneev was the earliest traveler to leave us a clear description of Ikh Khüree’s Maitreya Procession, which took place around Züün Khüree: In the early morning on the day of the celebration, after having read rabsal prayers (Tib. rab gsal) at 5 am, the monks brought out Maitreya’s Five Treatises from the main temple and took them to the southern gate and stood facing the north. The Five Treatises and the statue of Maitreya were placed into a colorful wooden chariot decorated with a green horse head. After the monks finished reading Maitreya’s texts while facing the north, the procession moved clockwise to the western gates, then to the northern, where it was dispersed for lunch. In the afternoon, the procession continued in the direction of the eastern gates, and finally, proceeding through the southern gates, it entered the main temple, bringing back the texts and the gilded statue of Maitreya in his Bodhisattva form into the temple.32

Although carrying the texts of Maitreya inside the chariot was an old ritual of worshiping Maitreya,33 it became particularly favored in the Géluk tradition, as evidenced by Maitreya Processions that have been conducted regularly up to the present day in major Géluk monasteries in Tibet and Mongolia. In Tibet, however, there has never been a custom of using a chariot with a wooden, greenheaded horse or an elephant, which, as Pozdneev recounts, was common in Mongolian Maitreya Processions.34 A horse and an elephant are known as two of the seven symbols of a Buddhist universal emperor, and in the Mahāvastu, a white elephant is a sign of a Buddha’s descent from Tuṣita Heaven.35 Pozdneev describes this religious event, in which he focuses on the monks as the only participants. The other traveler, Andrews, experienced quite a different Maitreya Procession on May 9, 1922, which he recorded and photographed (fig. 6.4). Festival of the Maidari During the time that the diplomatic negotiations were going on we had an exceptional opportunity to see the great festival of the Maidari which

JEBTSUNDAMPAS’ BUDDHIST GOVERNMENT

took place on May 9, 1922. The Maidari, or Coming Buddha, is a most sacred Bodhisattva. A gilded image of him reposes in a splendid temple in Urga. On this day, which is kept in honor of his incarnation, his image is placed on a huge throne, smothered in decorations and drawn through the streets as the central figure in an elaborate procession. The festival began in the early morning, for the Maidari had a long way to go. At ten o’clock, when we reached the main square, the procession had not yet appeared, but the air was throbbing to the boom of drums and the deep notes of conch-shells. As the waves of sound beat down upon us, we could see in the east a great mass of color, advancing slowly. Soon groups could be distinguished; then slender lines and huge umbrellas blazing in the sunlight. Every shade of the spectrum was repeated a hundred times in the gorgeous pageant of marching lamas. As the procession neared us, I recognized the Premier [the Jebtsundampa] in a robe spun of gold with a priceless sable hat upon his head. Beside him were the four reigning khans, or kings, of Mongolia, and behind them a double row of princes, dukes and lesser nobles dressed in dark blue gowns with brilliant cuffs and streaming peacock plumes. The great throne bearing the Maidari was shaded by a silk umbrella of rainbow colors and surrounded by the highest lamas, resplendent in cloth of gold. From the throne silken ropes led off to flanking lines of red-and-yellow-clad lamas, bearing huge umbrellas of bright-hued silk. Behind the Maidari came other lamas, thousands of them, and women dressed in rich gowns with ropes of pearls about their necks and hair ornaments of gold studded with precious stones. Almost ten thousand lamas were with the Maidari, and two or three thousand men and women and children followed. When the procession reached an open square, overlooked by the great temple on the summit of the hill, the throng was halted and the lamas seated themselves upon prayer-mats in converging masses of solid color, with the Premier in the center and the highest lamas flanking the Maidari. ..... . . . [T]housands of people crowded about the throne. . . . The splendor of the princesses and wives of the higher nobles made one gasp for breath. . . . The princesses had a dignity that was very becoming to their high estate. They were . . . each accompanied by a servant, moved majestically in the midst of the vast crowd. . . .36

This rather long quote brings to our attention the other aspect of the ritual not captured in Pozdneev’s account, that is, its colorfulness and richness due to the presence of crowds who came to this festival from outside of the monastic community. Paintings from Mongolia depicting the Maitreya Procession in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries offer a similarly colorful impression.

183

184

CHAPTER SIX

6.4. Maitreya

Procession. Photos by Roy Chapman Andrews, c. 1920. Courtesy of American Museum of Natural History Library.

In Lamin Gegeen’s Maidar, Gempelin Dorj (1870–1937) of Uyangin Khüree (fig. 6.5) places the procession on a green background filled with the fruits and flowers of a summer’s day, a setting in contrast with the Tibetan tradition of holding the procession during the Great Prayer Festival in the early days of the Lunar New Year. The cart, with a slim, gilded Bodhisattva Maitreya statue standing in it, is accompanied by two attending monks. Maitreya is wearing a colorful lower garment and is making the dharmacakra teaching hand gesture. The statue is most

JEBTSUNDAMPAS’ BUDDHIST GOVERNMENT

6.5. Gempelin Dorj, The Maitreya Procession at Lamyn Gegeeni Khüree. Colors on cotton. 68.6 × 100.2 cm

(62.5 × 93 cm), early 20th c. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

likely one of the Maitreya sculptures made by Zanabazar. Maitreya’s head, inclined slightly forward, seems to be awakening, as if Maitreya is descending from the image just above and into the gilded statue in the cart. An array of drums, trumpets, and other musical instruments makes a lively and loud musical accompaniment, together with the chanting. Monks carry banners and standards, and the Seven Precious symbols of the cakravartin—the wheel, horse, gem, elephant, queen, deity, and throne—indicate the royal status of Maitreya, the universal ruler. As the cart’s colors indicate the Five Buddhas, the Bodhisattva Maitreya appears to reside in the center of the Buddha-field, with a green horse signifying Amoghasiddhi. The green horse is unique to Mongolia, as in Tibet the cart or

185

186

CHAPTER SIX

chariot containing Maitreya is usually pulled by people. In the next eon, Amoghasiddhi and Maitreya share a direct doctrinal connection, since, according to the doctrine of the three bodies of the Buddha, Amoghasiddhi in his sambhogakāya and Maitreya in his nirmanakāya forms belong to the same Buddha family.37 Amoghasiddhi occupies the northern direction, and in Mongolian Buddhist literature—­such as Agwaan Khaidav’s texts—the northern direction designates Mongolia. The procession itself begins and ends with monks facing north, halting for the longest interval right at the northern gates. This emphasis on the cardinal northern direction suggests that the procession, with the entire Ikh Khüree community, and the ritual put forward an auspicious call for Maitreya’s arrival in and for Khalkha Mongolia. Longevity Rites for the Jebtsundampa Rulers

It was the First Jebtsundampa Zanabazar, who brought Maitreya’s practice to Khalkha Mongolia in the seventeenth century. At least three statues of Maitreya of similar style and make––there are currently two in Mongolia and one in the Arthur Sackler Museum—have been attributed to Zanabazar (fig. 6.6; also see fig. 2.32).38 All three statues depict Maitreya in his Bodhisattva form, as a standing, youthful figure carrying his two main attributes: the vase of immortality (Skt. kuṇḍikā) in his right hand and a stūpa in front of his high hair knot. This stūpa is extremely prominent in the statues, where Maitreya holds the vase of immortality in his opened hand, raising the other hand in the vitarka-mudrā (the gesture of teaching). Rolling down from his shoulder, a Brahmanic thread follows the curved shape of the torso and the hips. It is crossed by one of the sashes, creating a small, stylish loop on the right (from the viewer’s viewpoint). This sash, tied diagonally across the hips with a long ribbon on the left, falls down in an elegant shape of rhythmic lines until it merges with the undulating pleats of the garment. The lower garment (Skt. dhoti), sleek and remarkably transparent, is fastened at the waist with a long sash. This sartorial fashion appears in other works by Zanabazar. In 1657, Zanabazar’s twenty-third birthday was celebrated in Erdene Zuu with the first Maitreya Procession to take place there.39 The procession accompanied the long-life ritual known in the Tibetan world as danshig (brtan bzhugs).40 In Erdene Zuu in 1681, the Khalkha nobility re-enacted the danshig ritual and the Maitreya Procession for Zanabazar’s forty-seventh birthday.41 From this, we can surmise that the Maitreya Procession was conducted with the celebration of the long life of the Jebtsundampa. Maitreya in his Bodhisattva form was invited and welcomed, and praised for securing the long life of the beloved ruler. This is not surprising, as Zanabazar is known to have visited Tashilhunpo, where a Maitreya statue was made as part of an attempt to aid the Panchen Lama’s health. According to the Panchen Lama’s Autobiography, “Panchen Lama’s illness was cured and Dharma peacefully prospered” due to the new Maitreya statue.42 Panchen Lama’s numerous sculptures at Tashilhunpo must have inspired

JEBTSUNDAMPAS’ BUDDHIST GOVERNMENT

6.6. Zanabazar, Maitreya

Bodhisattva. Gilt bronze. 73 × 24.8 × 23.5 cm, late 17th c. Courtesy of Choijin Lama Temple Museum.

Zanabazar’s similarly focused interest in Maitreya. As the Panchen Lama tells us, “Whoever sees the body of Maitreya, hears about, or touches it, he/she can save sentient beings and build peace.” 43 Within the similar conceptual approach, Agwaan Khaidav’s forty-tokhoi statue was later surrounded by 10,000 (tümen) smaller sculptures of Amitāyus, deity of long life, placed on both sides of the monumental Maitreya statue.44 Zanabazar attended the Panchen Lama’s danshig ritual in 1651.45 The Khalkha nobility’s danshig rituals and the Maitreya Processions held in Erdene Zuu in

187

188

CHAPTER SIX

6.7. Danshig Naadam. Colors on cotton, early 20th c. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

1657 and 1681 to ensure Zanabazar’s long life can be seen as ways of appropriating Tashilhunpo’s ritual for the Khalkha. From several surviving paintings housed in Mongolian museums (fig. 6.7), we know that danshig celebrations continued well into the Bogd Gegeen’s time. These were extensive festivities that included the traditional Mongolian sports of horse racing and wrestling, coupled with Buddhist rituals, including the Maitreya Procession. Several paintings that illustrate danshig are very similar to the paintings of the Maitreya Procession; in both, the composition is filled with crowds. In the painting of the Maitreya Procession (fig. 6.5) by Dorj, a cart is positioned in the lower left corner, while the majority of the composition along the horizontally stretched image is filled with rows of mixed crowds of monks and lay devotees.

JEBTSUNDAMPAS’ BUDDHIST GOVERNMENT

6.8. Damdinsüren, Maitreya Procession. Colors on cotton, 200 × 62 cm, 1965. Courtesy of Zanabazar

Museum of Fine Arts.

Even in the space behind the cart, where there does not seem to be sufficient space for more figures, the artist includes people marching behind the procession. Akin to the vision of the procession captured by Andrews in the photographs (fig. 6.4), the painting uses the linearity of the two-dimensional surface to its benefit by stretching the imagery along the horizontal axis. The marching rows delineate the horizontal stretch and enhance the visual sensation of a throng. Several Maitreya Procession paintings of this composition exist, as evidenced by examples in private collections in Mongolia. Damdinsüren’s paintings of Ikh Khüree follow certain compositional models that were produced in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Ikh Khüree, which he witnessed when he was a monk. The other Maitreya Procession painting is by Damdinsüren, who uses a similar type of elongated composition (fig. 6.8), but the movement of the crowd is reversed from right to left. In fact, instead of elaborating on the chariot, the Maitreya image, the recitation of Maitreya texts, or any other aspect of the long ritual, all the surviving images of the Maitreya Procession highlight the crowded nature of the procession. Likewise, the danshig paintings also highlight the crowds more than anything else, suggesting that the essence of the Maitreya Procession is its ability to gather people: it brings monastics together with the nobility and the commoners. The composition of a throng is also used in a remarkable painting of the Bogd Khan’s return to his Yellow Palace (fig. 6.9). Here, a long horizontal format enhances the visual sensation of the movement where the two rulers—the Bogd Khan and his consort, the Ekh Dagina Dondogdulam (don grub sgrol ma, 1874– 1923)—are accompanied by monks and layfolk of Ikh Khüree. These visual records further suggest that the two celebrations, danshig and the Maitreya Procession, were conducted for the sake of gathering in one place these very different layers of society. The rituals united them around Maitreya and the

189

190

CHAPTER SIX

6.9. The Bogd Khan’s Arrival at the Yellow Palace. Colors on cotton, 180 × 39 cm, early 20th c.

Courtesy of Military Museum of Mongolia.

Jebtsundampa as their universal rulers. It should then come as no surprise that the Maitreya Procession in Mongolia took place in the warmer days of late spring or summer, as Dorj depicts in his painting. This means that in addition to celebrating Maitreya descending from the Tuṣita Heaven to Khalkha, the ritual was intended to celebrate and manifest the union of the secular and religious realms, represented by monastics and the lay communities, and was organized by and gathered at Géluk monasteries. Akin to the architectural standardization of Géluk monasteries, rituals were also made standard and uniform across the borders during the Qing. As a Buddhist savior who delivers the hope of a new era, and who has a potential to greatly influence the present, Maitreya is given various roles across cultures and has assumed various forms of artistic representation, many of which do not have specific doctrinal references. Akin to Maitreya’s role as a revolutionary, a savior, and a messenger,46 or even as a guardian in Korean perceptions,47 Maitreya in Mongolia is a Buddhist universal ruler, who secures Géluk dominance and long life for the Jebtsundampa and his community, unified around Maitreya’s arrival in the Buddhist government of Qing-Géluk Mongolia. The Fusion of the Secular and the Religious: Khalkha’s Theocracy (shashin tör) Visualized Double Cityscapes of Ikh Khüree

Maitreya rites were not the only public rituals in Ikh Khüree. The monastic seat was also the site of other annual celebrations that were likewise regularly painted in what appear to be double cityscapes of Khüree: pairs of paintings that visually connect the concept of two systems—the religious and the secular. During the reign of the new theocrat, the Bogd Khan, in particular, many paintings were produced to visualize the fusion of the two systems, the shashin tör, in Mongolian terms. We know of at least four sets, currently at the Bogd Khan Palace Museum in Ulaanbaatar and the Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg, that display similar composition and identical subject matter (figs. 6.10 and 6.11).

6.10. Double cityscapes of Ikh Khüree. Top, Tsam (70 × 43 cm); bottom, Naadam (46 × 38 cm). Colors on

paper, early 20th c. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

192

CHAPTER SIX

6.11. From double cityscapes of Khüree. Colors on paper, ca. 1912. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

In these paintings, the main focus is the central part of Züün Khüree—the Yellow Palace—where two important celebrations are taking place on the open plaza in front of the Yellow Palace: one image shows a religious Tsam (Tib. ’cham) ritual with masks, whereas its counterpart depicts wrestling, one of the most favored sporting events in Mongolia to this day. The Tsam ritual is well known and is still broadly practiced in many Tibetan and Mongolian monasteries; each monastery maintains its own workshop for production of its masks and regalia, and conducts its own performance choreography. The main meaning of the ritual, to put it briefly, is to rid the community and the site of evil. Pozdneev, who witnessed the Tsam ritual in Ikh Khüree in 1892, describes it in great detail. He recounts a lengthy and tedious preparation stage, followed by a colorful and rich ritual, where the monks wear the garments and masks of specific wrathful protective deities (Skt. dharmapālas), hold the attributes of those deities, and solemnly dance to

JEBTSUNDAMPAS’ BUDDHIST GOVERNMENT

loud religious music played by monks on various Buddhist instruments.48 While they dance, they chant and recite prayers for purifying the site and the community and thereby invoke the powerful Buddhist entities. Typically ten in number, these protective deities mask their benign and auspicious nature with wrathful appearances in order to arm themselves with and against the destructive powers of anger and aggression; these are used as “exorcist” powers of purification and pacification. Ikh Khüree was especially famous for its grand and magnificent Tsam rituals, which were performed in both compounds of Züün Khüree and Gandan on a regular basis. Each monastery in Mongolia exhibited its creative talent in the quality of the Tsam masks as well as the garments and attributes worn by the monks during Tsam. Ikh Khüree was well known for its highly sophisticated productions, measured by their size and by the precious gems they used—the masks and costumes were fully encrusted with pearls, turquoise, coral, silver, and even gold, and as such, were large and heavy. Some of these Tsam garments and masks are preserved in Ulaanbaatar’s museums and testify to the exceptional quality and extravagance of the Jebtsundampa’s Tsam rituals.49 Damdinsüren, a former monk-artist of Ikh Khüree who survived the purges and became an oil painter in Ulaanbaatar, painted two Ikh Khüree cityscapes that follow this model of the Bogd Gegeen (fig. 6.12). Within the Yellow Palace, we see the Kālacakra Temple, known as Dechingalbin Datsang, ger-temples with the Vajradhāra Temple, and the state-temple (M. töriin tugdam) in the middle. Adjacent to the Yellow Palace within Züün Khüree are also the Abatai Khan’s symbolic ger and the Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall. The Yellow Palace, as the main seat of the Jebtsundampa ruler and the heart of Ikh Khüree, and, as such, constitutes the governmental center of Khalkha Mongolia. As the cityscape shows (fig. 6.12), the Tsam performers come out from the Abatai Khan’s ger to enter the main plaza, where the Bogd Gegeen presides over the ritual first alone and then together with his consort, the Ekh Dagina Dondogdulam. The Bogd Gegeen sits under a yellow parasol facing the audience and is surrounded by a large entourage of monks. The yellow of imperial and Géluk distinction is fully exhibited here. In front of them, the monks perform the Tsam ritual and, together with the rows of secular nobility on the right, create a mandalic configuration of an elliptical outer square with four gates. Other groups of Tsam monks form an inner mandalic circle surrounding a tent-like structure. This central tent within the mandalic circle of the Tsam contains the core object of the exorcism: an effigy made to capture all the evil locked within. Then, a gigantic chant is performed by all the deities invoked here at the site, right in front of the Jebtsundampa couple, who join forces in destroying the evil. This configuration demonstrates that both the lay and monastic communities shared equally in destroying the malevolence, and it is their forces, combined and united, that eventually succeed in removing the obstacles and fouls. In this equation, as the painting claims, the presiding authority is the Géluk teacher and a Khalkha ruler—here, the Bogd Khan—a powerful visual statement of shashin tör. Four gates here are distributed

193

6.12. Top, Damdinsüren, Khüree Tsam; bottom, Damdinsüren, Khüree Naadam. Colors on cotton,

80 × 120 cm, 1966. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

JEBTSUNDAMPAS’ BUDDHIST GOVERNMENT

accordingly: the north side is occupied by the divine couple, the south is guarded by the monumental thangka of Vajrapāṇi (see fig. 4.19), the east gate is reserved for the lay aristocrats, while the exclusively monastic west side (or northwest, to be precise) leads to the imperial space of Abatai Khan’s family abode. In its counterpart, the Naadam painting, a completely secular wrestling festival takes place on the same plaza (fig. 6.12). Now, however, the lay community takes up nearly the entire space, with lay aristocrats watching the tournament, which is presided over by the same teacher, the Bogd Khan, again accompanied by his consort. The bird’s-eye-view composition, in which the Yellow Palace is highlighted in the center, with a detailed depiction of its architecture and the two festivals alternating in the central space, creates a clear statement about Khüree functioning in a manner inclusive of both the religious and the secular. It is their togetherness that makes the site a purified and sacred space; it is their combined forces that destroy the darkness, and it is their equal participation that creates the government. This identity of Ikh Khüree is supported by the dual identity of its main resident, the Jebtsundampa, for whom it was built and who resides there in his eighth earthly manifestation. And it is this portrait of Ikh Khüree that is copied, replicated, and proliferated to perpetuate its vision and its function as a monastery, a city, and ultimately, the site of the Khalkha Mongols’ Buddhist government. The dual function reflected in [double portraits of the Bogd Gegeen and here in the cityscapes of Ikh Khüree] is a visualization of what textual sources call shashin tör (also translated as “religion-state”).50 In other paintings by the Bogd Khan we see the same concept visualized to highlight the teacher in the governance of the Khalkha. In these visual terms and through these double portraits of the site, the meaning of shashin tör is explicitly visually focused on the equal coexistence of khoyor yos, the balanced two sides of governance. In these double cityscapes, Ikh Khüree is the site that embodies the two sides of the governance and is presided over by the single religious hierarch, the Jebtsundampa. His double portraits were also routinely made in Ikh Khüree. What do they tell us about the Khalkhas’ vision of shashin tör? Double Portraits of the Jebtsundampa

Throughout the history of Ikh Khüree, as we have seen, serious attention was given to the continuous representation of the Jebtsundampas. Various media, including diverse types of thangka paintings—appliqué and painted—were produced. Among these, the types of images chosen for mass production and wide circulation offer insight into the important meaning and intentionality of these portraits. Zanabazar’s unofficial “Mongol” portrait was one of these mass-produced images (see fig. 1.10). This portrait remained a constant model for the artists to proliferate beyond the printing media, as evidenced by Ikh Khüree’s former monk Damdinsüren’s twentieth-century painting (fig. 6.13).

195

196

CHAPTER SIX

6.13. Damdinsüren,

Zanabazar. Colors on cotton, ca. 1970. Source: N. Tsultem 1982.

Other images that were selected to be carved in woodblock and then printed for mass circulation include one that depicts all Jebtsundampas seated as a tight group with Zanabazar in the center (fig. 6.14). In this print, the First Jebtsundampa Zanabazar, resides in the center, holding the bell and vajra, the quintessential attributes of Vajrayāna Buddhism, while the other reincarnations are depicted surrounding him. All figures carry inscriptions that identify each ruler. In the center is the “first Je denpé gyeltsen” (Tib. dang po rje bsdan pa’i rgyal mtshan); he is surrounded by others, beginning in clockwise order with the “second denpé drönme” (Tib. gnyis pa bstan pa’i sgron me) in the top left corner. The Second, the Fourth, and the Fifth Jebtsundampas each wear different hats with the Tüsheet Khan’s index, the vajra attribute, on the top. Although all the Khutugtus look alike, even bereft of compelling and unique physical features they convey the irrefutable impression of rulers: Zanabazar’s round head, his extravagant, jewel-­ topped throne, and Vajrayāna attributes express their power and majesty.

6.14. The Jebtsundampas. Woodblock print. 19th c. Source: R. Byambaa 2004.

198

6.15. Opposite

page, Zanabazar. Woodblock print. 59.7 × 40.8 cm, 19th c. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

CHAPTER SIX

Another important image of Zanabazar widely distributed during the nineteenth century (fig. 6.15) is a woodblock print for multiple distribution. Here Zanabazar is seated on the left side as a Tibetan monk, without any earthly features of his Mongolian identity, wearing a Géluk paṇḍita’s hat and holding a vase containing the elixir of immortality (akin to Amitāyus), while an inscription clearly identifies him as “Zanabazar.” He is watching a scene that is referred to in both Luvsanprinlei’s account and the Fifth Dalai Lama’s biography (as quoted in chapter 3, p. 85). The biographies describe Zanabazar as visiting the Panchen Lama accompanied by a large entourage of monks and Khalkha noblemen and met by large processions (Tib. ser sbreng).51 This print depicts Zanabazar’s meeting with both the Dalai and Panchen Lamas as yab sras (“eminent teachers”), when “they identified [him] as the reincarnation of the Jebtsundampa”—a truly memorable and extraordinary occasion, indeed. And this is how the artist visualizes the meeting, where, as Luvsanprinlei tells us, Zanabazar also received Vajrabhairava empowerment and his monastic getsul vows from the Panchen Lama. The Panchen Lama, therefore, appears right above his head, with Vajrabhairava in the top register of the print. The Panchen Lama appears again to the right, seated in a temple at Tashilhunpo, where Zanabazar spent weeks receiving teachings and initiations from him. Jambhala, a deity of wealth, is once again here, recalling Zanabazar’s eighteenth-century “self-portrait.” However, unlike the “self-portrait,” this image contains Begze (Jamsran) in the right bottom corner and the Ḍākinī Siṃhamukhā in the left bottom corner, who enjoyed great popularity at the Qing court during the nineteenth century. In this portrait, Zanabazar appears as the Jebtsundampa ruler, who assumes an exclusively Tibetan identity—a yellow-hat Gélukpa lama, to be more precise—­ and without the clear inscription would easily be taken as the Dalai Lama. This visual punning is meaningful and aimed at suggesting that the Mongols saw—or wished to see—Zanabazar as their own hierarch and their own theocrat, akin to the Great Fifth Dalai Lama, and this image presents Zanabazar as such. The idea was instigated by Zanabazar himself, given his close following of Mongol traditions of imperial power, such as the Nepalese style in his sculptures, the Yellow Palace, the Firmly White Assembly Hall, and the maintenance of Abatai Khan’s symbolic ger. Akin to Zanabazar’s “Mongol” portrait, this particular print served as a model for painted images, further demonstrating its popularity and wide distribution (fig. 6.16). Zanabazar’s religious superiority is affirmed in his identification with Vajradhāra/Vajrasattva in his “Vajradhāra Jñānavajra’s Seal Victory” and his honorific title “Vajradhāra Bogd Öndör Gegeen,” as we saw in chapter 2. Following a Tibetan tradition of depicting Tāranātha, I mentioned in chapter 1 that Zanabazar also sculpted a remarkable portrait of Tāranātha with hands crossed at his chest holding a bell and vajra (huṃkāra mudrā). This gesture signifies the union of wisdom and means, and was reserved only for primordial Ādi-Buddha Vajradhāra and Vajrasattva as the progenitor in the lineages (specifically in

JEBTSUNDAMPAS’ BUDDHIST GOVERNMENT

199

200

CHAPTER SIX

JEBTSUNDAMPAS’ BUDDHIST GOVERNMENT

Kagyu) (fig. 6.17). If we recall a thangka painting (see fig. 1.6), this is a second image that depicts Tāranātha as Vajradhāra, thereby placing him as the progenitor of the Jebtsundampa lineage in Mongolia. Throughout the history of Ikh Khüree, the two Mongolian-born Jebtsundampas were depicted with the same attributes of bell and vajra, yet only Zanabazar and the Bogd Khan were shown holding their hands in this Vajrasattva-like gesture (see figs. 3.5, 3.7, 4.4, and 4.6). This portrait of Tāranātha, made by Zanabazar in the early 1680s—the same period in which he also produced his other large bronzes of Vajradhāra and Vajrasattva—is a powerful visual statement that positions the Jebtsundampas as the highest authority, independent from Qing-Géluk politics, in alliance with Tāranātha (figs. 6.17, 6.18, and 6.19) as a lineage-holder and as the heads of their own Buddhist government. The mass printing of these portraits of the Jebtsundampa as Vajrasattva attests to the attention given to the Jebtsundampa representations and the interest in having them rapidly and continuously reproduced and distributed. To these supreme visualizations of the ruler, later artists—Agwaan Sharav included—add an imperial canopy over Zanabazar’s head. The anonymous Khüree artist depicts Zanabazar as the Mongols’ own “Dalai Lama,” that is, a secular and a religious ruler embodied in one man (fig. 6.16). While the concept of khoyor yos was appropriated into the Qing, who became the sole secular rulers of Inner Asia, these prints of the Jebtsundampa-as-theocrat, made in multiple copies, advance the idea that the Khalkha theocracy was initially conceived with Zanabazar and ultimately realized with the Eighth Jebtsundampa reincarnate in 1911, when he was unanimously proclaimed as the “All-Inaugurated” (“Elevated by Many”) Mahāsammata Bogd Khan of Mongolia. The idea of theocracy in Mongolia was not new. In the texts, an eighteenth-century Buddhist scholar named Belmang, from Amdo, repeatedly mentions Tsagaan Nomunkhan (mid-17th c.), “a lineage of reincarnate lamas who had held joint political and religious control over a large community of Tibetans and Mongols in Amdo since at least the mid-seventeenth century” and who “had pioneered the combination of the “two traditions.” 52 Prior to the Jebtsundampas, this position was held by the Gegeen Setsen Khan Sholoi, who also held the title of Mahāsammata as we discussed in chapter 1. With the Jebtsundampas, the authority shifted to the Tüsheet Khan, enabling and reinforcing the Khalkha supremacy. Sung Soo Kim proposes consideration of the Tüsheet Khan’s emergence from a “theory of the Khalkha center” (喀尔喀中 心論 ka er ka zhongxin lun), where the political interests and authorities of the Tüsheet Khan (subsequently, their elevated Jebtsundampa) and of the Dalai Lama were in conflict. She concludes that the Jebtsundampa’s choice was to go “the independent way” (獨立路線 duli luxian).53 It is no wonder, then, that the visualization of the Jebtsundampa as a political and a spiritual ruler of the Mongols was particularly developed with the “All-Inaugurated” Mahāsammata Bogd Khan of Mongolia, who had many

201

6.16. Opposite

page, Zanabazar (based on the woodblock print). Colors on cotton, 59 × 48 cm, 19th c. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

202

CHAPTER SIX

double portraits made. The double portraiture starts with the First Jebtsundampa, Zanabazar. The earliest portrait of Zanabazar that we saw in chapter 3, the so-called “self-portrait,” had its counterpart (fig. 6.20) in a portrait alleged to be of his mother Khandjamts. The two images share many similarities in composition, color, and style; the differences are subtle but crucial to the holistic meaning. According to Jeff Watt, the main subject in this portrait is not a woman; rather, it is a monastic portrait of a male figure, which Watt simply calls “teacher (lama).” 54 The disseminated belief that the portrait represents Zanabazar’s own mother could stem from a perception of close similarity between the two portraits. Visual inspection reveals two different hands working on these two portraits, yet the two artists made serious efforts to imitate the details of composition, ornaments, decor, throne, and the selected deities. Here the main subject is a (wo) man in old age, wearing monastic robes similar to those worn by Zanabazar in the first portrait (fig. 3.1). Furthermore, the thin, elegant, feminine, and youthful fingers, stylishly elevated and holding a sūtra as if to display the virtuosity and skillfulness of the hands, are almost identical in both portraits. The flower buds surrounding the throne in the first portrait seem to recur in the second image,

6.17. Zanabazar, Tāranātha. Gilt bronze,

ca. 1680. Private collection, Beijing, PRC. Courtesy of Luo Wenhua.

6.18. The Jebtsundampa with bell and vajra.

Woodblock print, 50 × 36.5 cm, 19th c. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

JEBTSUNDAMPAS’ BUDDHIST GOVERNMENT

appearing now as fully open and blooming flowers so large that they seem to be nearing the end of their cycle. The protective deities at the bottom of Zanabazar’s portrait—Jambhala and Mahākāla—are here replaced with heavenly creatures, all stretching out offerings to the main subject. The Tibetan Géluk teachers, the Dalai and Panchen Lamas, reappear in the top register: this time the Panchen Lama takes the central place and sits directly above the teacher’s head, whereas Sita Saṃvara has been moved from the center to the left. In the uniformity of their style and subject matter, the two portraits suggest a single impression of a master—­Zanabazar—in a youthful body in the first portrait and an aged body in the second. In both cases, the Tibetan teachers are in the top register; that is, from youth until old age, Zanabazar is guided from above by his eternal Géluk teachers, the Dalai and Panchen Lamas. These two portraits of Zanabazar were most certainly completed around the death of the master, as suggested earlier in chapter 3. In other words, this double portrait of Zanabazar is part of a scheme to reinforce a Géluk vision of Zanabazar, also evident in textual sources. The tradition that made these portraits “self-­ portrait” and “mother’s portrait” by Zanabazar empowered the images with sacred

6.19. The Jebtsundampa with bell and vajra. Appliqué

thangka, 11.4 × 9.4 cm, late 19th c. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

6.20. Portrait of Zanabazar’s mother, Khand­

jamts. Colors on cotton, 53 × 38 cm, ca. 1723. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

203

204

CHAPTER SIX

and irrefutable authenticity, undisputed, and unquestioned heretofore. And yet, despite the tradition that preserved the portrait of Zanabazar as his own work, later artists disregarded the visual properties of Zanabazar’s “self-­portrait” and created various types in Zanabazar portraiture, as we saw in chapter 4. The figure in this second portrait has a monastic robe over the head, and this important detail is reminiscent of the depiction of some bodhisattvas (e.g., Kṣitigarbha) in early Mahāyāna traditions exemplified in paintings, for instance, from Dunhuang. This robe over the head also recalls some early representations of Avalokiteśvara (Guanyin) in China (fig. 6.21), who is sometimes represented as male and sometimes as female. In either case, a figure with a robe over the head indicates a Bodhisattva, and as such, creates a harmonious, wholesome vision of Zanabazar as Buddha in the first portrait and as a Bodhisattva in the second portrait—indeed, two sides of one. “Mother,” in such a perspective, could also mean not specifically his mother, but rather a Tantric yab-yum, or fathermother union, of the two united and constituting the one theocrat. Later Jebtsundampa portraits demonstrate that this latter vision was maintained by the monks of Ikh Khüree as the idea of double portraiture and was further continued with the Bogd Khan’s images. In the late nineteenth century, these double portraits of Zanabazar and his “mother” are remade with new connotations. In figure 6.22, for example, Zanabazar is garbed in a Manchu-style jacket (instead of monastic robes) and has certain Mongol attributes: mutton on a table in front of him (as in his portraits for Mongol audiences) and a bowl with airag (kumis) in his right hand; he also has a Tantric staff, or khaṭvāṅga, and a five-leafed crown-hat with a vajra on the top. His main teacher, the Panchen Lama, is above his head and Tantric deities surround him. All these indices are explicit about Zanabazar’s vision as a Tantric and Qing Mongol head of the people; this concept is also rendered with visual symbols, including the Tantric staff and a vajra-topped hat. In the mirroring Bodhisattva/ mother portrait of Zanabazar (fig. 6.22), visual indices are carefully selected to reinforce the concept of “wisdom and means” here united. Moreover, Zanabazar appears as the teacher in the top register, suggesting that, in this case, the artist’s interpretation is to portray the two visions of Zanabazar all on one canvas. The tradition of double portraiture is extremely developed and used by the Eighth Jebtsundampa, who, as we have seen previously, was an active player in the politics of Inner Asia and was instrumental in establishing theocratic rule with himself as the Bogd Khan. While known for his openly promiscuous lifestyle, the Bogd Gegeen married Dondogdulam, a Khalkha noblewoman from Khentii, the birthplace of Chinggis Khan. As an ordained monk with a high degree of gavj, he thus violated Vinaya rules of chastity, about which the Géluk school was particularly strict. Soon after the Bogd Gegeen married Dondogdulam, she was presented as an emanation of White Tāra, a popular savior for Ikh Khüree through the Jebtsundampa’s lineage connection with the Tibetan scholar-historian and Tāra devotee, Tāranātha.

6.21. Ruyilun Guanyin (Cintamani chakra) Bodhisattva Seated on a Lotus Throne. Chinese, from

Cisheng Si, Wenxian, Henan Province, Guangshun reign period (951–953 CE), Five Dynasties (907–960 CE). Ink and color on clay, 213.4 × 156.2 cm. The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Missouri. Purchase: William Rockhill Nelson Trust, 52–6. Courtesy of Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Media Services / Jamison Miller.

206

CHAPTER SIX

6.22. Left, Zanabazar; right, Khandjamts. Colors on cotton, 42.7 × 33.3 cm, 19th c. Courtesy of

Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

Moreover, the Bogd Khan openly portrayed himself with his wife (fig. 6.23). There is no Buddhist precedent for a Géluk monk being openly married and depicted together with his consort or wife. In this unique portrait, Dondogdulam, small in size, yet also holding a bell and vajra like those of the Bogd Gegeen, appears seated on a throne right under the reincarnation. She is accompanied by two protective deities and is surrounded by whirling white clouds, which seem to carry her down from the heavens. In the top register, Vajradhāra, with his consort in yab-yum position, is placed right above the Bogd Khan’s head, with Tsongkhapa and Vajrayogīnī at the two corners. An established canon by this time, the two devotees accompany the Bogd Gegeen, proffering offerings to him in a way quite akin to the crowded compositions of portraits of the Dalai Lamas. Here, the Bogd Gegeen, holding the bell and vajra in Vajrasattva’s mudrā, stands out as a Vajrasattva exponent in the primordial Vajradhāra/Vajrasattva concept. He not only reiterates the hand gesture and the attributes, but, extraordinarily, has Vajradhāra at his head and a Vajrasattva-consort at his feet. In other words,

6.23. The Bogd Gegeen with his consort. Colors on cotton, 62 × 43 cm, late 19th c. Courtesy of Bogd Khan

Palace Museum.

208

CHAPTER SIX

6.24. Left, B. Sharav, The Bogd Khan (112 × 82.5 cm); right, B. Sharav, Dondogdulam Ekh Dagina

(110 × 84 cm). Colors on cotton, ca. 1912–1924. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

this portrait is highly reminiscent of Zanabazar’s double portraits and Zanabazar’s Vajradhāra-Vajrasattva imagery, and represents the Jebtsundampa’s double identity as constituting the one. This was not the single case of the Bogd Khan’s double portraiture. In another one, attributed to Ikh Khüree artist Balduugiin Sharav of Bizya aimag, the couple are again portrayed together, and this time Dondogdulam occupies her own composition, in a space equal to that accorded to the khan (fig. 6.24). Here, in this portrait by Sharav, the Bogd Khan’s monastic regalia lacks a hat and, more significantly, he is without his usual Vajrasattva attributes. However, in a similar photograph-based portrait, the Bogd Khan’s consort, Dondogdulam, holds a bell and vajra. The Bogd Khan appears as a modest monk in simple plain clothes, bareheaded, and with prayer beads in his hand, while Dondogdulam, here again presented as a Tantric practitioner, is garbed in a luxurious costume, with a Five-Buddha crown, rich jewelry, and Vajrasattva attributes. In this case, the duality of the Jebtsundampa is focused on the practice of both sūtra and tantra traditions brought to Ikh Khüree and built there by the Jebtsundampas.

