The Early 20th Century Resurgence of the Tibetan Buddhist World: Studies in Central Asian Buddhism 9789048553068

Citation preview

The Early 20th Century Resurgence of the Tibetan Buddhist World

Publications The International Institute for Asian Studies is a postdoctoral research centre based in Leiden, the Netherlands. Its objective is to encourage the interdisciplinary and comparative study of Asia and to promote (inter)national cooperation. IIAS focuses on the humanities and social sciences and on their interaction with other sciences. It stimulates scholarship on Asia and is instrumental in forging research networks among Asia Scholars. Its main research interests are reflected in the three book series published with Amsterdam University Press: Global Asia, Asian Heritages and Asian Cities. IIAS acts as an international mediator, bringing various parties together, working as a clearinghouse of knowledge and information. This entails activities such as providing information services, hosting academic organisations dealing with Asia, constructing international networks, and setting up international cooperative projects and research programmes. In this way, IIAS functions as a window on Europe for non-European scholars and contributes to the cultural rapprochement between Asia and Europe. IIAS Publications Officer: Paul van der Velde IIAS Assistant Publications Officer: Mary Lynn van Dijk

Global Asia Asia has a long history of transnational linkage with other parts of the world. Yet the contribution of Asian knowledge, values, and practices in the making of the modern world has largely been overlooked until recent years. The rise of Asia is often viewed as a challenge to the existing world order. Such a bifurcated view overlooks the fact that the global order has been shaped by Asian experiences as much as the global formation has shaped Asia. The Global Asia Series takes this understanding as the point of departure. It addresses contemporary issues related to transnational interactions within the Asian region, as well as Asia’s projection into the world through the movement of goods, people, ideas, knowledge, ideologies, and so forth. The series aims to publish timely and well-researched books that will have the cumulative effect of developing new perspectives and theories about global Asia. Series Editor: Tak-Wing Ngo, Professor of Political Science, University of Macau, China Editorial Board: Kevin Hewison, Sir Walter Murdoch Distinguished Professor of Politics and International Studies, Murdoch University, Australia / Hagen Koo, Professor of Sociology, University of Hawaii, USA / Loraine Kennedy, Directrice de recherche, Centre d’Études de l’Inde et de l’Asie du Sud, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, France / Guobin Yang, Associate Professor, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, USA

The Early 20th Century Resurgence of the Tibetan Buddhist World Studies in Central Asian Buddhism

Edited by Ishihama Yumiko and Alex McKay

Amsterdam University Press

Publications Global Asia 13

Chapter 9 has been translated for and reprinted in this edited volume with permission of the editorial committee of Inner Asia Studies. Cover illustration: Tsongolsky Datsan (Tib: dpal ldan ‘bras spungs), one of Buryatia’s first Buddhist temples, founded as a tent monastery in 1741 by Zayaev, the first Hamba-Lama of the Buryats (© Ishihama Yumiko). Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden Lay-out: Crius Group, Hulshout isbn 978 94 6372 864 5 e-isbn 978 90 4855 306 8 (pdf) doi 10.5117/9789463728645 nur 718 © The authors / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2022 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book. Every effort has been made to obtain permission to use all copyrighted illustrations reproduced in this book. Nonetheless, whosoever believes to have rights to this material is advised to contact the publisher.



Table of Contents

Preface 7 Introduction 9 Alex McKay

1 The Impact of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s Sojourn in Mongolia

35

2 The Modern and Traditional Diplomacy of the Thirteenth Dalai LamaDuring His Sojourn in Khalkha and Qinghai (1904–1907)

65

3 Friendship and Antagonism

85

Arousing the National Consciousness of Tibetan Buddhists from 1904 to 1908 Ishihama Yumiko

Wada Daichi

Tibetans and Money in Early Twentieth-Century Mongolia Tachibana Makoto

4 The Tibet-Mongolia Political Interfacein the First Half of the Twentieth Century

103

5 A Study of three Tibetan letters attributed to Dorzhievheld by the St. Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences

135

6 Russian Archival Documents on the Revitalization of BuddhismAmong the Kalmyks in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries

167

7 Buddhist Devotion to the Russian Tsar: The Bicultural Environment of the Don Kalmyk Sangha and Russian Orthodox Church in the 1830s

189

Data from Russian Archives Sergius L. Kuzmin

Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko

Baatr Kitinov

Inoue Takehiko

8 Russian Tsar as Cakravartin

203

9 The Struggle between Tradition and Modernityin the Early Twentieth Century of the Tibetan Buddhist World

229

A Buryat Lama’s View of the Coronation of Nicholas II Nikolay Tsyrempilov

A case study of the Seventh lCang-skya’s activities from 1912–1957 Hamugetu

Index 249

Preface The Early 20th Century Resurgence of the Tibetan Buddhist World:1 Studies in Central Asian Buddhism is concerned with events and processes during the late nineteenth and particularly the early twentieth centuries. In a series of articles set primarily in the final days of the Qing Empire when the Russian and British Empires were expanding into Central Asia, this work examines the interplay of religio-social, economic, and political power among peoples who acknowledged the religious authority of Tibet’s Dalai Lamas. It focuses on diplomatic initiatives involving the Thirteenth Dalai Lama and other Tibetan Buddhist hierarchs during and after his 1904–1909 exile in Mongolia and China, as well as his relations with Mongols and with Russian Buryat and Kalmyk Buddhists. Particularly notable among the Buryat Buddhists is the Dalai Lama’s emissary to Russia, the renowned Agvan Dorzhiev. Deploying many previously unexplored Russian, Mongolian, and Tibetan sources, this work demonstrates how these events and processes shaped the historical trajectory of the region, not least the reformulation of both group identity and political consciousness, and sheds light on the development of national identities and the regional responses of Buddhism to the encounter with colonial forms of Western (in which we include Russian) modernity. To contextualize the articles that follow, the Introduction outlines their historical background, points out the salient features of the different groups involved, and discusses aspects of the encounter between Buddhism and colonial modernity in Central Asia in the wider context of contemporary Buddhist reform. We should note that in the face of numerous transcription systems both in the original sources and in the academic world we have not attempted to standardize the English spelling of Asian languages. This work was arranged by Ishihama Yumiko of the International Association for Tibetan Studies in Paris in 2019. We also wish to acknowledge the assistance of Rolf Giebel for translation from Japanese, Nikolay Tsyrempilov and Daichi Wada for their assistance with the Asian-language bibliographies, and Saskia Gieling, Irene van Rossum, Jaap Wagenaar, and Julie BenschopPlokker at the Amsterdam University Press for their role in bringing this work to publication, as well as the two anonymous reviewers whose comments were a valuable contribution to the final form of this work. We are also 1 The term “Resurgence” is used here with reference to the earlier “Golden Age” of Tibetan Buddhist power and influence during the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama (r.1642–1682).

8

THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY RESURGENCE OF THE TIBE TAN BUDDHIST WORLD

grateful to Professor Tak-Wing Ngo for accepting the manuscript for the Global Asia Series for which he is the Series Editor, and Paul van der Velde and Mary Lynn van Dijk of the International Institute of Asian Studies (IIAS) for their help in getting the book published. The article by Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko entitled “A Study of Three Tibetan Letters Attributed to Dorzhiev held by the St. Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences” was previously published in Japanese in Inner Asian Studies 33 (March 2018): 99–177, under the English title “The Historical Significance of the Three Tibetan Letters Attributed to Dorzhiev in CПбΦ APAH.” Our thanks are due to the editors of Inner Asian Studies for permission to use this article. Ishihama Yumiko and Alex McKay, 2021

Introduction Alex McKay Historical Background On November 27, 1904, the thirteenth Dalai Lama arrived in the (Outer) Mongolian capital of Urga 1 almost three months after fleeing Lhasa to avoid capture by invading British-Indian forces. He was, at least initially, greeted with tremendous acclaim;2 the Mongolians were notably devout followers of Tibetan Buddhism, which is the primary institutionalized religion in eastern Central Asia. Like most Tibetans, most Mongols were followers of the Gelukpa (dge lugs pa) sect, of which the Dalai Lama is the most prominent spiritual figure. However, Outer Mongolia—which was broadly equivalent to modern independent Mongolia—already had its own Gelukpa hierarch. This position originated in 1639, when Zanabazar (1635–1723), the son of a Khalkha Mongol leader, became the head of the Gelukpa order in their polity.3 Ten years later Zanabazar visited Tibet, where he was identified by the Dalai and Panchen Lamas as the reincarnation of the Tibetan scholar Tāranātha and given the title by which he and his successors were known: Jebtsundamba Khutugtu (Tib: rje btsun dam pa hu thug tu; “Venerable Excellent Incarnation”). Zanabazar’s incarnation Luvsandambiydonmi (1724–1758) was also found among the Mongol elites, but after he was suspected of supporting a rebellion against the Qing Empire in 1757–1758, the Manchu Emperor decreed that all future incarnations must be found in Tibet.4 A succession of (apparently

1 Known to the Mongols as Ikh Khuree (“Great Circle”), the Mongol capital was originally a mobile palace, or örgöö, from which term the Russians derived Urga. 2 Chuluun & Bulag, Thirteenth Dalai Lama, 6. This work contains a valuable collection of primary sources on the Dalai Lama’s exile in Mongolia. 3 On Zanabazar, see Bareja-Starzynska, Biography. 4 Bawden, Modern History of Mongolia, 261–263; Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 26–32; Powers and Templeman, Historical Dictionary of Tibet, 745.

Ishihama, Y. & McKay, A. (eds.), The Early 20th Century Resurgence of the Tibetan Buddhist World. Studies in Central Asian Buddhism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi: 10.5117/9789463728645_intro

10 

Alex McK ay

non-elite) Tibetan-born youths were subsequently identified and sent to Urga to inherit the Jebtsundamba Khutugtu throne. The Qing Empire (1644–1912) was established by Manchu Jurchen clans, who had ancestral links with the Mongols. Like the earlier Mongol Yuan dynasty (c1215-1368), the Manchus patronized—if not adopted5—Tibetan Buddhism. Indeed, their authority over the religion became central to their imperial strategies. During the seventeenth century they instituted a series of marital alliances with Mongolian elites that resulted in neutralizing the power of the Chahar and other Mongol clans in the eastern realms, dividing their lands and fracturing their political unity. As the Qing expanded their empire westwards, they divided Mongolian territory into two realms: Inner Mongolia, which was administered by the Lifanyuan (Ministry for Outer Regions), and Outer Mongolia, which was indirectly dealt with via Qing-appointed military governors.6 These efforts to weaken the Mongols were aided by internal disputes between the Khalkhas of Outer Mongolia, the Khoshuts in the region now known as Amdo, and the most powerful of the tribal confederations, the Dzungars. The latter was predominantly composed of the Oirat clans, and their realm was centered around what is now Xinjiang. In 1756–1757 Qing forces wiped out the Dzungars, the last of the great Central Asian Mongol nomadic empires, albeit, in the wider context at the cost of fracturing established trading patterns and bringing economic collapse to Central Asia.7 Tibet also came under the indirect authority of the Qing Emperor during the eighteenth century;8 at the beginning of the twentieth century both Tibet and Outer Mongolia still acknowledged the overlordship of the Qing Empire.9 But although the Qing were the dominant power in Central Asia 5 See Grupper, “Manchu Patronage.” 6 See Oka, “Extension of Control.” On the Qing as an imperialist power and their administrative system, see di Cosmo, “Qing Colonial Administration” 134-39. 7 Beckwith, Empires of the Silk Road, 225–229, 232–240. 8 The standard work on which remains Petech, China and Tibet. 9 The precise nature of this relationship cannot be def ined with terms deriving from the modern Nation-State model. The British used the term “suzerain” because of its imprecision and the absence of a definition of “suzerain” in international law. However, “suzerain” (or its equivalent) does not appear in contemporary Asian sources. In Japanese scholarship the term is not used; see Takashi Okamoto, ed., World History of Suzerainty, particularly the articles by Tachibana Makato, “Somewhere between ‘Independence’ and ‘Autonomy’: Translating Concepts in Modern Mongolian”: 177–98) and Kobayashi Ryōsuke, “The Political Status of Tibet and the Simla Conference (1913–14): Translated Concepts in Modern Tibet”: 199-215). This work is available online from the Toyo Bunko institute at:https://toyo-bunko.repo.nii.ac.jp/index. php?action=pages_view_main&active_action=repository_view_main_item_snippet&index_id =1303&pn=1&count=20&order=17&lang=japanese&page_id=25&block_id=47

Introduction

11

during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, by the early twentieth they were no longer strong enough to protect Tibet and Mongolia from foreign intervention. While the Qing Dynasty dominated vast swathes of central Asia, their authority did not manifest in the forms and structures of a Nation-state, which developed in the West as the “modern” form of statehood. Instead, both Islamic and Buddhist polities in Central Asia followed a political model of a “ritual” or “mandala” state: polities were defined by their centers; sovereignties merged in their frontier zones rather than being defined by fixed borders; and semi-autonomous polities often acknowledged being subject to more powerful nations or empires. Inter-state relations therefore consisted of dynamic historical formations in time and space—the result, for example, of cosmological understandings such as the chö-yön (“patronpriest”) relationship between the Qing Emperor and Tibet.10 Over the course of the nineteenth century, the Qing Empire went into a terminal decline, weakened both by internal corruption and stasis and by external threats from the foreign states that increasingly dominated China’s port cities and eastern population centres. China’s ability to intervene in, or even influence, Central Asian affairs was correspondingly greatly reduced in practice, although ritual acknowledgement of her status continued to act as a stabilizing factor that was generally valued on the principle of après moi les déluge. While the Qing declined, the Russian state began to fill the regional power vacuum. In the late sixteenth century, after freeing themselves from the rule of the Mongols’ Golden Horde, Muscovy had begun to expand into Siberia. In 1647 they established their first settlement on the Pacific coast 11 and, starting with the 1689 Treaty of Nerchinsk, began negotiating their border with the Qing. Their eastward expansion also brought the Russians into contact with the Mongol homelands. The 1727 Kiakhta Treaty fixed Russia’s border with Outer Mongolia, incorporating into Russia the Buryat (or Buriat) Mongols, whose traditional realm was around Lake Baikal. Russia subsequently encouraged ethnic Russians to settle in this border region, thereby separating the Buryats from their Mongolian kinsmen.12

10 For a recent examination of the history and implications of these “traditional” Asian political forms and their understanding in the Chinggisid Mongol, Tibetan Buddhist, and Confucian Sinic worlds, see Timothy Brook et al., Sacred Mandates. 11 Beckwith, Empires, 224. 12 Forsyth, Peoples of Siberia, 169.