JEBTSUNDAMPAS’ BUDDHIST GOVERNMENT

6.25. Damdinsüren, The Bogd Khan and Dondogdulam Ekh Dagina. Colors on cotton, 25.4 × 33.6 cm,

1968. Courtesy of Zanabazar Museum of Fine Art.

In each of the double portraits of the Jebtsundampas in general and of the Bogd Khan specifically, we see, first and foremost, a religious ruler, who, unlike the dual principle of patron and lama embodied in the relationship of Khubilai Khaan and Phags pa, has now integrated the two into an indivisible one, a true theocrat. In the portrait of the Bogd Khan, the dual principle is further reinforced, this time with the compelling image of his consort, Ekh Dagina Dondogdulam. In these double portraits, then, the Bogd Khan directly alludes to the dual nature of his legitimate rulership (spiritual and secular), which is firmly rooted in the foundation built by and for his precedent, Zanabazar. In our last example, Bogd Khan and Dondogdulam are depicted against a screen filled with Chinese imperial dragons and thus explicitly point to the Qing court as a reference (fig. 6.25). This is a late portrait by Ikh Khüree’s former monk artist Damdinsüren, who, as we have seen with other paintings, followed established canons and former compositions from Ikh Khüree. In this portrait, the pair are wearing matching Mongolian costumes, complete with hats and boots. He is immediately recognizable, with his dark complexion glowing in contrast to

209

210

CHAPTER SIX

6.26. Ceremonial ger for the Bogd Khan. One hundred and fifty snow leopard skins, as described in

Altan Khan’s biography. Felt, wood, skin, silk, 1893. Courtesy of Bogd Khan Palace Museum.

his bright blue deel (robe) and a youthful physiognomy that is reminiscent of his other portraits. As usual, the Bogd is holding prayer beads in his left hand, and he is seated on a simple chair without the throne and table with Buddhist attributes. Dondogdulam is identical in posture, with the similar seating and setting, and she holds prayer beads in her right hand. Like Zanabazar’s eighteenth-­ century “mother” portrait, where the gender is deliberately ambiguous, this person can be either a man or woman. Her/his yellow deel stands out and is highly intentional as the color of imperial regalia. Unlike all previous double portraits, this couple does not bear any indices of religiosity, and both appear as secular authorities due to the color of the robe and the Chinese imperial dragons. This set is also attributed to Damdinsüren, and, in the same way that he followed Ikh Khüree’s early double cityscapes, here he follows similar double portraits of the Bogd Khan. The Bogd Gegeen was proclaimed as All-Inaugurated (or “Elevated by Many”), Mahāsammata Sun-Lit Bogd Khan, the head of the theocratic government, whereas his consort was proclaimed as Ekh Dagina, or Mother Ḍākinī of Khalkha Mongolia. The Sun-Lit Bogd Khan had a golden seal, and the Moonlit Dondogdulam held her own silver seal. This double portrait is part of an important celebration to inaugurate the Bogd Khan as two equal parts of one holistic shashin tör, which, in the Mongol view, always represented Khalkha’s theocratic rulership, conceived from the First Jebtsundampa Zanabazar as separate from the Qing–Géluk alliance. In other words, this double portrait, once

JEBTSUNDAMPAS’ BUDDHIST GOVERNMENT

again, visually reinforces the Khalkha theocracy, now embodied in the Bogd Khan. The two colors of the robes are also important, as they symbolize the union of secular (blue) and religious (yellow) spheres here united in the Khalkha dual rulership. As Mongolia was ruled from Beijing until 1911, it is with the Bogd Khan that the Mongol vision of “Buddhist government” gained its true realization in the first decade of the twentieth century. Mongolia’s proclamation of a theocratic government was not an impromptu decision. The idea of theocracy was at the foundation of the Jebtsundampa lineage and of their main seat, Ikh Khüree, from its conception. What began in 1639 was thus finally realized in 1911. The Bogd Khan, therefore, had a ceremonial ger built and covered with leopard skins, as it was prescribed for the ruler of “qamuġ yeke ulus” (“entire Great Nation”) in Altan Khan’s Jewel Translucent Sūtra 55 (fig. 6.26). This ger was made for the Bogd Gegeen on his twenty-fifth birthday by Sangiligdorj Beij of Sain Noyon Province. The ger exhibits auspicious symbolism of a ruler, exemplified by carved patterns of embossed dragons, double doors with the longevity patterns, and the large size. The Bogd Khan, as we have seen, also organized several rituals inclusive of both secular and monastic communities and had Ikh Khüree artists produce these numerous images that supported, corroborated, propagated, and justified the Khalkha fusion of the two systems, now ultimately achieved with the establishment of his theocratic government.

211

Epilogue

“There really is no such thing as Art.” Thus begins the eminent art historian Ernst Gombrich’s renowned Story of Art,1 a five-hundred-page-long discussion of Western artworks from different periods and different geographical areas. In Ikh Khüree’s case, behind these three letters—a, r, t—lie the carefully organized efforts and convoluted life stories of the Jebtsundampas, who crafted their complex identities to build a sacralized Buddhist nation based on the Khalkha vision of shashin tör, and to negotiate between Inner Asian political groups, as well as between Mongol communities. The desire for visuals was a large part of Ikh Khüree from its very beginnings. From the First Jebtsundampa Zanabazar’s own engagement in the arts, by means of which he actively shaped the artistic landscape with his monastery building and his creation of masterful works with his own hands, ending with the Eighth Jebtsundampa’s investment in art, Ikh Khüree was continuously a salient center of the arts in later Buddhist Mongolia. None of Zanabazar’s successors was known to any extent as an artist in his own right. However, as we have seen over the course of the previous chapters, many of the Jebtsundampa rulers exercised a genuine interest in the arts and relied on the power of images to move viewers according to the will of their artists and patrons. While we have no separate primary sources that deal with Ikh Khüree aside from a few notes regarding its inception as an Örgöö-camp and its changing locales, the specific ways in which the architecture was developed and existing Ikh Khüree images were rendered shed light on the character, the verve, and the inner dynamics of this no-longer-­extant monastery-city. My aim throughout this book has been, therefore, to address and analyze those “specific ways” in which images were designed to deliver the messages of their patrons. As we have seen, the earliest evidence that sheds light on Ikh Khüree is the remarkable sets of statues made by Zanabazar dated from 1680 to 1689. These sets indicate Zanabazar’s efforts at widespread conversion of the Khalkha to Vajrayāna Buddhism prior to their subjugation to the Qing in 1691. His considerable involvement with images, even acting as the artist himself, suggests the

213

214

EPILOGUE

importance of images in his larger project of proselytization. Blessings from the images he is said to have made himself have been avidly sought throughout centuries and are special even today. As Janet Gyatso has written about Tibetan Buddhist images in general, they impart “an auspicious cast to [their] environment. The presence of holy image[s] renders [their] immediate surroundings a sacred place.” 2 The fundamental pantheon that Zanabazar aimed at establishing with the image sets he produced himself sacralized Ikh Khüree and Khalkha Mongolia and also welcomed the broader public into initial forms of initiations and consecrations. The Ikh Khüree artists all seriously considered the readability of visual realms by the audience. Damdinsüren recollects several instances of public displays of images in Ikh Khüree quite reminiscent of modern-day exhibitions.3 One of several occasions was the Winter Day of Blessing (Adislagni ödör), when each aimag displayed the best of its art production, including thangkas, sculptures, repoussé, appliqué, and tormas. Given the winter season, particular attention was given to tormas or “butter sculptures,” which were typically made in every temple as offerings to various deities. Damdinsüren recollects how the aimags competed among each other with “wonderfully peculiar” and often unusual forms of these butter sculptures. On this day, laymen, monks, and everybody interested in the arts would walk through all the aimags of Züün Khüree looking at the exhibits. These events, just like Maitreya processions and Longevity rites, were successful in assembling laypeople and monastics around the Jebtsundampa and Ikh Khüree as the center of the Khalkha-envisioned dual rulership. In the case of his own portraits, the Bogd Gegeen developed a “mental image” focused on himself. As Owen Lattimore argued, The Urga Living Buddha [the Jebtsun Damba Qutugtu] was then so commanding a figure that he could easily be made a kind of sovereign. He was the primate, so to speak, of the religious hierarchy throughout Mongolia [italics are mine], and by adding temporal authority to his religious primacy it was possible to create a personal sovereign, replacing the Manchu Emperor, for the time being, and out of reach of the quarrels over precedence among the hereditary Mongol [my italics] princes.4

In the advancement of the Jebtsundampa’s—and simultaneously Ikh Khüree’s—political dominance beyond Khalkha, art played a critical role. The Jebtsundampa portraits, widely reproduced through block printing, were religious symbols of imperial power that contributed to the steady enhancement of Ikh Khüree as the central site of a primary authority among the Khalkha, and increasingly among all Mongols. Just as in Tibetan Buddhist art, where “the image [is] always more than a substitute for the presence of the Buddha or deity; it radiates its own presence,” 5 the Jebtsundampa portraits present the teacher as the ruler, demonstrating the intentional and substantial fusion of at least three

EPILOGUE

cultures­—Qing, Géluk, and Mongol—in determining the final appearance, or the “style” of the images, all for the unified, Qing-endorsed “Buddhist government.” But it was not only in images that the political negotiation between parties required a deliberate blend of styles. Such was also the architectural landscape of Ikh Khüree, especially at the turn of the twentieth century, when the maps and the cityscapes commissioned by the Bogd Khan were produced. While the single line in the nineteenth-century text written by Galdan Tuslagch (1841), which mentions Zanabazar’s “camp of yellow textile,” was often taken for granted by scholars as an indication of Ikh Khüree’s initial appearance, there is no textual, visual, or material evidence to reconstruct Zanabazar’s Örgöö other than the dates and locations of its mobility. Other primary sources list the names of its temporary locations and detail the constructions of the first temples, and suggest the construction of similar sites based on portable architecture—Baruun Khüree and Züün Khüree—which all were connected to the Tüsheet Khan’s family, and were all designed and operated according to traditional notions of Mongol rulership. It is in Ikh Khüree’s final phase of development, depicted in the cityscapes and maps, that the yellow color of its central compound reflects one instance of the Mongols’ partaking in the Qing-Géluk religio-political orthodoxy of new power, where the shift of authority is made certain to fall under the supervision of the Qing court. Such shared standardizations of textual, architectural, and visual records took definite form during the era of the Qianlong Emperor and the Seventh Dalai Lama, and also included sets of portraits, hagiographical narratives of ancient pedigree, and an internationalism of styles and cultural idioms. As Pamela Crossley wrote, On the political and ideological front, the Qianlong court in particular became more aggressive in the imposition of a historical narrative— much of it refracted through court-approved Mongol works—that posited a single culture, language, and religion for Mongolia, culminating in the rule of Mongolia by the Qing, mediated by Buddhist rhetoric and a Qing-sponsored, Mongolian Buddhist clergy using Tibetan as its universal language.6

The artistic objects and portable ger- and tent-based architecture of Zanabazar, certain collective memories kept alive through rituals, oral histories and later texts, along with some early Jebtsundampa portraits, are all important evidence that helps us to reconstruct Ikh Khüree’s role in understanding the Mongol views of shashin tör, in which the balanced khoyor yos, the dual rulership, was maintained with Zanabazar seen as their theocratic ruler. Artistic production in Ikh Khüree, which in this book is represented by architecture, city planning, maps, portraits, paintings and sculptures, was ostensibly done to serve mainly religious purposes. Yet we have seen that art also had a political function in Inner Asia. As I have attempted to illustrate in this project, art

215

216

EPILOGUE

in Ikh Khüree was the critical necessity that triggered the use of images for the fulfillment of teleological goals, including the Mongols’ wholesale conversion and the fundamental transformation to an Ikh Khüree–centered Buddhist government. As such, the art of Ikh Khüree illustrates the birth of a new cultural meaning for the Mongols. The time when “there was no sense of nation among the Mongol clans,” 7 gradually came to an end with the Jebtsundampa lineage. Ikh Khüree images offer a visual testimony of this political and social change. And precisely because of the significance it held, Ikh Khüree was renamed “Red Hero,” or Ulaanbaatar, in 1924, just a few months after the Jebtsundampa passed away into nirvāṇa. The systematic destruction of all the temples and arts began in earnest soon after, and by 1938 there was hardly a practicing temple, datsan, or khiid left. Out of some 1,050 monasteries of Khalkha, only two were spared from complete obliteration by the socialist regime: Gandan Monastery in Ulaanbaatar and Erdene Zuu. Ikh Khüree is an exceptional case in Mongolian cultural and social history, since it is in this monastery-city, portable and only intermittently sedentary, that the Mongols partly turned away from nomadism to become a settled urban society, continuously accumulating art and generating new religious practices. And it is these artistic objects that are instrumental today in Mongolia’s painstaking efforts to reconnect with the past and to revive Buddhism.

Notes

Introduction

1.

2.

3.

4.

Epigraph: Henning Haslund, Tents in Mongolia (Yabonah): Adventures and Experiences Among the Nomads of Central Asia (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1934), 68. Roy Chapman Andrews, The New Conquest of Central Asia: A Narrative of the Explorations of the Central Asiatic Expeditions in Mongolia and China, 1921–1930 (New York: American Museum of Natural History, 1932), 55–56; Roy Chapman Andrews, Across Mongolian Plains (New York: D. Appleton, 1921), 62–64. N. Tsultem, Iskusstvo Mongolii s drevneishikh vremen do nachala XX veka [Art of Mongolia from ancient times till the beginning of the twentieth century]. Moscow: Izobrazitel’noe Iskusstvo, 1982; Eminent Mongolian Sculptor Zanabazar (Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia: Gosizdatel’stvo, 1982); Development of the Mongolian National Style Painting “Mongol Zurag” in Brief (Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia: Gosizdatel’stvo, 1986); Decorative Arts and Crafts of Mongolia (Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia: Gosizdatel’stvo, 1987); Architecture of Mongolia (Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia: Gosizdatel’stvo, 1988); and Sculpture of Mongolia (Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia: Gosizdatel’stvo, 1989). In Mongolian, deg surguul. The term was first used in 1971 in Tsultem’s doctoral dissertation, which he defended at the Soviet Academy of Sciences in Moscow, and which he published as the pioneering Art of Mongolia book in 1982. In his 1982 monograph on Zanabazar, Tsultem specified only certain sculptures as part of the School of Zanabazar. For further discussion on this topic, see chapter 2. Available books and catalogs about Mongolian Buddhist art include Françoise Aubin et al., eds., Trésors de Mongolie, XVIIe–XIXe siècles (Paris: Reunion des Musées Nationaux, 1993); Patricia Berger et al., eds., Mongolia: The Legacy of Chinggis Khan (Thames and Hudson, 1995); Patricia Berger, Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China. (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2003), 26–32; Gilles Béguin, introduction to Treasures from Mongolia: Buddhist Sculpture from the School of Zanabazar, by Anna Maria Rossi and Fabio Rossi (London: Anna Maria Rossi and Fabio Rossi, 2005); and Zara Fleming and Lkhagvademchig shastri, eds., Mongolian Buddhist Art, vol. 1–2: Paintings (Chicago: Serindia, 2011). Books by Isabelle Charleux include Temples et Monastères de Mongolie-Intérieure (Paris: Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques; Paris: Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art, 2006); Nomads on Pilgrimage: Mongols on Wutaishan (China), 1800–1940 (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2015); and Isabelle Charleux, ed., History, Architecture and Restoration of Zaya Gegeenii Khüree Monastery in Mongolia (Paris: Société d’Études Mongoles et Sibériennes; Monaco: Musée d’Anthropologie Préhistorique de Monaco, 2016).

217

218

Notes to Pages 7–9

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11. 12. 13.

14.

15.

My methodological framework for analyzing art in this book follows T. J. Clark’s social history of art, which was applied in his analysis of early modern French art, such as, among others, his famed The Absolute Bourgeois: Artists and Politics in France, 1848–1851 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982 [1973]). Closer to Mongolia, Patricia Berger, in her seminal Empire of Emptiness, also discusses sociopolitical reasoning and the context of art and politics at the Qing court. In terms of an anthropological theory of agency in art, I refer to Alfred Gell’s Art and Agency: Anthropological Theory (Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1998). Isabelle Charleux’s recent publications also discuss the religious and social context in the analysis of Buddhist art, material culture, and architecture in Khalkha and Inner Mongolia. See, e.g., Isabelle Charleux, Nomads on Pilgrimage. Krisztina Teleki, “Bogdiin Khüree: Monasteries and Temples of the Mongolian Capital (1651–1938),” PhD dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University, Faculty of Humanities, Budapest, Hungary, 2008; Uranchimeg Tsultem, “Ikh Khüree: A Nomadic Monastery and the Later Buddhist Art of Mongolia,” PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 2009. Teleki published her dissertation as Monasteries and Temples of Bogdin Khüree (Ulaanbaatar: Institute of History, Mongolian Academy of Sciences, 2011). Teleki published a compilation of her art findings in the book Introduction to the Study of Urga’s Heritage (Ulaanbaatar: Admon Print, 2015), pp. 67–106, where a section is devoted to the description of records of art she found in various former residents’, travelers’, lamas’ accounts. Marsha Weidner, “Painting and Patronage at the Mongol Court of China, 1260–1368” (PhD diss., University of California, 1982); Isabelle Charleux, “From Ongon to Icon: Legitimization, Glorification and Divinization of Power in Some Examples of Mongol Portraits,” in Representing Power in Ancient Inner Asia: Legitimacy, Transmission and the Sacred, ed. Isabelle Charleux, Grégory Delaplace, Roberte Hamayon, and Scott Pearce (Bellingham, WA: East Asian Studies Press, Western Washington University, 2010), 209–261; and Isabelle Charleux, “Chinggis Khaan: Ancestor, Buddha or Shaman?: On the Uses and Abuses of the Portrait of Chinggis Khan,” Mongolian Studies 31 (2009): 207–258. For a detailed discussion, see Uranchimeg Tsultemin, “Mongolian Art and the Dilemma of Himalayan Affiliation,” South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2/2018:137–153. Sung Soo Kim, Ming qing zhi ji zang chuan fojiao zai menggu diqu chuanbo (Tibetan Buddhism in Mongolia During the Ming and the Qing) (Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2005). Johan Elverskog, Our Great Qing: The Mongols, Buddhism, and the State in Late Imperial China (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2006), 25, 109. Ibid., 106. Johan Elverskog, “Tibetocentrism, Religious Conversion and the Study of Mongolian Buddhism,” in Hildegard Diemberger and Uradyn Bulag, eds., The Mongolia-Tibet Interface: Opening New Research Terrains in Inner Asia: PIATS 2003: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Oxford, 2003 (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2007), 65. Elverskog, “Tibetocentrism, Religious Conversion and the Study of Mongolian Buddhism,” 117, 120, 126. He uses the term “Buddhicization” on p. 126 in analyzing and questioning the process of transformation that led to Mongol acceptance that “what it meant to be Buddhist” was to be an inseparable part of the Qing. I am relying on Agata Bareja-Starzyńska’s annotated translation of the text’s bilingual Tibeto-Mongol edition. Agata Bareja-Starzyńska, The Biography of the First Khalkha

Notes to Pages 9–12

16.

17.

18.

19. 20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Jetsundampa Zanabazar by Zaya Paṇḍita Luvsanprinlei: Studies, Annotated Translation, Transliteration and Facsimile (Warsaw, Poland: Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Warsaw, 2015). A bilingual text of this hagiography in Tibetan and Mongolian languages was discovered in 1967 at Aginsky Datsan in Buriatia by Indian scholar Raghu Vira, and that text is the main focus of Bareja-Starzyńska’s annotated translation. Bareja-Starzyńska suggests the Mongolian translation in this manuscript dates to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Patricia Berger, Empire of Emptiness; Paola Mortari Vergara Caffarelli, “International dGelugs pa Style of Architecture from the 16th–19th Century,” Journal of the Tibet Society 21, no. 2 (Summer 1996): 53–89. Most recently, Jinah Kim, in her analysis of medieval book manuscripts in Nepal, also noted the intentionality that undermines the artistic productions in different parts of Asia. Kim calls the intentionality in art—that is, artists’ intentional selection of styles, iconographies, and idioms—“visual strategies.” See, for instance, Jinah Kim, “Local Visions, Transcendental Practices: Iconographic Innovations of Indian Esoteric Buddhism,” History of Religions 54, no. 1 (August 2014): 34–68; and Jinah Kim, Receptacle of the Sacred: Illuminated Manuscripts and the Buddhist Book Cult in South Asia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013). Elverskog argued against using the umbrella-term “Tibetan Buddhism” in the study of Mongolian Buddhism by citing Mongolian sources. The conference, organized by the Mongolia Initiative Program at UC–Berkeley in September 2017, was also titled “Mongolian Buddhism” to reflect on recent debate and recent publications, including seminal works by Vesna Wallace. See Elverskog, “Tibetocentrism, Religious Conversion and the Study of Mongolian Buddhism,” also for the conference see here: https://www .youtube.com/watch?v=sXwyWKXzr6k Among numerous articles and books, see in particular several chapters in Vesna Wallace ed., Buddhism in Mongolian History, Culture, and Society. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015). Caroline Humphrey and Hürelbaatar Ujeed, A Monastery in Time: The Making of Mongolian Buddhism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013). Peter Schwieger, The Dalai Lama and the Emperor of China: A Political History of the Tibetan Institution of Reincarnation (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015). Yumiko Ishihama, “The Notion of “Buddhist Government” (chos srid) Shared by Tibet, Mongol and Manchu in the Early 17th Century” in The Relationship Between Religion and State (chos srid zung ’brel) in Traditional Tibet, Ch Cüppers, ed., (Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2004), 15–31. Rebecca Empson referring to David Sneath’s Imperial Statecraft: Political Forms and Techniques of Governance in Inner Asia, Sixth–Twentieth Centuries (Bellingham, WA: Center for East Asian Studies, Western Washington University for Mongolia and Inner Asia Studies Unit, University of Cambridge, 2006), 14. Such publications include Larry Moses, The Political Role of Mongol Buddhism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977); Tatiyana Skrinnikova, Lamaistskaya tserkov’ i gosudarstvo: vneshnyaya Mongolia 16–nachalo 20 veka [Lamaist Church and the State: Outer Mongolia in the sixteenth to early twentieth centuries] (Novosibirsk, Russia: Nauka,1988); Berger et al., Mongolia: The Legacy of Chinggis Khan; Berger, Empire of Emptiness; and Wallace, Buddhism in Mongolian History, Culture, and Society. Rebecca M. Empson Harnessing Fortune: Personhood, Memory, and Place in Mongolia (Oxford: The British Academy/Oxford University Press, 2011); Manduhai Buyandelger Tragic Spirits: Shamanism, Memory, and Gender in Contemporary Mongolia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013). Empson, Harnessing Fortune, 25.

219

220

Notes to Pages 13–15

Chapter One: Zanabazar

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

In her recent study, Agata Bareja-Starzyńska argued that Luvsanprinlei’s account should be seen as a biography, as it relates to the events and historical people. While it also contains some apocryphal narratives (such as auspicious miracles), in comparison to later texts it could well be seen as a biography. As written during Zanabazar’s lifetime, Luvsanprinlei’s personal voice and experience with his teacher also make him an eyewitness to the events he describes, and reveal his aim to present a biographical account. See Bareja-Starzyńska, The Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar by Zaya Paṇḍita Luvsanprinlei: Studies, Annotated Translation, Transliteration and Facsimile (Warsaw: Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Warsaw, 2015). Sh. Bira, ed. and trans., Öndör Gegeeni namtruud orshvoi [Öndör Gegeen’s hagiographies] (Ulaanbaatar: ShUA-iin Erdem Kompani, 1995). Christopher Atwood defines Khalkha Mongols as “the major subethnic group (yastan) of the independent State of Mongolia. The native Khalkha are virtually the sole ethnic group in Mongolia’s vast rural interior; only in the border areas are other ethnic groups significant.” The Khalkhas emerged as one of six tümens (confederations) organized by Batmönkh Dayan Khaan (1480?–1517?) in the fifteenth century. See Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire (New York: Facts on File, 2004), 299; and Sh. Natsagdorj, Khalkhiin tüükh [History of the Khalkha] (Ulaanbaatar: Ulsyn Khevleliin Khereg Erkhlekh Khoroo, 1963). On the Khalkha, see also Charles Bawden, The Modern History of Mongolia (London: Kegan Paul International, 1968), 39–134. Miyawaki Junko was the first scholar who showed that, based on Tibetan sources, by 1650 Zanabazar was seen as a Géluk adherent. Miyawaki, “How Legends Developed about the First Jebtsundamba: In reference to the Khalkha Mongol Submission to the Manchus in the Seventeenth Century,” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 52 (1994): 53. Johan Elverskog came to the same conclusion. See Johan Elverskog, Our Great Qing: The Mongols, Buddhism and the State in Late Imperial China (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2006), 195n32. Located at present-day Burd soum (smaller administrative unit within a province), Övörkhangai aimag (province), Mongolia. Later hagiographies of Zanabazar often mention how aristocrats and their subjects gathered for the boy’s enthronement. See the following hagiographies: Agwaan Luvsandondov, Tügeemlin ezen, nomin itgelt Bogd toin Luvsandambiijantsanbalsambuugiin sonin yavdal khuvi tögöldör tonilgokhig khüsegch egeerliig khangakhui bayasgalant khurim nert orshvoi (The curious events of the Holy Bogd Luvsandambiijantsanbalsambuu, which are compiled as the joyous assembly to satisfy the desire for liberation), trans. D. Tsedev (Ulaanbaatar: Dashchoilin Khiid, 1995), 25; and Öndör Gegeenii namtar, D. Dashbadrakh, trans., in Öndör Gegeenii namtaruud orshvoi, ed. Sh. Bira (Ulaanbaatar: Erdem Co. of Academy of Sciences, 1995), 9. “Aimag,” initially meaning tribal-political units, was used to refer to territorial divisions, similar to regions or provinces, by the early seventeenth century. At monasteries, however, aimag meant organizational units of monastic communities, in some cases similar to Tibetan regional houses khangtsen (khang tshan). See Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia, 5. Charles Bawden’s translated nineteenth-century hagiography of Jebtsundampa Khutugtus mentions a gathering of “four” aimags, yet in 1639 there were only three aimags (Tüsheet, Zasagt, and Setsen Khan aimags). The fourth, Sain Noyon Khan aimag, was created in 1725. Bawden, The Jebtsundamba Khutukhtus of Urga, 44, fol. 8r. Alan Sanders, Historical Dictionary of Mongolia, Third Edition (Lanham/Toronto/ Plymouth: The Scarecrow Press, 2010), 379–380. On the territorial division of aimags in the early seventeenth century, see A. Ochir and B. Enkhtuvshin eds., Mongol Ulsyn Tüükh [History of Mongolia], vol. 4 (Ulaanbaatar: Academy of Sciences, 2003), 57.

Notes to Pages 15–17

6. 7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

12. 13.

14. 15.

16.

Örgöö, with its connotation of large size, also indicates an honorific reference for a ger residence of an important individual. Agata Bareja-Starzyńska states that by enthronement (Tib. khri ’don mdzad, Cl. M. siren-e ġarun), Luvsanprinlei here means “his enthronement as an ordained reincarnation, i. e. that during his ordination ceremony he was enthroned.” See Bareja-Starzyńska, The Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar by Zaya Paṇḍita Luvsanprinlei, 109n55. Patricia Berger translates Öndör Gegeen as “Lofty Brilliance.” See Berger, “After Xanadu: The Mongol Renaissance of the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries,” in Mongolia: The Legacy of Chinggis Khan, eds. Patricia Berger and Terese Tse Bartholomew (Thames and Hudson, 1995), 57. Gegeen Setsen Khan Sholoi was proclaimed as All-Inaugurated Mahāsammata Khan. See A. Ochir and B. Enkhtuvshin eds., Mongol Ulsyn Tüükh [History of Mongolia], vol. 4 (Ulaanbaatar: Academy of Sciences, 2003), 71, 73. In this book, I distinguish between Khaan (Qaġan) and Khan (Qan). I am aware that Qaġan was a later title and was not used by Chinggis during his lifetime. However, since posthumously this title, Khaan, was also applied to Chinggis in its basic meaning from the old Turkic “great khan,” I chose to use it in my writings. For more about this title, see Igor de Rachewiltz, “The Title Cinggis qan/qaġan Re-Examined,” in Gedanke und Wirkung, eds. Walter Heissig and Klaus Sagaster (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrossowitz, 1989), 281–298. Historian S. Ichinnorov states that Zanabazar is a thirty-seventh-generation descendant of Chinggis Khaan, with Batmönkh (Batu Möngke) Khan being the thirty-­ first. S. Ichinnorov, Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar: Namtar, Buteeliin zarim asuudal (Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar: Biography and some issues of his works) (Ulaanbaatar: Mönkhiin üseg, 2005), 11. Abatai Khan’s birth year is given as 1534, 1552, or 1554, depending on the sources. Oral histories recorded by S. Ichinnorov, Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar: Namtar, Buteeliin zarim asuudal (Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar: Biography and some issues of his works) (Ulaanbaatar: Mönkhiin üseg, 2005), 19–21. Sh. Bira, Öndör Gegeeni, 27n11. Some scholars have identified him as Chokyi Gyelpo (chos kyi rgyal po, 1605–1643), or Dharma king, the Thirteenth Abbot of the Chamdo Jampa Ling (chab mdo byams pa gling, founded in 1437 or 1444) in Amdo, when his predecessor, the Twelfth Abbot Rje drung rin po che (lha dbang chos kyi rgyal mtshan, 1537–1603), invited the Third Dalai Lama to Mongolia. Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa, 79n10, 108; Johan Elverskog, The Jewel Translucent Sūtra: Altan Khan and the Mongols in the Sixteenth Century, Brill’s Inner Asian Library, vol. 8 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 193–194. Luvsanprinlei, fol. 423, in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 109–110 Agwaan Khaidav, Ngo mtshar gtam gyi ’phreng ba sogs maṇḍal gyi bshad pa sna tshogs kyi skor: maṇḍal bshad pa (A collection of elegant explanations to accompany the devotional offerings of maṇḍala to revered lamas), in Collected Works, vol. 3, fol. 377, 379. The next chapters provide more information about Agwaan Khaidav, Ngag dbang blo bzang mkhas grub, also known as Mkhas grub or Wa gindra pa tu siddhi. For a brief account of this learned scholar and Ikh Khüree’s abbot, see Gene Smith, introduction to Collected Works, by Agwaan Khaidav, vol. 1. All translations, unless otherwise noted, are mine. David Templeman, The Life of Kāṇha/Kṛṣṇācārya by Tāranātha (Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1989); and David Templeman, “Tāranātha’s Life of Kāṇha/ Kṛṣṇācārya: An Unusual Siddha Hagiography,” in Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5th International Seminar on Tibetan Studies in Narita, Japan 1989, ed. Sh. Ihara and Z. Yamaguchi (Narita: Naritasan Shinshoji, 1992), 309–313.

221

222

Notes to Pages 17–22

17. Bareja-Starzyńska has suggested that Agwaan Khaidav “was responsible for bringing the information about divination.” See Bareja-Starzyńska, “The Mongolian Incarnation of Jo nang pa Tāranātha Kun dga’ snying po: Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan (1635–1723): A Case Study of the Tibeto-Mongolian Relationship,” special issue, Tibet Journal 34/35 no. 3/2 (Autumn 2009–Summer 2010): 248. 18. Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 81. 19. Samten Karmay, The Illusive Play: The Autobiography of the Fifth Dalai Lama (Chicago: Serindia Publications, 2014), 10. 20. Personal communication, fall 2007. 21. Sung Soo Kim, Tibetan Buddhism in Mongolia during the Ming and the Qing (Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2005), esp. 92–116. 22. A. Ochir and B. Enkhtuvshin eds., Mongol Ulsyn Tüükh, 75. They reference D. Dashbadrakh transl., Sumbe Khambo Ishbaljir, Khökh nuurin tüükh eserüügiin duulal shine yaruu khemeegdekh orshvoi (New Auspicious Praise to History of Kökenuur by Sumbe Khambo Ishbaljir) (Ulaanbaatar: Academy of Sciences, 1997), 15. 23. This sixteenth-century portrait is attributed to an eminent Tibetan artist at Tashilhunpo Chöying Gyatso (17th c.). See here: https://www.himalayanart.org/items/99075. 24. See the entire set here: https://www.himalayanart.org/items/36535 25. Luvsanprinlei wrote short biographies of Zanabazar’s fifteen previous reincarnations, titled khal kha rje btsun blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’i ‘khrungs rab rnam thar (Glorious Khalkha Jebtsundampa Luvsandanbiijantsan’s biographies), which are in his Records of Teachings Received (thob yig), vol. 4. In his biography on Tāranātha, Luvsanprinlei lists many of Tāranātha’s important writings, which include, among others, hagiographies of Buddha Śākyamuni, Padmasambhava, and Kṛṣṇācārya; histories of Tārā and of Buddhism in India; and numerous other famous works, some of which are translated into English. See Zaya Paṇḍita Luvsanprinlei, vol. 4, fol. 124–125. Luvsanprinlei does not explain Tāranātha’s zhentong views. According to Cyrus Stearns, zhentong views were first developed by Dolpopa Sherab Gyeltsen (dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan, 1292–1361), who taught at Sakya Monastery and was the abbot of Jonang Monastery between 1326 and 1338. Tāranātha continued Dolpopa’s beliefs and teachings, including of Kālacakra Tantra. Dolpopa and Tāranātha’s teachings on emptiness distinguished “between the relative as empty of self-nature (rangtong) and the absolute as empty only of other relative phenomena (zhentong),” and this difference critically diverged from Géluk views of rangtong. For more on Dolpopa, see Stearns, The Buddha from Dölpo: A Study of the Life and Thought of the Tibetan Master Dölpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 2010). 26. Tāranātha founded Takten Damchöling at an old Jonang hermitage site with the support of Tsang ruler Desi Puntsok Namgyel (sde srid phun tshogs rnam rgyal). The Fifth Dalai Lama renamed it Puntsogling (rtag brtan phun tshogs gling) and converted to Géluk in 1650. See also Gyurgy Somlai, “The Lineage of Tāranātha According to Klong-rdol bla-ma,” in Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 4th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Schloss Hohenkammer, Munich 1985, ed. Helga Uebach and Jampa Losan Panglung (Munich: Kommission für Zentralasiatische Studien, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988), 449. 27. Luvsanprinlei, fol. 432, in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 119. 28. Luvsanprinlei, khal kha rje btsun blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’i ‘khrungs rab rnam thar (Glorious Khalkha Jebtsundampa Luvsandanbiijantsan’s biographies), vol. 4, fol. 125. 29. rje btsun tA ra na tha’i gsang ba’i rnam thar ’di ni dpe cha dgon pas ’dir bzhugs pa las gsung brtsom min no (Appearing Here Is the Secret Autobiography of Rje Btsun

Notes to Pages 22–29

30. 31.

32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

37. 38. 39.

40.

41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

46.

47.

48.

Taranatha—a Rare Text—thus Not Included in His Collected Works), fol. 5b. I thank Khenpo Yeshi for translation and his help with this text. Personal correspondence, fall 2018. I thank David Templeman for his reading of this text and for sharing his observations and comments with me. Wang Sen, Xizang Fojiao fazhan shilue (Beijing: Zhongguo shehuikexue chubanshe, 1987), 161–163, referenced in Xiangyun Wang, “Tibetan Buddhism at the Court of Qing: The Life and Work of ICang-skya Rol-pa’i-rdo-rje (1717–1786),” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1995), 268; and Aleksei Pozdneev, Mongolia and the Mongols (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1972), 322. G. Nyam-Ochir ed., Autobiography of Tāranātha. Mongolian translation by Altangerel Ubashi (1640) (Ulaanbaatar: Polar Star Books, LLC, 2012), viii. This information is well known and often mentioned in historical accounts. See, for instance, Kim, Tibetan Buddhism, 105, referring to History of Erdene Zuu. G. Nyam-Ochir ed., Autobiography of Tāranātha, viii. Personal correspondence, fall 2018. D. Gongor, Khalkh tovchoon, 1–2 boti (Khalkha Chronicle, 2 volumes) (Höhhot: Printing Agency of Pedagogy, 1990), vol. 1, 376–377. According to Mongolian Tibetologist D. Dashbadrakh, there are fifteen handwritten manuscripts of Zanabazar’s Mongolian hagiographies. None of these sources was critically studied. Sh. Soninbayar’s thesis is the only scholarly work that provides comparative analyses of both Tibetan and Mongolian hagiographies of Zanabazar. See Soninbayar, “Mongolin soyol tüükhend Öndör Gegeenii oruulsan uutgel” (The contribution of Zanabazar in Mongolian culture and history), (PhD diss., Academy of Sciences of Mongolia, Institute of History at Academy of Sciences, 1999). Soninbayar, “Mongolin soyol,” 56. Soninbayar, “Mongolin soyol,” 65. Nyam-Ochir, Autobiography of Tāranātha, viii. Soninbayar suggests it is still in the Bogd Khan Palace Museum. As of September 2018, my own inquiries at the Bogd Khan Palace Museum yielded no information about it. The memories of this head, however, are still well preserved among Mongolian monks. John C. Street ed., Shorter Version of Igor de Rachewiltz trans., The Secret History of the Mongols: A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century (Brill, 2004, 2013), ch. 7, v. 189, p. 104. G. Nyam-Ochir ed., Autobiography of Tāranātha, viii. Personal communication with Nyam-Ochir, December, 2018. Nyam-Ochir, Autobiography of Tāranātha, 366–367. See fol. 595 in Johan Elverskog, The Jewel Translucent Sūtra, 135 and 254. Bareja-Starzyńska, The Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 89–90, referencing Yumiko Ishihama, Tibet Bukkyo sekai no rekisiteki kenkyu (Tokyo: Toho Shoten, 2001), chapter 8, 227–258. There are numerous translations and editions of his travel account. See, among others, C. Raymond Beazley, ed., The Texts and Versions of John de Plano Carpini and William de Rubruquis: As Printed for the First Time by Hakluyt in 1598 (London: Hakluyt Society, 1903); Peter Jackson and David Morgan, eds., The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck : His Journey to the Court of the Great Khan Möngke, 1253–1255 (London: Hakluyt Society, 1990), 74, 100, 131, 178. Isabelle Charleux, Temples et monastères de Mongolie-Intérieure (Paris: Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques and Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art, 2006). S. Gotov, Bügsiin Khüree-Dashgendunjambalin khiid (Ulaanbaatar: Khuvsgul, 2000); and Charleux, ed., Zaya Gegeenii Khüree Monastery.

223

224

Notes to Pages 29–31

49. The Tsogt Ikh süm was a square building measuring 38 × 38 meters, with a height of 90 meters (300 chi 尺). There were numerous sculptures found during its excavation suggesting it was an active ritual site. Bao Muping, “A Multi-Storied Wooden Building in Thirteenth-Century Karakorum: A Study on the Architectural Style of the Xingyuan Pavilion,” in International Conference on Ten Years of the World Heritage Site-Orkhon Valley Cultural Landscape: Past and Present, ed. Takashi Matsukawa and Ayudai Ochir (Kharkhorin: Publisher unknown, 2015), 73–82. See more in Uranchimeg Tsultemin, Buddhist Art and Architecture of Mongolia, forthcoming. 50. See, for instance, Galdan Tuslagch, Erdeni-yin Erike [Rosary of Treasures], Manuscript Division, National Library of Mongolia, 1841); Jibjundamba blam-a-yin törül üy-e-yin neres kiged oron dacang bayiġuluġsan temdeglel [Jebtsundampa’s reincarnation lists and Notes on construction of datsans], Manuscript Division, National Library of Mongolia; Erdene-Zuu ba Öndör Gegeeni namtar (Erdene-Zuu and Hagiography of Öndör Gegeen) in Sh. Bira, Öndör Gegeeni; Ochirdar Öndör, khoyordugaar, guravdugaar bogd gegeeni tüükh (History of Vajradhāra the First, the Second, the Third Bogd Gegeen). 51. Tatiana Skrinnikova, Lamaistskaya tserkov’ i gosudarstvo: vneshnyaya Mongolia 16-nachalo 20 veka (Lamaist Church and the State: Outer Mongolia in the 16th to early 20th centuries). (Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1988). See also Kim, Tibetan Buddhism. 52. Examining early missionary work, Alicia Campi and Baasan Ragchaa note that “the missionaries decided that the nomadic Mongols could not be reached effectively. Because of the nomadic nature of Mongol life, a different kind of missionary work outside of permanent stations had to be developed. This was called “itineration”—traveling around to find the Mongol winter and summer camps.” Alicia J. Campi and R. Baasan, The Impact of China and Russia on United States–Mongolian Political Relations in the Twentieth Century (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2009), 34–35. 53. I will discuss some texts in chapter 5. For a map of Örgöö migrations following the primary textual sources and L. Dügersüren’s chronology of events, see O. Pürev, 360 Ulaanbaatar (Ulaanbaatar: Admon Press, 1999). In 1999, celebrating the 360th anniversary of Ikh Khüree-Ulaanbaatar, the City Hall of Ulaanbaatar installed monuments at various Örgöö locations. For a report about this event, see O. Pürev, O. Sukhbaatar et al., Niislelin Öv soyol (Cultural Heritage of the capital) (Ulaanbaatar: Mönkhiin üseg, 2004). 54. A manuscript, quoted by Lama Erdenepil in L. Dügersüren, From the History of Ulaanbaatar (Ulaanbaatar khotin tuukhees) (Ulaanbaatar: Ulsyn Khevleliin Gazar, 1956), 26. This manuscript is currently missing from the library, but is often quoted and referred to by mid-twentieth-century scholars of Ikh Khüree. Erdenepil himself was a learned lama in Ikh Khüree, later active in Gandan Monastery during the socialist period. 55. Zanabazar resided intermittently in Tövkhön Temple, Erdene Zuu Monastery, Beijing, Dolonnor, and traveled with the Kangxi Emperor to Wutaishan and Chengde. See, for instance, Aleksei Pozdneev, Mongolia and the Mongols (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971), 65. 56. For more on shabinar, see D. Tsedev, Ikh Shav (Great Disciple) (Ulaanbaatar: Shinzhlekh ukhaany Akademiin khevlel, 1964). 57. Plano Carpini, The Story of the Mongols Whom We Call the Tartars, trans. Erik Hildinger (Boston: Branden Publishing, 1996), 109. 58. John Mandeville, The travels of Sir John Mandeville, with three narratives in illustration of it: The voyage of Johannes de Plano Carpini, The journal of Friar William de Rubruquis, The journal of Friar Odoric (New York: Dover Publications, 1964), 214, 251. 59. Ibid., 249. 60. Teleki translates it as “massive,” “enormous.” See Teleki, “Bogdin Khüree,” 60; Tsültemjamts, Avralt Itgelt Bogd, 24; and also S. Pürevjav, Khuvsgalin ömnöh Ikh Khüree

Notes to Pages 31–38

61.

62.

63. 64. 65. 66.

67. 68. 69.

70.

71.

72. 73. 74.

75.

76. 77.

(Pre-revolutionary Ikh Khüree) (Ulaanbaatar, Ulsin Khevlelin Khereg Erkhlekh Khoroo, 1961). According to Vasily Barthold, the tradition of khorig existed among the nomads before the Mongols. See V. Barthold and J. Rogers, “The Burial Rites of the Turks and the Mongols,” Central Asiatic Journal 14, no. 1/3 (1970): 205. Isabelle Charleux referring to Rashid ad-Din, Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s “Jami‘u’ttawarikh”: Compendium of Chronicles, Pts 1–3, A History of the Mongols. Annotated translation by Wheeler M. Thackston, 3 vol. (Cambridge, Harvard University, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, 1998), 464. Henry Serruys translates khorig as “reservation”—“a territory which is forbidden to enter.” He further maintains that khorig refers to burial places of deceased khans, which were forbidden territories in which to hunt, settle, or cut wood. See Serruys, “Mongol Qoriġ: Reservation” in Mongolian Studies 1 (1974): 76–91. Aleksei M. Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli (Mongolia and Mongols) (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Imperatorskoi akademii nauk, 1896–1898), 91–92. Ibid. Kim, Tibetan Buddhism. O. Pürev, Mongolin Uls törin töv (Mongolian political center) (Ulaanbaatar: Mana, 1994), 21. The worship of fire certainly dates back to the early days of nomadic beliefs and shamanistic practices. L. Khurelbaatar, Ankhdugaar Bogd (The First Bogd) (Ulaanbaatar: Khaadin San, 2001). S. Ichinnorov, Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar: Erdem, 49–50. This is an old Mongolian tradition of having sheep tail fat during various celebrations and feasts. The tradition has been preserved up to the present day. Only the head of the family has the authority to cut the first slice of the tail fat. For maps of the Kangxi Empire, see Laura Hostetler, “Early Modern Mapping at the Qing Court: Survey Maps of the Kangxi, Yongzheng, and Qianlong Reign Periods,” in Chinese History in Geographical Perspective, ed. Yongtao Du and Jeff Kyong-McClain (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2013), 15–33. Some sources indicate Zanabazar built Baruun Khüree. See, for instance, L. Khurelbaatar, Ankhdugaar Bogd. For a late-nineteenth- or early-twentieth-century primary source, see Agwaan Tsültemjamts, Avralt itgelt Bogd Jivzundambin khiid Baruun Khüreenii garsan yosig tovch ögüülsen shudarga orshigchdyn chikhnii chimeg khemeekh orshvoi (Treasury to the Ear of Those Honest: Brief Narrative of How Bogd Jebtsundampa’s Baruun Khüree was Established), trans. Sh. Soninbayar (Ulaanbaatar: Gandantegchinlin Monastery, 1995), 23–24. Soninbayar maintains that the Tüsheet Khan and the Sholoi Setsen Khan established Baruun Khüree for the young Zanabazar in 1647; Soninbayar, personal communication, June 2017. For the same view, see also J. Ölzii, Mongolin dursgalt uran barilgin tüükhees (From the History of Mongolian architectural Monuments] (Ulaanbaatar: Soyombo Publishing, 1992), 68. Tsültemjamts, Avralt Itgelt Bogd, 24. Zawa Damdin, Altan Debter, fol. 82–83, quoted in Krisztina Teleki, “Bogdin Khüree, 1654–1924” (PhD diss., Eötvös Loránd Tudományos Egyetem, 2008), 14. Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 453. According to Pozdneev, Züün Khüree was founded in 1761, yet according to Lama N. Amgalan, a new manuscript he recently discovered states its foundation as 1735. Personal communication with Amgalan, fall 2018. Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 455–457. Pozdneev notes that the main administration of Züün Khüree is approved by the monks of Ikh Khüree and the noblemen of Darkhan Chin Wan khoshuu. Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 462. As Himalayan art scholar Jeff Watt states, Mahākāla Pañjarnātha’s “iconography and

225

226

Notes to Pages 38–45

78. 79.

80.

81. 82.

83. 84.

rituals are found in the 18th chapter of the Vajra Panjara Tantra (canopy, or pavilion), a Sanskrit language text from India, and an exclusive ‘explanatory tantra’ to the Hevajra Tantra itself.” See the Himalayan Art Resources website, accessed Dec. 6, 2018, https://www.himalayanart.org/search/set.cfm?setID=265. Luvsanprinlei, fol. 438, in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 125. See Teleki, “Bogdin Khüree,” 60; Tsültemjamts, Avralt Itgelt Bogd, 24; and also S. Pürevjav, Khuvsgalin ömnöh Ikh Khüree (Pre-revolutionary Ikh Khüree) (Ulaanbaatar, Ulsin Khevlelin Khereg Erkhlekh Khoroo, 1961). Later biographers usually mention 1706 as an important year for Zanabazar as he builds, according to them, his new temples and produces his new artworks. See Davgajantsan, Tiin Udirdagch Jebtsundampa ikh erdeniin namtar magtaalin üg sain khuvitni süsgiig sergeegch orshvoi (Praises to the Leader Jebtsundampa and his Hagiography) (1912), in Bira ed., Öndör Gegeeni, 40–41; and Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 337. Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 82. Pozdneev refers to a Mongolian textual source, Khalkh Mongolyn orond ankh burkhan shajin ekhi olsan bas Jibzundamba Khutugtin töröl (How Buddhism began in Khalkha Mongolia and Reincarnations of Jebtsundampa Khutugtu), fol. 18. Pozdneev claims he brought this text to the library of St. Petersburg University. My own written inquiries to the university about this document did not yield any result. Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 82. Ibid.; S. Ichinnorov Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar: Erdem, 25.

Chapter Two: Zanabazar’s Art and Works



1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

6.

Epigraph: Johan Elverskog, trans., The Jewel Translucent Sūtra: Altan Khan and the Mongols in the Sixteenth Century, Brill’s Inner Asian Library, vol. 8 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 135. Elverskog, Jewel Translucent Sūtra, 135. L. Khurelbaatar, Ankhdugaar Bogd (First Bogd) (Ulaanbaatar: Khaadin San, 2001), 174. Richard Davis, The Lives of Indian Images (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 263. N. Tsultem, Iskusstvo Mongolii s drevneishikh vremen do nachala XX veka (Art of Mongolia from ancient times till the beginning of the 20th c.) (Moscow: Izobrazitel’noe Iskusstvo, 1982), 80–85; N. Tsultem, Mongolian Eminent Sculptor Zanabazar (Ulaanbaatar: Gosizdatelʹstvo, 1982); Françoise Aubin et al., eds., Trésors de Mongolie, XVIIe-XIXe siècles (Paris: Reunion des Musées Nationaux, 1993); Patricia Berger and Terese Tse Bartholomew, eds., Mongolia: The Legacy of Chinggis Khan, 76–88, 261–294; Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 26–32; Gilles Béguin, “Introduction” to Treasures from Mongolia: Buddhist Sculpture from the School of Zanabazar, by Anna Maria Rossi and Fabio Rossi (London: Anna Rossi and Fabio Rossi, 2005), no numbered pages. Luo Wenhua has shown that Newari artists were brought to the Qing court. Luo Wenhua, “Qianlong jiunian Nipoer gongjiang jinjing kao” (Research into the Nepalese artisans who came to the capital in the ninth year of Qianlong), in /Longpao yu jiasha/ 龙袍与袈 裟 (Dragon robes and monks’ mantles), vol. 2 (Beijing: Zijincheng chubashe, 2005), 583–598. S. Ichinnorov, ed., Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar: Erdem, 27.

Notes to Pages 46–52

7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

12. 13.

14.

15. 16.

17. 18. 19.

20.

21. 22. 23.

Béguin, Treasures from Mongolia. Luvsanprinlei, Zanabazar’s primary biographer, does not mention many sculptures that today are attributed to Zanabazar. Tsultem, Iskusstvo Mongolii, 85. Khurelbaatar, Ankhdugaar Bogd, 194. Luvsanprinlei, fol. 448, in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 132. Khan Khentii Mountains are located in Töv (Central) aimag northeast from Ulaanbaatar, about 85 km from Erdene soum. Luvsanprinlei, fol. 448, in Bareja-Starzyńska, The Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 132. Zsuzsa Majer, “Töwkhön, the Retreat of Öndör Gegeen as a Pilgrimage Site,” in The Silk Road 10 (2012): 107–116, esp. 108. See S. Ichinnorov, Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar: Namtar, 42; and Sh. Soninbayar, “Mongolin Soyol.” Zsuzsa Majer and Krisztina Teleki record another history that maintains Zanabazar built the site. Soninbayar, “Mongolin Soyol,” 68. For information about Indian mahāsiddha Padampa Sanggye, see David Molk, Lion of Siddhas: The Life and Teachings of Padampa Sanggye, Spi edition (Ithaca: Snow Lion, 2008). Berger, Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2003), 28. The jas were administrative units and reserves built on individual donations. See S. Tsedendamba, ed., Mongolin Süm Khiidiin tüükhen tovchoon (The Chronicle of Mongolian temples and monasteries) (Ulaanbaatar: Admon, 2009), 16. Ichinnorov, Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar: Namtar, 43. Luvsanprinlei, fol. 438, 463, in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 125, 139. The excavation of the site was conducted by the History and Archeology Institute of the Academy of Sciences led by S. Chuluun, who published a brief article and a small color catalog of an exhibition to show his findings. S. Chuluun, “Saridigiin khiided yavuulsan maltlaga sudalgaany uridchilsan ur dun” (Preliminary report of excavations conducted at Saridagiin monastery),” (Ulaanbaatar: Institute of History, 2015), 3; “Nomin Khüreeg Neesen n: Saridagiin Khiidiin sudalgaa” (The Discovery of Dharma Khüree and research of Saridagiin Monastery) (Ulaanbaatar: Institute of History, 2015). Luvsanprinlei, fol. 477, in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 151. There are several stories of how Zanabazar’s monastery was destroyed despite the Khutugtu’s clever maneuver to save it. According to one version, Zanabazar hid himself and his people from Galdan’s soldiers in a cave near the monastery. When the Dzungars arrived, they did not find any people in the monastery and were about to leave to seek them, which was Zanabazar’s tactic to save the structure he had built. However, a younger monk in the cave playfully connected two botflies while in the cave, and a Dzungar soldier unfortunately happened to see the two joined botflies flying around. This simple thing alerted Galdan to the presence of people nearby, and, as a consequence, the monastery was totally destroyed. The defense wall also had fourteen small rooms built adjacent to the northern wall, and five rooms at the western and eastern walls. See Chuluun, “Preliminary Report.” The building construction consisted of rows of big stones sandwiching two to four rows of thin stone slabs. Chuluun, “Preliminary Report.” Several archeological expeditions visited the Saridag site in 1915, 1923, and 1995. But only since 2013 continuous archeological work has been conducted by S. Chuluun. In 1915, Russian scholar A.C. Kozin led an expedition into the Khan Khentii Mountains

227

228

Notes to Pages 52–54

24. 25. 26. 27.

28. 29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

and visited the remains of the Saridagiin monastery. For more information, S. Chuluun, “In Search of the Khutugtu’s Monastery: The Site and Its Heritage,” in Uranchimeg Tsultemin, ed., Buddhist Art of Mongolia: Cross-Cultural Discourses, Facts, and Interpretations. In Cross-Currents: East Asian History and Culture Review. Special Issue. (Berkeley: University of California) vol. 31, 06/ 2019:244–256. Luvsanprinlei, fol. 453–456 in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 135–137. Luvsanprinlei, fol. 514 in in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 172. Luvsanprinlei, fol. 514 in in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 172. Agwaan Ishtüvden Ravjamba (ngag dbang ye shes thub bstan rab ’byams pa , aka ngag gi dbang po) Khyab bdag ’khor lo’i mgon rje btsun dam pa blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan gyi rnam thar skal bzang dad pa’i shing rta (The Universal Lord, the Protector of the Wheel, the Jebtsundampa Luvsandambijantsan’s Biography, the Chariot of the Faith for the Devoted Worthy) in Lokesh Chandra ed., Life and works of Jibcundampa I (New Delhi: Sharada Rani, 1982), fol. 113. Khurelbaatar, Ankhdugaar Bogd, 174. Tsultem, Iskusstvo Mongolii, 80–85; Tsultem, Mongolian Eminent Sculptor Zanabazar, 2; Aubin, Trésors de Mongolie; Berger and Bartholomew, Mongolia: The Legacy of Chinggis Khan, 261–263; and Béguin, Treasures from Mongolia. Luvsanprinlei, fol. 454, in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 135, 214. Luvsanprinlei refers to the recipient as boγda eǰen (Holy Lord), which is used for the Qing Emperor only and indicates a secular ruler, whereas boγda lama (Holy Lama) is used for Tsongkhapa. Boγda gegegen [original spellings of the terms from Bareja-Starzyńska] (Holy Brilliance) refers to the Jebtsundampa. Bareja-­ Starzyńska in her translation mistakenly applies the term boγda eǰen to the Dalai Lama. This statue was first published as Zanabazar’s work in a catalog titled The First Jebtsundampa Khutughtu Öndör Gegeen for the auction held in China on November 12, 2016. About Zanabazar’s works in National Palace Museum, see Luo Wenhua, “Gugong cang Menggu tongfo zaoxiang yanjiu,” Gugong bowuyuan yuankan 2 (1999): 81–87. Another Mañjuśrī sculpture, published in The Complete Collection of the Treasures of the Palace Museum 60: Buddhist Statues of Tibet—Gugong Bowuyuan Cang Wenwu Zhenpin Quanji 60: Zangchuan Fojiao Zaoxiang (Beijing: Palace Museum, 2002). My knowledge of the private collections of such well-known collectors as D. Altangerel, who also founded a private museum in Ulaanbaatar, is limited to his own publications. See D. Altangerel, Treasures of Mongolian Art: Collections of Altangerel Ayurzana (Ulaanbaatar: Asian Art Antique Gallery, 2006), 24–25. For instance, the statue of Akṣobhya, erroneously described as Ratnasaṃbhava, has been identified as Zanabazar’s own work. I did not have access to the statue to examine it in detail, and thus cannot confirm this identification. The published photograph does not feature Zanabazar’s characteristics. I have elaborated on the analysis of these sets in the following publications: Uranchimeg Tsultem, “Ikh Khüree: a Nomadic Monastery and the Later Buddhist Art of Mongolia” (PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2009), chapter 3; Uranchimeg Tsultemin, “Zanabazar’s Art: The Building of the Buddhist State in Late Medieval Mongolia,” in Meditation. The Art of Zanabazar and His School (Poland: State Ethnographic Museum, 2010), 17–59; “Zanabazar’s Art and the Mongol Statehood,” in Acta Mongolica (in Mongolian) (Ulaanbaatar: Institute for Mongolian Studies, University of Mongolia, 2013), 13 /385, 53–67; “Zanabazar (1635–1723): “Vajrayāna Art and the State in

Notes to Pages 56–61

35.

36. 37.

38.

39. 40.

41.

42. 43.

44.

45. 46. 47.

48. 49. 50.

Medieval Mongolia,” in Buddhism in Mongolian History, Culture, and Society, ed. Vesna Wallace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 116–136. For the Buddha Families and the Five Tathāgatas, see David Snellgrove, Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists and Their Tibetan Successors (Boston: Shambhala Publication, 2002 [1987]), 189–198. Snellgrove explains the manner in which the theory of the Five Buddha Families emerged in the early and most fundamental text of Yoga Tantras, the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha (The Symposium of the Truth of all the Buddhas). According to Agwaan Luvsandondov and Davgajantsan. His initiation into Vajradhāra is not mentioned by Luvsanprinlei. Luvsanprinlei, fol. 456, in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 137, 215. Bira translates this praxis as the names of teachers Duvtavjajam and Duvtavrinchenjunai. See Bira, Öndör Gegeeni, 12. See especially Taglung (stag lung) and Drigung (’bri gung) paintings, where the top register in each thangka visually lists the Kagyu doctrinal lineage, starting with Vajradhāra, including the adepts (mahāsiddhas) Tilopa and Naropa and the Tibetan teachers Marpa and Milarepa. For images and a discussion, see, for example, Jane Casey Singer and Steven Kossak, eds., Sacred Visions: Early Paintings from Central Tibet (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1998). Snellgrove, Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, 131. Also partially quoted in Elverskog, Jewel Translucent Sūtra, 147n253. James Bosson, “Scripts and Literacy in the Mongol World” and “The Seal of the First Bogd Gegeen,” in Berger and Bartholomew, Mongolia: The Legacy of Chinggis Khan, 88–95, 267–269. I agree with Elverskog that the title “Dalai” is not an honorific title but rather a Mongolian translation of rgya mtsho, and thus the name Bsod nam rgya mtsho in Mongolian is “Meritorious Ocean.” See Elverskog, Jewel Translucent Sūtra, 161n296. Elverskog, Jewel Translucent Sūtra, 161. The Qing emperors and the Dalai Lamas bestowed titles and recognitions that were part of their strategy of political control and manipulation. Among several scholars who wrote about these strategies, the most recent is Peter Schwieger, The Dalai Lama and the Emperor of China (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015). See Christian Luczanits, “Infinite Variety: Form and Appearance in Tibetan Buddhist Art. Part I,” Lotus Leaves 7, no. 2 (2005): 1–9 and “Infinite Variety. Form and Appearance in Tibetan Buddhist Art. Part II.” Lotus Leaves 8, no. 1 (2005): 7–14. See n35 for more references to specific publications. S. Chuluun, “In the Search for Khutugtu’s Monastery.” The Mahāyāna theory of Trikāya maintains that the Body of the Buddha takes three forms (kāya): sambhogakāya (body of enjoyment), nirmāṇakāya (earthly body), and dharmakāya (Dharma body). See Guan Xing, The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikaya Theory (London: Routledge Curzon Press, 2005). According to Schwieger the trikāya concept was developed in the fourth century by the Vijñānavāda school and indicates “three modes or degrees of reality.” See Schwieger, The Dalai Lama, 10. Tsultem, Iskusstvo Mongolii, 85 and L. Khurelbaatar, Ankhdugaar Bogd, 194. I thank Prof. Christian Luczanits for his important insights and consultation on this iconography. See more discussion in Tsultemin, “Buddhist Archeology in Mongolia: Zanabazar and the Géluk Diaspora beyond Tibet,” in Tsultemin ed., Buddhist Art of Mongolia: Cross-­ Cultural Discourses, 7–32.

229

230

Notes to Pages 62–65

51. Private collections, such as D. Altangerel’s, claim they own images of wrathful deities made by Zanabazar. I did not have access to their images for proper examination. The photographs published by Altangerel are not convincing. Therefore, I limit my observations here to what I truly trust as works by Zanabazar. 52. The four Tibetan classifications of Tantra are Kriyā, Caryā, Yoga, and Yoganiruttara. I use the latter term Yoganiruttara (Tib. rnal ’byor gong na med pa’i rgyud) to replace the erroneous but widely used term Anuttarayoga following the scholarship by Jacob Dalton. See Jacob Dalton, “A Crisis of Doxography,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 28, no. 1 (2005). 53. Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia, 40. 54. Scholars, such as Coyiji, refer to the period after the collapse of the Yuan dynasty until the rise of the Qing and the death of the Ligden Khan (1592–1634) as Northern Yuan (1368–1635). See also Myangat Erdenebaatar, “Some Questions Concerning ‘Mongolian Golden Kanjur’ of Mongol Ligden Khan,” Mongolian Studies 28 (2010): 37. 55. Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia, 40. 56. Zhu Rong, trans., Altan Khan’s Hagiography (in Chinese) (Höhhot: Övör Mongolyn Ardyn Hevleliin horoo, 1991), 176–177. Quoted in Erdenebaatar, “Some Questions,” 31–32. See also Kirill Alekseev and Anna Turanskaya, “An Overview of the Altan Kanjur Kept at the Library of the Academy of Social Sciences of Inner Mongolia,” in Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz and Anke von Kügelgen eds., Asiatische Studien/ Études Asiatiques, vol. 77, issue 3 (Bern/Berlin: Peter Lang, 2013), 756; Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz “The Transmission of the Mongolian bKa ‘gyur: a Preliminary Report,” in Helmut Eimer and David Germano eds., The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies 2000 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 156–159. 57. Altan tobci, fol. 648–650. Altan erike, fol. 109–111. Quoted in Erdenebaatar, “Some Questions,” 34–35. See also D. Tserensodnom, Mongolyn Burkhan shshni uran zohiol [Mongolian Buddhist Literature] (Ulaanbaatar: Institute of Literature and Language at Academy of Sciences, 1997), 23. 58. Some volumes of this Golden Kanjur are now preserved in the library of the Academy of Social Sciences of Inner Mongolia in Höhhot. According to Erdenebaatar, the preparation for this monumental translation work began as early as 1626, when Ligden Khan assembled translators and Buddhist clerks and scholars with the help of his disciple Sharav Khutugtu near White Pagoda of the Khitan (Liao). In April 1627, in Liaodun, further preparations were conducted. See Erdenebaatar, “Some Questions,” 35–36, 41. The Golden Kanjur is one of the Three Jewels of Ligden Khan; the other two are the famous Mahākāla sculpture from the Yuan dynasty and the jade state seal. See also Kirill Alekseev and Anna Turanskaya, “An Overview of the Altan Ganjuur Kept at the Library of the Academy of Social Sciences of Inner Mongolia,” 755–782. 59. Luvsanprinlei, 445, in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar,130. See also Géza Bethlenfalvy, Hand List of the Ulaanbaatar Manuscript of the Kanjur Rgal-rtse o le spangs-ma (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1982). 60. Luvsanprinlei 455 in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 136. 61. This edition was made in Jang under the patronage of the king Mu zeng (1587–1646) and the supervision of the Sixth Zhamar in 1621, based on the xylographic boards brought by the Mongol troops to Lithang. Luvsanprinlei, 454, in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 136n265, where she refers to the Resources for Kanjur and Tanjur Studies at the University of Vienna. 62. The translation of Tanjur into Mongolian was conducted in 1741–1742 by the Qianlong Emperor and his close friend and preceptor, Jangjia Khutugtu Rolpé Dorjé; they

Notes to Pages 65–66

63.

64. 65. 66. 67. 68.

69.

70.

71.

72. 73.

employed a translator of “all scripts,” Gombojav (Gonpokyab, Tib. mgon po skyabs, fl. 1692–1749). Damcho Gyatsho Dharmatāla, Rosary of White Lotuses: Being the Clear Account of How the Precious Teaching of Buddha Appeared and Spread in the Great Hor Country. Translated and annotated by Piotr Klafkowski (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1987), 393. Atwood has the date as 1742–1749. Encyclopedia of Mongolia, 40. See also Davgajantsan, in Bira, Öndör Gegeeni, 17. Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia, 40. Atwood also notes that for this project, Rolpé Dorjé and Gombojav created a dictionary, Merged garkhu-yin oron (Land of the Wise), recalling the creation by Ayush Güüsh of transcription letters for the Mongolian translation of Tibetan and Sanskrit words. Atwood translates the title of the dictionary as “Font of Scholars.” Gombojav is also known for authoring Gangga-yin uruskhal (Flow of the Ganges, 1725) in Mongolian about genealogies of Mongolian banners and rGya nag chos ’byung (History of Dharma in China, 1735). Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia, 209; and Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 84–88. According to Berger, 1718–1720, Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 91–94. Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 93. Ibid. Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 88, Tsultem, Iskusstvo Mongolii, 99. Chahar Geshe Luvsanchültem’s (1740–1810) hagiography of Tsongkhapa Rje thams cad mkhyen pa tsong kha pa chen po’i rnam thar go slo bar brjod pa bde legs kun ’byin gnas zhes bya ba bzhugs so dates to 1786. Thus, the text by Zanabazar is the earliest. See in Sh. Bira Mongolyn Tövd helt Tüükhiin zokhiol (XII–XIX) (Mongolian Literature in Tibetan, 17th-19th c.) (Ulaanbaatar: International Association of Mongolian Studies, 2001 [1960]), 59–65. Zanabazar, Collected Works vol. 1, fol. 2–7. In R. Byambaa. Khal kha Rje btsun dam pa sku phreng rim byon gyi gsung ’bum (The Collected Works of the Successive Reincarnation Lineage of the Khalkha Jebtsundampa). Four volumes, Series Number 1–4 (Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Bilig Series for Studying Tibetan Language Works Written by Mongols, 2004). Zanabazar, among others, uses the phrase, “rang byung ye shes snang ba rgyas par shog” (May the manifestation of the self-occurring gnosis be expanded!), which is more relevant to Jonang doctrinal teachings. The concept of a manifestation of the self-­ occurring gnosis is not commonly discussed in standard Géluk doctrinal teachings, and this vocabulary is just not used by Gélukpas. This is because, from the standard Géluk perspective, there can be the danger that a self-occurring or self-arising phenomenon may potentially imply some sort of independent reality. I thank Erdenebaatar Erdene-Ochir at UCSB for indicating this point. See more in Zanabazar, Collected Works fol. 34. The oral belief of this Sakya teacher is noted in Soninbayar, “Mongolin Soyol,” and D. Damdinsüren, Ikh Khüreenii nert urchuud (Famous Masters of Ikh Khüree) (Ulaanbaatar: Mongolpress, 1993), 41. Zanabazar, Collected Works vol. 1, fol. 52. Tsongkhapa, the founder of the Géluk school, is known to be a devoted learner from masters of various schools. Similarly, the Great Fifth Dalai Lama (1617–1682) and the Fourth Panchen Lama (1570–1662) were also known for their broad and open approach to other schools, as noted by Gene Smith and Samten Karmay. However, the Dalai Lama and his regent Desi Sangye Gyatso (sde srid sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, 1653–1705) were particularly intolerant to the Jonang school in Tibet. After the Géluk victory over the Kagyu school in Central Tibet in 1642, the Géluk were intolerant toward all other non-Géluk schools outside of Tibet, and purged those who proliferated non-Géluk teachings. More discussion is in chapter 3. See, for instance, Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz, “Forming a Mongolian Buddhist Identity: The Biography of Neichi Toin,” in Johan

231

232

Notes to Pages 67–72

74.

75. 76.

77. 78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83. 84.

85. 86. 87.

Elverskog ed., Biographies of Eminent Mongol Buddhists. PIATS 2006: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Königswinter 2006 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 13–27. For these images, see Roderick Whitfield, The Art of Central Asia: The Stein Collection in the British Museum, Paintings from Dunhuang, 3 vol. (London and Tokyo: Kodansha International and the British Museum, 1982–85), plate 50. S. Chuluun, “In the Search for Khutugtu’s Monastery,” 244–256. Martin Willson, In Praise of Tārā: Songs to the Saviouress (London: Wisdom Publications, 1986), 289–299. Tārā appears in early Mahāyāna texts, such as Mañjuśrī-mula-­ kalpa and Mahāvairocana-tantra accompanying Avalokiteśvara and as an emanation of Avalokiteśvara, respectively. However, in Tārā’s main Tantra text The Origin of All Rites, she assumes the prominent position of the Mother of All Tathāgatas. Besides this text, the Tibetan canon also contains texts about Tārā as the Saviouress from Eight Fears, the Hundred and Eight Names of the Venerable Ārya-Tārā, and The Praise in Twenty-One Homages, translated and discussed in Willson. Davgajantsan, in Bira, Öndör Gegeeni, 41. See his quote and more discussion in Tsultemin, “Zanabazar (1635–1723),” 123–126. According to Willson, Tanjur contains a set of five texts constituting the commentaries of Suryagupta, a great ninth-century Kashmiri pundit, to whom, tradition holds, Tārā herself conveyed the cycle of her twenty-one manifestations. Known as Suryagupta’s Tārā cycle, it contained three major iconographic representations—Suryagupta’s, Nāgārjuna–and– Atiśa’s, and Nyingma (Tib. rnying ma) traditions. See Wilson, In Praise of Tārā, 107–166; Stephen Beyer, Magic and Ritual in Tibet: The Cult of Tārā (Delhi, Matilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1996), 469n11; and Willson, In Praise of Tārā, 118–119. Among these scholars was the celebrated Sakya scholar, Trakpa Gyaltsen (grags pa rgyal mtshan, 1147–1216), a lineage-holder of Suryagupta’s Tārā cycle who wrote thirteen texts on Tārā, and Tsongkhapa’s disciple, the First Dalai Lama Gëdun Drup. See more discussion in Tsultemin, “Zanabazar (1635–1723),” 123–126. In Willson’s translation of The Praise in Twenty-One Homages. However, Beyer provides a different set of colors for the twenty-one Tārās. According to Beyer, there are four red, six white, three yellow, four orange, two red-black, and two black Tārās. Khurelbaatar, Ankhdugaar Bogd, 65; Pozdneev Mongolia and Mongols, 327. See more in my earlier discussion about Zanabazar’s Tārās in Uranchimeg Tsultemin, “Zanabazar (1635–1723),” 116–136. Tārānatha’s works on Tārā include The Golden Rosary Illuminating the Origins of the Tantra of Tārā and The Origin of Tārā Tantra (sgrol ma’i rgyud kyi byung kyi khungs gsal bar byed pa’i lo rgyus gser gyi phreng ba). Luvsanprinlei, fol. 434, in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 122, also 122n156. The main scholar on Tibetan styles is David Jackson. See David Jackson, A History of Tibetan Painting: The Great Tibetan Painters and Their Traditions (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996). In addition to David Jackson’s The Nepalese Legacy in Tibetan Painting, he has published other important works including Patron and Painter: Situ Panchen and the Revival of the Encampment Style (New York, Rubin Museum of Art, 2009) and The Place of Provenance: Regional Styles in Tibetan Painting (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2012). See more detailed discussion in Andreas Kretschmar, “A Thangka of Sarvavid-Vairocana from the period of the Fifth Dalai Lama,” in Zentralasiatische Studien 42 (2013), 7–59. Kretschmar, “A Thangka of Sarvavid-Vairocana,” 30–31. David Jackson, A History of Tibetan Painting: The Great Tibetan Painters and Their Traditions (Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996), 197–219.

Notes to Pages 72–76

88. Here I am following Jinah Kim’s methodology in understanding “style,” which is based on an artist’s intentionality, or what Kim calls “visual strategies,” to allow the viewer to become engaged in images from transnational perspectives. See more in Kim, Receptacle of the Sacred: Illuminated Manuscripts and the Buddhist Book Cult in South Asia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013). 89. See more in Tsultemin, Buddhist Art and Architecture of Mongolia, forthcoming. See more focused discussion on Tsogt Ikh Süm in Bao Muping, “A Multi-Storied Wooden Building in Thirteenth-Century Karakorum: A Study on the Architectural Style of the Xingyuan Pavilion,” in International Conference on Ten Years of the World Heritage Site-Orkhon Valley Cultural Landscape: Past and Present, eds. Takashi Matsukawa and Ayudai Ochir (Kharkhorin: Publisher unknown, 2015), 73–82. For images, see Claudius Müller and Henriettte Pleiger eds., Dschingis Khan and seine Erben. Das Weltreich der Mongolen (München: Hirmer Verlag, 2005). 90. About Shalu murals, see Hugo Kreijger, “Mural Styles at Shalu,” in Jane Casey Singer and Philip Denwood eds., Tibetan Art: Towards a Definition of Style (London: Laurence King Publications, 1997), 170–177; and Sarah Richardson, “Painted Books for Plaster Walls: Visual Words in the Fourteenth Century Tibetan Buddhist Temple of Shalu” (PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2015). 91. Luo, “Gugong cang Menggu tongfo zaoxiang yanjiu,” 81–87. 92. About Nepalese Newari style, see David P. Jackson, The Nepalese Legacy in Tibetan Painting (New York: Rubin Museum of Art, 2010). On Anige, see Anning Jing, “The Portraits of Khubilai Khan and Chabi by Anige (1245–1306), a Nepali Artist at the Yuan Court” Artibus Asiae 54, no. 1/2 (1994), 40–86. 93. Berger, “After Xanadu,” 59. 94. Ngawang Gelek Demo, ed., The Autobiography of the First Panchen Lama Blo-bzangchos-kyi-rgyal-mtshan (with an English introduction by E. Gene Smith) (New Delhi: Ngawang Gelek Demo, 1969), fol. 284, 286. 95. Dr. Sarah Richardson, personal communication, August, 2017. 96. Elverskog, Jewel Translucent Sūtra, 173–174. 97. Elverskog, Jewel Translucent Sūtra, 129. 98. There are numerous instances of this phrase used throughout the text. See, for example, Elverskog, Jewel Translucent Sūtra, 156, 268. 99. Ts. Damdinsüren, ed., Mongolin uran zokhiolin deej 100 bilig orshvoi [100 masterpieces of Mongolian literature] (Ulaanbaatar, 1959), 109. Translation from Mongolian is mine. 100. The earliest suggestions of Mongol elements in Zanabazar’s art were mentioned by Nyam-Osoryn Tsultem’s publications on Zanabazar. In my own dissertation, I pointed out the visual similarities of Zanabazar’s patterns to the design in the fourteenth-century décor found among the Golden Horde material culture. See Tsultemin, “Ikh Khüree: A Nomadic Monastery,” ch. 3. Most recently, Surunkhand Surtupova has claimed that ornamentation in Zanabazar’s statues also displays similarities with the arts and crafts of the early nomadic states, such as Xiongnu (3rd c. BCE–1st c. CE). Surunkhand Surtupova, “Estetika Dzanbazara I Mongol’skii stil’ v Buddiiskom izobrazitel’nom iskusstve” (Aesthetics of Zanabazar and Mongolian Style in Buddhist Fine Arts) in Aspects of Mongolian Buddhism: Past, Present and Future, ed. Ágnes Birtalan, Krisztina Teleki, et al. (Budapest: l’Harmattan, 2018), 71–88. 101. Rhie and Thurman, Worlds of Transformation, 133–134. 102. For instance, Don Croner, a traveler and a Buddhist practitioner, writes about his experience vis-à-vis the White Tārā in his Guide to Locales Connected with the Life of Zanabazar: First Bogd Gegeen of Mongolia (North Charleston: Book Surge, 2006). I myself have experienced a subtle intimate connection and personal communication in the presence of this White Tārā.