12 

Alex McK ay

After its defeat of Napoleon in the early nineteenth century Russia was recognized as a major European power. While other European nations established African and Asian colonies, Russian imperialism manifested in rapid expansion into Central Asia, where it added 400,000 square miles to its territory between 1855 and 1881. After taking Tashkent in 1865, Russia used it as a base for invading the Islamic Khanates of Samarkand, Bokhara, Khiva, and Merv over the next two decades. They also established a Russian consulate in Kashgar under the terms of the 1860 Treaty of Peking,13 remaining a powerful force in Xinjiang for the next 60 years. However, the scope for further Russian expansion was limited by their Foreign Ministry’s concern with the opinion of Britain and other nations that profited from a weakened China but feared the instability that would follow any break-up of recognized Chinese territory. This was of particular concern for the British, for whom the security of their Indian colony was of paramount importance. From the 1870s onwards, elements within the British colonial Government constructed a “Russian threat” to India, contending that Russian expansion across Central Asia would culminate in their invasion of north-west India. In the late 1890s that same—largely imagined—threat was re-imagined as aimed at the Indo-Tibetan frontier. Since it was obvious that Russia’s forces could not sustain an invasion of India via Tibet, the reimagined “threat” involved the “subversion” of India by small numbers of Russian agents. Thus, while the British were aware that Russia’s empire included Buddhists who looked to Lhasa as their highest religious authority, they still became highly suspicious of any indications of Russian presence in Tibet.14 Since 1792, Tibet had refused to allow any Europeans—including ethnic Russians—to enter their territory.15 They saw the Christian nations as threatening their Buddhist faith and, as the British extended their authority over the Himalayan states that abutted Tibet’s southern frontier, Tibet became increasingly concerned that this process would culminate in the British attempting to take over Tibet. In response, the Tibetans refused even to accept British diplomatic correspondence. They were supported in this by their Chinese overlords, who similarly feared a British invasion of China from the south-east. While various individual Europeans did cross Tibet’s

13 Share, “Russian Civil War,” 394. 14 McKay, “19th Century British Expansion,” esp., 71–72. 15 Engelhardt, “Closing of the Gates,” 229–246.

Introduction

13

frontiers during the nineteenth century, the exclusion policy prevented all but three of them from reaching Lhasa.16 To counter this prohibition, during the latter part of the nineteenth century British India used so-called pandits (or pundits) to explore and map much of the Tibetan plateau. These pandits were native to the Indian hill-states and were therefore able to cross the frontiers by posing as pilgrims or traders. Once in Tibet they used clandestine methods to record their journey and map the route.17 While their journeys were initially confidential, they were subsequently described in official publications and discussed at meetings of learned bodies such as the Royal Geographical Society—meaning that the Russians were aware of them. With their own population, including Asian Buddhists, also accustomed to traveling to Tibet, Russia began to explore the potential of doing the same. During the nineteenth century, the ninth to twelfth Dalai Lamas all died young or after only a brief period in office. This meant that power in Tibet was contested between the Qing’s representatives (Ambans) in Lhasa and the Dalai Lamas’ Regents and other high-ranking Tibetan prelates such as the Panchen Lama. In 1895 Nawang Lobsang Tubten Gyatso (1876–1933) was installed as the thirteenth Dalai Lama of Tibet, having been confirmed as the reincarnation of his predecessor in 1877 and enthroned in the Potala in 1879. During his traditional monastic education, the Dalai Lama was allocated teachers in various aspects of Buddhist theory and practice, and in 1888 he had come under instruction from a Khenpo (“Abbot”) from Gomang college of the great Drepung monastery. That Khenpo, a Buryat lama, was Agvan Dorzhiev (1853/4–1938).18 Tibet’s policy of isolation became increasingly problematic for British India as it expanded its authority up to the Tibetan border, culminating in 1888–1889 with the takeover of Sikkim, a Himalayan Buddhist state under Tibetan influence. The British officially recognized Tibet as under Chinese “suzerainty,” and therefore attempted to deal with Tibetan issues through negotiations with China. However, the terminal decline of the Qing Dynasty had weakened Peking’s authority over Tibet to the point where it existed more in theory than in practice and the attempts at negotiation proved futile. The Government of India saw Tibet’s isolation policy and refusal to correspond with them as both insulting and potentially destabilising for 16 The three visitors were the Englishman Charles Manning, in 1811, and two Lazarist priests, Huc and Gabet, in 1846. None of them were politically significant. 17 See Waller, Pandits. 18 Snelling, Buddhism in Russia, 34–35.

14 

Alex McK ay

their frontier regions. With the accession of Lord Curzon to the Viceroyalty, British Indian hopes of dealing with Tibet through China were effectively abandoned. Identifying the situation in Tibet as a “Russian threat” to India, Viceroy Curzon began to plan an invasion that would open Tibet to British Indian influence. That invasion, which the British commonly termed the “Younghusband mission” after its leader, Colonel Francis Younghusband (1863–1942), was to culminate in entering Lhasa and establishing British influence there. Both the Dalai Lama and Dorzhiev left for Mongolia before the British entered the Tibetan capital. It soon became clear to the British that, while no European Russians had been in Lhasa, two groups of Russian Buddhists did have access to Tibet: the Kalmyks and the Buryats.

The Kalmyks The Kalmyks were Oirat Mongols with origins in the Altai region. The Oirat confederation comprised four major tribes (the Dzungar, Torghut, Dörbet, and Khoshut) along with a number of minor groups.19 In the mid-sixteenth century, the forces of the first Tsar of Russia Ivan IV (r.1538–1584) conquered the Kazan and Astrakhan Khanates. Since commerce was the main driver of Russia’s eastward expansion, the Oirats—who were then centered in western Mongolia—were permitted by the Russians to trade through Astrakhan to the southeast.20 In 1615 the Oirat confederacy accepted Buddhism21 and became, like most of the Mongols, followers of Gelukpa Tibetan Buddhism and thus of the Dalai Lama—who at that time was himself a Mongol.22 In 1632, following earlier movements to the southeast, a substantial group of Oirats (largely from the Torghut clan), migrated to their current home on the northwest shores of the Caspian Sea and to the north of Dagestan. It appears they initially retained their ties with Lhasa: Shükür Daichin, the eldest son and heir of the Kalmyk taiji (“leader”), is recorded as visiting Lhasa in 1642 and 1650 and as being received there by the Dalai Lama. Later Kalmyk leaders also visited Lhasa, where their Khan title was confirmed by the Dalai Lamas.23 However, strife in the neighboring Oirat Khanate of Dzungaria and Russian 19 Takehiko, “Reigniting Communication,” 69–82. 20 Avery, Tea Road, 115. 21 Schwieger, Dalai Lama, 47. 22 This was the fourth Dalai Lama, Yongten Gyatso (1589–1617), a descendant of the Tumed Mongol leader Altan Khan (1507–1582) and thus of Kubilai and Chinggis Khan. 23 Bormanshinov, “Kalmyk Pilgrims,” 1–3.

Introduction

15

reluctance to allow them to pass through Siberia meant that the Kalmyks were increasingly unable to travel to Lhasa. After 1755–1757, direct contact apparently ceased entirely.24 While Kalmyk and wider Oirat relations with Russia oscillated throughout this period,25 the Kalmyks were increasingly drawn into the expanding Russian state, with their lands settled by Russian and Ukrainian immigrants and their religion challenged by Russian Orthodox missionaries. In January 1771 the last Khan, Ubashi, led those dwelling on the eastern side of the Volga back to Dzungaria. Struck by disease and attacked along the way by their Turkic tribal enemies, only around a third of Ubashi’s followers survived to reach the western border of the Qing Empire. They had little option but to surrender to the Qing, who destroyed their clan unity by dispersing them to five different locations. Those who remained in Russian territory were effectively cut off from Tibet and lost their autonomy. While their Buddhist community continued to be led by the Šajin (“Supreme”) Lama, whose monastery (khurul) was near Astrakhan,26 he was appointed to this position by the Russians. A number of Kalmyks remained in Astrakhan and Stavropol provinces, while most of the remainder lived around the lower Don River. There they merged with the Cossacks and, particularly after they contributed to defeating Napoleon, the region was increasingly integrated into the Tsarist state.27 As Russia expanded across Asia and the Qing Empire went into a terminal decline in the nineteenth century, Russia became increasingly interested in establishing ties with Lhasa, not least as a way to control their growing Buddhist population in the former Mongol realms. For this reason, they stopped the effective ban on Kalmyk pilgrimage to Lhasa. From the 1870s Kalmyks began to visit Ikh Khuree (Urga) to pay homage to the Jebtsundamba Khutugtu. Then in 1891 the Astrakhan Kalmyk Lama Baaza-Bagchi Menkedzhuyev (1846–1903) reached Lhasa, some 135 years after the last known Kalmyk visitor there. The result was the “rediscovery” of their Kalmyk co-religionists by the Tibetans and even the Mongols.28 In Lhasa, Menkedzhuev met Agvan Dorzhiev, the Russian Buryat whose closeness to the thirteenth Dalai Lama so concerned the British Government of India. He invited the Buryat to his homeland, and in 1898 and again in 24 Takehiko, “Reigniting Communication,” 69–70. 25 For an account of the rise of the Oirat Dzungar (Junghar) Empire, see Beckwith, Empires, 226–229. 26 Bormanshinov, “Kalmyk Pilgrims,” 4. 27 Snelling, Buddhism in Russia, 56; Takehiko, “Reigniting Communication,” 72. 28 Takehiko, “Reigniting Communication,” 70–73.

16 

Alex McK ay

1902 Dorzhiev visited the Kalmyk regions. From this time on, a sense of shared Buddhist heritage and wider shared interests can be seen to have increasingly bound the two communities together.

Buryats The Buryats of southeastern Siberia were among the later Mongol groups to adopt Buddhism. As with other Mongol clans, this was largely—although not entirely—at the expense of shamanism, which influenced the Mongol forms of Buddhism and survives as a separate and even overlapping practice to this day. There is evidence of earlier Buddhism in the Buryats’ Baikal homeland,29 primarily among those who emigrated out of Khalkha Mongolia, but according to traditional histories Buddhism only became firmly established there after 1712, when 150 Tibetan and Mongolian Lamas moved into Buryatia. More reliable is an account of three Lhasa-trained Buryat monks returning to their homeland in the 1720s.30 The earliest Buryat “temples” were established in yurts, with the first dedicated monasteries (datsan) being built in 1730.31 The 1727 Kiakhta Treaty made the Mongols to the north of the new border Russian citizens, and is therefore “considered a canonical beginning of the formation of Buryatia as a separate community.”32 In the year following the Treaty, “foreign” (i.e., Mongolian or Tibetan) lamas were banned from entering what was now Russian territory and Buryat Buddhism began to project a distinct local identity. In 1741 the Empress Elizabeth is said to have issued a decree recognizing Buryat Buddhism as independent of Mongol and Tibetan Buddhism, thereby acknowledging it as a legitimate Russian religion.33 Soon after, a Buryat lama named Damba Darzha Zaiaev (1710/11–1777) returned to Buryatia after spending around seven years studying in Lhasa. He was the most prominent of those who established the foundations of later Buryat Buddhist structures. In 1764 Zaiaev was appointed the Supreme 29 See for example Snelling, Buddhism in Russia, 4, who cites a Mongol missionary who set up a yurt temple there in 1701. 30 Majer and Teleki, “Origin and Spread,” 477–497. 31 Bernstein, Religious Bodies Politic, 3; Heissig, Religions of Mongolia, 38. 32 Bernstein, Religious Bodies Politic, 2–3. 33 Nikolay Tsyrempilov has pointed out, however, that there is no known copy of this decree and as Elizabeth had only been in power for a month she is unlikely to have taken up this issue in that time: see Tsyrempilov, “Kogda Rossiia,” 96–108.

Introduction

17

Lama of Buryatia by the Russian government and took the title of Bandido Khambo (“Learned Prior”) Lama.34 While they continued to look to Lhasa as the center of their faith, many of the Buryat Buddhist elites received a modern scientific education in Russia. Orthodox Christian missionary activities also had a considerable impact, particularly among Buryats to the west of Lake Baikal. The result was that certain elements of the Buryat Buddhist establishment developed a more cosmopolitan worldview as well as an understanding of the Christian construction of the category of “religion” and what it considered the appropriate manifestations of a religion in both personal and institutional terms. The Buryats’ understanding of both Tibetan Buddhist and Russian imperial worlds made them ideally equipped to act as mediators between the Buddhist and Christian worlds. By the mid-nineteenth century a generation of cosmopolitan Buryat intellectuals had emerged and become embedded in academic (and medical35) institutions in Saint Petersburg and Moscow. The most historically prominent of this generation was Agvan Dorzhiev. Dorzhiev grew up in a traditional Buryat Mongol setting before traveling to Urga in 1868 for religious instruction at the age of 14. Five years later he traveled to Lhasa and entered Drepung’s Gomang college. Dorzhiev subsequently studied under a number of renowned teachers, traveled to sacred sites of Tibetan Buddhism such as Wu t’ai shan, and received his Lharampa degree in 1888. He then became an instructor in Buddhist logic and debate and—a sign of the esteem in which he was held—was appointed as a tutor to the young thirteenth Dalai Lama. With far greater knowledge of the outside world than most Tibetan monastic hierarchs, Dorzhiev soon became the Tibetan leader’s principal political advisor and, in the face of Qing decline, counseled Tibet to look to Russia for support against the growing threat from the British. Around the turn of the century he traveled to Europe, India, Sri Lanka, and most importantly Russia, where he was received by Tsarist ministers. He appears to have become the main channel for communications between Russia and Tibet—in effect, the Dalai Lama’s “emissary to the Tsar.” In Buddhist understanding, Dorzhiev’s diplomatic endeavors were inseparable from his religious activities. He continued to give teachings 34 Snelling, Buddhism in Russia, 4–6; Andreev, Soviet Russia and Tibet, 3. While Bandido Khambo is remembered as a title given by Russia, it is more probable that Zaiaev himself claimed the title and had it approved when he visited Moscow in 1767; Bernstein, Religious Bodies Politic, 7. 35 On Pyotr Badmayev, a well-connected Buryat convert to the Russian Orthodox faith and practitioner of “Tibetan medicine” (sowa rigpa) in St. Petersburg at this time, see Saxer, “Tibetan medicine.”

18 

Alex McK ay

and perform initiations during his travels and collected offerings to build and support various Buddhist institutions. His mediation between nations and elite factions in the trans-national Buddhist world was entirely in keeping with the traditional role of an advanced Buddhist practitioner. To contemporary British eyes, however, Dorzhiev’s religious activities were considered a cover for intelligence activity on behalf of the Russians. News that he was not only close to the Dalai Lama but had also visited and been officially received in St. Petersburg was used to further support the British Indian case for forcing access to Lhasa. Dorzhiev was one of several turn-of-the-century Buryat and other Russian Buddhists to travel to Lhasa. Other prominent visitors were Gombozhab T. Tsybikov, a Buryat graduate of St. Petersburg University who visited Lhasa twice in 1899–1902, and the Kalmyk lama Ovshe Norzunoff. While each of their journeys were intended as a personal religious matter, they were of wider interest in their geo-political context. Tsybikov’s first journey was financed by the Russian Geographical Society and both he and Norzunoff returned with photographs of the Tibetan capital—the first to reach Europe. Thus, despite the ban on European Russians entering Tibet, Russia’s Buddhist citizens provided the opportunity for it to obtain far more information on events and personalities at Lhasa than the British could.36

Colonial Critiques and Buddhist Reform The nexus between power and knowledge in an imperial context is well known, with studies demonstrating the process by which information was gathered, collated, and translated into the bodies of knowledge used by colonial governments to maintain their rule. During this process, authority over such knowledge passed from the indigenous “knowers” of culture, geography, language, and so on to the European compilers and collators of that knowledge, and the translated and compiled knowledge often took on an “official” status through its use and dissemination by the government.37 As Asian elites increasingly received a Western education—as did non-elites, 36 The political implications of Russian citizenship were known to the Buryat and Kalmyk visitors to Lhasa. Andreyev, for example, notes disturbances between groups of Buryats at Drepung, in which one group accusing the other of being Russian. Many claimed to be Mongolian to avoid such issues. See Andreyev, Tibet in the Earliest Photographs, 89. On Tsybikov and Norzunoff, see Andreyev, Tibet in the Earliest Photographs; Tsybikov, Buddhist Pilgrim. 37 Foundational studies of this process include Bayley, Empire and Information, and Richards, Imperial Archive.

Introduction

19

often through missionary schools—their lessons about their own history and culture drew on such European-authorized bodies of knowledge. In this way, colonized subjects imbibed the critiques of their own society that were embedded in the knowledge they studied through the preconceptions and misunderstandings of the authorized compilers. The international flow of knowledge grew considerably in the nineteenth century, and its dissemination among the European intelligentsia came to be considered a part of imperialism’s higher purpose beyond narrow economic and political concerns. Following the formation of the French Geographical Society in 1821, Britain (in 1830) and Russia (in 1845) also established their own such societies. Knowledge of new discoveries passed quite freely between these organizations. Academic studies had a similar trans-national readership, and the nineteenth century saw archaeological discoveries of historical Buddhist sites and the emergence of textual studies of Buddhism, particularly the study of Pali texts, by European (including Russian) scholars such as Fyodor Shcherbatskoy (Stcherbatsky), Hermann Oldenberg, Eugene Burnouf, and Thomas Rhys-Davids. In what is now a well-known process,38 the Western understanding of Buddhism was shaped by its own concept of religion as a distinct analytical category and studies came to prioritize the authority of texts above observable practice. In the Pali texts scholars such as Rhys-Davids (1843–1922) found a sophisticated philosophical exposition attributed to a spiritually-orientated figure whose historical existence seemed to be confirmed by archaeological findings. That textual exposition seemed in stark contrast to the observable practice of Buddhism, with Mahayana and Tantric developments seen by Victorian scholarship as a degeneration of the “pure, original” philosophy of the Buddha. European observers thus concluded that Buddhism was a onceenlightened philosophy that had been adulterated by “primitive superstition” and “Tantric licentiousness,” and had consequently degenerated into an empty ritual practice. This apparently authoritative critique convinced many Buddhists of the need to reform various elements of their faith. In the later nineteenth century, a Buddhist reform movement arose as a response to the European colonial encounter and its associated critique of their faith. The reform movement was not specific to any tradition, although it was frequently associated with specific nationalisms. Many of its most 38 See, for example, Almond, British Discovery of Buddhism; Lopez, Prisoners of Shangri-La; McMahan, Making of Buddhist Modernism. For a concise examination of the issues that gives due weight to the archaeological developments, see Huber, The Holy Land, 251–290.

20 

Alex McK ay

prominent concerns were actually “traditional” issues such as monastic discipline39—the subject of European critiques but also an issue of concern to Buddhism from its earliest phase. In other words, European critiques of monks’ behavior were neither original nor external to Buddhism, but rather tended to support a tendency that had long existed within Asian Buddhism. The encounter with Western colonial modernity may therefore be better understood as bringing out and adding weight to certain existing tendencies in Asian societies and creating the conditions for those tendencies to become organized movements, rather than introducing entirely new concepts to Asian thought. 40 After all, during its long history the Buddhist religion has undergone a series of transformations and redefinitions, not least the Tibetan absorption of Mahayana and Tantric ideas. Indeed, calls for reform are almost characteristic of Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhist history includes great figures such as Atiśa and Tsongkhapa who were celebrated reformers of monastic practice and standards, and there were internal debates and reform movements throughout its history. 41 Thus the religion was never a static body of knowledge as conceived by the Europeans who studied it, instead existing in different times and spaces in forms that were subject to and created by constant negotiation as a result of internal, external, and even personal forces. As Alasdair MacIntyre pointed out, “any historically imbedded tradition must involve internal dissent.”42 As Asian political formations were transformed (“modernized”), the ideology of religious nationalism, or linking national identity to a “national” religion, became a part of the regional anti-colonial movement towards independent nation-states. However, the importance of this movement in Central Asia should be problematized. While independence movements 39 For an examination of this issue in the context of the reforming bent of the Sikkimese heir Sidkeong Tulku (1879–1914), see Jansen, “Monastic Guidelines,” 597–622. 40 For example, in the mid-nineteenth century—before Rhys-Davids began his study of the Pali manuscripts and founded the Pali Text Society to translate these works into English—the Thai Prince Mongkut (later King Rama IV) had already “insisted on the necessity of a renewed study of the classical Pali texts.” Wertheim, “Religious Reform Movements,” 54. 41 A nineteenth-century example of a dissenting tendency within Tibetan Buddhism that had lasting signif icance was the ecumenical movement known as the rimé (ris med: “non sectarian”). While it had earlier progenitors, it appears to be an internal reformation with no obvious external influences. On the rimé, see Samuel, Civilized Shamans; and see Mathes & Coura, Nonsectarianism. 42 Humphrey and Ujeed, Monastery in Time. Quotation from 4–5 summarizing MacIntyre’s work (the source note is, however, apparently in error); see also the surrounding remarks on tradition, 4–7.

Introduction

21

in Sri Lanka and the Theravadin states of Southeast Asia including Burma and the Tibetan independence movement of the later twentieth century explicitly articulated an anti-colonial agenda, the early Russian Buddhist reformers did not. In fact, with Tibet in need of a new patron due to the collapse of the Qing, 43 Dorzhiev sought to bring Tibet under the protection of the Russian Empire. Other Buryat and Kalmyk travelers such as Tsybikov and Norzunoff were also well placed in Russian society and traveled under Russian patronage. Dorzhiev promoted the reform of Buddhist beliefs and institutions. His concern with standards of behaviour in the monasteries saw him speak out against corruption, the use of alcohol and tobacco, and breaches of the requirement for celibacy; in line with both Gelukpa and Christian orthodoxy, he also condemned the practice of sacrifice. 44 As a Russian Buryat, his reformist views were also shaped by “the specific Russian understanding of what normative Buddhism should look like.”45 His distinctly Russian central Asian Buddhist response certainly owed something to the historical experience of Qing domination and observations of the growing power of the British to the south. It also reflected the distinct historical trajectories of (Muscovite) Russian engagement with Buddhist central Asia. As was the case with Russian foreign policy, this encounter was characterized by a dialogue between diverse aims, tendencies, and constraints rather than a single unified movement or ideology. Those who served on the expanding eastern frontier tended to be far more critical of the society and cultures they encountered than the academic and ideological forces at the imperial center were. 46 Imperial Russian perspectives on central Asian Buddhists were to a large extent shaped by developments in the construction of a Russian identity that embraced the idea of Russia as a “bridge” between Europe and China. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, its Asian realms increasingly came to be seen as an essential part of Russian identity. Scholars at the Oriental Faculty at St. Petersburg University—which was Russia’s preeminent Asian studies center during the period with which we are concerned—lent academic credibility to this understanding of Russia’s Asian heritage. While there were a multiplicity of perspectives on Asia and its peoples, the concept of Asia as the European “Other” was less hegemonic in Russian 43 44 45 46

On the thesis that the Tibetan system required a patron, see Klieger, Tibetan Nationalism. Inoue, “Reigniting Communication,” 75–77; Snelling, Buddhism in Russia, 90–93. Tsyrempilov, “From the Faith of Lamas,” see paragraph 10. See for example Przhevalsky’s statements cited in Rayfield, Dream of Lhasa, 65, 69.

22 

Alex McK ay

intellectual and national discourse compared with other European states. The result was to limit the extent to which late nineteenth century and early twentieth century Russian government activities in Russian central Asia were shaped by an ideological distinction between a colonizing power and colonial subjects; in the early Soviet period, this led to new formulations of ethno-nationalism that contested Tsarist imperial policies. 47 This specifically Russian encounter with central Asia helps explain why the early Russian Buddhist reformers felt able to negotiate with St. Petersburg rather than immediately engaging in an anti-colonial struggle. The more extreme demonstrations of Russian military force were aimed at Islamic principalities such as Bukhara and Khiva; it was only with the collapse of the Qing and Tsarist Russian empires that modern Buryat or Kalmyk nationalisms became prominent, although an alternative political model in the form of a Pan-Asian Buddhist political confederation had emerged earlier. This model envisaged a Tibetan Buddhist polity politically centered in Mongolia and embracing the Tibetan Buddhist states on both sides of the Himalayas. Conceptualized by a range of prominent individuals in the early twentieth, if not late nineteenth, centuries, this political alternative apparently never progressed beyond imaginings. 48 Dorzhiev’s travels in South and Southeast Asia meant he at least heard about the potential of a wider trans-national unity of Buddhists promoted by the Mahabodhi Society. While neither Dorzhiev nor any Tibetan Buddhist leaders joined this society,49 the Eleventh Buryat Khambo Lama Choindzin Iroltuyev (1843–1918) does appear to have established relations with its founder Dharmapāla during a pilgrimage to South Asia in 1898.50 The Buddhist reform movement in Central Asia may also have contained elements that reflect other contemporary social, intellectual, and political debates within Russia. In a recent article examining the transition from Buryat Tibetan to “Global” Buddhism, Nikolay Tsyrempilov (whose work is also represented in this volume), observes that Dorzhiev, as “the leader of the pro-reformist faction in the Buryat sangha,” was concerned with the “economic parasitism of the local Buddhist community.”51 This was 47 On the Russian Orientalist experience, see Oye, Russian Orientalism, which emphasizes the artistic aspects of the encounter; and Tolz, Russia’s Own Orient. 48 I have not located a proper study of this concept, but among those who envisaged its possibility were the British Indian Political Officer Charles Bell and the Russian mystic Nicholai Roerich, as well as Dorzhiev. 49 Lopez, Prisoners of Shangri-La, 250. 50 Tsyrempilov, “From the Faith of Lamas,” paragraph 38. 51 Tsyrempilov, “From the Faith of Lamas,” paragraph 43.