233

234

Notes to Pages 77–85

103. Tsultem, Mongolian Eminent Sculptor Zanabazar, 5. 104. Berger and Bartholomew titled this sculpture “Zanabazar or his school.” See Berger and Bartholomew, Mongolia: The Legacy of Chinggis Khan, 299–300. 105. Luvsanprinlei, in Bira, Öndör Gegeeni, 19. 106. See illustration n. 88 in Lokesh Chandra Buddhist Iconography (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture and Adity Prakashan, 1991). 107. Rossi and Rossi, Treasures from Mongolia. Luo, “Gugong cang Menggu tongfo zaoxiang yanjiu,” 81–87. 108. See also Tsultemin, “The Power and Authority Maitreya in Mongolia Examined Through Mongolian Art,” in Wallace, Buddhism in Mongolian History, 137–159.

Chapter Three: Why Zanabazar?

1.

About Mongolian paintings, see Nyam-Osoryn Tsultem, Iskusstvo Mongolii; N. Tsultem, Development of the Mongolian National Style Painting “Mongol Zurag,” in Brief (Ulaanbaatar: Gosizdatelʹstvo, 1986); N. Tsultem, Mongol Zurgiin Khugjij irsen tüüleh (History of the Development of Mongol Zurag) (Ulaanbaatar: Union of Mongolian Artists, 1988), reprinted and edited by Ts. Narmandakh (Ulaanbaatar: BCI, 2018). 2. Agata Bareja-Starzyńska provides an important discussion of a Mongolian reading of the Tibetan term yab sras, which refers to, depending on the context, either the Dalai and Panchen Lamas or the Dalai Lama and his regent. The bilingual manuscript of Zaya Pandita Luvsanprinlei’s work, however, reads the term as boġda dalai blam-a, meaning “the Holy Dalai Lama.” Modern scholar Sh. Bira’s interpretation, as well as that of Buddhist writer Byamba Ragchaa, is consistent with the old translation and reads the term as an elevated honorific term for the Dalai Lama as “eminent teacher,” who is implied here as having spiritual sons (sras). See Bareja-Starzyńska, The Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 110n65; fol. 426, p. 114; Bareja-Starzyńska, “The Mongolian Incarnation of Jo nang pa Tāranātha Kun dga’ snying po: Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan (1635–1723): A Case Study of the Tibeto-Mongolian Relationship,” special issue, Tibet Journal 34/35 no. 3/2 (Autumn 2009–Summer 2010): 248; Sh. Bira, Öndör Gegeeni, 8. 3. Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 104–108. 4. In later hagiographies, Zanabazar also appears as the sixteenth or seventeenth reincarnation. 5. Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 79, 108; and Bira, 8. 6. Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 109; and Bira, 8–9. 7. Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 111–112; and Bira, 8. 8. Alex Wayman, trans., Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real: Buddhist Meditation and the Middle View, from the Lam rim chen mo of Tson-kha-pa (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978), 16. 9. Bareja-Starzyńska refers to Dan Martin’s Tiblical to identify this site as a monastery in ‘Phan po founded by Thang sag pa Ye shes ‘byung gnas and reestablished as a Géluk monastery in 1651. See Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 113n82. 10. Elverskog, Our Great Qing, 102–103. Also Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 113n83. 11. Sh. Soninbayar, trans., Agwaan Tsültemjamts, Avralt itgelt Bogd, 13. Bareja-Starzyńska

Notes to Pages 85–86

12.

13. 14. 15. 16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

states: “Mahākāla was the main guardian spirit of Tsongkhapa’s teachings, and that was the reason why the Jebtsundampa worshipped this deity and made Mahākāla’s cult important in all Mongolian monasteries.” See also Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 110n64. The Vajrāvalī was compiled between 1101 and 1108 by Indian master Abhayākaragupta at the Vikramaśilā Monastery (1084–1130). The Vajrāvalī’s three texts (skor gsum) all address a set of mandalas, originally numbering twenty-six. These three texts are Vajrāvalī nama maṇḍala upāyika, which is a guide to the rites preceding the mandala initiations; Jotirmanjari or “Corn-ear of Light,” which deals with a fire-offering ritual; and Niśpannayogāvali, or “Garland of Complete Yoga,” which describes all deities in the mandalas. For more on the Vajrāvalī, see Erin Publow, “Vajrāvalī Maṇḍalas,” in The Circle of Bliss: Buddhist Meditational Art, ed. John C. Huntington and Dina Bangdel (Chicago: Serindia Publications, 2003), 306–307; and Masahide Mori, Vajrāvalī of Abhayākaragupta: Edition of Sanskrit and Tibetan Versions (Tring: Institute of Buddhist Studies, 2009). Luvsanprinlei also received initiation into the Vajrāvalī from Zanabazar when the teacher was sixty-three. See Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 117. Luvsanprinlei, fol. 438–440, in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 125–127. Fifth Dalai Lama, fol. 597–598, in Karmay, The Illusive Play, 442. Demo, ed., The Autobiography of the First Panchen Lama, 282, 286. On Sonam Gyatso, see Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz, “The Third Dalai Lama Sönam Gyatso and the Fourth Dalai Lama Yönten Gyatso,” in The Dalai Lamas: A Visual History, ed. Martin Brauen (Chicago: Serindia Publications, 2005), 53–59. Kollmar-Paulenz, “Forming a Mongolian Buddhist Identity: The Biography of Neichi Toin,” in Biographies of Eminent Mongol Buddhists. PIATS 2006: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Königswinter 2006, ed. Johan Elverskog (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 13–27. Kollmar-Paulenz, “Forming a Mongolian Buddhist Identity,” 18. Sung Soo Kim also mentions several Tibetan sects active among Mongol groups and communities. According to Max Oidtmann, even in the eighteenth-century Qianlong era, Nyingma teachings were active among the Mongols. See Sung Soo Kim, Tibetan Buddhism, chapter 3; Max Oidtmann, “A Case for Gelukpa Governance: The Historians of Labrang, Amdo, and the Manchu Rulers of China,” in Christiaan Klieger ed., Greater Tibet: An Examination of Borders, Ethnic Boundaries, and Cultural Areas (Lanham; Boulder; New York; London: Lexington Books, 2016), 126–127. An eighteenth-century hagiography of a Torghud Mongol Buddhist monk, Neichi Toin (1557–1653), who was active in disseminating Buddhism in Mongolian lands in the seventeenth century, is one of the textual sources that illuminates the diversity of religious activities in Mongolia at the time. In the hagiography titled Cindamani-yin Erike, composed in 1739, Neichi Toin is presented with a fluid Buddhist identity that embraces Kagyu and Nyingma traditions of itinerant yogins and hermits, acutely different from the Géluk emphasis on monasticism. Walter Heissig, “A Mongolian Source to the Lamaist Suppression of Shamanism in the 17th Century,” Anthropos 48, no. 1/2 (1953): 1–29. For more on Neichi Toin, see Elverskog, Our Great Qing, 105–106. Tatiyana Skrinnikova, Lamaistskaya tserkov’ i gosudarstvo: vneshnyaya Mongolia 16-nachalo 20 veka (Lamaist Church and the State: Outer Mongolia in the 16th to early 20th centuries) (Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1988), 25, 31–34. She mentions that as early as 1616, Russian ambassador V. Tyuments met Ubashi Hongtaiji, who was already known as Khutugtu. See also N. Shastina, Russko–mongolskie posol’skiye otnosheniya XVII v.

235

236

Notes to Pages 87–89

21. 22. 23.

24.

25. 26. 27.

28. 29. 30.

31. 32.

33. 34. 35.

36.

(Russian–Mongolian Ambassadorial Relations of the 17th Century) (Moscow: publisher unknown, 1958), 24–25. Karmay, The Illusive Play, 10. Fifth Dalai Lama, fol. 521, Karmay The Illusive Play, 385. Fifth Dalai Lama, Collected Works. Correspondences. TBRC # W2044. D. Dashbadrakh is the first scholar to use this text in his article on Zanabazar and he also translated it into Mongolian. D. Dashbadrakh, “About a Deigned Letter by the Fifth Dalai Lama to Mongol Cabtsongdamba Hotagt,” in Mongolian Studies, vol. 3 (Seoul: Korea Institute of Mongolia, 1995), 267–273. In Tibetan: ’jam dbyangs chos rje bkra shis dpal ldan pa’i skye bar grags pa jo nang sprul sku kun dga’ snying po’i yang srid khar kha thu she ye thu rgyal po’i bu byung ba la springs pa rdo rje’i rna bar ’thul ba’i ma la ya’i dri. I sincerely thank my colleagues Nancy Lin and Khenpo Yeshi for their help in translating this ambiguous letter. I also consulted earlier Mongolian translations published by D. Dashbadrakh in 1995. Blo bzang bcu gnyis bdag po’i dpal is literally “Lord of the twelve,” meaning “sun,” and stands for intelligence, wisdom, and noble-mindedness. “Born in two reincarnations” or “twice born” (gnyis skyes) means “Mañjuśrī, born Tsongkhapa (human body)” and is used as an epithet for Tsongkhapa. ’jam dbyangs gzhon nur ’gran bzod chas rnams kyi// rje bo’i them skas ’dzeg pa’i thos bsam sgom// bkra shis dpal gyi gyung drung rgyan ldan ’khyil//. The verse is both ambiguous and suggestive as it also refers to Jamyang Chöje Tashipelden (1379–1449), a close disciple of Tsongkhapa, by overtly including his name in the verse, yet also punning on the actual meaning of the name. This verse explicitly expresses the Dalai Lama’s recognition of Zanabazar as a new reincarnation of Jamyang Tashi Pelden. gnam bskos can also mean cakravartin, and tshe ring also means long life, everlasting, and timeless, in which case it will read “everlasting cakravartin.” There is also the possibility of reading rigs kyi lha lam as root deities. In this case, the verse would mean the Dalai Lama wishes the new reincarnate to follow the path of the root deities. All these readings are possible, and the letter’s ambiguous wording aims at these many nuanced connotations. Avalokiteśvara here is mentioned by his attribute and metaphor, antelope of trees yal ga ri dwags. The fact that the letter was written at Potala Palace is a clue to its dating. The Dalai Lama began building Potala Palace in 1645 and moved there in 1649, as its construction finished in 1648. Given that it was not the only letter the Dalai Lama had written to Zanabazar (his autobiography mentions another one in 1642), this letter could well be from 1645 or shortly after. Several writers, including Agwaan Ishtunden Ravjamba, mention the letter was sent to Zanabazar when he was ten years old. Agwaan Ishtüvden Ravjamba (ngag dbang ye shes thub bstan rab ’byams pa), Khyab bdag ’khor lo’i mgon po rje btsun dam pa blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan gyi rnam thar bskal bzang dang pa’i shing rta. 1839, fol 58–61. Cyrus Stearns, The Buddha from Dölpo: A Study of the Life and Thought of the Tibetan Master Dölpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 2010 [1999]), 73–74. Oidtmann “A Case for Gelukpa Governance,” 129. This is possibly Gavj Luvsantseren (1873–1934), whose collected works were published by Byambaa Ragchaa in his series of works by Mongolian Buddhist scholars. See Byambaa Ragchaagiin, ed., Collected Works by Gavj Luvsantseren (1873–1934). (Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Bilig Mongolchuudyn Tövd Helt Büteelijn sudlah tsuvral, 2013). Untitled sūtra. In private collection of D. Ulziidelger.

Notes to Pages 91–93

37. Zanabazar’s Collected Works consists of one volume and is referred to not as sumbum (gsung ’bum) but as suntor (gsung thor). While the former are unanimously known as “collected works,” the term’s literal translation is “100,000 [numerous] sayings,” which suggests a compilation of both writings and oral teachings. Hanung Kim, “A mdo, Collected Works (gSung ’bum), and Prosopography.” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, 37, December 2016:162–177. 38. Gene Smith, introduction to The First Panchen Lama Blo-bzang-chos-kyi-rgyals-mtshan, trans. and ed. by Ngawang Gelek Demo (New Delhi: Jayed Press, 1969), 7. 39. Oidtmann, “A Case for Gelukpa Governance,” 123. 40. The entire quote reads: “To find a way to accomplish the well-being of the patrons, [I] sent—with detailed oral information—[the messenger] Kyarpowa Dorje Wangchuk to Galdan Hong Taiji of the left wing [the Dzungars] with rank and seal of Galdan Tendzin Boshugtu Qan as well as sumptuous gifts, like a complete [set of] various clothes and a large document box, so that [he] will settle the government [affairs] of the Qalqa [and] the Oirats.” Schwieger, The Dalai Lama and the Emperor of China, 74. 41. Ibid., 75. 42. Ibid. 43. Bareja-Starzyńska Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 151–152. 44. Banner is a more commonly used English term for a Mongolian administration unit during the Qing period. The Khalkha was divided into khoshuu beginning in 1691, whereas Inner Mongolian banners appear in 1634. For more about khoshuu, see Alan Sanders, Historical Dictionary of Mongolia, 3rd ed. (Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2010), 385. 45. Lusanprinlei, 441, in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 127. 46. Ibid., 132. 47. Ibid., 133. Bareja-Starzyńska translates the last line as “to bring benefit to spreading scriptures and teachings,” which in Mongolian is “ġoul sacin törü-yin tölöb ariġun-dur tusatu surġal jarliġ baġuju,” and rather suggests the agency of instructions and teachings that supports the Buddhist government. 48. Luvsanprinlei, fol. 420, in Bareja-Starzyńska Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 107. 49. See, for instance, Luvsanprinlei, fol. 442, 450, 460, 461, in Bareja-Starzyńska Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 128, 133, 142, 143. 50. Luvsanprinlei, in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 150, 224. 51. Luvsanprinlei 460–461, in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 142, 142n314. Bareja-Starzyńska’s translation of shashin tör as “politics and religion” does not seem to be an entirely proper English rendering, especially as the term used in the original and in Tibetan is gzhung ba bstan (literally, government and teachings). She mentions other possible translations, including the following: religious rule, the rule of Buddhist religion, and Sh. Bira’s “settled all the questions of religion and state.” Bira Öndör Gegeeni, 13. 52. Bareja-Starzyńska refers to O. Sereeter to identify this person as Paljor Rabten (dpal ’byor rab brtan), who was a Tibetan teacher of Zanabazar, sent with him by Panchen Lama when he returned to Mongolia. Paljor Rabten was also the Second Abbot of Ribogejai-Gandan-Shaddubling, Zanabazar’s Monastery. See O. Sereeter, Mongolin Ikh Khüree, Gandan Khiidiin tüükhen butetsiin tovch (Survey of Historical structure of Ikh Khüree and Gandan Monastery of Mongolia) (Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Ulsyn Undesnii Töv Arkhiv, 1999), 98–99; and Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 143n315.

237

238

Notes to Pages 93–101

53. Luvsanprinlei, 464–465, in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 143. 54. Agwaan Ishtüvden Ravjamba, Skyabs mgon, fol. 3–4. 55. Heather Stoddard, “The Tibetan Pantheon: Its Mongolian Form,” in Mongolia: The Legacy of Chinggis Khan, ed. Patricia Berger and Terese Tse Bartholomew (San Francisco: Asian Art Museum, 1995), 211. 56. Elisabeth Haderer, referring to Eva Preschern, “Visual Expressions of Buddhism in Contemporary Society: Tibetan Stūpas built by the Karma Kagyu Organizations in Europe,” PhD Dissertation, Christ Church University Canterbury, 2011. See Haderer “The Sacred and the Profane—On the Representation of the first and second rJe btsun dam pa Khutukhtus in Mongolian Buddhist Art,” in Amy Heller ed., The Arts of Tibetan Painting: Recent Research on Manuscripts, Murals and Thangkas of Tibet, the Himalayas and Mongolia (11th–19th century) 2012. Accessible at https://www .asianart.com/articles/haderer/index.html. 57. Berger and Bartholomew, Mongolia: The Legacy of Chinggis Khan, 123–124. 58. Ibid. 59. Agwaan Khaidav, Collected Works, vol. 3, fol. 398–399. 60. Davgajantsan, Tiin Udirdagch Jebtsundampa, in Bira, Öndör Gegeeni, 7. 61. Tsultem, Mongol Uran Zurgiin Khugjij irsen toim, 44. 62. Tsultem, Iskusstvo Mongolii, 98–99. 63. Tabuduġar boġda-yin namtar (Hagiography of the Fifth Bogd), Manuscript Division, National Library of Mongolia. 64. About Zhufo pusa, see Heather Karmay, Early Sino-Tibetan Art (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1975); Stoddard, “The Tibetan Pantheon,” 211; and Patricia Berger, Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2003), 90–91. 65. Charles Bawden, The Jebtsundampa Khutukhtus of Urga (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1961), 52; and Alexei M. Pozdneev, Mongolia and the Mongols, John R. Shaw and Dale Plank, trans. (Bloomington: Indiana University Publications, 1971), 335. 66. Terese Tse Bartholomew, “Thangkas of the Qianlong Period,” in Tibetan Art: Towards a Definition of Style, ed. Philip Denwood and Jane Casey Singer (London: Laurence King Publications, 1997), 104–117. 67. Bartholomew, “Thangkas of the Qianlong Period,” 110, 112. See also Lokesh Chandra, Mongolian Kanjur (New Delhi: Sharada Rani, 1973–1979). 68. Bareja-Starzyńska identifies each of these people from the biography of Changkya Khutugtu and of the Fifth Dalai Lama. See Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 156n486–487. Karmay, The Illusive Play, 10, 370. 69. Luvsanprinlei, 495, in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 161. 70. Luvsanprinlei 517; Ibid., 173. 71. Luvsanprinlei 495; Ibid., 161. 72. See Evelyn S. Rawski, The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 244. 73. Donald Lopez, “Tibetan Buddhism,” in New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde, ed. James Millward, Ruth W. Dunnell, Mark Elliott, and Philippe Forêt (London: Routledge Curzon, 2004), 27. 74. Tsultem suggests this image is the Fourth Panchen Lama. However, judging by the absence of the specific hat, for which he is usually recognizable, this identification is questionable. It is also possible that the image represents Zanabazar’s Mongolian teacher. Tsultem, Iskusstvo Mongolii, 98.

Notes to Pages 101–105

75. Plano Carpini, “History of the Mongols,” in The Mongol Mission: Narratives and Letters of the Franciscan Missionaries in Mongolia and China in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, ed. Christopher Dawson (London: Sheed and Ward, 1980), 62. 76. Peter Jackson, trans., The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck: His Journey to the Court of the Great Khan Möngke 1253–1255 (London: Hakluyt Society, 1990), 75. 77. I have discussed elsewhere this idea of Mongol imperial portraits as part of ancestral beliefs in “spirit-mediumship” (Tib. lha babs). I borrow this term from Matthew Kapstein, The Tibetans (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 49. See Uranchimeg Tsultemin, “The Portrait of Chinggis Khaan: Revisiting the Ancestral Connections,” in Michelle Wang, Nancy Lin, and Ellen Huang, eds., Ten Thousand Dharmas Return As One: Festschrift in Honor Of Patricia Berger (Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, forthcoming). 78. Richard Kohn, in Wisdom and Compassion: The Sacred Arts of Tibet, ed. Marilyn Rhie and Robert Thurman (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2000), 277. 79. Christian Wedemeyer, Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism: History, Semiology, and Transgression in the Indian Traditions (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), 106, 235n3. Among many other texts that cite Guhyasamāja, Wedemeyer mentions Herukābhidhāna and Saṃpuṭodbhava. Jacob Dalton also mentions a ninth-century Nyingma Anuyoga root text, Gathering of Intentions Sūtra, referencing the late eighth-century Guhyasamāja. See Jacob Dalton, The Gathering of Intentions: A History of a Tibetan Tantra (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016), 153. For more on Guhyasamāja Tantra, see Francesca Fremantle, who completed the English translation and the study of the Guhyasamāja Tantra in “A Critical Study of Guhyasamāja Tantra” (PhD diss., School of Oriental and African Studies, London, 1971). Also see Alex Wayman, Yoga of the Guhyasamājatantra: The Arcane Lore of Forty Verses. A Buddhist Tantra Commentary (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass; New York: Samuel Weiser, 1977). 80. For Āryadeva’s commentaries on Guhyasamāja and the Noble tradition, see Christian Wedemeyer, ed. and trans., Āryadeva’s Lamp that Integrates the Practices (Caryāmelāpakapradīpa): The Gradual path of Vajrayāna Buddhism According to the Esoteric Community Noble Tradition (New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies at Columbia University, 2007); Geoffrey Samuel, The Origins of Yoga and Tantra: Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 259–264; and Dalton, The Gathering of Intentions, 34–36, 67–68. 81. Zanabazar’s name, Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan, can also be literally translated as Blo bzang (noble-minded) and bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan (victory banner of teachings). 82. Bkas rje btsun dam pa rin po cher brtan bzhugs ’bul ba’i tshigs bcad Byang phyogs ’gro ba’i mgon po chos kyi rje Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan ’dzin pa’i mchog Sku che ’gyur med rdo rje’i rang bzhin du Bskal brgya’i bar du brtan par bzhugs su gsol ’jam dbyangs gong ma bdag po chen po zhing tsu uu ru shiel thu hwang tis Rje btsun dam pa bla ma’i zhabs brtan gsol ’debs su Bka’ scal nas gnang bo’o All translations, unless otherwise noted, are mine. 83. Michael Baxandall, Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985); and Kathleen Ashley and Veronique Plesch, “The Cultural Processes of ‘Appropriation,’” Journal of Mediaeval and Early Modern Studies 32, no. 1 (Winter 2002): 1–15.

239

240

Notes to Pages 106–113

Chapter Four: Jebtsundampa Portraiture

1. 2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8. 9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Richard Brilliant, “Portraits: The Limitations of Likeness,” Art Journal 46, no. 3 (1987): 172. Luvsanperleenamjil, Tabuduġar Boġda-yin Namtar orsibai (Hagiography of the Fifth Bogd), Manuscript Division, National Library of Mongolia. See also G. Jamsranjav (Zhamsranzhav), V Bogd Luvsan Tsültem Jigjid Dambijantsan Balsambuu (Ulaanbaatar: Khaadin San, 2000). Several modern publications of the Jebtsundampa hagiographies exist, including several with all eight Jebtsundampa hagiographies published between 1998 and 2001 by Khaadin San and S. Badarch, eds., Bogd Khaany amidralyn on daraalyn tovchoon (Chronology of Bogd Khan biographies) (Ulaanbaatar: Khaadin San, 2000). Also, see D. Baasan, trans., Bogd Javzandamba Khutagt (Bogd Jetsundampa Khutugtu: translations of primary sources) (Ulaanbaatar: Mönhiin üseg Press, 2011). Luvsanperleenamjil, Tabuduġar Boġda-yin namtar orsibai; Anonymous, Jibjundamba blam-a-yin törül üy-e-yin neres kiged oron dacang bayiġuluġsan temdeglel (Notes on Lineage of Jebtsundampa and about establishing temples), Manuscript Division, National Library of Mongolia. Bstan pa bstan ‘dzin “Rje btsun dam pa’i sgu phreng,” in chos sde chen po dpal ldan ‘bras spungs bkra shis sgo mang grwa tshang gi chos ‘byung dung g.yas su ‘khyil ba’i sgra dbyangs, vol. 2, 418. TBRC W28810. Jibjundamba Lubsang-cültim-jigmed-dambijangcan-balsambu-yin cadiġ teüke ġalbarvas modun (Galbarvas story of the Jebtsundampa Luvsan-tsültem-jigmed-dambijantsan-­ balsambuu), Manuscript Division, National Library of Mongolia. Many of the Fifth Jebtsundampa’s writings are held in the National Library of Mongolia, including interesting prophetic writings composed in poignant verse. See, for instance, Tabuduġar Boġda Jibjundamba-yin lündeng (Fifth Bogd’s lung bstan], Tabuduġar Boġda Jibjundamba-­yin surġal (Fifth Bogd’s instructions), National Library of Mongolia. Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 357. Blo gros bzang po yon tan kun gyi gter Rnam dag tshul khrims gtsang ma’i rab brgyan ’dis Gzhan don grub la ’jigs med snying rje can Bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan ’dzin la gsol ba ’debs Luvsanperleenamjil, Tabuduġar Boġda-yin namtar orśibai. Richard Kohn in Wisdom and Compassion, ed. Marilyn Rhie and Robert Thurman (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2000) 278–279, 384. Several sources mention and document these trips. See, for instance, Luvsanperleenamjil, Tabuduġar boġda-yin namtar. Doluduġar düri-yin següder jergecegsen ba baġsi lharamba Aġvang odser, tübed gacin corji Baldanġombu nar-tu cola, ecige Miġmar-tu jingse otuġ-a zerge sangnaġsan tuqai (Concerning the Seventh Jebtsundampa’s birthday and granting ranks and titles to the Preceptor lkhaaramba Navaan-Osor, Tibetan Khanchin Tsorj Baldanchoimbol (mkhan chen chos rje dpal ldan chos spel), and the father Myagmar), Manuscript Division, National Library of Mongolia. See also G. Jamsranjav, VI, VII Bogd (Ulaanbaatar: Khaadin San, 2002). Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 361–364; and Pozdneev, Urgiinskiye Khutugtu, 19. Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 363. On Qing ornamentalism, see also Elverskog, “Things and the Qing: Mongol Culture in the Visual Narrative,” Inner Asia 6 (2004): 137–178. Doluduġar düri-yin Jibjundamba qutuġtu-yin jalaraġsan tuqai (Concerning enthronement of the Seventh Jebtsundampa), Manuscript Division, National Library of Mongolia. Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 361–364; and Pozdneev, Urgiinskiye Khutugtu, 19.

Notes to Pages 113–126

17. Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 568–570; Pozdneev, Urgiinskiye Khutugtu, 31–33. Charles Bawden also mentions annual worship of the Bogda Gegeen by referring, most likely, to the lavish rituals danshig (Tib. brtan bzhugs), which were attended by both commoners and the nobility. Charles Bawden, The Modern History of Mongolia (London: Kegan Paul International, 1989), 193. 18. Tibetan dge slong, a fully ordained monk. 19. The English translation is in A. M. Pozdneyev, Mongolia and the Mongols, ed. John R. Krueger, trans. John Roger Shaw and Dale Plank (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1971), 381–382. 20. G. Jamsranjav, VIII Bogd (Ulaanbaatar: Khaadin San, 1998); and O. Batsaikhan, Mongolin suulchin ezen khan VIII Bogd Javzandamba (Mongolia’s last khan, the Eighth Jebtsundampa) (Ulaanbaatar: Admon Press 2008). 21. “rje btsun dam pa’i sgu phreng: in ’bras spungs sgo mang chos ’byung, p. 418. 22. George Dreyfus, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist Monk (Berkeley: University of California, 2003), 144. 23. See Archive of External politics of Russian Empire, p. 85. Quoted in Batsaikhan, The Last Mongol Khan, 198. See also Pozdneev, Mongolia and Mongols, 366–367. Pyotr Kozlov notes about the Jebtsundampa’s “hunt” for leisure and fun “day and night,” to which Alexei Pozdneev, who had an audience with the Jebtsundampa in 1896, adds the ruler’s volatile and inhospitable personality. 24. ngag dbang blo gros bzang bo’i mkha’ dbyings su chos kyi nyi ma gcig gi gzi byin gyis bstan ba’i pad tshal ’dzin skyod sdel gsum gnyen rje btsun dbang phyug chen por gsol ba ’debs 25. Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 37. 26. Christian Luczanits, “Art Historical Aspects of Dating Tibetan Art,” in Dating Tibetan Art: Essays on the Possibilities and Impossibilities of Chronology from the Lempertz Symposium, Cologne, ed. Ingrid Kreide-Damani (Wiesbaden: L. Reichert, 2003). 27. Modern publications about the Second Jebtsundampa include G. Jamsranjav II, III Bogd (Uaanbaatar: Khaadin San, 2001); Sh. Soninbayar and S. Yanjinsuren, eds., II bogd jivzundamba khutagt: [1724–1757], erdem shinzhilgeeni baga khurlyn iltgel (II Bogd Jebtsundampa: Proceedings of the conference about the Jebtsundampa) (Ulaanbaatar: Selengepress, 2010). 28. Agwaan Ishtüvden Ravjamba Skyabs mgon, fols. 4–5. 29. Agwaan Ishtüvden Ravjamba Skyabs mgon, fol. 5. See also Qoyarduġar boġda-yin namtar (Hagiography of the Second Jebtsundampa), Manuscript Division, National Library of Mongolia. 30. B. Baabar, History of Mongolia (Cambridge: White Horse Press, 1999); Pozdneev, Urgiinskiye Khutugtu, 11. 31. Pozdneev, Urgiinskiye Khutugtu, 13. 32. Gennady Leonov, in Rhie and Thurman, Wisdom and Compassion, 287. 33. Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 17. 34. See more discussion in Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 14–23. 35. Ibid., 17. 36. Caffarelli, “International dGe-lugs-pa Style of Architecture,” 53–89. 37. Homi Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London: Routledge, 1994). 38. I borrow this phrase from Bernard Faure, “The Buddhist Icon and the Modern Gaze,” Critical Inquiry 24, no. 3 (Spring 1998): 768–813. 39. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations (New York: Schocken Books, 1969), 71. 40. Bhabha, Location of Culture, 25. 41. Ibid.

241

242

Notes to Pages 127–140

42. Here I use a pun on the actual Qianlong portrait with the same title. See Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 51–61. 43. I am grateful to Dr. Sh. Soninbayar for alerting me to this evidence and giving me a photograph of this image. 44. Elverskog, Our Great Qing, 112–116. For a compilation of Buddhist thangka images of Chinggis Khaan, see G. Nyam-Ochir, ed., Chinggis Khaani shüteen khörög: Chinggis Khan’s Iconography (Chinggis Khaan’s devoted portraiture: Chinggis Khaan’s Iconography) (Ulaanbaatar: Mönkhiin üseg, 2017). 45. Berger, Empire of Emptiness, pl. 8 and pl. 15. See also Maxwell Hearn, “Qing Imperial Portraiture,” International Symposium on Art Historical Studies, 6, Portraiture (Kyōto: Kokusai Kōryū Bijutsushi Kenkyūkai, 1990). 46. Oidtmann, “A Case for Gelukpa Governance,” 131. 47. Richard Vinograd, Boundaries of the Self: Chinese Portraits, 1600–1900 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 13. 48. Turrell Wylie, “Reincarnation: A Political Innovation in Tibetan Buddhism,” in Louis Ligeti ed., Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 23, Proceedings of the Cosma de Körös Memorial Symposium, September 24–30, 1976, 586. 49. Earliest sets of Dalai Lamas, made from woodblock prints on golden silk or painted as thangka paintings, can be traced to production by the Seventh Dalai Lama. For images of the Golden Silk set and other examples, see the Himalayan Art Resources website at https://www.himalayanart.org/search/set.cfm?setID=686. 50. Tsultem, Mongolian Architecture, 35–36. 51. Agwaan Khaidav, Collected Works, vol. 5, fol. 600. 52. Ibid., fol. 602–603. 53. Ibid., fol. 610. 54. Tabuduġar boġda-yin namtar [Hagiography of the Fifth Bogd], MS. National Library of Mongolia. Agwaan Khaidav, Verse Hagiography of the Fourth Jebtsundampa Blo bzang thub bstan dbang phyug in Collected Works, vol. 1, fol. 475–561. 55. Tsultem, 1988, 44. 56. D. Damdinsüren, Ikh Khüreenii Nert Urchuud [Eminent Artists of Ikh Khüree] Ulaanbaatar: Mongolpress, 1993); reprinted as Dursgakhin buyantai burkhan zuraach [The monk artist of praiseworthy memory] by BIT Press, 2003), 86. 57. Damdinsüren, Dursgakhin buyantai burkhan zuraach, 90. 58. Ibid., 92. 59. For a detailed analysis of this painting, see Uranchimeg Tsultemin, “Cartographic Anxieties in Mongolia: The Bogda Khan’s Picture-Map.” Cross Currents (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, December 2016 (online issue), May 2017 (print issue): 66–87. 60. Töö is the distance between the thumb and the forefinger, a common unit of measure in Mongolia. 61. In that story, Kangxi asks Zanabazar to carve Buddha with sixteen arhats on a ruby the size of a thumbnail. See Bawden, The Jebtsundamba Khutukhtus, 49. 62. Damdinsüren, Dursgakhin buyantai burkhan zuraach, 91. 63. Ibid., 92–93. 64. Agwaan Khaidav, Collected Works, vol. 1, fol. 587. Translation by Khenpo Yeshi. 65. Ibid., fol. 583. 66. Ibid., fol. 603. 67. Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra or Ornament to Mahāyāna Sūtras is an Indian Yogācāra treatise that in Tibetan and Chinese traditions is believed to be composed by Maitreya Bodhi­ sattva. This assertion is based on the colophon of the Derge edition of the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, which states that the text was composed by Maitreya. Buton

Notes to Pages 140–144

68. 69. 70. 71. 72.

73. 74. 75. 76.

Rinpoche (1290–1364) includes the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra as one of the five Maitreya texts and Xuanzang (seventh-century CE) writes that Asanga received the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra and other texts from Maitreya. See Mario D’Amato, “Can All Beings Potentially Attain Awakening? Gotra-Theory in Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 26, no. 1 (2003): 115–139. Agwaan Khaidav, Collected Works, vol. 1, fol. 589–590. Ibid., fol. 591. Ibid., fol. 592–593. Ibid., fol. 602. For example, on fol. 595, he says, “Circumambulating would bring benefits according to verses in King Prasenajit Sutra: ‘Whoever through faith, circumambulate either to stupas or statues of Buddhas, in future lives, that person will have enemies bow to him, and will possess the good quality of good vessel.’” Ibid., fol. 585. Ibid., fol. 584. Ibid., fol. 583. Ibid., fol. 584.

Chapter Five: Ikh Khüree

1.

2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

Ürge Datsang Sangak Mingyeling (u rge grwa tshang gsang sngags smin rgyas gling) was a datsan built for the long life of Labrang Monastery’s main donor, a Khoshuut leader, Mongol Erdene Jonong Tsewang Tenzin (tshe dbang bstan ’dzin, 1699–1735), who was in control of a vast territory to the east and southeast of Kökenuur. As it was built for the Mongol chieftain who was a descendant of Güüsh Khan and resided at Labrang with his third wife, Namgyel Drolma, it was built as a felt tent, and even though it was around for a long time, further account of its architecture is not known. It was Jonong Tsewang Tenzin who invited the first Künkhyen Jamyang Shepé Dorje (kun mkhyen ’jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje, 1648–1721/2) in 1704 and 1709 to found Labrang Monastery based on the Drepung Monastery. Paul Nietupski calls Erdene Jonong as cakravartirāja (Tib. sbyin bdag dam pa), “the best donor.” It was this “best donor” who invited Jamyang Shepé in 1704 and 1709 to found Labrang Monastery as “Drepung Monastery.” Paul K. Nietupski, Labrang Monastery: A Tibetan Buddhist Community on the Inner Asian Borderlands, 1709–1958 (Plymouth: Lexington Books, 2011), 120. Also see Yon tan rgya mtsho, Chos sde chen po bla brang bkra shis ’khyil (The Great Dharma Center Labrang Tashikhyil). TBRC W1KG5945. I thank Erdenebaatar Erdene-Ochir at UC–Santa Barbara for his help with this information. J. Gerelbadrakh, D. Budsuren, P. Byambakhorol, A. Tsanjid, and Sh. Choimaa, eds., Galdan Tuslagch (Ulaanbaatar: Academy of Sciences, 2006 [1841]), 187. Ibid., 188. Bareja-Starzyńska, The Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 125n180. Furthermore, as she states, “Tibetan dge rgyas means ‘Bounteous Virtue,’ one of the three abodes in bsam gtan bsum pa, a place of full beauty.” Boġda jibjundamba-yin angqan-u törül-ün ner-e orosibai, fol. 9, Manuscript Division, National Library of Mongolia. Anonymous author, Ulaġanbaġator qota-taki Gangdan küriyen-u sajin-u dotoġadu jirum (Internal Regulations of Religion in Ulaanbaatar’s Gandan Khüree), manuscript, Academy of Sciences of Buryatia, fol. 1. Other jayig include the following texts: bshad sgrub dge ’phel byang chub gling gi bca’ yig tshigs bcad ma, bde chen kun gsal gling gi dge ’dun rnams la ’khrims su bcas pa’i bca’ yig ’gyur med rdo rje’i bka’ lung, and dben

243

244

Notes to Pages 144–150

7. 8.