Introduction

23

a common accusation by colonial observers, who frequently described the monastic community as “idle,” “parasitic,” “an economic drain,” “nonproductive,” and so on. But monasticism was prescribed in the earliest Buddhist texts and had remained a defining characteristic of the Buddhist world, so it is difficult to locate an internal critique of this socio-economic system (other than claims of the spiritual superiority of non-monastic “wandering” practices). Even Christian critiques of Buddhist monasticism, coming from a faith in which monasticism was associated with admirable piety, concerned corruptions of the system rather than the system itself. It is possible that this specifically economic critique could reflect the emerging ideas of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels that were soon to become the basis for the Russian Revolution. Any reform movement seeks a divergence from the existing system and thus challenges the authority of those upholding that system. Given that the Central Asian Buddhist elites exercised political power, the Buddhist reform movement represented a wider challenge than simple doctrinal contestation, it challenged the ruling political elites. In practice, however, the political challenge that emerged was primarily that of religious nationalism—the nation as a territory held by those of shared ethnicity and belief. Thus Tibet and Mongolia might be imagined as nations, so too could Buryatia and Kalmykia. Scholars have suggested that the Central Asian elites saw modern political forms—the Nation-State—as their best hope for survival in the face of the seemingly inexorable Chinese expansion, for within a Chinese empire they would become a minority in their own lands.52 It is certain that the Buryats’ encounter with Russian civilization and its Orthodox faith contributed to their self-identification of their Buddhist faith as a def ining characteristic of Buryat identity.53 As the increasing influx of Russian immigrants into Buryatia stimulated a sense of Buryat nationalism,54 their belief system became a part of that nationalism, which increasingly took on modern political forms of expression. To some extent the relations and shared aspirations of the Buddhist realms of Central Asia (notably the Mongol–Tibet Treaty of 1913), can be seen in terms of a “collaborative nationalism,”55 but the mega-events (i.e., the colonial 52 See, following Owen Lattimore, Sneath, “Competing Factions,” 90–94. 53 Tsyrempilov points out, however, that in the mid-nineteenth century, only 60 percent of Buryats were Buddhist: the remainder had either adopted Orthodox Christianity or remained shamanists. Tsyrempilov, “From the Faith of Lamas,” note 4. 54 Bernstein, Religious Bodies Politic, 22. 55 “Collaborative Nationalism” refers to nationalists who depend on outside allies; see Bulag, Collaborative Nationalism.

24 

Alex McK ay

encounter, WWI, etc.), involving the great Asian empires of China, Russia, and Britain prevented any linear progression toward the achievement of the nationalists’ aims. It was only after the collapse of the Qing Dynasty that Mongolia and Tibet claimed independence, and only after the Russian Revolution that the Buryats gained acknowledgement of their identity with the 1923 formation of the Buryat–Mongol Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. In conclusion, it should be emphasized that there were multiple historical trajectories and a complex interplay of tradition and reform that shaped the religious and political formations that emerged in this region during the period with which we are concerned. The articles that follow contribute to our increasing understanding of those many histories.56

A Note on Sources One feature of this volume is that the articles herein are based on primary and secondary sources that are in many, if not most, cases unknown to Western scholars. They include primary source material in a variety of languages from the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire, the Russian State Historical Archive, the National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia, the State Archive of the Republic of Buryatia, the Archives of the National Museum of the Republic of Buryatia, the Japan Center for Asian Historical Records, and the Archives of the Institute of Modern History at the Academia Sinica, Taipei. Naturally these sources represent perspectives that may not be immediately apparent to readers lacking a wider knowledge of the historical background, political context, inter-departmental imperatives, individual and collective ideologies and ambitions, bureaucratic strategies represented by certain arguments advanced in the documents, and so on. Given the empirical focus of the studies presented here, interrogation of the sources through consideration of these and other related aspects has not been a priority of the authors. We might note, however, that while policy formation (if not necessarily implementation), was largely—and with improved communications, increasingly—the result of negotiations at the center, the Russian Empire under the Tsars, like the contemporary British and French empires, gave a specific kind of authority to reports of “the man on the spot.” Thus the 56 Also see, Yumiko Ishihama et al. Resurgence of “Buddhist Government.”

Introduction

25

Russian consuls, military officials and demi-official explorers and agents such as Pyotr Kozlov (1863–1935) and Nikolai Przhevalsky (1839–1888), as well as Buddhist pilgrims from within the Russian empire, were all considered important sources of information. While the reports of non-European agents were understood within contemporary European historical and political paradigms, comparisons with Mongolian and Tibetan sources that express themselves within traditional worldviews seem to suggest that there was considerable convergence of many basic conclusions. While there is a duplication of documents between different archives, there is also a considerable amount of material that has been effectively hidden for much of the preceding century and, in that sense, this work is exploratory rather than definitive.

Contents The first five articles in this collection are primarily centred on the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s exile in Mongolia in 1904–1906 after the British invasion of Tibet (the “Younghusband Mission”). The opening paper by co-editor Ishihama Yumiko examines the political and religious activities of the Dalai Lama during his exile in Mongolia. It first describes the Tibetan leader’s extensive religious activities as an exemplar of proper Buddhist practice: stimulating temple-building, promulgating monastic codes (bca’ yig), ordaining monks, and presiding over rituals. It then demonstrates the Dalai Lama’s impact on identity formation among the Mongol clans by showing how his sojourn there brought together three major figures of later Mongol nationalism. The three Mongol hierarchs (from the Khalkha, Kokonor, and Buryat Buddhist communities), are prominently mentioned in the thirteenth Dalai Lama’s Tibetan biography, and were influenced by the Dalai Lama’s invocation of the national consciousness of the local inhabitants to work for Mongol unity after their long separation under Qing and Russian rule. This imprimatur of their supreme religious leader revitalized their national movements. This paper also touches on the problematic relationship between the Dalai Lama and the Jebtsundamba Khutugtu that developed when both Gelukpa hierarchs were located in Urga, concluding that disputes over monastic discipline were at the heart of their apparent differences. In the second paper, Daichi Wada draws on Russian, Chinese, and Japanese sources to analyze the exiled Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s diplomatic activities in Khalkha and Qinghai. He discusses how these manifested both

26 

Alex McK ay

traditional and modern aspects of Tibetan Buddhist diplomacy and how, when his use of “modern diplomacy” was limited by the circumstances, his “traditional diplomacy” became more effective. In demonstrating how the Dalai Lama’s worldview was enhanced by his travels, the author particularly focuses on the Dalai Lama’s relationship with the Buryat Buddhist community, which in some aspects represented Russian interests but also held traditional ties with the Tibetan Buddhist center. His work also sheds light on the opinions of various Russian officials as they considered their policy options in light of their close observation of the Dalai Lama’s activities. Makoto Tachibana’s article concerns the neglected economic aspects of the Dalai Lama’s Mongolian exile. The Dalai Lama’s presence there created problems in that his stature eclipsed the authority of Mongolia’s highest incarnation, the Jebtsundamba Khutugtu. As a result offerings that would have been given to the Mongolian leader were instead gifted to the Tibetan one. At the same time, the Dalai Lama’s presence bolstered the political power of the Mongolian incarnation, as became apparent in the 1913 Treaty between Mongolia and Tibet. Tibetans accompanying the Dalai Lama also became an important economic presence in Mongolia, and in the final part of the paper the author discusses the implications of this presence after 1913, when the two states afforded each other mutual diplomatic recognition amidst claims of independence. In Mongolia, Tibetans enjoyed tax-free status and the protection of the Jebtsundamba Khutugtu until 1921, when the People’s Government gained political power. Tibetan economic interests may have been a factor in their joining of the unsuccessful revolt against the new Government on behalf of the Jebtsundamba Khutugtu. Sergius Kuzmin’s paper draws on Russian and Mongolian archives to discuss the relationship between the Thirteenth Dalai Lama and the Jebtsundamba Khutugtu in the context of their joint hopes for future independence. While China sought to continue a policy of using Mongolian Buddhists to influence the Dalai Lama, under Russian protection during his exile he was in contact with elements of the Mongolian movement for independence. This association continued after the two states had broken away from China, with, for example, Tibetan troops (in the forces of Baron von Ungern-Sternberg) assisting with freeing the Jebtsundamba Khutugtu in 1921 after he was taken prisoner by the Chinese. These ties continued into the 1930s, when individual Tibetan hierarchs were involved in local resistance to the Soviet-guided suppression of Buddhism in Mongolia led by the Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party. While demonstrating that China

Introduction

27

tried to sow dissension between the two incarnations, Kuzmin also argues that the Russo-Mongolian Agreement of November 3, 1912, indicates Russia’s recognition of Mongolia as an independent state which enabled Mongolia to conclude an international treaty with Tibet in the following year. This was despite Russian doubts about the validity of the 1913 Mongolia-Tibet Treaty. The article by Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko discusses copies of three letters from the private collection of the Russian Orientalist Fyodor Shcherbatskoy (Stcherbatsky) that were found by Inoue in the St. Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The three undated letters, annotated translations of which are included, are attributed to Dorzhiev but, as shown here, two were actually written by the Kalymk leader Tshe ring zla ’od, one to the Dalai Lama and the other to Tsar Nikolai II. Only the third is by Dorzhiev, and is a friendly greeting addressed to the four Tibetan students who studied at Rugby school in England from 1913–1916. In this letter Dorzhiev indicates that he intends to visit England during his European sojourn, although the question of whether he ever did so remains open. The following three papers center on events and processes among the Buryat and Kalmyk Buddhists within the Russian Empire during the period under consideration. Baatr Kitinov’s paper examines the internal and external factors that influenced the late nineteenth century revitalization of Buddhism among the Kalmyk population of Russia. Using Russian archival sources, he demonstrates the process of transregional personal interaction which influenced the development of the obnovlenchestvo (Renovation Movement) among the Buddhists of the Russian empire. He also draws attention to the importance of the revival of Tantric practices and demonstrates how the Russian authorities allowed and even encouraged, but also monitored Buddhism in their empire and modified their religious policies as a result of those observations. The trans-national revival of Buddhism (which for the Kalmyks he traces to around 1860, when the Mongols discussed finding the Jebtsundamba Khutugtu incarnation among the Russian Kalmyks) reduced the spatial significance of geographic location while developing in conjunction with the emergence of ethnic identities among Russian Buddhists. Inoue Takehiko's paper demonstrates how, despite Russian authorities’ support for the Orthodox church and early nineteenth-century efforts to assimilate the Kalmyks by reducing the number of Buddhist temples and their attendant monks, the Don Kalmyks (those living around the Don river) still cultivated the support of the Russian authorities. The author gives the example of the opening of a school for Kalmyk children on the

28 

Alex McK ay

birthday of Tsar Nikolai in 1839. The school was intended to produce Kalmyk Russian-speaking translators and clerks—and using the Russian reports of the event Takehiko illustrates the various perspectives of the participants, including the Russians’ efforts to instill loyalty to the Tsar in the Kalmyk community. He also points out that Buddhist monks played a vital role in the co-opting of the Don Kalmyks into the Don Cossack, a special entity that could serve as a bridge between Orthodox and Buddhism. Although the period considered by Inoue is earlier than our title allows, strictly speaking, his article establishes how Kalmyk Buddhist monks played a significant role as intermediaries between the Tsar and the ordinary Kalmyks from an early date, although their deployment as agents of Russian diplomacy was a later phenomenon. The chapter by Nikolay Tsyrempilov uses a hand-written account of the 1896 coronation of Tsar Nikolai by a member of the Buryat deputation to highlight Buryat Buddhist perceptions and interpretations of the meaning of the enthronement ceremonies. The 1896 coronation was the first major event of its kind at which both secular and religious leaders from the Buryat Buddhist community were granted official representation. Tsyrempilov demonstrates how their presence gave the coronation new meaning within the frames of their religious worldview and Buddhist conceptions of kingship, in which the Russian Tsar had come to be associated with the White Tārā. In describing the Tsar as a “cakravartin,” the Buryats transformed their journey into a spiritual practice, a creative interpretation of a sacred geography that allowed Orthodox Christian Moscow to become a Buddhist paradise on earth. The final paper is the sole contribution that considers Inner Mongolia; in general, our use of “Mongolia” refers to Outer Mongolia (i.e., today's independent Mongolia). Hamugetu’s paper is an important indicator of the continuing role of Tibetan Buddhism within Inner Mongolian society and government despite their being under Qing authority. It focuses on the activities in China and Inner Mongolia of one twentieth-century Buddhist hierarch: the Seventh lCang-skya, spiritual head of the Geluk lineage of Tibetan Buddhism in Inner Mongolia. Articulating a modern ideology of the separation of church and state, the lCang-skya sought to protect the interests of Tibetan Buddhist society from both the Chinese government and Inner Mongolian nationalists by accommodating both forces, while simultaneously seeking to reform Tibetan Buddhism in Inner Mongolia on modernist lines. Hamugetu argues that, contrary to previous descriptions of this neglected f igure, his attempts to reconcile

Introduction

29

tradition and modernity were primarily motivated by religious considerations, and that the modernization process was in itself a religious movement. Collectively, these articles add to our understanding of the interactions of prominent Central Asian religious and political figures as well as the complex web of ethnic and sectarian interactions with the great empires of the time. They demonstrate how, in a period when forms of Western modernity were impacting regional societies and producing new forms of ethnic and national identity, both traditional and re-imagined forms of political and diplomatic intercourse shaped the immediate future of the region in the years before and immediately after the final collapse of the Qing and Tsarist empires. Traveling throughout Asia and even to Europe in furtherance of their specific and wider interests, trans-regional Buddhist hierarchs were at the center of these events and processes. As an innovative collection of papers concerning a cohesive subject area presented by scholars using different (and largely previously unknown in the West) sources, this volume’s authors naturally reach different opinions and conclusions on various matters discussed here. One obvious example is the question of the alleged tensions between the Thirteenth Dalai Lama and the Mongolian Jebtsundamba Khutugtu during the Tibetan hierarch’s stay in Mongolia. As stated above, the evidence presented here should be taken as preliminary evidence that will eventually contribute to concensus about such topics.