9.

10. 11. 12.

13. 14. 15.

16. 17. 18. 19.

20.

21. 22. 23. 24.

gnas bshad sgrub dge ’phel byang chub gling gi spong ba rnams la khrims su bca’ ba’i gser yig rje btsun chen po’i zhal lung. For a translation of the first nine folios, see Uranchimeg Tsultemin, “Internal Regulations of Gandan Monastery,” in Sources of Mongolian Buddhism, ed. Vesna Wallace (Oxford University Press: forthcoming). Sh. Soninbayar, trans., Agwaan Tsültemjamts, Avralt itgelt Bogd, 15. Krisztina Teleki also mentions Zawa Damdin in her compilation of sources and descriptions. See Teleki, Monasteries and Temples of Bogdiin Khüree. See also Matthew King, “Surveys of Monastic Colleges as Polemic in Zawa Damdin’s Golden Book,” Mongolian Studies 35 (2013): 45. Agwaan Khaidav, Khu re chen mor bzhengs pa’i byams pa’i sku brnyan gyi dkar chag dad pa’i bzhin ras gsal bar byed pa’i nor bu’i me long. (Account of Construction, Contents and Consecration of the great Maitreya Image at Ikh Khüree) vol. 1, fol. 175–273. TBRC 16912–0588; and Agwaan Khaidav, Ri bo dge rgyas dga’ ldan bshad Sdrub gLing gi skor tshad (The Standard Accumulation for Circumambulation of Ri bo dge rgyas dga’ ldan bshad sdrub gLing) vol. 1, fol. 577–611. TBRC 16912–0588. Agwaan Ishtüvden Ravjampa Skyabs mgon, fol. 3–4. Pozdneev, Goroda Severnoi Mongolii, 2–60, esp. p. 12 about its divisions; Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 68–149, esp. pp. 72–73. It is also possible that the young revolutionary groups that were formed and active in Ikh Khüree, and who named themselves after various locations, contributed to popularizing these names, which by the turn of the century were not yet widely used. About these revolutionary groups, see a most recent study by A. Altanbagana “Mongold uls töriin nam baiguulagdsan tüükhiin sudalgaa, 1918–1921” (A Historical study about formation of political parties in Mongolia, 1918–1921), PhD Dissertation, Pedagogical University of Mongolia, 2015. Evelyn S. Rawski, The Last Emperors, 36. Ibid., 20–21. The main palace complex 正宮 was completed in 1711 at Summer Mountain Resort. For more about this site, see Cary Y. Liu, “Archive of Power: The Qing Dynasty Imperial Garden-Palace at Rehe,” Taida Journal (Guoli Taiwan daxue meishushi yanjiu jikan) 28 (March 2010): 43–82. Liu, “Archive of Power,” 49. Philippe Forêt, Mapping Chengde: The Qing Landscape Enterprise (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2000), 46. Forêt, 46–47. Liu also mentions that the artist’s signature is damaged on this painting, but archival records suggest the names of artists. See Liu, “Archive of Power,” 46. Lucia Tripodes, “Painting and Diplomacy at the Qianlong Court: A Commemorative Picture by Wang Zhicheng (Jean-Denis Attiret),” Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 35 (Spring 1999): 185–200. For example, Giuseppe Castiglione, Mulan Tu, handscroll, ca. 1750; Giuseppe Castiglione, Gathering for a Meal during the Hunt, which prominently features Mongolian ger. See Michael G. Chang, “Envisioning the Spectacles of Emperor Qianlong’s Tours of Southern China: An Exercise in Historical Imagination,” in Visualizing Modern China: Image, History and Memory, ed. James A. Cook, Joshua L. Goldstein, Matthew D. Johnson, and Sigrid Schmalzer (New York: Lexington Books, 2014), 25–46. Michael G. Chang, A Court on Horseback: Imperial Touring and the Construction of Qing Rule, 1680–1785 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2007), 133. Michael Chang “The Emperor Qianlong’s Tours of Southern China: Painting, Poetry, and the Politics of Spectacle,” Asia-Pacific Journal 13, issue 8, no. 3 (February 2015): 2–4. See Elverskog, Our Great Qing, 87, 51–54. King, “Surveys of Monastic Colleges,” 41–62.

Notes to Pages 151–156

25. Aleksei M. Pozdneev, Urgiinskiye Khutukhtu [Khutukhtus of Urga] (St. Petersburg, Tipografiia brat. Panteleevikh, 1880), 26. 26. See, for instance, Davgajantsan in Bira Öndör Gegeeni, Agwaan Tsültemjamts, and among modern writers, Dügersüren, From History of Ulaanbaatar. 27. George Dreyfus, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist Monk (Berkeley: University of California, 2003), 48–49, 52. 28. Ibid., 47. 29. Paola Mortari Vergara Caffarelli, “International dGéluks-pa Style of Architecture from the 16th–19th Century,” Journal of the Tibet Society 21, no. 2 (Summer 1996): 53–89. 30. Aleksei Pozdneev, Goroda severnoi Mongolii (Towns of northern Mongolia) (Saint Petersburg: Tip. V. S. Balasheva, 1880), 21. 31. Pozdneev, Goroda severnoi Mongolii, 14–15. 32. Regulations, fol. 13. 33. Luvsanprinlei, fol. 234, in Bareja-Starzyńska, The Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 122. Also Ö. Sereeter, Mongolin Ikh Khüree, Gandan Khiidiin tüükhen butetsiin tovch (Survey of Historical structure of Ikh Khüree and Gandan Monastery of Mongolia) (Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Ulsyn Undesnii Töv Arkhiv, 1999), 97. 34. Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 82. 35. Dreyfus, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping, 49; José Cabezón, “The Regulations of a Monastery,” in Religions of Tibet in Practice, ed. D. Lopez (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 335–351. 36. Ibid. Also see Cabezón, “Introduction to Sera Monastery” (2008) at http://www.thlib.org /places/monasteries/sera/#!essay=/cabezon/sera/intro/. 37. Galdan Tuslagch, Erdene-yin erike, 4, 92; Bogd Jebtsundambin ankhni törliin ner orshvoi Boġda Jibjundamba-yin angqan-u törül-ün ner-e orsiba (The First Bogd Jebtsundampa), 9. Also see Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 64. Jamyang Chöje (‘jam dbyangs chos rje) established the Drepung (‘bras spungs) Monastery and became its first abbot in 1416. 38. Bstan pa bstan ’dzin “Rje btsun dam pa’i sgu phreng,” in chos sde chen po dpal ldan ’bras spungs bkra shis sgo mang grwa tshang gi chos ’byung dung g.yas su ’khyil ba’i sgra dbyangs, 412; TBRC #28810; Agwaan Ishtüvden Ravjamba Skyabs mgon, fols. 3–4; and Galdan Tuslagch, Erdene-yin erike, 220. 39. Several sources mention this date. See, among others, Sereeter, Mongolin Ikh Khüree, 52. 40. Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 86. He calls the second floor a mezzanine. 41. Dügersüren, From the History of Ulaanbaatar, 24; and Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 86. 42. As we see in Daajav’s drawings and photographs, Dechingalbin datsan seems to have a separate floor, and not a mezzanine. It is possible that the smaller size of the upper floors led Pozdneev to consider them as a “mezzanine.” Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 86. See B. Daajav, Mongolin uran barilgin tüükh [History of Mongolian architecture], vol. 2 (Ulaanbaatar: Admon, 2006), 78. 43. Ibid. 44. Pozdneev Ocherki byta buddiiskikh monastyrei i buddiiskogo dukhovenstva v Mongolii v sviazi s otnosheniiami sego poslednego k narodu (Religion and ritual in society: Lamaist Buddhism in late nineteenth-century Mongolia) (Elista, 1993 [1887]), 38. 45. Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 88. 46. Agwaan Khaidav, Collected Works, vol. 1, fol. 586. I thank Khenpo Reshi for this translation. 47. Ibid. For more on Maitreya in Ikh Khüree, see chapter 6. 48. Pürev et al., Niislelin Öv soyol, 142–153; and S. Ichinnorov, Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar: namtar, buteelin asuudal, 90–97. A discussion of the first seven aimags can also be found in Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 64. Pozdneev also suggests that Jasin, Sangai, and Zoogain aimags had a specific service function, as their names indicate. Khüükhen noyon

245

246

Notes to Pages 156–162

49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

55. 56.

57. 58. 59. 60. 61.

62. 63. 64.

65.

66.

and Darkhan emch aimags were founded and named by patrons. For more information, see Pozdneev, Goroda severnoi Mongolii, 15–16. The name Sangai is derived from the Mongolian term sang, meaning “treasury” or “fund.” The name Zoogain is derived from the Mongolian word zoog, meaning “food.” Literally means “protected physician.” S. Idshinnorov, Ulaanbaatar khotin khuraangui (Survey of Ulaanbaatar city) (Ulaanbaatar: publisher unknown, 1994), 8. Idshinnorov, Ulaanbaatar khotin khuraangui, 12. These thirty aimags are as follows: (1) Amduu, (2) Mahamaya, (3) Jas, (4) Sangaa, (5) Nomch, (6) Zoogain, (7) Dugar, (8) Mergen Khamba, (9) Bizya, (10) Khüükhen Noyon, (11) Darkhan emch, (12) Erkhem toin, (13) Erdene khuvilgaan, (14) Barga, (15) Gatublin/Choinkhorlon, (16) Bandid, (17) Jamyansüngee, (18) Mergen nomon khan, (19) Lama, (20) Örlüüd, (21) Shüteen, (22) Dondovlin, (23) Toisumlin, (24) Duinkhor, (25) Tseden toin, (26) Jadar, (27) Dashlin/ Namidlin, (28) Dashdandarlin, (29) Wangain, and (30) Ekh Dagini. See S. Pürevjav, Khuvsgalin ömnöh Ikh Khüree (Pre-revolutionary Ikh Khüree) (Ulaanbaatar, 1961), 30. Galdan Tuslagch, Erdene-yin erike, 228; Pozdneev, Urgiinskiye Khutukhtu, 40–41; and Pozdneev Mongolia i Mongoli 1896, 66. Pozdneev, Goroda severnoi Mongoli, 41, Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 116–117. The Fourth Jebtsundampa’s hagiography does not mention 1809 as the beginning of Gandan. Z. Oyunbilig mentions an establishment of Shar süm on this hill in 1809, which could have meant the early beginning of Gandan Monastery. Oyunbilig does not indicate her source of this information, however. See Oyunbilig about Gandan in L. Dashnyam, ed., Mongol nutag dakh’ tüükh soyolin dursgal (Historical and cultural monuments on the territory of Mongolia) (Ulaanbaatar: Mongolian Academy of Humanities, 1999), 251. Agwaan Ishtüvden Ravjamba Skyabs mgon, fols. 10–11. Agwaan Ishtüvden Ravjamba Skyabs mgon, fols. 10–11. See also Sereeter, Mongolin Ikh Khüree, 65. Dügersüren, From the History of Ulaanbaatar, 36. Sereeter, Mongolin Ikh Khüree, 72. Teleki mentions there were twenty-two aimags in Gandan, referring to Pürev 2004 in Teleki, Monasteries and Temples, 138. According to Ivan Maiskii’s 1921 report, there were 2,752 monasteries in Mongolia. Research conducted in 2009 as part of the “Mongolian Temples” project under the auspices of Mongolia’s president, N. Enkhbayar, recorded evidence and archives pertaining to 1,050 monasteries. See Ivan M. Maiskii, Sovremennaia Mongolia [Modern Mongolia] (Irkutsk: Irkutskoe otdelenie, 1921), and S. Tsedendamba, ed., Mongolyn süme khiidiin tüükhen tovchoon [Historical account of Mongolian monasteries and temples] (Ulaanbaatar: Admon Press, 2009). Dreyfus, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping, 42–49. Robert Rupen, “The City of Urga in Manchu Period,” Studia Altaica 8 (August 1957): 159. Ochir and Enkhtuvshin, History of Mongolia, 163; Idshinnorov, Ulaanbaatar khotin khuraangui, 11. For Lifanyuan, see Ning Chia, “The Lifanyuan and the Inner Asian Rituals in the Early Qing (1644–1795),” Late Imperial China, vol. 14, no. 1 (June 1993): 60–92. Rupen, City of Urga, 159; Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 67; and William Rockhill, “The Question of Outer Mongolia,” Journal of the American Asiatic Association 14, no. 4 (May 1914): 103. Dügersüren, From the History of Ulaanbaatar, 29.

Notes to Pages 163–170

67. Rockhill notes that the headman was Shih Erh Chai. Rockhill, “The Question of Outer Mongolia,” 110. On Maimaicheng, see Bao Muping, “Trade Centres (Maimaicheng) in Mongolia, and Their Function in Sino-Russian Trade Networks,” International Journal of Asian Studies 3, no. 2 (July 2006): 211–237. 68. Pürev et al., Niislelin Öv soyol, 111–112. 69. “In Zasagt aimag, Uliastai, in Sain Noyon aimag, Orkhon, Khar Us, in Tüsheet Khan aimag, Khiagt Khüree, in Tsetsen Khan aimag, Doloon nuur all trade centers are established.” See Dügersüren, From the History of Ulaanbaatar, 31–32. 70. Rockhill does not provide the source of his information. It is also unclear on what grounds Russians received the mentioned privileges. It could be the first Russian Consul Shishmarev’s contribution. Rockhill, “The Question of Outer Mongolia,” 103. 71. Alexandra A. Sizova, “The Political Role of the Russian Consulates in Mongolia in the Mongolian National Liberation Movement in the Early 20th Century,” in Basic Research Program Working Papers (Moscow: National Research University Higher School of Economics, 2016), 3. Ágnes Birtalan, “Religion and Mongol Identity in the Mid-19th Century Urga on the Basis of a Mongolian Monk’s Oral Narratives Recorded by Gábor Bálint of Szentkatolna in 1873,” in Quaestiones Mongolorum Disputatae, ed. B. Oyunbilig (Tokyo: International Association for the Study of Mongolian Cultures, 2012), 33. Also, Dügersüren, From the History of Ulaanbaatar, 58. 72. See Archive of External Politics of Russian Empire, manuscript, China Section 143, 491/78, 22. Quoted in O. Batsaikhan, Mongolin Suulchin Ezen Khaan VIII Jebtsundampa (The Last Mongol Khan, the Eighth Jebtsundampa) (Ulaanbaatar: Admon, 2008), 10. 73. Rupen, “City of Urga,” 162. 74. In Religious Regulation of the Time of the Qianlong Emperor, Chapter 12, #1 quoted in L. Dügersüren, From the History of Ulaanbaatar, 32. 75. Idshinnorov gives a detailed description of how bifurcated and amplified the Laymen’s District became in the nineteenth century. See Idshinnorov, Ulaanbaatar khotin khuraangui, 31–35. 76. Two travel documents are in the Asian Collection of the Library of Congress. I thank Susan Meinheit, the librarian of Tibetan and Mongolian collections at the Library of Congress, for providing me with this translation from Manchu. 77. Olan-a ergügdegsen-ü qoyar duġar on-du Boġda qaġan-aca jegün küriyen-ü jouġai ayimaġ-un ner-e-tei sayin jirudag Jügdür gegci-dü¨r tusiyaju, tus Neyislel Küriy-e, ġangdang jerge kiged mön tegün-ü orcin toġurin-yin aġula, usu, keyid, süme-üd-i kürtel-e tere üyes-ün ünen bayidal-tai-bar jirujuqui. 78. Bawden, Modern History of Mongolia, 193–194. 79. As Campi has shown, the Bogd Gegeen sent various requests to the United States asking for support. Alicia J. Campi and R. Baasan, The Impact of China and Russia on United States–Mongolian Political Relations in the Twentieth Century (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2009), 60–63, 69–73, 111. For Bogd’s letters to Japan, see O. Batsaikhan, Mongolia: Becoming a Nation-State (Ulaanbaatar: Bitpress, 2013), 47–73, O. Batsaikhan, “The Letter to His Excellency Emperor of Japan from the Bogd Khan of Mongolia,” in Khusel Borjigin and Imanishi Junko eds., The history and culture of Mongols in the 20th Century: Collection of Treatises in the 2011 International Symposium in Ulaanbatar, (Fukyosha: Japan-Mongolia center, 2012), 53–78. 80. Bawden, Modern History of Mongolia, 200. 81. Cordell Yee, “Chinese Cartography among the Arts: Objectivity, Subjectivity, Representation,” in The History of Cartography: Cartography in the Traditional East and Southeast Asian Societies, vol. 2, ed. John B. Harley and David Woodward (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 147–148.

247

248

Notes to Pages 171–179

82. Knud Larsen and Amund Sinding-Larsen, Lhasa Atlas: Traditional Tibetan Architecture and Townscape (Boston: Shambhala, 2001). 83. O. Pürev et al., Niislelin Öv soyol [Cultural Heritage of the capital] (Ulaanbaatar, Mana, 2004), 6–8. 84. Andrews calls it “Tuerin Monastery.” Roy Chapman Andrews, New Conquest of Central Asia: A Narrative of the Explorations of the Central Asiatic Expeditions in Mongolia and China, 1921–1930 (New York: American Museum of Natural History, 1932), 50–51. 85. Krisztina Teleki, “Monasticism Then and Now.” Paper presented at the 13th Seminar of International Association for Tibetan Studies, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, July 2013. According to Teleki, “Lamas occasionally came from Tibet or mainly from Bogdiin Khüree, the monastic capital, for some days to give initiations and teachings.” See more in Zsuzsa Majer and Krisztina Teleki, “On the Current Condition of 190 Old and Present-Day Monastic Sites in the Mongolian Countryside,” in Zentralasiatische Studien, vol. 39 (2010), 134. 86. See also Dügersüren, From the History of Ulaanbaatar, 31–32. 87. For more on this temple and the oracle, see D. Otgonsuren and Z. Ninjbadgar, Mongol Töriin Choijin Luvsankhaidav Ekh Dagina Sürenkhorloo (Mongolian State Oracle Luvsankhaidav and His Tantric Partner Surenkhorloo) (Ulaanbaatar: Choijin Lama Temple Museum, 2016); D. Otgonsuren, ed., Mongol töriin sakhiusni Örgöö—Palace of the State Oracle (Ulaanbaatar: Choijin Lama Temple Museum, 2018). 88. About the Green Palace, see Uranchimeg Tsultemin, “A Case of Allegoresis: A Buddhist Painter and His Patron in Mongolia,” Artibus Asiae 78 no. 1 (December 2018): 61–94. 89. In European art, these colors would be called warm and cold tones, and many artists, even in the Middle Ages, relied on the theory of color juxtaposition to create an illusion of dimensionality and distance. In the twentieth century, modern artists such as Wassily Kandinsky wrote treatises on colors and human perceptions. See, for instance, Kandinsky, Concerning the Spiritual in Art, trans. Hilla Rebay (New York: Solomon Guggenheim Foundation, 1946).

Chapter Six: The Jebtsundampas’ Buddhist Government

1. 2.

Dreyfus, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping, 44. Robert Thurman, ed., The Life and Teachings of Tsong-khapa (Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works & Archives, 1982), 17–18. 3. Michael Henss, Cultural Monuments of Tibet, vol. 2 (New York: Prestel, 2014), 649. Henss refers to Shen Weirong, Leben und historische Bedeutung des ersten Dalai Lama dGe’dun grub pa dpal bzang po (1391–1474): ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der dGe lugs pa-Schule und der Institution der Dalai Lamas. (Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2002), 244, and Glenn Mullin, Selected Works of the Dalai Lama (Ithaca: Snow Lion, 1985), 21, 224. 4. Demo, ed., The Autobiography of the First Panchen Lama, fol. 295. 5. Demo, fol. 275–277. 6. Demo, fol. 382–385. 7. Ibid., fol. 413–414. 8. Ibid., fol. 414. 9. Agwaan Khaidav, Collected Works, vol. 1, fol. 184–185. 10. For Alchi Sumtsek, see Roger Goepper, Alchi: Ladakh’s Hidden Buddhist Sanctuary: The Sumtsek (Boston: Shambhala, 1996); Christian Luczanits, Buddhist Sculpture in Clay: Early Western Himalayan Art, Late 10th to Early 13th Centuries (Chicago: Serindia,

Notes to Pages 179–180

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

2004), 125–126, 191–195; and Christian Luczanits, “The Life of the Buddha in the Sumtsek,” Orientations 30 no. 1 (Jan. 1999): 30–39. For more about Maidar Zuu or the Maitreya Temple, see Isabelle Charleux, “Recent Research on the Maitreya Monastery in Inner Mongolia (China),” Études Asiatiques–­ Asiatische Studien 68, no.1 (2014): 1–64. In the Anāgatavaṃsa and in the Dasabodhisattuppatti Kathā, Maitreya’s lifespan is 82,000 years, his height is 88 cubits (elbow lengths), his length is 22 cubits, and his every eye and ear measures 7 cubits. In other words, he is colossal. Asha Das Maitreya Buddha In Literature History and Art (Kolkata: Punthi Pustak, 2003), 42. Das refers to I. B. Horner, who suggested that cubit “is the distance between the elbow and the lip of the extended middle finger.” See I. B. Horner, The Minor Anthologies, Part III, Chronicle of Buddhas (Buddhavaṃsa) and Basket of : Conduct (Oxford: Pali Text Society, 1975), 41n3, in Das, 22n13. André Alexander, The Temples of Lhasa: Tibetan Buddhist Architecture from the 7th to the 21st Centuries (Chicago: Serinida Publications, 2005), 165–166. As Alexander surveys, the original monumental Maitreya statue made of metal was destroyed during the Cultural Revolution and a new two-story Maitreya image made of clay replaced it in 1991–1992. For further discussion of Maitreya, see Uranchimeg Tsultemin, “The Power and Authority of Maitreya in Mongolia Examined Through Mongolian Art,” in Buddhism in Mongolian History, Culture, and Society, ed. Vesna Wallace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 137–159. Sh. Soninbayar, “Khüree Khamba Nomun Khan Agwaan Khaidavin tovch namtar” (A Short Biography of Khüree Khamba Nomun Khan Agwaankhadav), Lavain Egshig, no. 3 (2009): 17, 19. Agwaan Khaidav’s Collected Works contains at least two specific texts dedicated to two Maitreya images he made in Ikh Khüree. See Agwaan Khaidav, Collected Works, vol. 1, fols. 155–165 and vol. 5, fols. 99–111. According to Pozdneev, 40-tokhoi. See Pozdneev, Goroda Severnoi Mongolii, 30; Mongolia i Mongoli, 93. According to Agwaan Khaidav, however, the statue measured fifty-five “elbows” from the feet to the top of the hair knot. See Agwaan Khaidav, Collected Works, vol. 1, fol. 198. See also Berger, “After Xanadu,” 66. Agwaan Khaidav, in Collected Works, vol. 1, fol. 186, mentions “Female Wooden Bird year,” which is 1825. In my earlier publication, I mistakenly identified this date as 1813, which is Water Bird year. Tsultemin, “The Power and Authority of Maitreya,” 145–146. The completion date of this colossal Maitreya statue cannot be 1816 (as I erroneously suggested in 2015), as the Maitreya temple was completed in 1822 and the discussion of its colossal image to be housed there took place in 1825. Thus, Agwaan Khaidav describes his earlier sculpture in his folios in vol. 5, fol. 520; also Agwaan Khaidav, Collected Works, vol. 5, fol. 111. According to Berger, it was made in seven pieces: the head, chest, two arms, lower trunk, and two legs. Berger, “After Xanadu,” 66, cites Aleksei M. Pozdneev, Mongolia and Mongols, 61–62. Agwaan Khaidav, Collected Works, vol. 1, fol. 199. According to Pozdneev, the Mongolian name of the chief Chinese artist was Ayush-tunjan, referring to Chinese tongjian (metallurgist). Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 61–62. I thank Isabelle Charleux for this clarification. One is a photograph by Dmitrii Pershin published later in his papers, titled Baron Ungern, Urga i Altan-Bulak (Baron Ungern, Urga and Altan-Bulak) (Samara: Agni, 1999). The other is a painted illustration by Hermann Consten (1878–1957).

249

250

Notes to Pages 180–193

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

37. 38.

39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

45. 46.

47. 48. 49.

Agwaan Khaidav, Collected Works, vol. 1, fol. 191. Ibid. Pozdneev, Mongolia i Mongoli, 93–95. Agwaan Khaidav, Collected Works, vol. 1, fol. 191. For more on Brag Yer pa, see Keith Dowman, Power-Places of Central Tibet: The Pilgrim’s Guide (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1988), 73–79. Agwaan Khaidav unfortunately does not mention the names of the “top artists” who worked on the face of Ikh Khüree’s Maitreya statue. Agwaan Khaidav, Collected Works, vol. 1, fol. 200. Kevin Greenwood, “Yonghegong: Imperial Universalism and the Art and Architecture of Beijing’s ‘Lama Temple,’” (PhD diss., University of Kansas, 2013), 209. Ibid., referring to Niu Song 牛颂, ed. Yonghegong 雍和宮 (Beijing: Zhongguo minzu sheying yishu chubanshe, 2001), 281. Pozdneev, Ocherki byta buddiiskikh monastyrei, 390–392, 388. “Maitreya Procession,” Chö-yang 1, no. 2 (1987): 94–96. (The name of the author of the article is not mentioned.) Ibid.; and Pozdneev, Ocherki byta buddiiskikh monastyrei, 387. See Christian Luczanits, “The Bodhisattva with the Flask in Gandharan Narrative Scenes: In memoriam Maurizio Taddei,” East and West 55, no. 1/4 (Dec. 2005): 174–175. Roy Chapman Andrews, The New Conquest of Central Asia: a Narrative of the Explorations of the Central Asiatic Expeditions in Mongolia and China, 1921–1930 (New York: American Museum of Natural History, 1932), 58–59. Inchang Kim, The Future Buddha Maitreya: an Iconologcal Study (New Delhi: Printworld, 1997), 15. The latter was first published by Marilyn Rhie in 1991 in an international exhibition catalog, where Rhie suggested that it belongs to “the same school, if not actually a work by Zanabazar himself.” Marilyn Rhie and Robert Thurman, Wisdom and Compassion (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1991), 141. A. D. Tsendina, Istoriia Erdeni-dzu, annotated translation of Erdene juu-yin teüke (History of Erdene Zuu) (Moscow: Eastern Literature Publishing RAN, 1999), 71. Erdene juu-yin teüke, fol. 15r. Ibid., fol. 16r. Demo, The Autobiography of the First Panchen Lama, fol. 382–385. Ibid., fol. 77. Pozdneev Mongolia i Mongoli, 93–95. These Amitāyus sculptures were added to Agwaan Khaidav’s colossal Maitreya at a later date in order to corroborate the idea of longevity associated with Maitreya. For further discussion of Maitreya’s association with longevity rites, see Tsultemin, “The Power and Authority of Maitreya,” 139–157. Demo, The Autobiography of the First Panchen Lama, fol. 300. Overmyer, Daniel, L. “Messenger, Savior, and Revolutionary: Maitreya in Chinese Popular Religious Literature of the 16th-17th Centuries,” in Maitreya: The Future Buddha, ed. Alan Sponberg and Helen Hardacre (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 110–132. Lewis Lancaster, “Maitreya in Korea,” in Sponberg and Hardacre, Maitreya: The Future Buddha, 147ff. Pozdneev, Ocherki byta buddiskikh monastyrei, 392–403. There are several in-depth studies by at least two scholars to date on Mongolian Tsam rituals. See Ayako Kimura “Mongolyn Khüree Tsamig busad orni tsamtai khar’tsuulan sudalsan n” (Comparative analysis of Mongolian Tsam with Tsam rituals of other countries) (PhD diss., National University of Mongolia, 1995). See also Mungunchimeg

Notes to Pages 195–216

50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

Batmunkh, “Mongolischer Tsam-Tanz: Geschichte, Entwicklung und Gegenwart,” (Mongolian Tsam dance: history, development and present) (PhD diss., University of Vienna, Austria, 2010); Karénina Kollma-Paulenz and Mungunchimeg Batmunkh, “Der Mongolische Maskentanz (Tsam) in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart,” (The Mongolian Mask Dance (Tsam) in the past and present) in Asia 69, no. 3 (2015): 625–683. Bareja-Starzyńska, The Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 227–258. Luvsanprinlei, fol. 424–426, in Bareja-Starzyńska, Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar, 111. Oidtmann, “A Case for Gelukpa Governance,” 139. Kim, Tibetan Buddhism, 115–116. For his identification and labeling, see the Himalayan Art Resources website at http://www.himalayanart.org/items/50004. Elverskog, Jewel Translucent Sūtra, 178. There are many folios that mention the phrase of “qamuġ yeke ulus,” which Elverskog translates as “entire Great Nation.” See also, as another example, fol. 1081 on p. 282, among many other cases.

Epilogue

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7.

Ernst Gombrich, The Story of Art, (London: Phaidon Press, 1995). Janet Gyatso, “Image as Presence,” in From the Sacred Realm: Treasures of Tibetan Art from The Newark Museum, ed. Valrae Reynolds (Munich, 1999), 173. D. Damdinsüren, Eminent Artists, 21. Quoted in Larry Moses, The Political Role of Mongol Buddhism (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1977), 146. Gyatso, “Image as Presence,” 171. Pamela Crossley “Reviewed Work: Our Great Qing: The Mongols, Buddhism, and the State in Late Imperial China by Johan Elverskog” in History of Religions, Vol. 49, No. 1 (August 2009), 98. Moses, Mongol Buddhism, 108.

251

Bibliography

Primary Sources in Original Languages, Modern Editions, and Translations

Agwaan Ishtüvden Ravjamba. Khyab bdag ‘khor lo’i mgon rje btsun dam pa blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan gyi rnam thar skal bzang dad pa’i shing rta [The Universal Lord, the Protector of the Wheel, the Jebtsundampa Luvsandambijantsan’s Biography, the Chariot of the Faith for the Devoted Worthy] in Lokesh Chandra, ed., Life and works of Jibcundampa I. New Delhi: Sharada Rani, 1982. ———. Skyabs mgon rje btsun dam pa rin po che’i skye khreng rim byon rnams dyi rnam thar mdo tsam bgod pa pad dgar ‘phreng mjes zhes bya ba bzhugs so in Lokesh Chandra ed., Life and Works of Jibcundampa I. New Delhi: Śata-Piṭaka Series, Jayed Press, 1982. Agwaan Khaidav. Collected Works. [In Tibetan.] Vol. 1–5. Leh, Ledakh: S. W. Tashigangpa, 1972–1974. TBRC W16912. ———. Khure chen mor bzhengs pa’i byams pa’i sku brnyan gyi dkar chag dad pa’i bzhin ras gsal bar byed pa’i nor bu’i me long. [Account of construction, contents, and consecration of the great Maitreya image at Ikh Khüree]. Vol. 1, fol. 175–273. TBRC W16912–0588 ———. Ngo mtshar gtam gyi ‘phreng ba sogs maṇḍal gyi bshad pa sna tshogs kyi skor: maṇḍal bshad pa [A collection of elegant explanations to accompany the devotional offerings of maṇḍala to revered lamas]. Vol. 3, fol. 367–472. TBRC W16912–0590. ———. Ri bo Dge Rgyas Dga’ Ldan bshad Sdrub gLing gi skor tshad. [The standard accumulation for circumambulation of Ri bo Dge Rgyas Dga’ Ldan bshad Sdrub gLing]. Vol. 1, fol. 577–611. TBRC W16912–0588. Bareja-Starzyńska, Agata, trans. The Biography of the First Khalkha Jebtsundampa Zanabazar by Zaya Paṇḍita Luvsanprinlei: Studies, Annotated Translation, Transliteration and Facsimile. Warsaw: Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Warsaw, 2015. Bira, Sh., trans. Janlavtsogzol by Zanabazar of 1696. Ulaanbaatar, 1995. ———, trans. Jivzundamba Luvsanchoijijaltsanbogiin erdiin tovch namtar [Brief Biography of Jebtsundampa Luvsanchoijijaltsanbo]. In Sh. Bira, ed., Öndör Gegeeni namtruud orshvoi [Hagiographies of Öndör Gegeen]. Ulaanbaatar: ShUA-iin Erdem Kompani, 1995. Boġda Jibjundamba-yin angqan-u törül-ün ner-e orosibai. [About reincarnations of Holy Jebtsundampa]. Manuscript Division. Ulaanbaatar: National Library of Mongolia. Boġda Jibjundamba-yin surġal [Bogd Jebtsundampa’s admonitions]. Manuscript Division. Ulaanbaatar: National Library of Mongolia. Boġda-yin üge eki-yin tobci [Brief of Bogd’s origins]. Manuscript Division. Ulaanbaatar: National Library of Mongolia. Bstan pa bstan ‘dzin “Rje btsun dam pa’i sgu phreng.” In chos sde chen po dpal ldan ‘bras spungs bkra shis sgo mang grwa tshang gi chos ‘byung dung g.yas su ‘khyil ba’i sgra dbyangs, vol. 2, TBRC W28810.

253

254

Bibliography

Byambaa, R., ed. Khal kha Rje btsun dam pa sku phreng rim byon gyi gsung ‘bum [The Collected Works of the Successive Reincarnation Lineage of the Khalkha Jebtsundampa]. 4 volumes, Series Number 1–4. Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Bilig Series for Studying Tibetan Language Works Written by Mongols, 2004. Byamba, Ragchaa, ed. Collected Works by Gavj Luvsantseren (1873–1934). Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Bilig Mongolchuudyn Tövd Helt Büteelijn sudlah tsuvral, 2013. Chahar Geshe Luvsanchültem. Rje thams cad mkhyen pa tsong kha pa chen po’i rnam thar go slo bar brjod pa bde legs kun ‘byin gnas zes bya ba bzhugs so. Tibetan Collection, National Library of Mongolia. Chandra, Lokesh, ed. The Golden Annals of Lamaism. Hor chos-’byung of Blo-bzang rta-mgrin. ‘dzam-gling byang phyogs chen-po hor-gyi rgyal-khams-kyi rtags-pa brjod- pa’i bstanbcos chen-po dpyod-ldan mgu byed ngo-mtshar gser-gyi deb-ther zhes-bya-ba bzhugs-so. Śata-Pitaka Series. Vol. 34. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1964. Dashbadrakh, D., trans. Erdene Zuu ba Öndör Gegeeni namtar [Erdene Zuu and the hagiography of Zanabazar]. In Öndör Gegeeni namtruud orshvoi [Hagiographies of Zanabazar], edited by Sh. Bira. Ulaanbaatar: ShUA-iin Erdem Kompani, 1995. ———, trans. Sumbe Khambo Ishbaljir, Khökh nuurin tüükh eserüügiin duulal shine yaruu khemeegdekh orshvoi (New Auspicious Praise to History of Kokonor by Sumbe Khambo Ishbaljir). Ulaanbaatar: Academy of Sciences, 1997. Demberel, I., trans. Bogd Jebtsundampa Öndör Gegeen Zanabazarin 3 uyein delgerengui namtar [Detailed Hagiography of Three Generations of Bogd Jebtsundampa Zanabazar]. Ulaanbaatar: publisher unknown, 1993. Demo, Ngawang Gelek, ed. The Autobiography of the First Panchen Lama Blo-bzang-choskyi-rgyal-mtshan. New Delhi: Ngawang Gelek Demo, 1969. Doluduġar düri-yin Jibjundamba qutuġtu-yin jalaraġsan tuqai [Concerning enthronement of the Seventh Jebtsundampa]. Manuscript Division. Ulaanbaatar: National Library of Mongolia. Doluduġar düri-yin següder jergecegsen ba baġsi lharamba Agvang odser, tübed ġacin corji Baldanġombu nar-tu cola, ecige migmar-tu jingse otuġ-a zerge sangnaġsan tuqai [Concerning the Seventh Jebtsundampa’s birthday and granting ranks and titles to the Preceptor lkhaaramba Agvaan-Odsor, Tibetan Khanchin Tsorj Baldanchoimbol, and the father Myagmar]. Manuscript Division. Ulaanbaatar: National Library of Mongolia. Erdeni juu ba Öndür gegegen-ü namtar [History of Erdene Zuu and hagiography of Öndör Gegeen]. Manuscript Division. Ulaanbaatar: National Library of Mongolia. Galdan Tuslagch. Erdeni-yin erike [Rosary of Treasures] (1841). Manuscript Division. Several manuscript versions. National Library of Mongolia. Haenisch, Erich, ed. Eine Urga-Handschrift des mongolischen Geschichtswerks von Secen Sagan (alias Sanang Secen). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 1955. Jamsranjav, G., and N. Dugarsuren, eds. Bogdin lünden [Bogd Gegeen’s prophesies]. Ulaanbaatar: Khaadin San, 2002. Jibjundamba blam-a-yin törül üy-e-yin neres kiged oron dacang bayiġuluġsan temdeglel [Jetsundampa’s reincarnation lists and notes on construction of datsans]. Manuscript Division. Ulaanbaatar: National Library of Mongolia. Jibjundamba blam-a-yin üg [Words of Jebtsundampa Lama]. Manuscript Division. Ulaanbaatar: National Library of Mongolia. Jibjundamba Lubsang-cültim-jigmed-dambijangcan-balsambu-yin cadig teüke ġalbarvas modun [Galbarvas story of the Jebtsundampa Luvsan-tsultem-jigmed-dambijantsanbalsambuu] Manuscript Division. Ulaanbaatar: National Library of Mongolia. Jibjundamba Qutuġtu [Jebtsundampa Khutugtus], Manuscript Division. Private collection. Jibjundamba qutuġtu siregen-dü jalaraġsan niġuca teüke [The secret history of enthronement of Jebtsundampa Khutukhtu]. Manuscript Division. Ulaanbaatar: National Library of Mongolia.