Works Cited Almond, Philip C. The British Discovery of Buddhism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Andreev, (Andreyev) Alexandre. Soviet Russia and Tibet: The Debacle of Secret Diplomacy, 1918–1930s. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003. Andreyev, (Andreev) Alexandre, ed. Tibet in the Earliest Photographs by Russian Travelers 1900–1901. New Delhi: Studio Orientalia, 2013. Avery, Martha. The Tea Road: China and Russia meet across the steppe. Beijing: International Press, 2003. Bareja-Starzynska, Agata. The Biography of the First Khalkha Jebtsundampa Zanabazar by Zaya Pandita Luvsanprinlei: Studies, Annotated Translation, Transliteration and Facsimile. Warsaw: no publisher stated, 2015. Bawden, C. R. The Modern History of Mongolia. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers, 1968.

30 

Alex McK ay

Bayley, Christopher. Empire and Information: Intelligence Gathering and Social Communication in India, 1780–1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Beckwith, Christopher I. Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present. Princeton, NJ/London: Princeton University Press, 2009. Berger, Patricia Ann. Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 2003. Bernstein, Anya. Religious Bodies Politic: Rituals of Sovereignty in Buryat Buddhism. Chicago, IL/London: University of Chicago Press, 2013. Bormanshinov, Arash. “Kalmyk Pilgrims to Tibet and Mongolia.” Central Asiatic Journal 42, no. 1 (1998): 1–23. Brook, Timothy, Michael van Walt van Praag, Miek Boltjes, eds. Sacred Mandates. Asian International Relations since Chinggis Khan. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2018. Bulag, Uradyn E. Collaborative Nationalism: The Politics of Friendship on China’s Mongolian Frontier. Lanham/ Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010. Cosmo, Nicola di. “Qing Colonial Administration in Inner Asia.” The International History Review 20, no. 2 (1998): 287–309. Chuluun, Sampildondov, and Uradyn E. Bulag, eds. The Thirteenth Dalai Lama on the run (1904–1906): Archival Documents from Mongolia. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Engelhardt, Isrun. “The Closing of the Gates: Tibetan-European Relations at the End of the Eighteenth Century.” In Tibet, Past and Present. Tibetan Studies 1. PIATS 2000: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Leiden 2000, edited by Henk Blezer, 229–46. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Forsyth, James. A History of the Peoples of Siberia: Russia’s North Asian Colony, 1581–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Grupper, Samuel M. “Manchu Patronage and Tibetan Buddhism during the First Half of the Ch’ing Dynasty: a review article.” The Journal of the Tibet Society (Bloomington), 4 (1984): 47–74. Heissig, Walther. The Religions of Mongolia. London: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1980. Huber, Toni. The Holy Land Reborn. Pilgrimage and the Tibetan Reinvention of Buddhist India. Chicago, IL/London: University of Chicago Press, 2008. Humphrey, Caroline, and Hürelbaatar Ujeed. A Monastery in Time: The Making of Mongolian Buddhism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2013. Inoue, Takehiko. “Reigniting communication in the Tibetan Buddhist World: The Kalmyk pilgrimages in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.” In The Resurgence of “Buddhist Government”. Tibetan-Mongolian Relations in the Modern World, edited by Ishihama Yumiko, Makoto Tachibana, Ryosuke Kobayashi, and Takehiko Inoue, 69–82. Osaka: Union Press, 2019.

Introduction

31

Ishihama Yumiko, Makoto Tachibana, Ryosuke Kobayashi, and Takehiko Inoue, eds. The Resurgence of “Buddhist Government”. Tibetan-Mongolian Relations in the Modern World. Osaka: Union Press, 2019. Jansen, Berthe. “The Monastic Guidelines (bCa’ yig) by Sidkeong Tulku: Monasteries, Sex and Reform in Sikkim.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 3.24.4 (2014): 597–622. Klieger, P. Christiaan. Tibetan Nationalism: The Role of Patronage in the Accomplishment of a National Identity. Berkeley, CA: Folklore Institute, 1992. Kobayashi, Ryōsuke. “The Political Status of Tibet and the Simla Conference (1913–14): Translated Concepts in Modern Tibet,” in Okamoto Takashi, ed. 199–215. A World History of Suzerainty: A Modern History of East and West Asia and Translated Concepts. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 2019. Lopez, Donald S. Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1998. McKay, Alex. “19th century British Expansion on the Indo-Tibetan Frontier: A Forward Perspective.” The Tibet Journal 28, no. 4 (2003): 61–76. McMahan, David L. The Making of Buddhist Modernism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Majer, Zsuzsa, and Krisztina Teleki. “Origin and Spread of Buddhism in Buryatia—A Text of Buyandalai Dooramba.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 61, no. 4 (2008): 477–497. Makato, Tachibana. “Between ‘Independence’ and ‘Autonomy.’” In Okamoto Takashi, ed. A World History of Suzerainty: A Modern History of East and West Asia and Translated Concepts. 177–98. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 2019. Mathes, K.-D. and Coura, G., eds. Nonsectarianism (ris med) in 19th- and 20th-Century Eastern Tibet: Religious Diffusion and Cross-fertilization beyond the Reach of the Central Tibetan Government. Leiden: Brill, 2021. Oka, Hiroki. “Extension of Control over the Mongols.” In Sacred Mandates: Asian International Relations Since Chingghis Khan, edited by Timothy Brook, Michael van Walt van Praag, and Mike Boltjes, 134–138. Chicago, IL/London: University of Chicago Press, 2018. Okamoto Takashi, ed. A World History of Suzerainty: A Modern History of East and West Asia and Translated Concepts. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 2019. Oye, David Schimmelpenninck van der. Russian Orientalism: Asia in the Russian Mind from Peter the Great to the Emigration. New Haven, CT & London: Yale University Press, 2010. Petech, Luciano. China and Tibet in the Early 18th Century: History of the Establishment of Chinese Protectorate in Tibet. Leiden: Brill, 1950. Powers, John, and David Templeman, eds. Historical Dictionary of Tibet. Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2012.

32 

Alex McK ay

Rayfield, Donald. The Dream of Lhasa: The Life of Nikolay Przhevalsky Explorer of Central Asia. London: Elek Books, 1976. Richards, Thomas. The Imperial Archive: Knowledge and the Fantasy of Empire. London/New York, NY: Verso, 1993. Samuel, Geoffrey. Civilized Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Society. Washington, DC/London: Smithsonian Institute Press, 2009. Saxer, Martin. “Tibetan Medicine and Russian Modernities.” In Medicine Between Science and Religion. Explorations on Tibetan Grounds, edited by V. Adams, M. Schrempf, and S. Craig, 57–82. Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2010. Schwieger, Peter. The Dalai Lama and the Emperor of China: A Political History of the Tibetan Institution of Reincarnation. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2015. Share, Michael. “The Russian Civil War in Chinese Turkestan (Xinjiang), 1918–1921: A Little Known and Explored Front.” Europe-Asia Studies 62, no. 3 (2010): 389–420. Sneath, David. “Competing Factions and Elite Power: Political Conflict in Inner Mongolia.” In Conflict and Social Order in Tibet and Inner Asia, edited by Fernanda Pirie and Toni Huber, 85–112. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Snelling, John. Buddhism in Russia: The Story of Agvan Dorzhiev, Lhasa’s Emissary to the Tsar. Shaftsbury: Element Books, 1993. Tolz, Vera. Russia’s Own Orient: The Politics of identity and Oriental Studies in the Late Imperial and Early Soviet Periods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Tsybikov, Gombozhab T. A Buddhist Pilgrim at the Shrines of Tibet. 1919. Reprint, Leiden: Brill, 2017. Tsyrempilov, Nikolay. “Kogda Rossiia priznala buddizm? V poiskakh ukaza 1741 good imperatritsy Ielizavety Petrovny ob offitsial nom priznanii buddizma rossiiskimi vlastiami” [“When did Russia recognize Buddhism? In search of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna’s 1741 decree on the official recognition of Buddhism by Russian authorities”]. Guminitarnyi vektor 3, no. 39 (2014): 96–108. ———. “From the Faith of Lamas to Global Buddhism: The Construction of Buddhist Tradition in Russian Trans-Baikal from the Eighteenth to the Early Twentieth Century.” Entangled Religions 8 (2019). https://er.ceres.rub.de/index.php/ER/ article/view/8302. Waller, Derek. The Pandits: British Exploration of Tibet and Central Asia. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1990. Wertheim, W. F. “Religious Reform Movements in south and southeast Asia.” Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions Année (1961): 53–62.

Introduction

33

About the Author Alex McKay is a retired lecturer and research fellow at London University SOAS, UCL, and the IIAS (Leiden). He is the author of four monographs, editor/co-editor of five collected works, and author of around forty-five articles on Indo-Tibetan history. Email: [email protected]

1

The Impact of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s Sojourn in Mongolia Arousing the National Consciousness of Tibetan Buddhists from 1904 to 1908 Ishihama Yumiko

Abstract In 1904, when British-Indian forces invaded Tibet, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama travelled to Mongolia and subsequently to Beijing. As Ishihama Yumiko’s paper demonstrates, his sojourn in Mongolia connected the politically divided Tibetan, Mongol, and Buryat Tibetan Buddhist communities, activated their intercommunication, and contributed to the evoking of a national consciousness among them. While this consciousness failed to amalgamate Tibetan Buddhist communities into one entity, it did establish a nationalist movement that sought to resist Russian and Chinese control. Ishihama gives particular attention to the Dalai Lama’s relationship with three Mongol hierarchs from the Khalka, Kokonor, and Buryat Buddhist communities. His impact on identity formation among these groups resulted in them devoting themselves to forging unity among their people. Keywords: Thirteenth Dalai Lama, Exile, Mongolia, Identity, Nationalism

Preamble In 1904, as British troops were closing in on Lhasa, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama left Lhasa with a few aides and headed for Mongolia, where he hoped to win the support of Russia. When this support was not forthcoming, he spent the following eight years travelling between Mongolia, Kökenuur (Qinghai 青海), Mount Wutai (Wutaishan 五台山), Beijing, and Darjeeling,

Ishihama, Y. & McKay, A. (eds.), The Early 20th Century Resurgence of the Tibetan Buddhist World. Studies in Central Asian Buddhism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi: 10.5117/9789463728645_ch01

36 

Ishihama Yumiko

until permanently returning to Lhasa after the collapse of the Qing dynasty in 1912. While the history of this period has primarily been studied in terms of the relations between Tibet and Great Britain, Qing China, and Russia, in recent years there has also begun to appear research focusing on the Thirteenth Dalai Lama himself and his relations with Mongolian Buddhism.1 As the Thirteenth Dalai Lama stated: “Peace and happiness in this world can only be maintained by preserving the faith of Buddhism,” and in the “independence decree” issued in 1913, soon after his return to Lhasa, Tibet’s politico-religious government considered the advancement of Buddhism to be intimately linked with the advancement of political objectives.2 In fact, a major reason the Dalai Lama was able to remain in Mongolia for such a long time—repeatedly ignoring the Qing court’s orders to leave—was the political power conferred on him by throngs of Mongol pilgrims and the presence of the Buryat bodyguards accompanying him in Mongolia.3 This article discusses the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s sojourn in Mongolia before he broke off relations with the Qing court in 1909. I focus on how his time in Mongolia influenced this decision, as well as its connections with Mongolia’s declaration of independence in 1911 and the conclusion of the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty in 1913. After first focusing on his religious activities, I consider the behavior of laypeople in relation to his time in Mongolia.

The Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s Moves to Tighten Monastic Discipline The Thirteenth Dalai Lama endeavored to reform the world of Mongolian Buddhism, with its relatively lax discipline, through reintroducing the scholastic Buddhism that had originally been imported from Tibet to the monasteries where he stayed. This could be regarded as the third dissemination of Geluk school teachings in Mongolia, following those during the rule of the Third and Fifth Dalai Lamas. The Composition of Monastic Constitutions Immediately after his enthronement, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama began composing “monastic constitutions” (bca’ yig) at the request of Mongolian 1 2 3

For example, see Ishihama et al., The Resurgence. Concerning the content of the decree, see sNar skyid, Gong sa skyabs mgon, 85. Wada, “Darai Lama jyusan,” discusses the sources concerning the Buryat bodyguards.

The Impact of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama’s Sojourn in Mongolia

37

monasteries. Table 1 lists the monastic constitutions attributed to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama and included in his collected works (D13-Chi) and the bca’ yig phyogs bsgrigs (CYP) that were composed prior to his return to Tibet in 1912. For each constitution, the date and place of composition and the monastery (or its location) for which the constitution was composed are also listed, if known. As shown in the table, most of his monastic constitutions were composed for monasteries in Amdo and Mongolia. In particular, the three earliest constitutions (Table 1, no. 1–3) were made for Mongolian monasteries. According to a reference in another monastery’s constitution composed in 1906 (D13-Chi: 126a6; Table 1, no. 8), Trashi Chöpel Ling (bkra shis chos ’phel gling) for which constitution no. 1 was composed was located in Ikhe Khuree (present-day Ulaan Baatar).4 The Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s biography also states that during his stay in Ikhe Khuree he engaged in debate in the monastery’s debating courtyard and mingled with the monks there, providing further evidence that this monastery lay in the vicinity of Ikhe Khuree (D13N-Ka: 403b2, 408a4–409a1, 410b5–411b5). The monastery for which constitution no. 2 was composed is thought to have been a Torghut monastery because its patron, Buyan Cokhutu, was the head of the Xinjiang Torghuts and held the title of Jurigtu Khan.5 Chakdor Kyap (phyag rdor skyabs), who built the monastery for which constitution no. 3 was composed, is thought to have been a Mongol: the name of the monastic post is given in Mongolian in the constitution, and he may have been the same person as Chagdarjav, who later became the head of Tüsheet Khan Aimag in Khalkha, Mongolia (Biography of Mongolian Officials in the Qing Dynasty (QMG): 552). The monasteries for which constitutions no. 4 and 5 were composed were both located in Central Tibet and were composed during the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s pilgrimage to Chökhorgyel (chos ’khor rgyal). After the 13th Dalai Lama left Lhasa in 1905, he composed many monastic constitutions during his sojourn in Khalkha Mongolia at Ganden Tekchen Ling (dga’ ldan theg chen gling), in Urga and at Dzayan dgon, the monastery of Jaya Pandita in Sain Noyon Aimag, while those dating to his time in Kökenuur were composed at Kumbum (sku ’bum) Monastery. Many of the monastic constitutions were composed in 1906–1907 and 1909, which may be 4 Ikhe Khuree was a settlement that had developed around the monastery of the Eighth Jebtsundamba; known in Mongolian as Yeke küriy-e (Great Community), in Tibetan as Da khral, in English as Urga, and in Chinese as Kulun 庫倫. 5 C. G. Mannerheim, a Finnish military leader and explorer, had an audience with the Khan’s mother in 1907 See Ishihama “Manneruheimu no ajia ryoko…,” 154.

38 

Ishihama Yumiko

related to his 1906 travels from Khalkha to Kökenuur, and his 1909 breaking of relations with China and return to Lhasa from Kökenuur. The monastic constitutions have a common structure. They begin with some general remarks in which various scriptures are quoted and the importance of observing the precepts is stressed. They state, for example, that “The Vinaya is the basis of the Buddha’s teaching and [is] like a field that produces all virtues” (CYP: 368) and “The Saṅgha exists when there are people who observe the precepts and no longer exists when there are no longer any such people” (CYP: 350). These general remarks are followed by enumerations of the qualities of those who hold important positions in the monastery—the abbot (mkhan po), discipline master (dge bskos), and chant master (dbu mdzad)—and of the conditions that must be met by those who wish to be ordained as monks. Then it emphasizes the need to study Buddhist doctrine and cultivate Buddhist practice to master it: “Upholding, protecting, and spreading (’dzin skyong spel) the Buddha’s teaching depends on whether one is able to undertake the teaching and learning of the Three Baskets of the Sūtras, Vinaya, and Abhidharma and the practice of the Three Trainings” (CYP: 367). Finally, it sets the spring, summer, autumn, and winter sessions and explains in detail the annual calendar of services and rituals to be performed on specific days at that monastery. The Revival of Discipline, Scholarship, and Practice Based on the same ideals as set out in these monastic constitutions, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama took the lead in debates at the monasteries where he stayed as well as denouncing monks who had violated the precepts and replacing them with other monks. In 1905, for example, the Dalai Lama reported to the Qing emperor that the Eighth Jebtsundamba was living with a woman and suggested that the emperor select a new Jebtsundamba.6 The Dalai Lama spent the winter of 1905 to the north of Ikhe Khuree in the domain of the Imperial Prince Khanddorj, who took upon the role of the patron of the Dalai Lama,7 and he instigated a revival of discipline at the prince’s monastery.

6 Ishihama et al., The Resurgence, 30–32 details the discord between the Thirteenth Dalai Lam and the Eighth Jebtsundamba. 7 His Tibetan name was mKha’ ’gro ching wang. In Guangxu 18 (1892) he succeeded to the title of Zasag Qosiguyin Imperial Prince of the Right-Wing Left Banner of Tüsheet Khan Aimag (QMG: 537).

The Impact of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama’s Sojourn in Mongolia

39

He subsequently left Khalkha and arrived at Kumbum Monastery on the fourteenth of the ninth month of the Tibetan calendar. The following day he assembled the monks in the Assembly Hall and explained the need to strictly observe the precepts. He then conferred novice’s vows on 101 monastics and full monk’s vows on 203 monastics (D13N-Kha: 12a4–b6). He composed monastic rules for the Kālacakra College, Medical College, and Tantric Colleges at Kumbum Monastery (Table 1, nos. 10, 11, 16, and 17), and while staying there he also conducted the twice-monthly poṣadha ceremony,8 participated in debates in the debating courtyard, and presided over other regular rituals at the monastery. In this fashion, he acted as a model to make the monks observe the precepts, study Buddhist doctrine, and faithfully perform their daily religious practices. The following year, in the fourth month of the Tibetan calendar, he dismissed the abbot and chief administrator of Kumbum Monastery on the grounds that they had violated the precepts, appointed Ushüdrak Tulku (U shud brag sprul sku) as the new abbot, and also appointed a new discipline master and chant master (D13N-Kha: 26b5–6). One of the monks expelled from the Kumbum Monastery on this occasion was the renowned monk Akya Khutugthu (A kya hu thog thu [Ajia Hutuketu, 阿嘉胡圖克圖]). According to the diary of Teramoto Enga 寺本婉雅, a Japanese monk from Higashi Honganji 東本願寺 who had several audiences with the Thirteenth Dalai Lama at Kumbum and Mount Wutai between 1906 and 1908, the Akya claimed that since the time of the First Akya (1633–1707), Kumbum Monastery had been under his “sovereignty,” that the buildings had been maintained with his own money, and that he would not allow even the Dalai Lama, who held the “supreme religious position,” to revise the rules of Kumbum and enforce monastic discipline without consulting him. He also demanded that the 80,000 taels (両) that he had “lent” to Kumbum over several decades be returned [if he were to be expelled].9 The two examples of the Eighth Jebtsundamba and Akya Khutugthu show that the movement to revive discipline, scholarship, and practice led by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, was often difficult to accept for local monks or religious leaders who had violated the precepts or neglected their studies.

8 gso sbyong: held on the f ifteenth and thirtieth days of the month, during which monks reflect on their behavior during the past half-month and confess and repent of any misdeeds. 9 Teramoto, Zōmō Tabi Nikki, 230.

40 

Ishihama Yumiko

The Establishment of Monasteries In conjunction with their missions to Mongolia in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries respectively, the Third and Fifth Dalai Lamas established monasteries with curricula for study and practice based on the Geluk school. In the same way, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama endeavored to establish new monasteries in places where he stayed. Thwarted Plans for a Monastery in Ikhe Khuree In December 1904, soon after his arrival at Ikhe Khuree, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama began work on a new monastery in Ikhe Khuree, appointing Lharampa Lozang Yönten (blo bzang yon tan), a monk with the lha rams pa degree who had studied in Tibet, as its abbot.10 The Qing court asked the Eighth Jebtsundamba about his views on the matter, whereupon he tacitly voiced his opposition, stating that “The 13th Dalai Lama is in charge of Buddhism in Tibet and I am in charge of Buddhism in Mongolia. Since I am unable to decide on my own, let the Qing Emperor decide” (QSD, doc. 97). The plans for a new monastery consequently came to naught, and relations between the Dalai Lama and the Eighth Jebtsundamba rapidly deteriorated. A New Monastery at Mount Wutai According to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s biography, in the month after his arrival at Mount Wutai in 1907 (in the second month of the Tibetan calendar), a Buryat Kangyur Lama and his attendant came for an audience. This lama reported that he had purchased land in Kangyur Soma 11 and was building a new monastery that he wished to present to the Dalai Lama upon its completion (D13N-Kha: 44a1–2). Four months later, on the tenth day of the sixth month of the Tibetan calendar, the Dalai Lama visited the site of the new monastery with his aides, performed a ceremony in celebration of its completion, conferred an initiation, gave a sermon, and named the new monastery Trashi Tekchen Ling (bkra shis theg chen gling). He made several further visits to the monastery in the hope that the Saṅgha and the practice of exoteric and esoteric Buddhism would flourish there (D13N-Kha: 50a2–4).

10 Chuluun, Sampildondov and Uradyn Bulag, The Thirteenth Dalai Lama, 59–62. 11 Soma (so ma) is probably a transliteration of Mongolian süm-e, which means “temple.”

The Impact of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama’s Sojourn in Mongolia

41

Further details about this monastery are found in its monastic constitution composed by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama (Table 1, no. 14), according to which he named it “Püntsok Trashi Ling (phun tshogs bkra shis gling), a monastery for the practice of both exoteric and esoteric Buddhism.”12 On the fifteenth of the seventh month of the same year, the Dalai Lama summoned the abbots of the three main monasteries in Lhasa, the geshes (dge bshes) of the two main Tantric Colleges, other geshes with a lha rams pa degree, and geshes from Lower Amdo and Mongolia and had them all engage in debate for days on end at this new monastery (CYP: 441). The Dalai Lama’s desire to make this monastery a local center of the Geluk school’s scholastic Buddhism is evident in this summoning of leading scholar-monks from Lhasa to participate in this event. A New Temple in St. Petersburg In the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s biography, the account of the presentation of this new monastery by the Buryat Kangyur Lama is followed by the Dalai Lama having an audience with the Russian consul (nang blong hong se) at Mount Wutai (D13N-Kha: 50b1–5). This meeting might be related to the construction of a new monastery in St. Petersburg. According to Alexander Andreyev (1994), in February 1906, the Buryat Dorzhiev, a close aide to the Dalai Lama, had an audience with Tsar Nikolai II where he requested permission to build a Tibetan temple in St. Petersburg. After receiving a favorable response, in May 1908 Dorzhiev had a brief audience with the Dalai Lama at Mount Wutai and was given an official letter addressed to Nikolai II that asked him to grant official permission for the construction of a temple. This letter passed through the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Pyotr Stolypin, the Minister of Internal Affairs, who approved the request. Formal permission was granted by Nikolai II on February 25, 1909. In 1909 Dorzhiev paid 30,000 roubles (50,000 silver taels of which had been donated by the Dalai Lama) to buy some land in Staraya Drevnya and started construction of the temple in April.13

12 Since both the monastic constitution and documents of the Lifanbu 理藩部 refer to this monastery as Püntsok Trashi Ling, the name Trashi Tekchen Ling given in the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s biography is probably an error. 13 For further details on the circumstances surrounding the construction of this Tibetan temple in St. Petersburg, see Andreyev, “The Buddhist Temple.”

42 

Ishihama Yumiko

Lay Reactions to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama Next, let us consider the reactions of lay Buddhists to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s movements and sojourns. Despite leaving Tibet in utmost secrecy with only a few aides, during his travels the Dalai Lama was always escorted by Mongol princes. After his arrival in Khalkha he encountered great throngs of Mongol and especially Buryat pilgrims, and their political and economic support gave him the freedom to act contrary to the wishes of the Qing court. In this section, I describe the activities of Mongol Buddhists according to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s biography, focusing on the Khuluk Beise of Kökenuur, the Buryat Dylykov, and Khanddorj of Khalkha, all of whom the Dalai Lama remained in contact with even after he left the areas under their control. All dates that are drawn from the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s biography follow the Tibetan calendar. Escorted by the Khuluk Beise from Tsaidam to the Khalkha Border (1904) According to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s biography, his departure from Lhasa had become widely known by the time he reached Nakchu (nag chu), and once he crossed the border he was joined by Mongolian princes from different groups, or banners. Table 2 summarizes information about the twenty-eight banners of Kökenuur included in official documents dated December 1 (1910),14 indicating that the Kökenuur princes who received the Thirteenth Dalai Lama belonged to four of the five banners that Przhevalsky called the “five banners of Tsaidam,” i.e., the Kurlyk, Baron, Dzun, Kuku-Beile and Taidzhi banners.15 The leaders of these banners were all descendants of Güshi Khan, who assisted with the establishment of the Dalai Lama’s government in 1642. When he crossed the border out of Tibet on the twenty-third of the seventh month, the Dalai Lama was first received by the Zasag (dza sag:jasaγ) of the Taiji Nor (tha’i ji nor) banner (Table 2, no. 10);16 two days later, he was joined 14 Zhecang and Cairang, Qingdai qinghai mengguzu, 170–183. 15 The designation “five banners of Tsaidam” appears in Przhevalsky’s account of his expedition to Kökenuur in 1870–73; see Przhevalsky, Монголія и страна тангутовъ, 298. 16 In Table 2, Zasag names, banner names, the age of each banner’s Zasag, and each banner’s population in December (1910) are based on Qingdai qinghai mengguzu dangan shiliao jibian docs. 80 & 81. The kinships between the 1st Zasags and Güshi Khan are based on dpag bsam ljon bzang (PSJZ) 310ab. “A” indicates a son of Güshi Khan, “B” a grandson, “C” a great-grandson, and “D” a great-great-grandson. Thus, A1B2, for example, signifies the second son of Güshi Khan’s

The Impact of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama’s Sojourn in Mongolia

43

by the Zasags of the Barong (sba rong) (Table 2, no. 21) and Dzun (rdzun) banner (Table 2, no. 17); on the twenty-seventh he was met by the Khuluk Beise (khu lug pa’i se) and his son from Kökenuur and the former Zasag of the Taiji Nor banner (D13N-Ka: 395a5); and on the first day of the eighth month he entered a reception tent prepared by the Khuluk Beise (Table 2, no. 4; D13N-Ka: 396a2). The Khuluk Beise spent most of the following month with the Dalai Lama and ordered bodyguards under his control to escort the Thirteenth Dalai Lama across the Tsaidam Basin to where the Khalkha prince would receive him. This means that the Khuluk Beise can be said to have provided the most important support for the Dalai Lama during his journey from Kökenuur to the Khalkha. The Khuluk Beise’s name was Namdanchoikhür (rnam ’dren chos skor). He came from the north left-wing banner of the Khoshud of Kökenuur, and his father Gönpo Tseten (mgon po tshe brtan) had been head of the left wing in the years 1897–1901 (Guangxu 光緒 23–27). The Khuluk Beise remained in frequent contact with the Dalai Lama’s court, and after the Khalkha princes enthroned the Eighth Jebtsundamba in December 1911 and declared independence, he expressed the Kökenuur Mongols’ willingness to participate in the government of the Eighth Jebtsundamba.17 Later, in 1915, the Kökenuur Mongols came under the control of the Muslim warlord Ma Qi (馬麒), but the Khuluk Beise continued to liaise with the courts of the Eighth Jebtsundamba and Thirteenth Dalai Lama.18 The Journey to Ikhe Khuree (1904–1906) After spending several days in Anxi (安西) (present-day Gansu province), the Dalai Lama headed north across the desert and on the first day of the ninth month met up with an emissary of the Yungdrung Beise (g-yung drung pa’i si),19 Zasag of the left-wing rear banner of Zasagtu Khan Aimag, at a place called Shaholibi (Sha ho li pi) (D13N-Ka: 398a3). Thereafter the princes and lamas of Khalkha took charge of the Dalai Lama’s reception, and on the nineteenth of the ninth month the steward of Lama Gegen (bla ma’i dge rgan, a.k.a. Erdeni Pandita Qutugtu), one of the three great incarnate lamas eldest son. The figures in the population column represent not the number of households, but the actual population, combining the numbers of adult men, adult women, and children (boys and girls). 17 Tachibana, Mongoru dokuritsu, 21–23. 18 Ishihama, “Nijyu seiki shotō tibetto,” 39–43. 19 g-Yung drung rdo rje. In Guangxu 15 (1889) he succeeded to the title of Zasag Bulwark Duke with the rank of Beise (MUS: 124, map 20).