Bibliography

Jibjundamba-yin jarliġ orosibai [Jebtsundampa’s regulations]. Manuscript Division. Ulaanbaatar: National Library of Mongolia. Kampfe, Hans-Rainer, ed. Sayin qubitan-u susug-un terge. Biographie des 1. Jebcun dam-pa Qutuqtu Öndür gegen verfasst von Nag gi dban po 1839 [Biography of the First Jebtsundampa by Nag gi dban po 1839]. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981. Klafkowski, Piotr, trans. Rosary of White Lotuses: Being the Clear Account of How the Precious Teaching of Buddha Appeared and Spread in the Great Hor Country. By Damcho Gyatsho Dharmatāla, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1987. Krueger, John R., Gō Minoru, Igor de Rachewiltz, and B. Ulaan, eds. Erdeni-yin Tobci. A Mongolian Chronicle of 1662: I. Urga text. Canberra: Australian National University, 1990. Luvsanperleenamjil. Tabuduġar Boġda-yin namtar orsibai [Hagiography of the Fifth Bogd]. Manuscript Division. Ulaanbaatar: National Library of Mongolia. Luvsanprinlei, Zaya Pandita. khal kha rje btsun blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’i ‘khrungs rab rnam thar [Glorious Khalkha Jebtsundampa Luvsandanbiijantsan’s biographies] in his Records of Teachings Received (thob yig), vol. 4. Mostaert, Antoine, ed. Erdeni-yin Tobci, Mongolian chronicle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956. Nyam-Ochir, G., ed. Autobiography of Tāranātha. Mongolian translation by Altangerel Ubashi (1640). Ulaanbaatar: Polar Star Books, LLC, 2012. Qoyarduġar boġda-yin namtar [Hagiography of the Second Jebtsundampa]. Manuscript Division. Ulaanbaatar: National Library of Mongolia. Qutuġtu qubilġan-u namtar [Hagiographies of Khutugtu reincarnations]. Manuscript Division. Ulaanbaatar: National Library of Mongolia. Rashîd ad-Dîn. Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s “Jami‘u’t-tawarikh”: Compendium of Chronicles, Pts 1–3, A History of the Mongols. Annotated translation by Wheeler M. Thackston, 3 vol. Cambridge, Harvard University, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, 1998 Rinchen, B. Four Mongolian Historical Records. Vol. 11. New Delhi: Śata-Pitaka, 1959. Rjeb tsun tA ra nA tha’i gsang ba’i rnam thar ‘di ne dpe cha dgon pas ‘dir bzhugs pa las gsung brtsom min no [The secret autobiography of Rje btsun Tāranātha] Private collection of D. Burnee. National University of Mongolia. Saba sim-e neretü sudur ene bolai. [Sūtra titled Prosperity]. Manuscript Division. Ulaanbaatar: National Library of Mongolia. Soninbayar, Sh., trans. Davgajantsan Tiin Udirdagch Jebtsundamba ikh erdeniin namtar magtaalin üg sain khuvitni süsgiig sergeegch orshvoi [Praises to the leader Jebtsundampa and his hagiography]. 1912. In Öndör Gegeeni namtruud orshvoi [Hagiographies of Zanabazar], edited by Sh. Bira. Ulaanbaatar: ShUA-iin Erdem Kompani, 1995. ———, trans. Agwaan Tsültemjamts: Avralt itgelt Bogd Jivzundambyn khiid Baruun Khüreenii garsan yosig tovch ögüülsen shudarga orshigchdyn chikhnii chimeg khemeekh orshvoi. [Treasury to the Ear for those honest: Brief Narrative of how Bogd Jebtsundampa’s Baruun Khüree was established]. Translated by Sh. Soninbayar. Ulaanbaatar: Gandantegchinlin Monastery, 1995. Tabuduġar Boġda Jibjundamba-yin lündeng [Fifth Bogd’s prophesies]. Manuscript Division. Ulaanbaatar: National Library of Mongolia. Tabuduġar Boġda Jibjundamba-yin surġal [Fifth Bogd’s instructions]. Manuscript Division. Ulaanbaatar: National Library of Mongolia. Tabuduġar Boġda-yin namtar [Hagiography of the Fifth Bogd], Manuscript Division. Ulaanbaatar: National Library of Mongolia. Tsedev, D., trans. Agwaan Luvsandondov: Tügeemlin ezen, nomin itgelt Bogd toin Luvsandambiijaltsanbalsambuugiin sonin yavdal khuvi tögöldör Tonilgokhig khüsegch

255

256

Bibliography

egeerliig khangakhui bayasgalant khurim nert orshvoi [Agwaan Luvsandondov: The curious events of the Holy Bogd Luvsandambiijantsan Balsambuu, which are compiled as the joyous assembly to satisfy the desire for liberation]. Ulaanbaatar: Dashchoilin Khiid, 1995. Tsendina, A., trans. Istoria Erdene juu-yin teüke [History of Erdene Zuu]. Moscow: Eastern Literature Publishing RAN, 1999. Ulaġanbaġator qota-taki Gangdan küriyen-ü sajin-u dotoġadu jirum [Internal regulations of religion in Ulaanbaatar’s Gandan Khüree]. Manuscript Division. Academy of Sciences of Buryatia.

Secondary Sources

Ahmad, Zahiruddin. A History of Tibet by the Fifth Dalai Lama of Tibet. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995. ———. Sino-Tibetan Relations in the Seventeenth Century. Rome: Instituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1970. Alekseev, Kirill, and Anna Turanskaya. “An Overview of the Altan Ganjuur Kept at the Library of the Academy of Social Sciences of Inner Mongolia.” In Asiatische Studien/ Études Asiatiques 67, no. 3 (2013). Edited by Kollmar-Paulenz and Anke von Kügelgen, 755–782, 759. Bern: Peter Lang, 2013. Alexander, André. The Temples of Lhasa: Tibetan Buddhist Architecture from the 7th to the 21st Centuries. Chicago: Serinida Publications, 2005. Altanbagana, Adyasuren. “Mongold uls töriin nam baiguulagdsan tüükhiin sudalgaa, 1918– 1921.” [A Historical study about formation of political parties in Mongolia, 1918–1921], PhD Dissertation, Pedagogical University of Mongolia, 2015. Altangerel, D., ed. Treasures of Mongolian Art. Ulaanbaatar: Asian Art Antique Gallery, 2006. Andrews, Roy Chapman. The New Conquest of Central Asia: A Narrative of the Explorations of the Central Asiatic Expeditions in Mongolia and China, 1921–1930. New York: American Museum of Natural History, 1932. Ashley, Kathleen, and Véronique Plesch. “The Cultural Processes of ‘Appropriation.’” Journal of Mediaeval and Early Modern Studies 32, no. 1 (Winter 2002): 1–15. Atwood, Christopher P. “Buddhism and Popular Ritual in Mongolian Religion: A Reexamination of the Fire Cult.” History of Religion 36, no. 2 (Nov. 1996): 112–139. ———. Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire. New York: Facts on File, 2004. Aubin, Françoise, Dorjiin Dashbaldan, Gilles Béguin, and Égly Alexandre, eds. Trésors de Mongolie, XVIIe–XIXe siècles. Paris: Reunion des Musees Nationaux, 1993. Author unknown. “Maitreya Procession.” In Chö-yang. 1, no. 2 (1987): 94–96. Baabar (Batbayar), B. History of Mongolia. Cambridge, UK: White Horse Press, 1999. Baasan, D., trans. Bogd Javzandamba Khutagt [Bogd Jetsundampa Khutugtu: translations of primary sources]. Ulaanbaatar: Mönhiin üseg Press, 2011. Baasansuren, Kh. Enkh Tunkh Erdene Zuu [Safe and Peaceful Erdene Zuu]. Ulaanbaatar: Pozitiv Agentlag, 2011. Badarch, S., ed. Bogd Khaany am dralyn on daraalyn tovchoon [Chronology of Bogd Khan biographies]. Ulaanbaatar: Khaadin San, 2000. Bao, Muping. “The Architectural Origins of Erdene Zuu within East Asian History.” In The International Conference on “Erdene Zuu: Past, Present and Future,” edited by Takashi Matsukawa and Ayudai Ochir. Ulaanbaatar: International Institute for the Study of Nomadic Civilizations, 2011, 129–146. ———. “Erdene Zuu khiidiin ug garlig Züün Aziin arkhitekturin uudnees kharakhui” [Examination of Erdene Zuu Monastery from perspectives of East Asian architecture].

Bibliography

In Orkhoni khöndiin öv [Heritage of Orkhon Valley], vol. 2, 11–25. Ulaanbaatar: Kharkhorin Museum, 2013. ———. “Menggu diguo zhi hou de Halahelin mugou fosi jianzhu” (Wooden Buddhist Temples in Karakorum during the Post-Mongol Era). In Zhongguo jianzhu shilun huikan (Journal of Chinese Architectural History). Beijing: School of Architecture at Tsinghua University, 2013, 172–198. ———. “A Multi-Storied Wooden Building in Thirteenth-Century Karakorum: A Study on the Architectural Style of the Xingyuan Pavilion.” In International Conference on Ten Years of the World Heritage Site-Orkhon Valley Cultural Landscape: Past and Present, edited by Takashi Matsukawa and Ayudai Ochir, 73–82. Kharkhorin: n.p., 2015). ———. “Trade Centres (Maimaicheng) in Mongolia, and Their Function in Sino-Russian Trade Networks.” International Journal of Asian Studies 3, no. 2:211–237. Bareja-Starzyńska, Agata. “Description of the Erdene Zuu Monastery Life (Including cam Ritual) Based on Notes from the Kotwicz Expedition.” In In the Heart of Mongolia. 100th Anniversary of W. Kotwicz’s Expedition to Mongolia in 1912 edited by Tulisow, Jerzy, Osamu Inoue, Agata Bareja-Starzyńska, and Ewa Dziurzyńska. Cracow: Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2012, 131–189. ———. “The Mongolian Incarnation of Jo nang pa Tāranātha Kun dga’ snying po: Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan (1635–1723): A Case Study of the Tibeto-Mongolian Relationship.” Special issue, Tibet Journal 34/35, no. 3/2 (Autumn 2009–Summer 2010): 243–261. Barthold, V., and J. Rogers. “The Burial Rites of the Turks and the Mongols.” Central Asiatic Journal 14, no. 1/3 (1970): 195–227. Bartholomew, Terese, and Patricia Berger, eds., Mongolia: The Legacy of Chinggis Khan. London: Thames and Hudson in association with the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, 1995. Bartholomew, Terese Tse. “Sino-Tibetan Art of the Qianlong Period from the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco.” Orientations 22, no. 6 (June 1991): 34–45. ———. “Thangkas for the Qianlong Emperor’s Seventieth Birthday.” In Cultural Intersections in Later Chinese Buddhism, edited by Marsha Weidner, 170–188. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 2001. ———. “Thangkas of the Qianlong Period.” In Tibetan Art: Towards a Definition of Style, edited by Philip Denwood and Jane Casey Singer, 104–117. London: Laurence King Publications, 1997. ———. “Three Thangkas from Chengde.” In Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, 353–360. Narita: Naritasan Shinshoji, 1992. Batmunkh, Mungunchimeg. “Mongolischer Tsam-Tanz: Geschichte, Entwicklung und Gegenwart.” PhD diss., University of Vienna, Austria. 2010. Batsaikhan, O. “The Letter to His Excellency Emperor of Japan from the Bogd Khan of Mongolia. In Khusel Borjigin and Imanishi Junko, eds., The history and culture of Mongols in the 20th Century: Collection of treatises in the 2011 International Symposium in Ulaanbatar. Fukyosha: Japan-Mongolia center, 2012, 53–78. ———. Mongolia: Becoming a Nation-State. Ulaanbaatar: Bitpress, 2013. ———. Mongolin suulchin ezen khan VIII Bogd Javzandamba [Mongolia’s last khan the Eighth Jebtsundampa]. Ulaanbaatar: Admon, 2008. Bawden, Charles. “An Event in the Life of the Eighth Jebtsundampa Khutuktu.” In Collectanea Mongolica, edited by Walther Heissig, 9–19. Wiesbaden, Germany: Otto Harrassowitz, 1966. ———. The Jebtsundamba Khutukhtus of Urga. Wiesbaden, Germany: Otto Harrassowitz, 1961.

257

258

Bibliography

———. The Modern History of Mongolia. London: Kegan Paul International, 1968. ———. “Notes on the Worship of Local Deities in Mongolia.” In Mongolian Studies, edited by Louis Ligeti, 57–66. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner, 1970. ———. “The Wish-Prayer for Shambhala Again.” Monumenta Serica 36 (1984–1985): 453–509. Baxandall, Michael. Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985. Beazley, C. Raymond, ed. The Texts and Versions of John de Plano Carpini and William de Rubruquis: As Printed for the First Time by Hakluyt in 1598. London: Hakluyt Society, 1903. Béguin, Gilles. Introduction to Treasures from Mongolia: Buddhist Sculpture from the School of Zanabazar, by Anna Rossi and Fabio Rossi. London: Rossi Rossi, 2005. Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations. New York: Schocken Books, 1969. Berger, Patricia. Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 2003. ———. “Preserving the Nation: The Political Uses of Tantric Art in China.” In Latter Days of the Law: Images of Chinese Buddhism, edited by Marsha Weidner, 850–1850. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 1994. Bethlenfalvy, Geza. A Hand List of the Ulaanbaatar Manuscript of the Kanjur Rgal-rtse them spangs-ma. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1982. Beurdeley, Cécile, and Michel Beurdeley. Giuseppe Castiglione, A Jesuit Painter at the Court of the Chinese Emperors. London: Lund Humphrey, 1972. Beyer, Stephen. Magic and Ritual in Tibet: The Cult of Tārā. Delhi: Matilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1996 [1973]. Bhabha, Homi. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994. Bira, Sh. Mongolian Historical Literature of the XVII–XIX Centuries Written in Tibetan. Translated by S. Frye. Bloomington, IN: Mongolia Society, 1970. Birtalan, Ágnes. “Religion and Mongol Identity in Mid-19th Century Urga on the Basis of a Mongolian Monk’s Oral Narratives Recorded by Gábor Bálint of Szentkatolna in 1873.” In Quaestiones Mongolorum Disputatae, edited by B. Oyunbilig, 25–54. Tokyo: International Association for the Study of Mongolian Cultures, 2012. Bosson, James. “Scripts and Literacy in the Mongol World.” In Mongolia: The Legacy of Chinggis Khan, edited by Patricia Berger and Terese Tse Bartholomew, 88–95. London: Thames and Hudson in association with the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, 1995. ———. “The Seal of the First Bogd Gegeen.” In Mongolia: The Legacy of Chinggis Khan, edited by Patricia Berger and Terese Tse Bartholomew, 267–269. London: Thames and Hudson in association with the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, 1995. Boyer, Martha. Mongol Jewelry. Copenhagen: Nordisk Forlag, 1952. Brilliant, Richard. “Portraits: The Limitations of Likeness.” Art Journal 46, no. 3 (1987): 171–172. Bulag, Uradyn E. Nationalism and Hybridity in Mongolia. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1998. Bruce, Frederick W. An Encyclopedia of Buddhist Deities, Demigods, Godlings, Saints and Demons. Vol. 1. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld Pvt. Ltd, 1994. ———. A Dictionary of Buddhist and Hindu Iconography, Illustrated: objects, devices, concepts, rites, and related terms. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld, 1997 Byambaa, R. Öndör Gegeen Zanabazaryn Soëmbo khiigeed Dörvölzhin bichig: Ekh bichgüüdiin emkhtgel [The soyombo and square script of Zanabazar]. Ulaanbaatar: Gandantegchinlin, 2011. Cabezón, José. “The Regulations of a Monastery.” In Religions of Tibet in Practice, edited by D. Lopez, 335–351. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997.

Bibliography

Caffarelli, Paola Mortari Vergara. “International dGelugs-pa Style of Architecture from the 16th–19th Century.” Journal of the Tibet Society 21, no. 2 (Summer 1996): 53–89. Campi, Alicia J., and R. Baasan. The Impact of China and Russia on United States–Mongolian Political Relations in the Twentieth Century. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2009. Carpini, Plano. The Story of the Mongols Whom We Call the Tartars. Translated by Erik Hildinger. Boston: Branden Publishing, 1996. Chandra, Lokesh. Buddhist Iconography: Compact Edition. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture and Aditya Prakashan, 1991. ———. Dictionary of Buddhist Iconography. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture: Aditya Prakashan, 1999. ———. Mongolian Kanjur. New Delhi: Sharada Rani, 1973–1979. ———, ed. Urga Kanjur. Satapitaka Series, nos. 396–500. New Delhi: New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture and Aditya Prakashan, 1990. Chang, Michael G. A Court on Horseback: Imperial Touring and the Construction of Qing Rule, 1680–1785. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2007. ———. “The Emperor Qianlong’s Tours of Southern China: Painting, Poetry, and the Politics of Spectacle.” Asia-Pacific Journal 13, issue 8, no. 3 (February 2015): 1–21. ———. “Envisioning the Spectacles of Emperor Qianlong’s Tours of Southern China: An Exercise in Historical Imagination.” In Visualizing Modern China: Image, History and Memory, edited by James A. Cook, Joshua L. Goldstein, Matthew D. Johnson, and Sigrid Schmalzer, 25–46. New York: Lexington Books, 2014. Charleux, Isabelle. “Chinggis Khaan: Ancestor, Buddha or Shaman?: On the Uses and Abuses of the Portrait of Chinggis Khan.” Mongolian Studies 31 (2009): 207–258. ———. “Circumambulating the Jowo in Mongolia: Why Erdeni Juu Must Be Understood as ‘Jowo Rinpoche.’” In Interaction in the Himalayas and Central Asia: Processes of Transfer, Translation and Transformation in Art, Archaeology, Religion and Polity, edited by Eva Allinger, Frantz Grenet, Christian Jahoda, Anne Vergati, and Maria-Katharina Lang, 357–423. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2017. ———. “From Ongon to Icon: Legitimization, Glorification and Divinization of Power in Some Examples of Mongol Portraits.” In Representing Power in Ancient Inner Asia: Legitimacy, Transmission and the Sacred, edited by Isabelle Charleux, Grégory Delaplace, Roberte Hamayon, and Scott Pearce, 209–261. Bellingham, WA: East Asian Studies Press, Western Washington University, 2010. ———, ed. History, Architecture and Restoration of Zaya Gegeenii Khüree Monastery in Mongolia. Paris: Société d’Études Mongoles et Sibériennes; Monaco: Musée d’Anthropologie Préhistorique de Monaco, 2016 ———. “The Mongols’ Devotion to the Jowo Buddhas: The True Icons and their Mongol Replicas.” Artibus Asiae 75, no. 1 (2015): 83–146. ———. Nomads on Pilgrimage: Mongols on Wutaishan (China), 1800–1940. Leiden: Brill, 2015. ———. “Padmasambhava’s Travel to the North: The Pilgrimage to the Monastery of the Caves and the Old Schools of Tibetan Buddhism in Mongolia.” Central Asiatic Journal 46, no. 2 (2002): 168–232. ———. “La peinture des donateurs du temple de Maitreya en Mongolie méridionale.” Arts Asiatiques 54 (1999): 85–102. ———. “Recent Research on the Maitreya Monastery in Inner Mongolia (China).” Études Asiatiques–Asiatische Studien 68, no.1 (2014): 1–64. ———. Temples et monastères de Mongolie-Intérieure. Paris: Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques and Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art, 2006. Chayet, Anne. Les templės de Jehol et leurs modèles tibétains. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1984.

259

260

Bibliography

Chia, Ning. “The Lifanyuan and the Inner Asian Rituals in the early Qing (1644–1795).” Late Imperial China 14, no. 1 (June 1993): 60–92. Chuluun, S. “In Search of Khutugtu’s Monastery: The Site and Its Heritage.” In Uranchimeg Tsultemin, ed., Buddhist Art of Mongolia: Cross-Cultural Discourses, Facts, and Interpretations, edited by. In Cross-Currents: East Asian History and Culture Review. Special Issue. (e-journal) 31:244–256. Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies. https://cross-currents.berkeley.edu/e-journal/issue-31/chuluun. ———. “Nomin Khüreeg Neesen n: Saridagiin Khiidiin sudalgaa” [The discovery of Dharma Khüree and research of Saridagiin Monastery]. Ulaanbaatar: Academy of Sciences, 2015. ———. “Saridigiin khiided yavuulsan maltlaga sudalgaany ur’dchilsan ur dun” [Preliminary report of excavations conducted at Saridagiin Monastery.]. Ulaanbaatar: Academy of Sciences, 2015. Clark, Walter Eugene. Two Lamaistic Pantheons. Harvard-Yenching Monograph Series, vol. 304. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937. Cleaves, F. W. The Secret History of the Mongols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. The Complete Collection of the Treasures of the Palace Museum 60: Buddhist Statues of Tibet—Gugong Bowuyuan Cang Wenwu Zhenpin Quanji 60: Zangchuan Fojiao Zaoxiang. Beijing: Palace Museum, 2002. Copp, Paul. The Body Incantatory: Spells and the Ritual Imagination in Medieval Chinese Buddhism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2014. Coyiji. Övör Mongolin Süme Khiid [Temples and monasteries of Inner Mongolia]. Höhhot: People’s Printing Agency of Inner Mongolia, 2003. Croner, Don. Guide to Locales Connected with the Life of Zanabazar: First Bogd Gegeen of Mongolia. North Charleston, NC: Book Surge, 2006. Crossley, Pamela. The Manchus. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1997. ———. “Reviewed Work: Our Great Qing: The Mongols, Buddhism, and the State in Late Imperial China by Johan Elverskog.” In History of Religions, Vol. 49, No. 1 (August 2009), 97–100 ———. “Thinking About Ethnicity in Early Modern China.” Late Imperial China 11, no. 1 (June 1990): 1–35. ———. A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Daajav, B. Mongolin uran barilgin tüükh [History of Mongolian architecture]. Vol 1–2. Ulaanbaatar: Admon, 2006. Dalton, Jacob. “A Crisis of Doxography: How Tibetans Organized Tantra during the 8th–12th Centuries.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 28, no. 1, 2005: 115–181. ———. The Gathering of Intentions: A History of a Tibetan Tantra. New York: Columbia University Press, 2016. Damdinsüren, D. Ikh Khüreenii Nert Urchuud [Eminent artists of Ikh Khüree]. Ulaanbaatar: Mongolpress, 1993. Damdinsüren, Ts., ed. Mongolin uran zokhiolin deej 100 bilig orshvoi [100 masterpieces of Mongolian literature]. Ulaanbaatar: Academy of Sciences, 1959. Dariima, G. Dursagdakhin buyantai burkhan zuraach. Ulaanbaatar: BIT Press, 2003. Das, Asha. Maitreya Buddha In Literature History and Art. Kolkata: Punthi Pustak, 2003. Dashbadrakh, D. “About a Deigned Letter by the Fifth Dalai Lama to Mongol Cabtsongdamba Hotagt.” In Mongolian Studies 3, 267–273. Seoul: Korean Institute of Mongolia, 1995. Dashbadrakh, D. Mongolyn khutagtuudyn namtryn oillogo: XVII–XX Züün [Hagiographies of Mongolian khutugtus, 17th–20th c.]. Ulaanbaatar: Academy of Sciences, 2004. Dashnyam, L., ed. Mongol nutag dah tüükh soyolyn dursgal [Historical and cultural

Bibliography

monuments on the territory of Mongolia]. Ulaanbaatar: Mongolian Academy of Humanities, 1999. Davis, Richard H. The Lives of Indian Images. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997. Dowman, Keith. The Power-Places of Central Tibet: The Pilgrim’s Guide. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1988. Dreyfus, G. “Drepung Monastery.” Unpublished paper. 2007. ———. The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist Monk. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. Dügersüren, L. From the History of Ulaanbaatar [Ulaanbaatar khotin tuukhees]. Ulaanbaatar: Ulsyn Khevleliin Gazar, 1956. Elverskog, Johan. The Jewel Translucent Sūtra: Altan Khan and the Mongols in the Sixteenth Century. Brill’s Inner Asian Library, vol 8. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ———. Our Great Qing: The Mongols, Buddhism, and the State in Late Imperial China. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 2006. ———. “Things and the Qing: Mongol Culture in the Visual Narrative.” Inner Asia 6 (2004): 137–178. Erdenebaatar, Myangat. “Some Questions Concerning ‘Mongolian Golden Kanjur’ of Mongol Ligden Khan.” Mongolian Studies, vol. 28. Seoul: Korean Institute of Mongolia, 2010. Farquhar, David M. “The Ch’ing Administration of Mongolia up to the Nineteenth Century.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1960. ———. “Emperor as Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Ch’ing Empire.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 38, no. 1 (June 1978): 5–34. ———. “Mongolian versus Chinese Elements in the Early Manchu State.” Ch’ing- shih wen-t’i 3:11–23/1971. ———. “The Origins of the Manchus’ Mongolian Policy.” In The Chinese World Order, ed. John K. Fairbank, 198–205. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. The First Jebtsundampa Khutughtu Öndör Gegeen. Beijing: China Auction, November 12, 2016. Forêt, Philippe. Mapping Chengde: The Qing Landscape Enterprise. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 2000. Franken, Christina. Die “Grosse Halle” von Karakorum: Zur archäologischen Untersuchung des ersten buddhistischen Tempels der alten mongolischen Hauptstadt. Wiesbaden, Germany: Reichert Verlag, 2015. Fremantle, Francesca. “A Critical Study of Guhyasamāja Tantra.” PhD diss., School of Oriental and African Studies, London, 1971. Gell, Alfred. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1998. Gerelbadrakh, J., D. Budsuren, P. Byambakhorol, A. Tanjid, and Sh. Choimaa, eds. Galdan Tuslagch. Ulaanbaatar: Academy of Sciences, 2006 [1841]. Goldstein, Melvyn. “The Revival of Monastic Life at Drepung.” In Buddhism in Contemporary Tibet: Religious Revival and Cultural Identity, edited by Melvyn Goldstein and Matthew Kapstein. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Gombrich, Ernst. The Story of Art. London: Phaidon Press, 1995. Gongor, D. Khalkh tovchoon, 1–2 boti. [Khalkha Chronicle, 2 volumes]. Höhhot: Printing Agency of Pedagogy, 1990. Gotov, S. Bügsiin Khüree-Dashgendunjambalin khiid [Bügs Khüree and the khiid of Dashgendunjambal]. Ulaanbaatar: Khuvsgul, 2000. Greenwood, Kevin. “Yonghegong: Imperial Universalism and the Art and Architecture of Beijing’s ‘Lama Temple.’” PhD diss., University of Kansas, 2013. Grousset, Réne. The Empire of the Steppe: A History of Central Asia. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1970.

261

262

Bibliography

Grupper, Samuel. “Manchu Patronage and Tibetan Buddhism during the First Half of the Ch’ing Dynasty: A Review Article.” Journal of the Tibet Society 4 (1984): 47–75. Guan, Xing. The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikaya Theory. London: Routledge Curzon Press, 2005. Gutschow, Niels, and Andreas Brandt. “Die Baugeschichte der Klosteranlage von Erdeni Joo (Erdenezuu).” In Dschingis Khan and seine Erben. Das Weltreich der Mongolen. München: Hirmer Verlag, 2005. Gyatso, Janet. “Image as Presence.” In From the Sacred Realm: Treasures of Tibetan Art from The Newark Museum, edited by Valrae Reynolds, 171–179. Munich: Prestel, 1999. Haderer, Elisabeth. “The Sacred and the Profane—On the Representation of the first and second rJe btsun dam pa Khutukhtus in Mongolian Buddhist Art.” In Amy Heller, ed., The Arts of Tibetan Painting: Recent Research on Manuscripts, Murals and Thangkas of Tibet, the Himalayas and Mongolia (11th –19th century), asianart.com, 2012. https://www.asianart.com/articles/haderer/index.html. Harley, John B., and Paul Laxton, eds. The New Nature of Maps: Essays in the History of Cartography. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. Hearn, Maxwell. “Qing Imperial Portraiture.” In International Symposium on Art Historical Studies, 6, Portraiture, 108–125. Kyoto: Taniguchi Foundation, 1987. Heissig, Walther. Die Pekinger lamaistischen Blockdrucke in mongolischer Sprache. Wiesbaden, Germany: Otto Harrassowitz, 1954. ———. “A Mongolian Source to the Lamaist Suppression of Shamanism.” Anthropos 48 no. 1/2 (1953): 1–29, 493–536. ———. “Neyici Toyin. Das Leben eines lamaistischen Mönchs (1557–1653).” In Sinologica 3, no. 4 (1953): 1–44, and Sinologica 4, no. 1 (1954): 21–38. ———. The Religions of Mongolia. Translated by Geoffrey Samuel. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980. Heissig, Walther, and Claudius C. Müller. Die Mongolen. Innsbruck: Pinguin Verlag, 1989. Heller, Amy. “Mongolian Mountain Deities and Local Gods: Examples of Rituals for Their Worship in Tibetan Language.” In Reflections of the Mountain: Essays on the History and Social Meaning of the Mountain Cult in Tibet and the Himalaya, edited by A. M. Blondeau and Ernst Steinkeller, 133–140. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaft, 1996. Henss, Michael. “The Bodhisattva-Emperor: Tibeto-Chinese Portraits of Sacred and Secular Rule in the Qing Dynasty, Part 1.” Oriental Art 48, no. 3 (2001): 2–16, 71–83. ———. Cultural Monuments of Tibet. Vol. 2. New York: Prestel, 2014. Hevia, James. “Lamas, Emperors and Rituals: Political Implications in Qing Imperial Ceremonies.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 16, no. 2:243–278. Horner, I. B. The Minor Anthologies, Part III, Chronicle of Buddhas (Buddhavaṃsa) and Basket of Conduct (Cariyāpiṭaka). Oxford: Pali Text Society, 1975 Hostetler, Laura. “Early Modern Mapping at the Qing Court: Survey Maps of the Kangxi, Yongzheng, and Qianlong Reign Periods.” In Chinese History in Geographical Perspective, edited by Yongtao Du and Jeff Kyong-McClain, 15–32. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2013. ———. Qing Colonial Enterprise: Ethnography and Cartography in Early Modern China. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Humphrey, Caroline, and Hürelbaatar Ujeed. A Monastery in Time: The Making of Mongolian Buddhism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. Huntington, John C. Circle of Bliss: Buddhist Meditational Art. Chicago: Serindia, 2003. Huntington, John C., and Susan Huntington. Leaves from the Bodhi Tree: The Art of Pala India (8th–12th centuries) and Its International Legacy. Dayton, OH: Dayton Art Institute, 1990.

Bibliography

Hurcha, N. “Attempts to Buddhicize the Cult of Chinggis Khan.” Inner Asia 1, no. 1 (1999): 45–57. Ichinnorov, S., ed. Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar: Erdem Shinjilgeeni Bichig [Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar: Scientific Papers] Ulaanbaatar: Academy of Sciences, International Association of Mongolian Studies, 1998. ———. Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar: Namtar, Buteeliin zarim asuudal [Öndör Gegeen Zanabazar: Biography and some issues of his works]. Ulaanbaatar: Mönkhiin üseg, 2005. Idshinnorov, S. Ulaanbaatar khotin khuraangui [Survey of Ulaanbaatar city] Ulaanbaatar: publisher unknown, 1994. Ishihama, Yumiko. “The Notion of ‘Buddhist Government’ (chos srid) Shared by Tibet, Mongol and Manchu in the Early 17th century.” In The Relationship Between Religion and State (chos srid zung ‘brel) in Traditional Tibet, edited by Christopher Cüppers, 15–31. Lumbini, Nepal: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2004. Jackson, David. A History of Tibetan Painting: The Great Tibetan Painters and Their Traditions. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996. ———. The Nepalese Legacy in Tibetan Painting. New York: Rubin Museum of Art, 2010. ———. Patron and Painter: Situ Panchen and the Revival of the Encampment Style. New York: Rubin Museum of Art, 2009. ———. The Place of Provenance: Regional Styles in Tibetan Painting. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2012. Jackson, Peter, and David Morgan, eds. The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck: His Journey to the Court of the Great Khan Möngke, 1253–1255. London: Hakluyt Society, 1990. Jagchid, Sechin. “The Manchu Ch’ing Policy Towards Mongolian Religion.” In Tractata Altaica, edited by Walther Heissig, 301–319. Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz, 1976. Jagchid, Sechin, and Paul Hyer. Mongolia’s Culture and Society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1979. Jamsranjav, G. II, III Bogd [Second and Third Bogd]. Ulaanbaatar: Khaadin San, 2001. ———. IV Bogd Javzan-luvsan-tuvden-vaanchig-zhigmėd-zhamts. [Fourth Bogd Javzan Uaanbaatar]: Khaadin San, 2000. ———. V Bogd Luvsan Tsultem Jigjid Dambiijantsan Balsambuu. Ulaanbaatar: Khaadin San, 2000. ———. VI, VII Bogd [Sixth and Seventh Bogd]. Ulaanbaatar: Khaadin San, 2002. ———. VIII Bogd Khan. Ulaanbaatar: Khaadin San, 1998. Jing, Anning. “The Portraits of Khubilai Khan and Chabi by Anige (1245–1306), a Nepali Artist at the Yuan Court.” Artibus Asiae 54, no. 1–2 (1994): 49–86. Jing, Zaoxian Liangdu. The Buddhist Canon of Iconometry with Supplement: A TibetanChinese Translation from about 1742 by mGon-po-skyabs (Gömpojab). Ulm: Fabri Verla, 2000. Kapstein, Matthew. The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation, and Memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000. ———. The Tibetans. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. Karmay, Heather. Early Sino-Tibetan Art. Warminster, UK: Aris & Phillips, 1975. Karmay, Samten G., trans. The Illusive Play: The Autobiography of the Fifth Dalai Lama. Chicago: Serindia Publications, 2014. Kelényi, Béla, and Judit Vinkovics. Tibeti és mongol buddhista tekercsképek. Budapest: Hopp Ference Kelet-Ázsiai Müvészeti Múzeum, 1995. Khatanbaatar, N., and Naigal, Yo. Erdene Zuugiin tüükh [History of Erdene Zuu]. Ulaanbaatar: Soyombo Printing, 2005. Khurelbaatar, L. Ankhdugaar Bogd [First Bogd]. Ulaanbaatar: Khaadin San, 2001. Kim, Jinah. “Local Visions, Transcendental Practices: Iconographic Innovations of Indian Esoteric Buddhism.” History of Religions 54, no. 1 (August 2014), 34–68.

263

264

Bibliography

———. Receptacle of the Sacred: Illuminated Manuscripts and the Buddhist Book Cult in South Asia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013. Kim, Sung Soo (Jin, Chengxiu). The Tibetan Buddhism in Mongolia during the Ming and Qing. [In Chinese.] Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2005. Kimura, Ayako. “Mongolyn Khüree Tsamig busad orni tsamtai khar’tsuulan sudalsan n” [Comparative analysis of Mongolian Tsam with Tsam rituals of their countries]. PhD diss. National University of Mongolia, 1995. King, Matthew. “Surveys of Monastic Colleges as Polemic in Zawa Damdin’s Golden Book.” In “Festschrift for Wayne Richter,” edited by David Bade. Special issue, Mongolian Studies: Journal of the Mongolia Society 35 (2013): 41–62. ———. “Writing True Places in the Twilight of Empire and the Dawn of Revolution: The Buddhist Historiography of the Mongol Zawa Damdin Luwsandamdin (1867–1937).” PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2014. Kollmar-Paulenz, Karénina. “Forming a Mongolian Buddhist Identity: The Biography of Neichi Toin.” In Biographies of Eminent Mongol Buddhists. PIATS 2006: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Königswinter 2006, edited by Johan Elverskog, 13–28. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2008. ———. “The Third Dalai Lama Sönam Gyatso and the Fourth Dalai Lama Yönten Gyatso.” In The Dalai Lamas: A Visual History, edited by Martin Brauen, 53–59. Zurich: Ethnographic Museum of the University of Zurich; Chicago: Serindia Publications, 2005. ———. “The Transmission of the Mongolian bKa ‘gyur: A Preliminary Report.” In Helmut Eimer and David Germano, eds., The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies 2000 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 151–176. Kollmar-Paulenz, Karénina, and Anke von Kügelgen, eds. Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques LXVII.3.2013. Bern/Berlin: Peter Lang, 2013. Kollmar-Paulenz, Karénina, and Mungunchimeg Batmunkh. “Der Mongolische Maskentanz (Tsam) in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart.” Asia 69, no. 3 (2015): 625–683. Kossak, Steven M., and Jane Casey Singer. Sacred Visions: Early Paintings from Central Tibet. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1998. Kreijger, Hugo. “Mural Styles at Shalu.” In Tibetan Art: Towards a Definition of Style, edited by Jane Casey Singer and Philip Denwood, 170–77. London: Laurence King Publications, 1997. Kubler, George. The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History of Things. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1962. Lancaster, Lewis. “Maitreya in Korea.” In Maitreya: The Future Buddha, edited by Alan Sponberg and Helen Hardacre, 135–153. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Larsen, Knud, and Amund Sinding-Larsen. Lhasa Atlas: Traditional Tibetan Architecture and Townscape. Boston: Shambhala, 2001. Larson, Frans August. Duke of Mongolia. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1930. Lessing, Ferdinand. Yung-ho-kung: An Iconography of the Lamaist Cathedral in Peking with Notes on Lamaist Mythology and Cult. Stockholm: publisher uknown, 1942. Liu, Cary Y. “Archive of Power: The Qing Dynasty Imperial Garden-Palace at Rehe.” Taida Journal (Guoli Taiwan daxue meishushi yanjiu jikan) 28 (March 2010): 43–82. Lomakina, Inessa. Marzan Sharav [Funny Sharav]. Moscow: , 1974. ———. Mongol’skaya stolitsa, staraya i novaya [Mongolian capital: new and old]. Moscow: Izobrazitelʹnoe Iskusstvo, 2006. Lopez, Donald S., Jr., ed. Religions of Tibet in Practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997.