44 

Ishihama Yumiko

of Khalkha, along with an emissary from the head (t’a wang) of Sain Noyon Aimag20 and the guide Tholamche Janggin, a subordinate of the Khuluk Beise, each offered in welcome one of the three supports (a Buddha statue, a Buddhist scripture, and a stūpa). On the following day (the twentieth of the ninth month) the Dalai Lama was received by the deputy head (de de t’a wang) of Sain Noyon Aimag21 and Duke Trashi Dorje22 (D13N-Ka: 399b6), and on the twenty-ninth of the ninth month Sain Noyon (Namnansüren)23 himself offered the three supports to the Dalai Lama in welcome. The next day, on the thirtieth, emissaries from the Eighth Jebtsundamba arrived in grand style from Ikhe Khuree. On the third day of the tenth month, emissaries from the Manchu and Mongol Ambans in Ikhe Khuree, the head (d’a ba’i si) of Tüsheet Khan Aimag,24 and Noyon Qutugtu (a.k.a. Jaya Pandita), the second of the three great incarnate lamas of Khalkha, arrived. The following day, an emissary from the Tüsheet Khan arrived and, welcomed by rows of monks, the Dalai Lama entered the settlement (khuree) of Sain Noyon. After being seen off by Sain Noyon on the eleventh day of the tenth month (D13N-Ka: 402b4), the Dalai Lama finally reached Ikhe Khuree. He was welcomed with offerings by the entire monkhood of Ikhe Khuree and made his way to the Hall of Sunlight (nyi ’od) that had been prepared for him in the grounds of Ganden Monastery by the four aimags of Khalkha (D13N-Ka: 404b2). Those who received him included the Eighth Jebtsundamba and his wife Dondogdulam (don ’grub lha mo), who was commonly referred to as the “secret consort White Tārā.”25 On the twenty-seventh of the tenth month, the Dalai Lama performed an initiation ceremony for Khanddorj and a simplified initiation ceremony 20 Chos srung skyabs. In Guangxu 4 (1878) he succeeded to the title of Zasag Toruyin Commander Prince of the Right-Wing Left Rear Banner of Sain Noyon Aimag, and in Guangxu 24 (1898) he was appointed head of Sain Noyon Aimag (QMG: 725, 755). 21 Gur mgon skyabs, Commander Prince. In Guangxu 18 (1892) he succeeded to the title of Zasag Toruyin Commander Prince of the Centre Right Banner of Sain Noyon Aimag, and in Guangxu 32 (1906) he was appointed deputy head of Sain Noyon Aimag (QMG: 726, 745, map 47). 22 Gung bkra shis rdo rje. In Tongzhi 同治 13 (1874) he succeeded to the title of Zasag Bulwark Duke of the Right-Wing Last Banner of Sain Noyon Aimag (QMG: 775, map 45). 23 In Guangxu 22 (1896) he succeeded to the title of Zasag Qosiguyin Imperial Prince of Sain Noyon Aimag (QMG: 731, map 49). 24 ’Phags lam rdo rje? Zasag of the Centre Left Banner of Tüsheet Khan Aimag. In Guangxu 20 (1894) he was promoted to the rank of Beise, and in Guangxu 25 (1899) he was appointed head of Tüsheet Khan Aimag (QMG: 519, 552). 25 gsang yum tsha khang rdar; tsha khang rdar is a Tibetan transliteration of Caγan dara (White Tārā). This was a sobriquet of Dondogdulam, who was installed as the Eighth Jebtsundamba’s consort in 1911.

The Impact of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama’s Sojourn in Mongolia

45

(phyag dbang) for thirty people, including the Chimeddelek Beise (pa’i si ’chi med bde legs) of Sain Noyon Aimag.26 He also performed a longevity initiation for Setsen Khan (tshe tshing hang)27 on the second day of the eleventh month and for Duke Namsrai (gung rnam sras)28 on the twelfth day of the same month. To sum up, the Dalai Lama passed through Tsaidam and entered Khalkha via the banner of the Yungdrung Beise, situated in the southeast corner of Zasagtu Khan Aimag, and then passed through Sain Noyon Aimag to enter Ikhe Khuree in Tüsheet Khan Aimag. He thus took what was moreor-less the shortest route from Lhasa to Ikhe Khuree, being received by the three great lamas of Khalkha (Jaya Pandita, Erdeni Pandita, and the Eighth Jebtsundamba) and the highest-ranking princes of Khalkha as he travelled northwards, and after his arrival in Ikhe Khuree the highest-ranking princes of the three aimags of Tüsheet Khan, Setsen Khan, and Sain Noyon came to request religious instruction from him. The Dalai Lama’s Sojourn in Khalkha Mongolia (1904–1905) According to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s biography, shortly before he reached Ikhe Khuree the Dalai Lama was met by six hundred Russian pilgrims (ru yul mi) at a place called Cheka (bye ka) (D13N-ka: 402b5). It is highly likely that this is the same event described in Russian official documents for November 18, 1904, in which he was received by Iroltuev, the Bandido Khambo Lama, the leader of Buddhist circles in Buryatia at the time.29 Thereafter the size of the crowds begins to be recorded in units of thousands, and on the twenty-third day of the tenth month the Dalai Lama gave one thousand people a simplified initiation with a narrow ribbon (dar dpyangs) while several tens of thousands of people are said to have received initiation in between the Dalai Lama’s sermons held a month later from the seventeenth to the twenty-second of the twelfth month. Setting aside the question of whether these figures are accurate, it is evident that the number of pilgrims flocking to see the Dalai Lama increased day by day. According to a report by the Amban Yanzhi ( 延祉), the chief Mongol official of the Qing administration in Ikhe Khuree, 26 In Guangxu 12 (1886) he succeeded to the title of Zasag Beile Prince of the Ööld Rear Banner of Sain Noyon Aimag (QMG: 805, map 58). 27 bde mchog rdo rje. In Guangxu 19 (1893) he succeeded to the title of Khan of the Khan Banner of Setsen Khan Aimag (QMG: 590–591). 28 In Guangxu 18 (1892) he succeeded to the title of Zasag and Taiji of the first degree of the Left-Wing Last Banner of Tüsheet Khan Aimag (MUS: 23). 29 Shaumian, Tibet: The Great Game, 93–94.

46 

Ishihama Yumiko

sanctioned by the Emperor on April 4, 1905, 70 to 80 percent of the pilgrims were Buryats from across the border (QSD: doc. 108). In April 1905 the Dalai Lama’s aides began to look for backing from countries other than Russia, which had not responded to the Dalai Lama’s request for support. For example, they proposed appealing to the International Peace Conference that was to be held in The Hague.30 Kozlov, who had an audience with the Dalai Lama on July 5 in his capacity as representative of the Russian Royal Geographical Society, reports that throngs of pilgrims from Inner and Outer Mongolia all praised the Dalai Lama’s probity and that the Eighth Jebtsundamba, who had lost popularity to the Dalai Lama, was in ill humor and had retired to a temple on the outskirts of Ikhe Khuree without officially meeting the Dalai Lama.31 Dylykov,32 who acted as an interpreter during Kozlov’s audience with the Dalai Lama, had taken over Dorzhiev’s duties after the latter had left for St. Petersburg to seek Russian support. Dylykov was one of the more enlightened leaders among the princes of the Aginsk Buryats, and he had accompanied Dorzhiev during his audience with Nikolai II at the Winter Palace on February 28, 1898. Hereafter Dylykov is frequently mentioned in the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s biography under the name of Namdak Noyon (rnam dag no yon). On the seventeenth day of the seventh month of the Wood-Snake year (1905), the Dalai Lama left Ikhe Khuree to spend the winter in Khanddorj’s banner (D13N-Ka: 416a6). Khanddorj’s bannerlands were closer to the Russian border than Ikhe Khuree, so this was probably convenient for the Dalai Lama, who was waiting for a reply from Russia regarding its support of Tibet. The Dalai Lama remained in Khanddorj’s banner for half a year and tightened discipline at his monastery in Khuree (D13N-Kha: 417b3–5; Boldbaatar 1994: 28). After playing a prominent role in escorting the Dalai Lama during his sojourn in Khalkha, Khanddorj kept in contact with the Dalai Lama’s court as it moved on. The Dalai Lama’s Sojourn at Kumbum Monastery (1906–1907) Once it was established that, due to both internal and external problems, Russia would be unable to support Tibet,33 on the twenty-seventh of the first 30 Belov, Rossiia i Tibet, doc. 39; Secret telegram sent by the Russian consul Lyuba in Ikhe Khuree. 31 Ishihama et al., The Resurgence, 23–24. 32 For further details on Dylykov, see Zhalsanova, “Namdak Dylykov.” 33 After being defeated in the Russo-Japanese War and weakened by the revolution of 1905, Russia had little appetite for supporting Tibet, which would have worsened its relations with Great Britain and Qing China (Belov, Rossiia i Tibet, docs. 54–55).

The Impact of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama’s Sojourn in Mongolia

47

month of the following Fire-Horse year (1906) the Thirteenth Dalai Lama left Khalkha and began travelling south towards Kökenuur. He refused to follow the route set out by the Qing court; he traveled only with the support of Mongol princes, as he had during his journey to Ikhe Khuree, and was escorted by Buryats disguised as Mongols.34 During this trip he passed through important localities in Khalkha including Erdene Zuu Monastery, a renowned monastery near the ancient capital of the Mongol Empire, and the communities of Jaya Pandita and Sain Noyon, eventually arriving at Kumbum Monastery in Kökenuur on the fourteenth of the ninth month to a grand welcome by the monks. According to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s biography, on the thirtieth day of the tenth month—about a month after his arrival at Kumbum—an emissary from Khalkha by the name of Monk Official Ngawang Chödzin (rtse drung ngag dbang chos ’dzin) came to take leave of the Dalai Lama (thon phyag). In the text of the Mongol–Tibetan Treaty of 1913, this name follows Dorzhiev as one of the Tibetan signatories.35 Towards the end of the same year emissaries from the Khuluk Beise and Khanddorj brought letters and gifts for the Dalai Lama (D13N-Kha: 18b4; see Table 3, no. 12), and in the fourth month of the following Fire-Sheep year (1907) the Khuluk Beise himself arrived.36 Soon after, the record shows that the Dalai Lama transmitted various teachings to the abbot of a monastery of which Khanddorj was the patron (D13N-Kha: 24a6–b1; see Table 3, no. 13). The fact that emissaries of the Khuluk Beise and Khanddorj arrived on the same day and that the Khuluk Beise and Khanddorj’s abbot lama are mentioned in an entry on the same day may suggest that these two leaders shared information with each other and acted in concert. The Dalai Lama’s Sojourn at Mount Wutai (1908) On December 31 in 1907, considering the possibility of directly negotiating with the Qing Emperor, the Dalai Lama left Kumbum (QSD: doc. 149) and arrived at Mount Wutai on the eighteenth of the second month of Guangxu 34 (20 March 1908) (QSD: doc. 154).

34 On Buryats disguised as Mongols, see Wada, “Darai Lama jyusan.” 35 On Tibetan text of the Mongol-Tibet Treaty, see Tashi Tsering 2013, 102. 36 On the twenty-first of the eighth month of the same year, one of the Khuluk Beise’s subordinates joined a monk from the Taiji Nor banner to present the three supports to the Dalai Lama.