Bibliography

———. “Tibetan Buddhism.” In New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde, edited by James Millward, Ruth W. Dunnell, Mark Elliott, and Philippe Forêt, 22–32. London: Routledge Curson, 2004. Luczanits, Christian. “Art Historical Aspects of Dating Tibetan Art.” In Dating Tibetan Art: Essays on the Possibilities and Impossibilities of Chronology from the Lempertz Symposium, Cologne, edited by Ingrid Kreide-Damani. Wiesbaden, Germany: L. Reichert, 2003. ———. “The Bodhisattva with the Flask in Gandharan Narrative Scenes: In memoriam Maurizio Taddei.” East and West 55, no. 1/4 (2005): 174–175. ———. Buddhist Sculpture in Clay: Early Western Himalayan Art, Late 10th to Early 13th Centuries. Chicago: Serindia, 2004. ———. “The Life of the Buddha in the Sumtsek.” Orientations 30, no. 1 (Jan. 1999): 30–39. ———. “Infinite Variety. Form and Appearance in Tibetan Buddhist Art. Part I.” Lotus Leaves 7, no. 2 (2005): 1–9. ———. “Infinite Variety. Form and Appearance in Tibetan Buddhist Art. Part II.” Lotus Leaves 8, no. 1 (2005): 7–14. ———. “On the Earliest Maṇḍalas in a Buddhist Context.” In Mahayāna Buddhism: History and Culture, edited by Darrol Bryant and Susan Bryant, 111–136. New Delhi: Tibet House, 2008. Luo, Wenhua. “Gugong cang Menggu tong fo zaoxiang yanjiu-shilun Yishi Jebutsundanba shiqi fo zaoxiang yishu fengge di laiyuan” [Research on the Mongolian bronze buddha images collected in the Palace Museum–a discussion of the origins of the artistic style of buddha images during the period of the First Jebtsundampa]. Gugong bowuyuan yuankan 2 (1999): 81–87. ———. “Qianlong jiunian Nipoer gongjiang jinjing kao” [Research into the Nepalese artisans who came to the capital in the ninth year of Qianlong]. In /Longpao yu jiasha/ 龙袍与袈裟 [Dragon robes and monks’ mantles], vol. 2, 583–598. Beijing: Zijincheng chubashe, 2005. Maidar, Damdinzhavyn. Arkhitektura i gradostroitel’stvo Mongolii [Architecture and City building of Mongolia]. Moscow: Stroyizdat, 1971. Maidar, Damdinzhavyn, and D. Pürveev. Ot Kochevoi do mobil’noi arkhitektury [From nomadic till mobile architecture]. Moscow: Stroyizdat, 1980. Maiskii, Ivan M. Sovremennaia Mongolia [Modern Mongolia]. Irkutsk: Irkutskoe otdelenie, 1921. Majer, Zsuzsa. “Töwkhön, the Retreat of Öndör Gegeen as a Pilgrimage Site.” The Silk Road 10 (2012): 107–116. Mandeville, John. The travels of Sir John Mandeville, with three narratives in illustration of it: The voyage of Johannes de Plano Carpini, The journal of Friar William de Rubruquis, The journal of Friar Odoric. New York: Dover Publications, 1964. Matsukawa, Takashi, and Ayudai Ochir, eds. The International Conference on “Erdene Zuu: Past, Present and Future,” Ulaanbaatar: The “Erdene Zuu Project” and the International Institute for the Study of Nomadic Civilizations, 2011. Millward, James. “New Perspectives on the Qing Frontier.” In Remapping China: Fissures in Historical Terrain, edited by Gail Hershatter, Emily Honig, Jonathan N. Lipman, and Randall Stross, 113–129. Redwood, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996. Miyawaki, Junko. “How Legends Developed about the First Jebtsundampa: In Reference to the Khalkha Mongol Submission to the Manchus in the Seventeenth Century.” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 52 (1994): 45–67. ———. “Tibeto-Mongol Relations at the Time of the First Rje btsun dam pa Qutugtu.” In Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, Narita 1989, edited by Ihara Shoren and Zuiho Uamaguchi, 599–604. Narita: Naritasan Shinsoji, 1992.

265

266

Bibliography

Molk, David. Lion of Siddhas: The Life and Teachings of Padampa Sanggye. Spi edition. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion, 2008. Mori, Masahide. Vajrāvalī of Abhayākaragupta: Edition of Sanskrit and Tibetan Versions. Tring, UK: Institute of Buddhist Studies, 2009. Moses, Larry W. The Political Role of Mongol Buddhism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977. Müller, Claudius, and Henriettte Pleiger, eds. Dschingis Khan and seine Erben. Das Weltreich der Mongolen [Genghis Khan and His Heirs. The Empire of the Mongols]. München: Hirmer Verlag, 2005. Mullin, Glenn. Selected Works of the Dalai Lama (Ithaca: Snow Lion, 1985) Musillo, Marco. “Bridging Europe and China: The Professional Life of Giuseppe Castiglione (1688–1766).” PhD diss., University of East Anglia, 2006. ———. Les peintures génoises de Giuseppe Castiglione [Genoese paintings of Giuseppe Castiglione]. Paris: Thalia Edition, 2007. Naquin, Susan. Peking: Temples and City Life, 1400–1900. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Natsagdorj, Sh. Khalkhiin tüükh [History of the Khalkha]. Ulaanbaatar: Ulsyn Khevleliin Khereg Erkhlekh Khoroo, 1963. Nietupski, Paul K. Labrang Monastery: A Tibetan Buddhist Community on the Inner Asian Borderlands, 1709–1958. Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, 2011. Niu Song, ed. Yonghegong. Beijing: Zhongguo minzu sheying yishu chubanshe, 2001. Nora, Pierre. “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire.” In Representations 26 (Spring 1989), 7–25. Nyam-Ochir, G., ed. Chinggis Khaani shüteen khörög: Chinggis Khan’s Iconography [Chinggis Khaan’s devoted portraiture: Chinggis Khaan’s Iconography]. Ulaanbaatar: Mönkhiin üseg, 2017. Ochir A., and B. Enkhtuvshin, eds. Mongol Ulsyn Tüükh [History of Mongolia]. Ulaanbaatar: Academy of Sciences, 2003. Oidtmann, Max. “A Case for Gelukpa Governance: The Historians of Labrang, Amdo, and the Manchu Rulers of China.” In Greater Tibet: An Examination of Borders, Ethnic Boundaries, and Cultural Areas, edited by Christiaan Klieger, 111–148 Lanham; Boulder; New York; London: Lexington Books, 2016. ———. Forging the Golden Urn: The Qing Empire and the Politics of Reincarnation in Tibet. New York: Columbia University Press, 2018. Okada, Hidehiro. “Outer Mongolia in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century.” Ajia Afurika gengo bunko kenkyu 5 (1972): 69–85. Ölzii, J. Mongolyn dursgalt uran barilgyn tüükhees [From the history of Mongolian architectural monuments]. Ulaanbaatar: Soyombo Publishing, 1992. ———, ed. Choijin Lamin süm muzei. [Choijin Lama Temple Museum] Ulaanbaatar: Choijin Lama Temple Museum, 2011. ———, ed., Mongol töriin sakhiusni Örgöö -Palace of the State Oracle. Ulaanbaatar: Choijin Lama Temple Museum, 2018. Otgonsuren, D., and Z. Ninjbadgar, Mongol Töriin Choijin Luvsankhaidav Ekh Dagina Sürenkhorloo. [Mongolian State Oracle Luvsankhaidav and His Tantric Partner Surenkhorloo]. Ulaanbaatar: Choijin Lama Temple Museum, 2016. Overmyer, Daniel L. “Messenger, Savior, and Revolutionary: Maitreya in Chinese Popular Religious Literature of the 16th–17th Centuries.” In Maitreya: The Future Buddha, edited by Alan Sponberg and Helen Hardacre, 110–132. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Oyunbileg, Borjigidai. “Erdene Zuu khiid ba Khalkh Tümediin tüükhen kharitsaa” [Erdene Zuu khiid and historical connections of Khalkha and Tümed Mongols]. In Orkhoni khöndiin öv [Heritage of Orkhon Valley], vol. 2, 31. Ulaanbaatar: Kharkhorin Museum, 2013.

Bibliography

Perdue, Peter. China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005. Pershin, Dmitrii. Baron Ungern,Urga i Altan-Bulak [Baron Ungern, Urga and Altan-Bulak]. Manuscript, 1933, published posthumously. Samara, Russia: Agni Press, 1999. Petech, Luciano. China and Tibet in the Early 18th Century. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1950. Powers, John. Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion, 1995. Pozdneev, Aleksei M. Goroda severnoi Mongolii [Towns of northern Mongolia]. Saint Petersburg, Russia: Tip. V.S. Balasheva, 1880. ———. Mongolia and the Mongols. Translated by John Roger Shaw and Dale Plank. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971. ———. Mongolia i Mongoli [Mongolia and Mongols]. St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Imperatorskoi akademii nauk, 1896–1898. ———. Ocherki byta buddiiskikh monastyrei i buddiiskogo dukhovenstva v Mongolii v sviazi s otnosheniia mi sego poslednego k narodu [Religion and ritual in society: Lamaist Buddhism in late nineteenth-century Mongolia]. Elista, Russia: Kalm. kn. izd-vo, 1993 [1887]. ———. Urgiinskiye Khutukhtu [Khutukhtus of Urga]. St. Petersburg: Tipografiia brat. Panteleevikh, 1880. Preziosi, Donald, ed. The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1998. Publow, Erin. “Vajrāvalī Maṇḍalas.” In The Circle of Bliss: Buddhist Meditational Art, edited by John C. Huntington and Dina Bangdel, 306–307. Chicago: Serindia Publications, 2003. Pürev, O. 360 Ulaanbaatar. Ulaanbaatar: Admon Press, 1999. ———. Mongolin Uls törin töv [Mongolian political center]. Ulaanbaatar: Mana, 1994. Pürev, O., O. Sukhbaatar, S. Ichinnorov, Sh. Shagdar, J. Saruulbuyan. Niislelin Öv Soyol [Cultural heritage of the capital]. Ulaanbaatar: Mönkhiin üseg, 2004. Pürevjav, S. Khuvsgalin ömnöh Ikh Khüree [Prerevolutionary Ikh Khüree]. Ulaanbaatar: Ulsin Khevlelin Khereg Erkhlekh Khoroo, 1961. Rawski, Evelyn S. The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Rhie, Marilyn, and Robert Thurman, eds. Wisdom and Compassion: The Sacred Art of Tibet. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2000. ———, eds. Worlds of Transformation: Tibetan Art of Wisdom and Compassion. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1999. Richardson, Hugh. “The Cult of Vairocana in Early Tibet.” In High Peaks, Pure Earth: Collected Writings on Tibetan History and Culture. London: Serindia, 1998. Rockhill, William. “The Question of Outer Mongolia.” Journal of the American Asiatic Association 14, no. 4 (May 1914): 103. Ruegg, D. S. The Life of Bu ston rin po che: With the Tibetan Text of the Bu ston rNam thar. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1966. Rupen, Robert. “The City of Urga in the Manchu Period.” Studia Altaica: Festschrift für Nicholas Poppe. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1957, pp. 157–169. Sanders, Alan. Historical Dictionary of Mongolia. 3rd ed. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2010. Sanjdorj, M. Manchu Chinese Colonial Rule in Northern Mongolia. Translated by Urgunge Onon. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1980. Schwieger, Peter. The Dalai Lama and the Emperor of China: A Political History of the Tibetan Institution of Reincarnation. New York: Columbia University Press, 2015. Sereeter. O. Mongolin Ikh Khüree, Gandan Khiidiin tüükhen butetsiin tovch [Survey of historical structure of Ikh Khüree and Gandan Monastery of Mongolia]. Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Ulsyn Undesnii Tov Arkhiv, 1999.

267

268

Bibliography

Serruys, Henry. “Additional Note on the Origin of Lamaism in Mongolia.” Oriens Extremus 13 (1966):165–173. ———. “Early Lamaism in Mongolia.” Oriens Extremus 10 (1962): 181–216. ———. “Mongol Qorig: Reservation.” Mongolian Studies 1 (1974): 76–91. Sharf, Robert H. “The Scripture on the Production of Buddha Images.” In Religions of China in Practice, edited by Donald S. Lopez, Jr. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. Shastina, N. Russko-mongolskie posolskiye otnosheniya XVII v. [Russian-Mongolian Ambassadorial Relations of the 17th Century]. Moscow: Izdvatel’stvo vostochnoi literatury, 1958. Shchepetilnikov, N. Arkhitektura Mongolii [Architecture of Mongolia]. Moscow: Gos Izdatel’stvo literatury po stroitelʹstvu, arkhitekture i stroit materialam, 1960. Shen Weirong, Leben und historische Bedeutung des ersten Dalai Lama dGe’dun grub pa dpal bzang po (1391–1474): ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der dGe lugs pa-Schule und der Institution der Dalai Lamas. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2002. Shiraishi, Noriyuki. “Traces of Life in the Uighur Period Found Beneath Erdene Zuu Monastery.” In The International Conference on Erdene Zuu: Past, Present and Future, edited by Matsukawa Takashi and Ayudai Ochir, 94–96. Ulaanbaatar: The “Erdene Zuu Project” and the International Institute for the Study of Nomadic Civilizations, 2011. Singer, Jane Casey. “Early Portrait Painting in Tibet.” In Function and Meaning in Buddhist Art: Proceedings of a Seminar Held at Leiden University, 21–24 October 1991, edited by K. R. van Kooij and H. van der Veere eds, 81–93. Groningen, The Netherlands: Egbert Forsten, 1995. Singer, Jane Casey, and Philip Denwood, eds. Tibetan Art: Towards a Definition of Style. London: Laurence King Publications, 1997. Singer, Jane Casey, and Steven M. Kossak. Sacred Visions: Early Paintings from Central Tibet. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1998. Sizova, Alexandra A. “The Political Role of the Russian Consulates in Mongolia in the Mongolian National Liberation Movement in the Early 20th Century.” In Basic Research Program Working Papers. Moscow: National Research University Higher School of Economics, 2016. Skrinnikova, Tatiyana. Lamaistskaya tserkov i gosudarstvo: vneshnyaya Mongolia 16-nachalo 20 veka [Lamaist church and the state: Outer Mongolia in the 16th to early 20th centuries]. Novosibirsk, Russia: Nauka, 1988. Smith, Gene. Introduction to The Autobiography of First Panchen Lama Blo-bzang-chos-­kyirgyals-mtshan. Edited and translated by Ngawang Gelek Demo, 7. New Delhi: Ngawang Gelek Demo, 1969. ———. Introduction to Collected Works of Ngag dbang mkhas grub. Agwaan Khaidav, Collected Works, Vol. 1. Leh, Ledakh: S. W. Tashigangpa, 1972–1974. TBRC W16912– 0588. Sneath, David. The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, and Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007. ———. Imperial Statecraft: Political Forms and Techniques of Governance in Inner Asia, Sixth–Twentieth Centuries. Bellingham, WA: Center for East Asian Studies, Western Washington University for Mongolia and Inner Asia Studies Unit, University of Cambridge, 2006. Snellgrove, David. Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists and Their Tibetan Successors. Boston: Shambhala Publication, 2002 [1987]. Somlai, Gyurgy. “The Lineage of Tāranātha According to Klong-rdol bla-ma.” In Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 4th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Schloss Hohenkammer, Munich 1985, edited by Helga Uebach and Jampa Losan

Bibliography

Panglung, 449. Munich: Kommission für Zentralasiatische Studien, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988. Sommer, Deborah. “The Art and politics of Painting Qianlong at Chengde.” In New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde, edited by James Millward, Ruth W. Dunnell, Mark Elliott, and Philippe Forêt, 136–145. London: Routledge Curson, 2004. Soninbayar, Sh. “Khüree Khamba Nomun Khan Agwaankhaidavin tovch namtar” [A short biography of Khüree Khamba Nomun Khan Agwaan Khadav]. Lavain Egshig 3 (2009). ———. “Mongolin soyol tüükhend Öndör Gegeenii oruulsan uutgel” [The contribution of Zanabazar in Mongolian culture and history]. PhD diss., Academy of Sciences of Mongolia, Institute of History at Academy of Sciences, 1999. Soninbayar, Sh., and S. Yanjinsuren, eds. II bogd jivzundamba khutagt: [1724–1757], erdem shinzhilgeeni baga khurlyn iltgel [II Bogd Jebtsundampa: Proceedings of the Conference]. Ulaanbaatar: Selengepress, 2010. Sonomdagva, Ts. Manjiin zakhirgaand baisan ar Mongolin zasag zahirgaani zohion baiguulalt 1691–1911 [The administrative structure of Outer Mongolia under Manchu rule 1691– 1911]. Ulaanbaatar: Academy of Sciences, 1961. Sonomtseren L. Marzan Sharav [Funny Sharav]. Ulaanbaatar: Mongolin Urchuudin Evlel, 1964. Stearns, Cyrus. The Buddha from Dölpo: A Study of the Life and Thought of the Tibetan Master Dölpopa Sherab Gyaltsen. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 2010 [1999]. Stoddard, Heather, ed. Portraits of the Masters: Bronze Sculptures of the Tibetan Buddhist Lineages. Chicago: Serindia Publications, 2003. ———. “A Stone Sculpture of mGur mGon-po, Mahakala of the Tent, Dated 1292.” Oriental Art, n.s., 31, no. 3 (Autumn 1985): 278–282. Stuart, Jan, and Evelyn S. Rawski. Worshipping the Ancestors: Chinese Commemorative Portraits. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001. Surtupova, Surunkhand. “Estetika Dzanbazara I Mongol’skii stil’ v Buddiiskom izobrazitel’nom iskusstve” [Aesthetics of Zanabazar and Mongolian Style]. In Aspects of Mongolian Buddhism: Past, Present and Future, edited by Ágnes Birtalan, Krisztina Teleki, Zsuzsa Majer, Csaba Fahidi, and Attila Rákos, 71–88. Budapest: L’Harmattan, 2018. Takato, Fukiwara. “A Political Background of the Construction of the Xingyuange.” In International Conference on Ten Years of the World Heritage Site-Orkhon Valley Cultural Landscape: Past and Present, edited by Takashi Matsukawa and Ayudai Ochir, 68–73. Kharkhorin, Mongolia: publisher unknown, 2015. Tāranātha. The Origin of the Tārā Tantra. Translated by David Templeman. Dharamsala, India: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1981. Tatsuo, Nakami. “New Trends in the Study of Modern Mongolian History: What Effect Have Political and Social Changes Had on Historical Research?” Acta Asiatica 76 (1996): 12–23 Teleki, Krisztina. “Bogdiin Khüree: Monasteries and Temples of the Mongolian Capital (1651–1938).” PhD diss., Eötvös Loránd University, Faculty of Humanities, Budapest, Hungary, 2008. ———. Monasteries and Temples of Bogdiin Khüree (1651–1938). Ulaanbaatar: Institute of History, Mongolian Academy of Sciences, 2011. ———. Study of Urga’s Heritage. Ulaanbaatar: Academy of Sciences, 2015. Templeman, David. The Life of Kāṇha/Kṛṣṇācārya by Tāranātha. Dharamsala, India: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1989. ———. “Tāranātha’s Life of Kāṇha/ Kṛṣṇācārya: An Unusual Siddha Hagiography.” In Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5th International Seminar on Tibetan Studies

269

270

Bibliography

in Narita, Japan 1989, edited by Sh. Ihara and Z. Yamaguchi, 309–313. Narita, Japan, 1992, 309–313. Thurman, Robert, ed. The Life and Teachings of Tsong-khapa. Dharamsala, India: Library of Tibetan Works & Archives, 1982. Tripodes, Lucia. “Painting and Diplomacy at the Qianlong Court: A Commemorative Picture by Wang Zhicheng (Jean-Denis Attiret).” Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 35 (Spring 1999), 185–200. Tsedendamba, S., ed. Mongolyn süme khiidiin tüükhen tovchoon [Historical account of Mongolian monasteries and temples]. Ulaanbaatar: Admon Press, 2009. Tsedev, D. Ikh Shav [Great disciple]. Ulaanbaatar: Shinzhlekh ukhaany Akademiin khevlel, 1964. Tserensodnom, D. Mongolin Buddiin uran zohiolin tuuh [The history of Buddhist literature in Mongolia]. Ulaanbaatar: Shinzhlekh Ukhaany Akademiin Khel Zokhiolyn Khureelen, 1997. Tsultem, Nyam-Osoryn. Development of the Mongolian National Style Painting “Mongol Zurag” in Brief. Ulaanbaatar: Gosizdatelʹstvo, 1986. ———. Eminent Mongolian Sculptor Zanabazar. Ulaanbaatar: Gosizdatelʹstvo, 1982. ———. Iskusstvo Mongolii s drevneishikh vremen do nachala XX veka [Art of Mongolia from ancient times till the beginning of the 20th c.]. Moscow: Izobrazitel’noe Iskusstvo, 1982. ———. Mongolian Architecture. Ulaanbaatar: Gosizdatelʹstvo, 1988. ———. Mongolian Sculpture. Ulaanbaatar: Gosizdatelʹstvo, 1986. ———. Mongolin uran zurgiin khögjij irsen toim [Development of Mongolian painting]. Ulaanbaatar: Mongolin Urchuudin Evlel, 1988. ———. Mongolin uran zurgiin khögjij irsen toim [Development of Mongolian painting], edited by Narmandakh Tsultem. Ulaanbaatar: BCI Publishing, 2018. Tucci, Giuseppe. Tibetan Painted Scrolls. Rome: Libreria dello Stato, 1949. ———. To Lhasa and Beyond. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 1987. Uranchimeg Tsultemin. Buddhist Art of Mongolia: Cross-Cultural Connections, Discoveries, and Interpretations. Cross-Currents: East Asian History and Culture Review 31 (June. 2019), Special Issue. Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies. ———. “Cartographic Anxieties in Mongolia: The Bogda Khan’s Picture-Map.” CrossCurrents: East Asian History and Culture Review 21 (Dec. 2016): 66–87. ———. “A Case of Allegoresis: A Buddhist Painter and His Patron in Mongolia.” Artibus Asiae 78 no. 1 (December 2018): 61–94. ———. “Ikh Khüree: A Nomadic Monastery and the Later Buddhist Art of Mongolia.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2009. ———. “Internal Regulations of Gandan Monastery.” In Original Sources of Mongolian Buddhism, edited by Vesna Wallace. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. ———. “Mongolian Art and the Dilemma of Himalayan Affiliation.” South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 34:2 (2018): 137–153. ———. Mongolin Durslekh Urlag Sudlalin Tuuver Niitleluud, 1993–2018 [Selected Papers on the Research of Mongolian Arts, 1993–2018]. Ulaanbaatar: Admon Press, 2018. ———. Mongolin Khüree Khiidin Buddhin shashni urlag [Buddhist Art of Mongolian Khüree monasteries]. Ulaanbaatar: BCI Press, 2018. ———. “The Power and Authority of Maitreya in Mongolia Examined Through Mongolian Art.” In Buddhism in Mongolian History, Culture, and Society, edited by Vesna Wallace, 137–159. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015. ———. “A Thangka in the Library of Congress: Art for Independence and International Politics in Inner Asia in the Early 20th Century.” In “Festschrift to Wayne Richter,” edited by David Bade. Special issue, Mongolian Studies: Journal of the Mongolia Society 35 (2013): 63–105.

Bibliography

———. “Zanabazar (1635–1723): Vajrayāna Art and the State in Medieval Mongolia.” In Buddhism in Mongolian History, Culture, and Society, edited by Vesna Wallace, 116–136. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015. ———. “Zanabazar’s Art: The Building of the Buddhist State in Late Medieval Mongolia.” In Meditation: The Art of Zanabazar and His School, by Elvira Eevr Djaltchinova-Malec, 17–59. Warsaw: State Ethnographic Museum, 2010. Vinograd, Richard. Boundaries of the Self: Chinese Portraits, 1600–1900. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Vira, Ragu, and Lokesh Chandra, eds. A New Tibeto-Mongolian Pantheon. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1961–1972. Vitali, Roberto. Early Temples of Central Tibet. London: Serindia Publications, 1990. Wakeman, Frederic, Jr. The Great Enterprise: The Manchu Reconstruction of Imperial Order in Seventeenth-Century China. Berkeley: University of California, 1985. Wallace, Vesna. Buddhism in Mongolian History, Culture, and Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015. ———. “Legalized Violence: Punitive Measures of Buddhist Khans in Mongolia.” In Michael Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer, eds., Buddhist Warfare, 91–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wang, Sen. Xizang Fojiao fazhan shilue. Beijing: Zhongguo shehuikexue chubanshe, 1987. Wang, Xiangyun. “Tibetan Buddhism at the Court of Qing: The Life and Work of ICang-skya Rol-pa’i-rdo-rje (1717–1786).” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1995. Wayman, Alex. Yoga of the Guhyasamājatantra: The Arcane Lore of Forty Verses. A Buddhist Tantra Commentary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass; New York: Samuel Weiser, 1977. ———, trans. Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real: Buddhist Meditation and the Middle View, from the Lam rim chen mo of Tson-kha-pa. New York: Columbia University Press, 1978. Wedemeyer, Christian. Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism: History, Semiology, and Transgression in the Indian Traditions. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013. ———, ed. and trans. Āryadeva’s Lamp That Integrates the Practices (Caryāmelāpakapradīpa): The Gradual Path of Vajrayāna Buddhism According to the Esoteric Community Noble Tradition. New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies at Columbia University, 2007. Weidner, Marsha, ed. Latter Days of the Law: Images of Chinese Buddhism: 850–1850. Lawrence, KS: Spencer Museum of Art; Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 1994. ———. “Painting and Patronage at the Mongol Court of China, 1260–1368.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1982. Weinberger, Steven Neal. “Significance of Yoga Tantra and the Compendium of Principles (Tattvasaṃgraha) within Tantric Buddhism in India and Tibet.” PhD diss., University of Virginia, 2003. Whitfield, Roderick. The Art of Central Asia: The Stein Collection in the British Museum, Paintings from Dunhuang. London and Tokyo: Kodansha International and the British Museum, 1982–85. Willson, Martin. In Praise of Tārā: Songs to the Saviouress. London: Wisdom Publications, 1986. Wu Hung. “Emperor’s Masquerade—Costume Portraits of Yongzheng and Qianlong.” Orientations 26, no. 7 (1994): 25–41. Wylie, Turrell. “The First Mongol Conquest of Tibet Re-interpreted.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 37 (1977): 103–133. ———. “Reincarnation: A Political Innovation in Tibetan Buddhism.” In Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 23, Proceedings of the Cosma de Körös Memorial Symposium, September 24–30, 1976, edited by Louis Ligeti, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1978.

271

272

Bibliography

Yee, Cordell D. K. “Chinese Cartography among the Arts: Objectivity, Subjectivity, Representation.” In Cartography in the Traditional East and Southeast Asian Societies. The History of Cartography, vol. 2, edited by John B. Harley and David Woodward, 139–152. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Zhang, Haibin. Meidaizhao bi hua yu cai hui. Mayidar Juu-yin qan-a-yin jirug kiged budugtu jirumal [Wall paintings of Maidar Zuu]. Beijing Shi: Wen wu chu ban she, 2010. Zito, Angela. Of Body and Brush: Grand Sacrifice as Text/Performance in Eighteenth-Century China. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Index

Page references in bold refer to illustrations. Abatai Khan (Zanabazar’s great-grandfather): birth year, 221n10; ger of, 30–36, 156, 193, 195, 198; influence of, 92; khorig of, 42, 145, 162; lineage of, 83; Sonam Gyatso (Third Dalai Lama) and, 16, 121; Tāranātha and, 23–24. See also Erdene Zuu Monastery Agwaan Choijivanchig Prinleijamts (Seventh Jebtsundampa). See Seventh Jebtsundampa Agwaan Khaidav: as abbott of Ikh Khüree, 80, 96, 129, 133; on artworks, 133, 141, 142, 156; Bareja-Starzyńska on, 222n17; on Ikh Khüree rituals, 138–142; on Ikh Khüree site, 144–145; on Jebtsundampa lineage, 129; Maitreya statue (gilt répoussé) (1833), 179–180, 180, 187; on Maitreya statues, 179, 180–181, 249nn16–19, 250n28, 250n44; writings of, 11, 16, 80, 96, 129, 133, 144–145, 186; on Zanabazar, 141 Agwaan Luvsanchoijinyam Danzanvanchig Balsambuu. See Eighth Jebtsundampa Agwaan Sharav: canonization of icons, 65, 97; Fifth Jebtsundampa (colors on cotton), 107, 121; visual strategies of, 116, 118; Zanabazar (colors on cotton) (ca. 1830), 98, 104–105 Agwaan Tsültemjamts, 36, 144 aimags: affiliations with, 33, 133, 134, 156, 157; datsans and, 154, 157; definitions of, 220n5; in Gandan, 159–160, 246n60; Ikh Khüree’s list of, 246n54; as independent structural units, 119; as monastic divisions, 89, 97, 133, 134, 135,

137, 138, 156, 157, 168, 208, 245n48, 246n50–51, 246n54; numbers of, 157, 220n5, 246n54; as provinces, 24, 48, 48, 49, 49, 73, 134, 164, 220nn4–5, 227n11, 247n69; public displays of images by, 214; Tüsheet Khan aimag, 220n5; Zanabazar’s initial seven, 154; Züün Khüree aimags, 159 Akṣobhya: Akṣobhya (gilt bronze) (ca. 1680) (Zanazabar), 44; Akṣobhya (woodblock print on silk) (ca. 1830), 132; in Mañjuśrī (distemper on cloth) (11th–early 12th century) (Central Tibet), 62; printed images of, 133; statue of, 288n33; in Zanabazar (appliqué) (18th–19th century), 102, 103 Altan Debter (Golden Book) (Zawa Damdin), 37, 127–128, 128, 144, 150 Altan Khan (Zanabazar’s grandfather): biography of, 10, 63; Fourth Dalai Lama as son of, 17, 57; imperial precedents of, 80; Jewel Translucent Sūtra, 26, 43, 74–75, 211; Maitreya Temple (Maidar Zuu), 179; sectarian affiliations and, 8; Sonam Gyatso and, 10, 86, 93; temples and monastery of, 27; tör shashin (government-religion) concept and, 10, 26 Altan urag (golden lineage) ancestry line, 30, 31, 81, 83, 128–129 Amitāyus: Amitāyus (colors on cotton) (late 19th century) (Jügder), 134; Amitāyus (gilt bronze) (ca. 1680), 46, 47; attributes of, 103, 111, 198; Dechingalbin Temple statues of, 156; in Jügdernamjil (deities of longevity) (colors on cotton) (late 19th

273

274

Index

century) (Jügder), 134, 134; Maitreya cult and sculptures of, 187, 250n44; printed images of, 133; in Zanabazar’s portrait, 102, 103; Zanabazar’s statues of, 53–54, 60 Amoghasiddhi: Amoghasiddhi (gilt bronze) (ca. 1680) (Zanazabar), 45; attributes of, 102, 103, 185–186, 185; in incarnation lineage sets, 129, 130 Andrews, Roy Chapman: 1, 2, 3, 172, 182– 183, 184, 189, 248n84 archeological findings: Buddhas, set of five, 58–59, 58, 72, 73; Sakya Monastery Shalu, 72, 73; Saridag Monastery, 12, 50, 58, 59, 227n19, 227n23; as source material, 4, 12, 46–47; Tsogt Ikh Süm (Kharkhorin), 72, 73 architecture: after Zanabazar’s death, 162–166, 163–166; in cartography/mapping of Ikh Khüree, 168–175, 169, 171, 173–174, 175; of Ikh Khüree, 175. See also assembly halls; ger; monasteries; temples; tents; Zanabazar’s architecture assembly halls: Baruun Khüree Assembly Hall, 40, 144, 153; at Saridag, 67; Tsogchin Dugang Assembly Hall, 138, 151–162, 161; Zanabazar’s Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall, 31, 33–34, 40–42, 40, 41, 43, 53, 140, 141, 145, 162, 193, 198; Züün Khüree Assembly Hall, 37– 38, 38, 144 Atwood, Christopher P., 63, 65, 220n2, 231nn61–62 Balgan: Ikh Khüree (colors on cotton) (1890s), 145–146, 146, 160–161, 163– 164, 168–169, 170–172, 173; Jügder comparison, 168, 170–172, 173, 175 Bareja-Starzyńska, Agata, 17, 53, 144, 218n15, 220n1, 221n7, 222n17, 228n30, 234n2, 234n9, 237n47, 237nn51–52, 238n68 Baruun Khüree Monastery, 25, 33–34, 36–41, 48, 52–53, 63, 85, 144, 145, 151, 225n71; building of, 37–38; Erdene Zuu and, 36; lay outreach and collective practices at, 52, 63; Mahākāla of, 53; in primary sources, 215; White Khüree, 39; Züün Khuree and, 160, 215. See also Agwaan Tsültemjamts Baruun Örgöö, 32, 33. See also Abatai Khan, khorig of Batmönkh Dayan Khaan, 83, 220n2, 221n9 Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall: Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall (watercolor) (ca. 1980) (N. Tsultem), 41, 41; circumambulation

rites and, 140–141; Dechingalbin datsan and, 155; design of, 31, 40, 40, 41–42, 144; Gandan comparison, 160; imperial tradition of, 145; Khalkha centrality and, 162; oral traditions about, 42; photo, 40; plan of (Daajav), 153; ritual functions of, 42; Thirty-Five Buddhas of Confession (part of appliqué thangka) (late 19th century) (Khasgombo) in, 138, 138; as Tsogchin Dugang, 151–154; within Züün Khüree, 193; as Zanabazar’s reliquary, 42; Zanabazar’s Śākyamuni statue for, 53, 141; Zanabazar’s Vairocana sculpture in, 43, 45; Zanabazar’s Zuu Buddha and, 43 Berger, Patricia, 9, 45–46, 74, 78–80, 95–96, 123–124, 126, 218n5, 234n104, 249n20 bodhisattvas: bodhisattva seated on a lotus throne (Chinese, Guangshun period) (951–953 CE) (Ruyilun Guanyin), 205; feet remains of (1654–1689) Saridag Monastery, 59–60, 59; Maitreya Bodhisattva (colors on cotton) (18th century), 94, 94; Maitreya Bodhisattva (gilt bronze) (18th century) (Zanabazar), 79, 79; Maitreya Bodhisattva (gilt bronze) (late 17th century) (Zanabazar), 187; Maitreya Bodhisattva statues, 54; Mañjuśrī (gilt bronze) (18th century) (Zanabazar, School of), 79–80, 79; remains of standing (1654–1689) at Saridag Monastery, 59; Sarasvatī, 81; in Second Jebtsundampa (Luvsan Dambidonme) portrait, 121, 122, 123; smiles of, 76; Snellgrove on analogy of, 56; Zanabazar sculptures of, 142; in Zanabazar self-portrait, 81. See also Maitreya procession Bogd Gegeen (Holy Saint). See Eighth Jebtsundampa böndgöriin takhilga. See head worship Buddha(s): Buddha (gilt bronze) (1690– 1699) (Zanabazar), 53; Buddha, large remains of (clay) (1654–1689), Saridag Monastery, 59; Buddha, remains of (11th century), in Yemar, Central Tibet, 60; Buddha, remains of standing (1654– 1689), Saridag Monastery, 59; Buddha, sculpture of (clay) (1235/1256–1257) (Tsogt Ikh Süm) (Kharkhorin), 73; Buddhas (wall painting) (14th century), Shalu Monastery, Central Tibet, 73; Buddhas, set of five (1654–1689), Saridag Monastery, 58 Buddhist government, 7, 8, 9–11, 26, 33–34, 72, 92–93, 127, 129, 130, 176–211;

Index

Colossal Maitreya for, 176–181; double cityscapes of Ikh Khüree, 190–195; double portraits of Jebtsundampa, 195–211; duality of, 15; dual rulership, 10; longevity rites for Jebtsundampa rulers and, 186–190; Maitreya procession, 181–186; as new model of governance in Inner Asia, 9–10. See also khoyor yos; Monumental Maitreya statue in Tashilhunpo, (1461–1463); secular/religious fusion (shashin tör concept); tör shashin Caffarelli, Paola Mortari Vergara, 9, 126, 152, 157 Charleux, Isabelle, 7, 8, 27 Chinggisid conceptualizations of power, 8, 10–11, 128; Chinggisid lineage, 17; Chinggisid (secular) identity, 105; Güyüg Khaan, 30–31; Tüsheet Khan and the Khalkha nobility, 25, 33, 81; Yellow Palace and, 145–162, 146, 147; Zanabazar and, 15–16, 17, 25, 56, 81, 84, 86, 101, 105. See also Géluk school, Géluk (religious) identity; secular/religious fusion (shashin tör concept) Chinggis Khaan: Batmönkh Dayan Khaan as descendant of, 221n9; birthplace of, 204; empty ger of (khorig), 32; title, 221n9; woodblock portrait of, 127–128, 128; Zanabazar as descendant of, 15–16, 221n9; in Zawa Damdin’s texts, 128 Chöying Gyatso, 1, 20, 177 Dalai Lamas: as Géluk leaders, 8, 13; Géluk placement of, 9; incarnation lineage sets, 130, 139–140; influence of, 47–48; intolerance of Jonang school, 231n73; Maitreya cult and, 176, 179; Mongol khans alliance and, 83; motifs in Tibetan portraits of, 97; Paljor Rabten and, 237n52; panoramic maps of monastic sites and, 170; political control and manipulation by, 229n43; portraits of, 206; promotion of authority of, 101; as reincarnation authority, 16; Seventh Jebtsundampa (Agwaan Choijivanchig Prinleijamts) and, 111; Tibetan teacher/ staff appointments by, 153; as Tibeto-­ Manchu religiopolitical authorities, 8; titles/recognitions, 228n31, 229n41, 229n43; yab sras (eminent teacher and spiritual son) concept, 234n2; Zanabazar and, 85, 201; in Zanabazar portrait (18th century), 82, 96; in Zanabazar’s portrait, 81, 203, 203

Damdinsüren: Bogd Khan and Dondogdulam Ekh Dagina (colors on cotton) (1968), 209, 209; Khüree Naadam (colors on cotton) (1966), 194; Khüree Tsam (colors on cotton) (1966), 194; Maitreya Procession (colors on cotton) (1965), 189; on public displays of images, 214; Zanabazar (colors on cotton) (ca. 1970), 196 Damdin Yansan 119, 135, 158–159 Danshig, ritual, 152, 186, 187, 188, 241n17; danshig and Maitreya Procession, 189 datsans: aimags and, 154, 157; Dechingalbin datsan, 154–156, 155; destruction of, 154, 216 Desi Sangye Gyatso (regent), 14–15, 65, 87, 91, 231n73 Dondogdulam (consort): in Bogd Gegeen with his consort (colors on cotton) (late 19th century), 206, 207; Bogd Khan and Dondogdulam Ekh Dagina (colors on cotton) (1968) (Damdinsüren), 209–210; 209, in Bogd Khan’s Arrival at the Yellow Palace (colors on cotton) (early 20th century), 189–190, 190; in Damdinsüren cityscapes, 193, 194; Dondogdulam Ekh Dagina (colors on cotton) (ca. 1912– 1924) (B. Sharav), 208, 208; marriage and lineage of, 204; sculpture of, 138 Dorj, Gempelin, 184–185, 185, 188, 190 double cityscapes of Ikh Khüree, 10–11, 190–195, 191, 192, 194 double portraits of Jebtsundampa, 11, 195–211; Bogd Gegeen with his consort (colors on cotton) (late 19th century), 207; Bogd Khan (colors on cotton) (ca. 1912–1924) (B. Sharav), 208; Bogd Khan and Dondogdulam Ekh Dagina (colors on cotton) (1968) (Damdinsüren), 209; ceremonial ger for the Bogd Gegeen (leopard skins, felt, wood, silk) (1893), 210; Dondogdulam Ekh Dagina (colors on cotton) (ca. 1912–1924) (B. Sharav), 208; Jebtsundampas (woodblock print) (19th century), 197; Jebtsundampa with bell and vajra (applique thangka) (late 19th century), 203; Jebtsundampa with bell and vajra (woodblock print) (19th century), 202; Khandjamts (colors on cotton) (19th century), 206; portrait of Zanabazar’s mother (colors on cotton) (ca. 1723), 203; shashin tör concept and, 195–211; Tāranātha (gilt bronze) (ca. 1680) (Zanabazar), 202; Zanabazar (colors on cotton) (19th century), 206;

275

276

Index

Zanabazar (colors on cotton) (19th century), 200; Zanabazar (colors on cotton) (ca. 1970) (Damdinsüren), 196; Zanabazar (woodblock print) (19th century), 199 Drepung Monastery, 84; datsans, 154–158; Dechingalbin datsan, 154–156, 155; Jamyang Chöje Tashipelden as founder of, 85, 144, 154; Maitreya Temple (1838), 156, 157; Namkhai Sonam Dagva, 84, 85; Zanabazar and, 153 Dzungar Mongols, 29, 46, 51, 52, 92, 99, 149, 227n20, 237n40. See also Galdan Boshogtu Eighth Jebtsundampa (Agwaan Luvsanchoijinyam Danzanvanchig Balsambuu), xix; authority and political image of, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 214; birth, 114–115; as Bogd Gegeen (Holy Saint), 114; Bogd Gegeen with his consort (colors on cotton) (late 19th century), 206, 207, 208; as Bogd Khan, 170, 201–202, 204, 210, 211; ceremonial ger (leopard skins, felt, wood, silk) (1893) (Sangiligdorj Beij), 210, 211; consort of, 189; danshig ritual, 188–190; datsans of, 116; Dorj of Choinkhorin and, 137; double cityscapes of Ikh Khüree and, 190–195; double portraiture tradition and, 204–211; Eighth Jebtsundampa (colors on cotton), 117; internationalism of, 116, 117, 247n79; investment in art, 213; Khalkha vision of Buddhist government and, 11; maps/cityscapes commissioned by, 215; monastic degree, 115–116; photographic portrait of, 118, 118; portraits of, 214; recognition and enthronement, 115; as theocratic ruler, 56, 211; as Vajrasattva, 57. See also Dondogdulam (consort); double portraits of Jebtsundampa Elverskog, Johan, 8, 106, 127, 149, 218n14, 219n17, 220n3, 229n41, 251n55 Erdene Zuu Monastery: Abatai Khan and, 24, 36; Abatai Khan’s ger and, 31, 32; Baruun Khüree and, 36–38; Mahākāla Pañjarnātha (Gur Gompo), 39, 39; Mahākāla Pañjarnātha (stone) (16th century), 39; sparing of, 216; as stationary monastery, 27, 29; Tövkhön khiid and, 50; during Zanabazar’s time, 29; Zuu temples at, 27 Fifth Dalai Lama (Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso): cakravartin portraits of, 127;

Desi Sangye Gyatso (regent) and, 231n73; Galdan Boshogtu and, 91; Géluk political authority and, 14–15; Güüsh Khan and, 86; Luvsanprinlei on, 83, 85; menri-style painting, 70, 71; open approach of, 231n73; political image of, 119, 121; Puntsogling Monastery and, 87, 222n26; shashin tör concept and, 92; Tāranātha and, 89, 90, 91; Tendzin Dorjé Dayan Khan and, 71; Tsongkhapa and, 87; Zanabazar and, 17, 72, 84, 85, 87–89, 91, 198; Zanabazar comparison to, 11; in Zanabazar’s portrait, 81, 82 First Dalai Lama (Gedün Drup), 176–177, 232n79 First Jebtsundampa Khutugtu (Zanabazar Öndör Gegeen Luvsan Dambijantsan). See Zanabazar First Panchen Lama (Khedrup Gelek Pelzang), 176–177 Fourth Jebtsundampa (Luvan Tüvdenvanchig), 109 Fourth Panchen Lama (Losang Chökyi Gyaltsen): Chöying Gyatso’s portrait of, 20; open approach of, 231n73; possible image of, 101, 102, 238n74; printed images distributed, 133; on Zanabazar, 74; Zanabazar and, 83–84, 85–86, 89, 91; in Zanabazar’s portrait, 81 Galdan Boshogtu, 46, 91–92, 99, 151, 237n40 Galdan Tuslagch, 143, 144, 150, 154, 215 Gandan Monastery: Andrews at, 2; Capital Ikh Khüree, detail (1912–1913) (Jügder), 160; Code of Regulations, 11; Ikh Khüree (colors on cotton) (1890s) (Balgan, detail), 173; photo (ca. 1913–1914), 159; sparing of, 216; Tsogchin Assembly Hall, 138, 151–154, 161; Vajradhāra statue at, 13 Gegeen Setsen Khan Sholoi, 15, 23, 143, 201, 221n8 Géluk culture: blending of styles and, 215; role of outside Tibet, 8 Géluk leaders/teachers: rise of, 14–15; Mongols and, 10; Zanabazar and, 14–15. See also Dalai Lamas; Fifth Dalai Lama; Fourth Panchen Lama; Panchen Lamas Géluk school: doctrinal teachings, 231n70; Géluk (religious) identity, 81–96, 105; Tsongkhapa as founder, 231n73; Zanabazar and, 9, 13, 128, 220n3 Gendendamba, 134, 135, 138 ger: Abatai Khan’s empty ger, 30–36, 156,

Index

193, 195, 198; ceremonial ger for the Bogd Gegeen (leopard skins, felt, wood, silk) (1893) (Sangiligdorj Beij), 210, 211; Chinggis Khaan’s empty ger, 32; development into Ikh Khüree, 11; Örgöö reference for, 221n6; photo, 1938, 5; Zanabazar as theocratic ruler and, 215. See also Örgöö Golden Horde culture, 31, 75, 233n100 Gombodorji (Zanabazar’s father), 15, 23, 143 Guillaume de L’Isle, 34–36, 36 Gur Gompo (Mahākāla Pañjarnātha). See Mahākāla Pañjarnātha (Gur Gompo) Güüsh Khan, 70, 71, 86, 91, 243n1 Haslund-Christensen, Henning, 1, 3 head worship: of Kunga Drolchok’s, 24, 89; manuscript about, 89, 90; of Ong Khan’s, 24, 89, 91; of Tāranātha’s, 24, 89, 90, 223n39; tradition of, 24, 89 Ichinnorov, S., 23, 33, 221n9 Ikh Khüree: Andrews at Gandan Monastery in, 2; architecture landscape of, 215; Balgan’s map of, 145–146, 146, 160–161, 163–164, 168–169; beginning of, 4; cartography and mapping of, 168–175; as center of Buddhist government, 216; as center of the arts, 213; central site of primary authority, 214; circumambulation and, 138–142; destruction of, 13; development as trade center, 162–168; development of Örgöö into, 52; double cityscapes (colors of paper) (ca. 1912), 192; double cityscapes (Naadam) (colors on paper) (early 20th century), 191; double cityscapes (Tsam) (colors on paper) (early 20th century), 191; final phase of development, 215; Gandan Monastery (ca. 1913–1914), 159; map of (colors on cotton) (late 19th century), 168, 169; planning of, 11; as Qing- Géluk city for Khalkha Mongols, 143–145; re-creation of, 4–6; religious center move to, 11; sacralization of, 214; social and political change, 216; socialist destruction of, 3, 4–5, 8, 12, 13, 158, 216; Teleki on, 7; Tibetan Géluk in, 145–151 Ishdambinyam. See Third Jebtsundampa Jambhala, 46, 53, 93, 123, 198; (silver) (1654–1689) (Zanabazar), Saridag Monastery, 66, 67 Jamsran (Begze): 33, 111, 134, (colors on

cotton) (late 19th century) (Gendendamba), 135, 198 Jamyang Chöje Tashipelden: depiction of, 18, 91; as founder of Drepung, 85, 144, 154; reference to, 236n27; reincarnations of, 87, 88–89, 236n28; Tāranātha’s lineage and, 83, 91; Tsongkhapa and, 17, 88, 151, 154 Jebtsundampa lineage: comprehensive approach to understanding, 15; end of, 216; Jebtsundampa lineage set (appliqué), 130, 131; from Qing Court, 9; reinforcement of legitimacy of, 33; (woodblock print) (19th century), 197 Jebtsundampa portraiture, 106–127; (applique thangka) (late 19th century), 203; with bell and vajra (woodblock print) (19th century), 202; circumambulation and, 138–142; Ikh Khüree as center of Mongolian art and, 130–138; new genealogy of rulers and painting sets, 127–130. See also double portraits of Jebtsundampas; Zanabazar portraits Jewel Translucent Sūtra (Altan Khan), 26, 43, 74–75, 211 Jin, Cheng Xiu. See Kim, Sung Soo (Jin Cheng Xiu) Jonang Monastery, 22; Dolpopa Sherab Gyeltsen, 222n25; Takten Damchöling, 22 Jonang school: doctrinal teachings, 231n70; Géluk overtaking of, 19; intolerance toward, 87–88, 231n73; Jonang lamas, 66; Sakya teachings and, 20, 25, 66; sites of, 22; Zanabazar lineage and, 129. See also Jonang Monastery; Kunga Drolchok; Puntsogling Monastery; Tāranātha Jügder: Balgan comparison, 172–173; Capital Ikh Khüree, 160, 162, 168, 170, 172; (Gandan Monastery, detail, 145, 147, 160; Eighth Jebtsundampa and, 134, 168, 170, 172, 174; Green Palace, detail, 172–173, 173; influence of Zanabazar, 134; Jügdernamjil (deities of longevity), 134, 134; Khasgombo and, 138; Maimaicheng, detail, 163–164, 163; Mañjuśrī monastery, detail, 174, 175; Western Porters, detail, 165; Yellow Palace, detail, 147 Kangxi, Emperor of China, 13, 34, 57, 65, 74, 80, 93, 97, 99, 101, 104, 137, 148, 224n55 Khalkha Mongolia: Buddhist government, 33–34; Buddhist practice and

277

278

Index

dissemination in, 47; Dharma dissemination in, 9; oral histories of, 11–12; Örgöö in, 29–30, 33–36, 36, 37, 41, 52; politics of, 5, 9; reincarnation lineages in, 32; sacralization of, 214; temple administration in, 42 Khalkha Mongols, 17, 25, 91–93, 179; Atwood on, 220n2; Batmönkh Dayan Khaan and, 220n3; Buddhist government and, 10–11; civil war with Dzungar Mongols, 46; Géluk authority among, 7, 9; Ikh Khüree and, 4; khans, 17, 23, 25; khoyor yos concept and, 10; nobles, 4, 15, 25, 27, 33; power and authority understanding of, 8, 32; shashin tör concept and, 10–11, 33–34. See also Tāranātha; Zanabazar Kham region, Tibet, Painting of Temples and Monasteries of Lhasa (gouache on cotton) (ca. 1900–1920), 171 Khandjamts (Zanabazar’s mother), 23, 202, 206 Khasgombo, Thirty-Five Buddhas of Confession (part of appliqué thangka) (late 19th century), 138 Kherlen River, Züün Khüree, 38, 41, 144, 145 khiid-type retreat temples, 48–52, 144; systematic destruction of, 216. See also Saridag Monastery khorig (forbidden sanctuary): Abatai Khan’s, 31–33, 42, 145, 162; Chinggis Khaan’s, 32; tradition of, 31, 225nn61–62 khoyor yos concept: Chögyal Pakpa Lodro Gyeltsen and, 10; Khubilai Khaan and, 10; shashin tör concept differing from, 10. See Buddhist government; secular-­ religious fusion; shashin tör Khubilai Khaan, 130; khoyor yos concept and, 10; main deity for, 39 Khüree migrations, map of, 28 Khüükhen noyon, 245n48 Kim, Sung Soo (Jin, Cheng Xiu), 8, 10, 11, 17, 162, 201, 235n18 Köndölün Tsökhür Sain Noyan, 14, 15 Kunga Drolchok, 18, 24, 66, 89, 91 Ligden Khan, 64, 230n54 longevity rites for Jebtsundampa rulers, 186–190, 188, 190 Luczanits, Christian, 67, 118 Luvsan Khaidav (Bogd Gegeen’s brother), 172. See State Oracle Luvsanprinlei: Köndölün Tsökhür Sain Noyan and, 15; Zanabazar and, 15

Luvsanprinlei, Zaya Pandita: enthronement of, 221n7; Zanabazar and, 220n1 Luvsan Tüvdenvanchig. See Fourth Jebtsundampa Mahākāla: 20, 81, 84, 85, 93, 94, 156, 225n77, 230n58; Mahākāla Pañjarnātha (also known as Gur Gompo), 38, 39, 53, 85 Mahāyāna theory of Trikāya, 229n47 Maimaicheng (Traders’ Town), 163–164; Maimaicheng (detail) Capital Ikh Khüree, detail (1912–1913) (Jügder), 163; streets of, 164 Maitreya, Bodhisattva: (colors on cotton) (18th century), 94; (gilt bronze) (18th century) (Zanabazar), 79; (gilt bronze) (late 17th century) (Zanabazar), 187; Maitreya statue (gilt répoussé) (1833) (Agwaan Khaidav), 180; Maitreya temple (1820), 157 Maitreya procession, 181–186; The Bogd Khan’s Arrival at the Yellow Palace (colors on cotton) (early 20th century), 190; Colossal Maitreya and, 181–186; Danshig Naadam (colors on cotton) (early 20th century), 188; longevity rites for Jebtsundampa rulers and, 186–190, 188, 190; Maitreya Bodhisattva, late 17th century (Zanabazar), 187; Maitreya procession (photo) (Andrews), 184; Maitreya Procession, 1965 (Damdinsüren), 189; Maitreya Procession at Lamyn Gegeeni Khüree (colors on cotton) (early 20th century) (Gempelin Dorj), 185, 185; photo (ca. 1920) (Andrews), 184 Mañjuśrī, 104, 104; (distemper on cloth) (11th–early 12th century) (Central Tibet), 61–62, 62; (gilt bronze) (18th century) (Zanabazar, School of), 79; (gilt bronze) (late 17th century) (Zanabazar), 53 manuscripts: Mongolian Kanjur (handwritten), 64; sūtra (handwritten), 90; on Tāranātha’s ritual in Ikh Khuree, 11; travel pass, 167 maps: Bellin, Jacques-Nicolas (Map of Tartary) (1749), 34–36, 37; Bogh Khan commissioned, 215; final phase of development depicted in, 215. See also Balgan; Jügder Mārīcī (gilt copper alloy) (late 17th–early 18th century) (Zanabazar, attr.), 69 monasteries: aimag as organizational unit of, 220n5; Gyel Metog Thang Monastery, 92; Ikh Zuu Monastery, 27; Mañjuśrī

Index

monastery, 174; Painting of Temples and Monasteries of Lhasa, 171. See also Drepung; Erdene Zuu Mongol art traditions: birth of new cultural meanings, 216; blending of styles and, 215; Qingification and, 8–10 Mongolia: socialist destruction of monasteries in, 3, 4–5, 8, 12, 13, 158, 216 Mongolian Buddhism: 7, 9, 11, 48, 63, 65, 91, 144, 218n13–14, 219n17, 219n18, 219n22, 233n100, 244n6, 251n4, 251n7, 262, 266, 270 Mongolian Buddhist art and architecture, N. Tsultem’s study of, 6–7 Mongolian Kanjur, 63, 65, (handwritten manuscript) (1628–1629), 64, 67, 80, 97, 99, 230n54, 238n67, 258, 259, 261 Mongol portrait (ground mineral pigment) (19th century) (Zanabazar), 35; (woodblock print) (18th–19th century) (Zanabazar), 34 Monumental Maitreya, 176–190; Maitreya statue, (1816), Agwaan Khaidav, 180; Monumental Maitreya statue in Tashilhunpo, (1461–1463), 177; Monumental Maitreya thangka, Gyantse, Pelkhor Chöde, Tibet, (1436–1439), 178. See also Maitreya procession Namkhai Sonam Dagva, 84, 85 Nyam-Ochir, G., 23, 24, 223n32, 223n34, 223n39, 223nn41–43, 242n44, 255 Nyingma sect, 87, 91. See also Rongzon Chozang Oirat Mongols, 8, 17, 23, 25, 91–93, 179, 237n40 Öndör Gegeen (Exalted Saint) title, 15, 16 oral histories, importance of, 11–12, 13, 15, 23 Örgöö: defined, 221n6; development into Ikh Khüree, 33–36, 213; lack of textual, visual, or material evidence of, 215; location of, 36–38; migrations of, 29; as unique space, 29; for Zanabazar’s ordination and enthronement, 15 Panchen Lamas, 177; in Agwaan Sharav’s portrait of Fifth Jebtsundampa, 109; Autobiography, 186–187; danshig ritual,187; as Géluk leaders, 13; Géluk placement of, 9; influence of, 47–48; Maitreya cult and, 176–179, 186; as reincarnation authority, 16; Second Jebtsundampa (Luvsan Dambidonme), 119, 123;

Seventh Dalai Lama and, 130; Seventh Jebtsundampa (Agwaan Choijivanchig Prinleijamts) and, 111; at Tashilhunpo Monastery, 72; Tibetan teacher/staff appointments by, 153; Zanabazar and, 198; in Zanabazar portrait (18th century), 82, 96; in Zanabazar’s portrait, 81, 198, 203, 203, 204, 206 Plano Carpini, John de, 30–31, 101 Portraiture. See double portraits of Jebtsundampa; Zanabazar portraits Pozdneev, Aleksei, 23, 32, 37–39, 41–42, 108, 111, 113, 119, 145, 151, 152, 153, 154–155, 157, 160, 181–182, 183, 192–193, 225nn74–75, 226n85, 241n23, 245n42, 245n48, 249n21 Puntsogling Monastery, 20, 68, 87, 88–89, 222n26 Qianlong court, 116, 215, 230n62 Qing court, 8–9, 15, 57, 80; arrangement for reincarnations in Tibet, 123, 127; authority shifts and, 215; Chinese imperial dragon motif as reference to, 209; Ḍākinī Siṃhamukhā’s popularity in, 181; Fifth Jebtsundampa Khutugtus’s visits to, 109; governing by, 129, 161; multiple perspectives of paintings produced by, 170; Newari artists at, 226n5; official histories and, 154; secular/religious fusion (shashin tör concept) and, 10, 181; secular rule of, 10, 93–96, 94, 95; shift of authority under supervision of, 215 Qing Empire: Khalkha Mongols subjugation to, 213; Qing Buddhism, 9; Qingification, 8, 10, 106, 127; Qing involvement, 96–105; shashin tör concept and, 10, 181 Qing styles, internationalism of, 9, 126, 175, 181, 215 Qing transformations in Ikh Khüree: Tsogchin Dugang (Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall), 151–162; Yellow Palace as imperial symbol of power, 145–151, 215 Ribogejai-Gandan-Shaddubling Monastery, 51, 52, 227n20, 237n52 Rockhill, William Woodville, 3, 247n70 Rolpé Dorjé, Jangjia Khutugtu, 65, 80, 97, 118, 119, 123, 230n62, 231n63 Rongzon Chozang, 18, 91, 66 Rubruck, William of (Guillaume de), 27, 101 Sakya tradition, 20, 25, 66 Sangiligdorj Beij, 210, 211 Saridag (Saridagiin) khiid, 48, 51

279

280

Index

Saridag Monastery: archeological findings, 12; Bodhisattva, remains of standing (1654–1689), 59; Buddha, large remains of (clay) (1654–1689), 59; Buddhas, remains of standing (1654–1689), 59; Buddhas, set of five, 58; construction of, 51; general reconstructive plan, 51; remote site of, 52; roof tiles with Kālacakra seed syllable (clay) (1654–1689), 68; unearthing of, 50; Vairocana (clay) (1654–1689), 61; wealth deities (Jambhala and Vasudhārā) (silver) (1654– 1689) (Zanabazar), 67 Sarvavid Mahāvairocana (colors on cotton) (ca. 1668–1669) (Taklung Palgön), 70 Schwieger, Peter, 9–10, 91, 229n43, 229n47 Secret History of the Mongols, 24, 91 secular/religious fusion (shashin tör concept): balanced dual rulership and, 10; double cityscapes of Ikh Khüree, 190– 195; double cityscapes of Ikh Khüree (colors on paper) ca. 1912, 192; double cityscapes of Ikh Khüree, Naadam (colors on paper) early 20th century, 191; double cityscapes of Ikh Khüree, Tsam (colors on paper) early 20th century, 191; Khüree Naadam, (colors on cotton) (Damdinsüren) (1966), 194; Khüree Tsam, (colors on cotton) (Damdinsüren) (1966), 194; secular activities of Ikh Khüree, 52; sectarian affiliations, 8, 65–68; secular rule of Qing court, 10. See also Chinggisid (secular) identity; double portraits of Jebtsundampa; Géluk school, Géluk (religious) identity Sera, 84, 86, 151, 154, 158, 159, 160, 245n36 Setsen Khan, 10. See Gegeen Setsen Khan Sholoi Seventh Dalai Lama (Kelzang Gyatso): on circumambulation rite, 141; debauchery of, 116; incarnation lineage sets, 130, 139–140; Maitreya cult and, 181; political image of, 119, 121; sets of Dalai and Panchen Lamas, 130, 139; Seventh Dalai Lama (colors on cotton) (early 19th century), 115; standardizations under, 215 Seventh Jebtsundampa (Agwaan Choijivanchig Prinleijamts), xix, 110, 111; Dalai Lamas and, 111; Seventh Jebtsundampa (appliqué) (19th century), 112; Seventh Jebtsundampa (colors on cotton) (19th century), 110 Seventh Panchen Lama (Palden Tenpai Nyima), Zanabazar and, 108

Shalu Monastery, Central Tibet, Buddhas (wall painting) (14th century), 73; Zanabazar at, 74, 152 Sharav, Balduugiin: The Bogd Khan (colors on cotton) (ca. 1912–1924), 208–209, 208; Dondogdulam Ekh Dagina (colors on cotton) (ca. 1912–1924), 208–209, 208 shashin tör concept, 9–11, 36; Khalkha vision of, 213; khoyor yos concept differing from, 10; Zanabazar’s biography and, 15. See also Buddhist government Sita Saṃvara (colors on cotton) (18th century), 95; Zanabazar’s portrait, 82 Sonam Gyatso (Third Dalai Lama), 57; Abatai Khan, 121, 179; Altan Khan and, 10, 16, 86, 93; Golden King seal and, 57, 93; Gombodorji and, 23; Kumbum Monastery, 84; Maitreya cult and, 179; Mongol khans alliance and, 83; Twelfth Abbot of Chamdo Jampa Ling and, 221n13 Soninbayar, Sh., 23, 24, 223nn36–39, 225n74 State Oracle, 172, 248n87, 266. See also Luvsan Khaidav (Bogd Gegeen’s brother) Taklung Palgön, Sarvavid Mahāvairocana (colors on cotton) (ca. 1668–1669), 70 Tārā: 67, 133, 222n25, 232n76, 258, 269, 271; cycle, 232n79; Temple, 41, 142; Twenty-One, 46, 53, 60, 68, 142; White, 54, 60, 68, 75, 77, 78, 95, 134, 233n102; Green, 55; White and Green, 75, 76 Tārā Lama Agwaan Tsültemjamts, 38, 144, 224n60, 225n74, 226n82, 234n11, 244n7, 245n26, 255 Tāranātha: Fifth Dalai Lama (Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso) and, 89, 90, 91; as historian of Jonang school, 16; Khalkha reincarnation of, 9, 15–25; lineage of, 90; Tāranātha (colors on cotton) (18th–19th century), 21; Tāranātha (gilt bronze) (19th century), 19; Tāranātha (gilt bronze) (Zanabazar), 202; Tāranātha (wall painting) (16th–17th century), in Puntsogling Monastery, 20; worship of head of, 90 Tashilhunpo Monastery: Maitreya cult and, 176–177; Monumental Maitreya statue (1461–1463), 176–177, 177 Tavkhai Bor, 135, 137, 138 Teleki, Krisztina, 7, 172, 218n7, 224n60, 227n13, 244n8, 246n60, 248n85 temples: Bat-Tsagaan Tsogchin Temple, 134, 138, 156; Maitreya temple (1838), 157; Painting of Temples and Monasteries of

Index

Lhasa (gouache on cotton) (ca. 1900– 1920) Kham region, Tibet, 171; systematic destruction of, 8, 72, 87, 91–92, 154, 216; Temples and Colleges in Ikh Khüree, 1994, 7; Vajradhāra Temple, 13; Zuu temples, at Erdene Zuu Monastery, 27 Tendzin Dorjé Dayan Khan, 70, 71 tents: asar-type tent, 40, 40, 41, 42; Eight White Tents, 149–150; Mongolian tent structure, 40, 40 Third Dalai Lama (Sonam Gyatso). See Sonam Gyatso Third Jebtsundampa (Ishdambinyam), xix, 109 Tibet: Fifth Jebtsundampa Khutugtus’s visits to, 109; Monumental Maitreya statue (Tashilhunpo) (1461–1463), 177; Monumental Maitreya thangka (Gyantse, Pelkhor Chöde, Tibet) (1436–1439), 178; Painting of Temples and Monasteries of Lhasa (gouache on cotton) (ca. 1900–1920) Kham region, 171; regional houses khangtzen, 220n5; Tibetan court, 10; Tibetan language, as universal, 215 Tibetan Buddhism: 13, 101, 238n73, 242n48, 259, 264, 265, 267, 268, 270; image in art of, 214; as umbrella term, 9. See also Géluk school Tibetan Géluk in Ikh Khüree: datsans, 154–158; Gandan Monastery, 158–161; Tsogchin Dugang (Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall), 151–162; The Yellow Palace as imperial symbol of power, 145–151 tör shashin (government-religion) concept, Altan Khan and, 10 Tövkhön khiid, 48–81, 48, 49; Erdene Zuu Monastery and, 50 Tsakhar (Chakar) Mongols, 8, 17 Tsend, A., Vajrapāṇi (appliqué thangka) (early 20th century), 134, 136, 136 Tsogt Ikh Süm (Kharkhorin, Xingyuan Ge), 29, 72, 73, 224n49 Tsongkhapa, 13, 17, 53, 65–67, 83, 84–85, 87–88, 91, 96, 109, 111, 112, 113, 123, 133, 141, 151, 154, 158, 160, 176, 178, 179, 182, 206, 228n30, 231n73, 232n79, 236nn26–27. See also First Dalai Lama Gëdun Drup; Jamyang Chöje Tashipelden; Tsultem, Nyam-Osoryn: Bat-Tsagaan Assembly Hall (watercolor) (ca. 1980), 41; study of Mongolian Buddhist art by, 6–7; Temples and Colleges in Ikh Khüree, 1994, 7; Züün Khüree in Winter, 1979, 4

Tümed Mongols, 8, 17, 25, 74, 93. See also Altan Khan Tüsheet Khan family line, 38, 119, 215. See also Gombodorji (Zanabazar’s father) Twelfth Dalai Lama (Trinley Gyatso), 114–115 Ulaanbaatar: Bogh Khan Palace Museum, 190, 191, 192; Ikh Khüree renamed as, 3, 216; museums in, 46, 193, 228n33; Örgöö migration monuments, 224n53; Regulations, 144. See also Damdinsüren; Gandan Monastery Vairocana (clay) (1654–1689), Saridag Monastery, 61; Vairocana (gilt bronze) (ca. 1680) (Zanazabar), 45 Vajradhāra: as sacred image in Mongolia, 13; Vajradhāra (gilt bronze with colors) (ca. 1680) (Zanabazar), 44; Vajradhāra seal (wood and silver) (ca. 1691), 57 Vajrapāṇi (appliqué thangka) (early 20th century) (Tsend), 136 Vajrasattva (gilt bronze with colors) (ca. 1680) (Zanabazar), 44 Vajrayāna Buddhism: 9, 13, 20, 104, 109, 126, 128, 195, 213 Vasudhārā (silver) (1654–1689) (Zanabazar), Saridag Monastery, 67 wealth deities (Jambhala and Vasudhārā) (silver) (1654–1689) (Zanabazar), 67 Western Porters, street of, Capital Ikh Khüree, detail (1912–1913) (Jügder), 165 yab sras (eminent teacher and spiritual son) concept, 15, 234n2 Yellow Palace, 145–162, 146, 147; The Bogd Khan’s Arrival at the Yellow Palace (colors on cotton) (early 20th century), 190; Capital Ikh Khüree (1912–1913) (Jügder), 147; Capital Ikh Khüree (Yellow Palace, detail) (1912–1913), 147 Yoga Tantras, 9, 54, 58, 61, 63, 103, 229n35 Yondonjamts (Yönten Gyatso) (Altan Khan’s great grandson), 17, 57 Zanabazar: biography of, 9, 13, 15; Buddha (gilt bronze) (1690–1699), 53; Bud­ dhism, new transmission of, 47; canonization of icons and texts, 65; childhood of, 15–16; Chinggisid origins, 15–16, 17, 25, 56, 81, 84, 86, 101, 105; double portraiture tradition and, 195–204; effigy legend, 35–36; engagement with

281

282

Index

the arts, 213; enthronement of, 220n4; as First Jebtsundampas, xix; Galdan Boshogtu and, 91–92; Géluk political authority and, 14–15; as Géluk school adherent, 13, 220n3; ger of, 4, 9; hagiographies of, 220n4; involvement with images, 213–214; Jamyang Chöje Tashipelden and, 236n28; as Jebtsundampa ruler, 81–105; as Khalkha ruler, 13–42; Luvsanprinlei and, 15, 220n1; nonsectarianism of, 65–68; Öndör Gegeen (Exalted Saint) title, 15; personal items of, 42; proselytization project of, 213–214; Qingification and, 8; Ribogejai-Gandan-Shaddubling Monastery, 237n52; sectarian affiliations and, 65–68; self-portraits, 9, 81–96, 105; as Tāranātha reincarnation, 9, 15–25; temples of, 9; as theocratic ruler, 11, 56, 215; in Tibet, 84–85; as Vajrasattva, 56–57; Vajrayāna Buddhism and, 13. See also Baruun Khüree Monastery; Örgöö Zanabazar portrait(s): Fifth Dalai Lama (Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso) in, 81, 82; Géluk identity, 81–96; Mongol portrait (ground mineral pigment) (19th century), 34, 35; Mongol portrait (woodblock print) (18th–19th century), 33, 35; portrait of Zanabazar’s mother (colors on cotton) (ca. 1723), 203; Qing involvement, 96–105, 102; Self-Portrait (colors on cotton) (ca. 1723), 83; White Tārā (Colors on cotton) (late 17th–early 18th century), 76–77, 77; White Tārā (colors on cotton) (late 17th–early 18th century) (attr.), 77; Zanabazar (appliqué) (18th–19th century), 101, 102, 103; Zanabazar (colors on cotton) (19th century), 200; Zanabazar (colors on cotton) (19th century), 206; Zanabazar (colors on cotton) (ca. 1830) (Agwaan Sharav), 98, 104–105; Zanabazar (colors on cotton) (ca. 1970) (Damdinsüren), 196; Zanabazar (woodblock print) (19th century), 199; Zanabazar with reincarnation lineage (colors on cotton) (19th century), 124 Zanabazar’s architecture: Abatai Khan’s symbolic sanctuary, 30–33; importance

of, 13; Khiid-type retreat temples, 48–52; Khüree-type architecture, 25 Zanabazar’s art and works, 9, 43–80, 77, 78; imperial tradition of, 68–78; importance of, 13, 46–48; pantheon of deities and, 52–55, 53, 54, 55; systematization of Dharma practice and, 58–65; traditional Mongol perceptions of political authority and, 10–11; Zanabazar, School, 78–80, 79; writings, sectarian affiliations and, 65–68 Zanabazar’s sculptures: Amitābha (gilt bronze) (ca. 1680), 45, 45; Amitāyus (gilt bronze) (ca. 1680), 46, 47; Buddha (gilt bronze) (1690–1699), 53; Green Tārā (gilt bronze) (ca. 1706), 55; Maitreya Bodhisattva (gilt bronze) (18th century), 79; Maitreya Bodhisattva (gilt bronze) (late 17th century), 187; Mañjuśrī (gilt bronze) (late 17th century), 53; Mārīcī (gilt copper alloy) (late 17th–early 18th century) (attr.), 69; Stūpa with Buddha Śākyamuni (gilt bronze) (late 17th–early 18th century) (attr.), 55; Tāranātha (gilt bronze) (ca. 1680), 202; Tathāgata set, 43, 44–45, 45; Vairocana (gilt bronze) (c. 1680), 44–45, 45; Vajradhāra (gilt bronze with colors) (ca. 1680), 13, 44; Vajradhāra and Vajrasattva, 43, 44, 45, 46, 56–58; White Tārā (gilt bronze) (ca. 1680), 54; Zuu Buddha, 43 Zawa Damdin: Altan Debter (Golden Book), 38, 127–128, 128, 144, 150 Zaya Paṇḍita Luvsanprinlei, 9, 13, 234n2. See also Luvsanprinlei Züün Khüree, 215; aimags of, 154, 159, 168, 214; Assembly Hall, (19th century), 38, 39; Baruun Khüree Monastery and, 160; datsans of, 108, 154; founding of, 225n77; at Kherlen River (general view) (19th century), 38; lay district outside of, 163, 164, 166; main deity for, 39, 39; maps of, 145, 160–161, 165, 170–172; as part of Ikh Khuree, 168–175; as Tusheet Khan’s family monastery at Kherlen River, 38, 41, 144, 145, 146, 215; Züün Khüree in Winter, 1979 (N. Tsultem), 4. See also Yellow Palace

About the Author

Uranchimeg Tsultemin is Edgar and Dorothy Fehnel Chair of International Studies at the Herron School of Art and Design, Indiana University-Purdue University-­Indianapolis (IUPUI). She received her PhD in East Asian art history at the University of California, Berkeley, where she previously taught and assisted in establishing a new unit of research, The Mongolia Initiative. She has curated Mongolian art exhibitions internationally since 1997, including exhibitions at the E&J Frankel Gallery (2000), Shanghai Biennale (2012), HanArt Gallery (2011), the Venice Biennale (2015), and the Sapar Contemporary (2019). She has published six books in Mongolian about art, and her research articles have appeared in Artibus Asiae, Third Text, Cross-Currents, Mongolian Studies, and Journal of South Asian Studies.