48 

Ishihama Yumiko

On the twelfth of the first month of the Earth-Monkey year, shortly before his arrival at Mount Wutai, the Dalai Lama was received by Dylykov and an emissary of the Kangyur Lama, who like Dylykov was a Buryat (D13N-Kha: 39b5–6; see Table 3, no. 16). Then, on the eighteenth of the same month he arrived at Pusading (菩薩頂), the main temple at Mount Wutai, being welcomed by all the monks headed by Jassag Lama, the highest-ranking lama at Mount Wutai (D13N-Kha: 40b5–6). In the same month, with Dylykov acting as patron, the Dalai Lama performed a longevity initiation for a tribute envoy from the Amban in Ikhe Khuree and others in the Assembly Hall of Pusading (D13N-Kha: 42a2–3). In the second month of the same year, he received tribute offerings from an emissary from Khanddorj and, according to the next entry, performed an empowerment rite for an elderly Buryat (D13N-Kha: 43b2–3; see Table 3, no. 19). On the seventeenth of the third month Khanddorj himself made an appearance (D13N-Kha: 44b6–45b2; see Table 3, no. 20), and in the fourth month Khanddorj read out a bilingual edict in Manchu and Mongolian that had arrived from the Empress Dowager and the Guangxu Emperor (D13N-Kha: 46a6–b3). On June 26, 1908, the Russian explorer Mannerheim had an audience with the Dalai Lama, and he notes that the Dalai Lama told him that many people were coming from Tibet to ask him to return and that he was undecided about whether he should go to Beijing.37 From these details, it can be surmised that during his sojourn at Mount Wutai the Dalai Lama not only worked to promote Buddhism but also held talks with scholar-monks from Tibet, as well as with Khanddorj, Dylykov and others about future moves, including a potential visit to Beijing. In the third month, Khanddorj’s steward and Dylykov bade farewell to the Dalai Lama at the same time (D13N-Kha: 45b1–2; see Table 3, no. 21). Failed Negotiations with the Qing Court On September 28, 1908, the Dalai Lama arrived in Beijing from Mount Wutai. The Qing court’s treatment showed a lack of any respect for the Dalai Lama—a completely different reaction from its treatment of the Fifth Dalai Lama in 1652. The Qing authorities demanded that any meetings between the Dalai Lama and foreigners must be conducted in the presence of Chinese officials,38 and in general required reports on each of the Dalai Lama’s movements. According to the Neiting zhen cha dalai baogao (內廳 偵査達賴報告), which lists the Dalai Lama’s visitors, he was visited almost 37 Mannerheim, Across Asia, 765. 38 Teichmann, Travels of a Consular Officer, 14.

The Impact of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama’s Sojourn in Mongolia

49

daily by princes from Inner Mongolia and foreign diplomats. On October 15 (the twenty-first of the ninth month of the lunar calendar), he was visited by Khanddorj (Handa Qinwang 罕達親王) and seven Buryats (see Table 3, no. 25). This indicates that Khanddorj and the Buryats collaborated not only at Mount Wutai but also in Beijing. The official reason for the Dalai Lama’s visit to Beijing was to offer prayers for the Empress Dowager’s longevity on her birthday, but ironically the Emperor died on November 14 and the Empress Dowager died the following day. After performing the funeral services for both, the Dalai Lama hurriedly left Beijing on December 21. According to his biography, on the twenty-ninth of the twelfth month of the Tibetan calendar he arrived at Kumbum (D13N-Kha: 63b3–4), where the Khuluk Beise’s wife attended the New Year’s audience for the Earth-Bird year (1909) immediately afterward (D13N-Kha: 64a4–b1). The Dalai Lama’s Return to Lhasa After his departure from Beijing the Dalai Lama was subsequently given a derogatory title by the Qing court in Kumbum. He decided to break off relations with the Qing court, and on the fourteenth day of the fourth month he left Kumbum for Lhasa (D13N-Kha: 68b6–69a4).39 Four days later, on the eighteenth, he was visited by an emissary from Khanddorj—indicating that his intentions must have been promptly conveyed to Khanddorj (D13N-Kha: 69b1). Seven days later, on the twenty-fifth of the same month, Tserendondov (tshe ring don grub), the Head of the Koke Beile banner (Table 2, no. 3), visited the Dalai Lama privately (D13N-Kha: 70a6–b1). Two years later, in 1911, there was a dispute between Choikhürsenge (chos skor seng nge) and Lhawangregjin (ngag dbang rig ‘dzin) over the succession to the position of Zasag of this Koke Beile banner. After losing this dispute, on January 24, 1916 Lhawangregjin asked the Eighth Jebtsundamba to secure his position for him. 40 As the grounds for his legitimacy, Lhawangregjin stated that when the Thirteenth Dalai Lama was returning from Beijing to Tibet in the Wood-Bird year (1909), Tserendondov had introduced him to the Dalai Lama as his own son (presumably at the same audience on the twenty-fifth of 39 Ishihama 2019, 83–106 details the issue over the Dalai Lama’s title 40 D13N-Kha: 72b1–2. His title in the text of the treaty is given as “Yeshe Gyamtso, manager of loan-interest in Khuree and monk-official” (khu ral dngul skyes do dam rtse drung ye shes rgya mtsho). Regarding the Mongol-Tibet Treaty see Tashi Tsering, The Centennial, 102.

50 

Ishihama Yumiko

the fourth month). He also stated that there was a letter that “His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Khan of Tibet” had given him on the twenty-seventh of the seventh month of the Wood-Tiger year (1914), and that his political enemies were colluding with the Chinese.41 Lhawangregjin’s argument indicates that in the Eighth Jebtsundamba’s government the Dalai Lama’s authority was held in higher regard than that of the Chinese government. In the fifth month, at a place called Shorgo (gshor sgo), the Dalai Lama’s party met a group of monks and politicians who had been dispatched from Tibet to welcome him (D13N-Kha: 72a4–b2). One of the members of this group was “monk-official (rtse drung) Sharchi Yeshe Gyamtso (shar spyi ye rgya), manager (do dam) of bank holdings in Khalkha,” who would later be the third Tibetan signatory of the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty concluded on January 11, 1911. 42 Rtse drung was the title given a clerical official in the Tibetan government, indicating that the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s assets in Khalkha were directly managed by officials sent from Lhasa. On the eighteenth of the fifth month emissaries from the Khuluk Beise and others arrived (D13N-Kha: 73a4–5), and after another two days’ journey the Dalai Lama was received by Tserendondov, head of the Koke Beile banner, among others (D13N-Kha: 73a5–6). During a meal at Chunaka (Chu nag ka), the Khuluk Beise and Aman Noyon requested a “private audience” (nang lugs kyi mjal ’phrad) with the Dalai Lama (D13N-Kha: 73b2). The following day, at the request of the Khuluk Beise and his father Gönpo Tseten, the former head of the left wing of Kökenuur, the Dalai Lama conferred on father and son the novice’s precepts (dge bsnyen gyi tshul khrims) (D13N-Kha: 73b2–6), and on the twenty-sixth he gave them both short-term and long-term instructions. In addition, a rite for the Dalai Lama’s longevity (brtan bzhugs) was performed with the Khuluk Beise’s entire banner acting as patron, and they all chanted Avalokiteśvara’s mantra in unison (D13N-Kha: 74a4–6). Next, Yeshe Gyamtso, the “new manager of bank holdings in Khalkha,” and others came to take their leave of the Dalai Lama. Since Yeshe Gyamtso is here referred to as the “new manager,” he probably left for Khalkha from there. In the sixth month, the Khuluk Beise and others left for home, later sending escorts to accompany the Dalai Lama (D13N-Kha: 74a6–b2, 75a1). Thus, during the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s return journey to Tibet escorts provided by the Khuluk Beise also played a prominent role. In the late Qing period when the Thirteenth Dalai Lama travelled through Kökenuur, the Ööld of Kökenuur to which the Khuluk Beise belonged was 41 Tachibana, “Mongoru dokuritsu,” 24-29 discusses the source. 42 See Tashi Tsering 2013, 102.

The Impact of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama’s Sojourn in Mongolia

51

in a state of extreme decline. As is shown in the population figures of the twenty-eight banners of Kökenuur in 1909 given in Table 2, the population of both the left and right wings was declining; apart from the banners of the Khuluk Beise on the left wing and the Prince of Henan on the right wing, none of the banners could be described as true banners with such a small population. Perhaps because the Khuluk Beise’s banner was comparatively wealthy and also because his reputation had grown as a result of having sponsored a service for the Dalai Lama, in 1912 when the Kökenuur Mongols declared their allegiance to the Bogd Khaan government it was the Khuluk Beise who acted on behalf of the Kökenuur princes. Once the Dalai Lama reached Nakchu, which was under the direct control of the Tibetan government, he was received by a succession of delegations sent by the Tibetan government, and on the ninth of the eleventh month of the Tibetan calendar he arrived in Lhasa after an absence of five years (D13N-Kha: 85a5–b5). Two days later, on the eleventh, he assumed an original new title conferred “by Tibetan Gods and People” in the Potala Palace and thereby rejected the title conferred by the Qing court.43 Early in the following Iron-Dog year (1910) he eluded the Chinese Sichuan Army and hurriedly escaped to Darjeeling in British India. During his stay in India he was unable to meet freely with visitors due to the Indian government’s desire to avoid international complications (D13N-Kha: 102a2–3), and consequently there are almost no references to visitors in the Dalai Lama’s biography from that time.

Conclusion In 1911 seven Mongol princes, including Khanddorj, set out for St. Petersburg to gain Russian support for Mongolia’s independence. On December 1, 1911, the Eighth Jebtsundamba was enthroned as the Bogd Khaan and Mongolia declared independence, with Khanddorj becoming its first Minister of Foreign Affairs. In the following year Khuluk Beise and the leading princes of the Kökenuur Mongols declared their participation in the Eighth Jebtsundamba’s government. The Kökenuur Mongols’ quick response seems strange considering that they were not sharing a border with Khalkha, but it is not at all surprising, given the relationship between Khanddorj and the Khuluk Beise ascertained above.

43 Ishihama et al, The Resurgence, 83–106,

52 

Ishihama Yumiko

At the end of 1912, following the expulsion of Qing troops from Lhasa, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama was able to return permanently to the Potala Palace. On January 11, 1913, the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty was concluded at Ikhe Khuree between the Tibetan representative Dorzhiev and the Mongol representative Chimeddorj (Khanddorj, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, was absent in Russia). In the first and second articles of the treaty, Mongolia and Tibet recognize each other’s independence; in the following articles they undertook to support each other both politically and economically, with their common religious beliefs acting as a bond. While there has been much debate about the treaty’s validity in international law, it cannot be denied that Mongolia and Tibet, the two parties to the treaty, promised to cooperate with each other based on their religious ties. The biography of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama records that the Mongols strengthened their sense of solidarity by providing him with various forms of support during his time in Mongolia. Russian official documents from around the same time also note that feelings of transregional solidarity among Mongols were born as they welcomed the Dalai Lama. 44 Specifically, the Buryat Dylykov, Khanddorj of Khalkha, and the Khuluk Beise of Kökenuur—all influential princes from widely separated regions—first came into contact with each other through their activities in the Dalai Lama’s court, and all three of them played important roles in the subsequent currents of nationalism. The Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s sojourn in Mongolia reconnected followers of Tibetan Buddhism who had been divided by the Russian and Qing empires, revitalized the contacts between them, and awakened their feelings of national consciousness. Although this national consciousness did not lead to the formation of a transregional state of Tibetan Buddhists, there can be no doubt that it vitalized national movements against Qing China and Russia.

Bibliography thub bstan rgya mtsho. mdo smad lumbi ‘i dga’ tshal gnyis pa chos sde chen po sku ‘bum byams pa gling gi dge ‘dun rnams kyi blang dor khrims su bca’ ba’i rim pa sogs bod dang bod chen po’i chos sde khag la stsal ba’i bca’ yig gi rim pa phyogs gcig tu bkod pa ‘dul ba ‘bum sde’i dgongs don rnam par bkra ba’i dvangs shel me long [The Collected Works of Dalai Lama XIII], vol. 4: 3–269. (D13-Chi)

44 Belov, Rossiia i Tibet, doc. 61.

The Impact of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama’s Sojourn in Mongolia

53

———. bod dang bod chen po’i ljongs su ‘khod pa’i skye ‘gro rnams la lugs gnyis kyi blang dor bslab bya’i rta thig stsal ba’i rim pa phyogs bkod lha’i rnga dbyangs [The Collected Works of Dalai Lama XIII], vol. 4: 271–407. (D13-Ji) thub bstan byams pa tshul khrims bstan ‘dzin. lhar bcas srid zhi’i gtsug rgyan gong sa rgyal ba’i dbang po bka’ drin mtshungs med sku pheng bcu gsum pa chen po’i rnam par thar pa rgya mtsho lta bu las mdo tsham brjod ngo mtshar rin po che’i phreng ba., reproduced by rgyal dbang sku phreng rim byon gyi mdzad rnam sku phreng bcu gsum pa thub bstan rgya mtsho’i rnam thar [Śata-Piṭaka Series], vols. 288–289. New Delhi, 1936–1937. (D13N-ka, kha) sNar skyid ngag dbang don grub. Gong sa skyabs mgon rgyal dbang sku ‘phreng bcu gsum pa chen po’i mdzad rnam snying btus, [A biography of the great 13th Supreme Protector (Dalai Lama)]. LTWA: Dharamsala, 2008. Xizang zizhiqu dangan guan西蔵自治区档案館 [Archives of Tibet Autonomous Region], ed. bca’ yig phyogs bsgrigs. bod sa gnas kyi lo rgyus dpe tshogs. Lhasa: xizang renmin chubanshe 西蔵人民出版社 [The Tibet People’s Publishing House], Lhasa: 2001. (CYP) ye shes dpal ‘byor, sum pa mkhan po. ‘phags yul rgya nag chen po bod dang sog yul du dam pa’i chos ‘byung tshul dpag bsam ljon bzang [Śata-Piṭaka Series], vol. 212. New Delhi, 1979. (PSJZ) Andreyev, Alexander. “The Buddhist Temple in Petersburg and the Russo-Tibetan Rapprochement.” In Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies vol. 1, edited by Per Kvaerne, 1–6. Oslo: The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, 1994. Bao kui jing 包桂芹. Qindai Menggu guanli chuan 清代蒙古官吏传 [Biography of Mongolian Officials in the Qing Dynasty]. Minzu chubanshe民族出版社 [The Ethnic Publishing House], Beijing: 1995. (QMG) Belov [Белов], E. A., ed. Россия и Тибет: сборник русских архивных документов 1900–1914 [Russia and Tibet: Collection of Russian Archival Documents 1900–1914]. Восточная литература [Oriental Literature], St. Petersburg: 2005. Boldbaatar [Болдбаатар], Zhigzhidiĭn. Erdene Daichin Chin Van Khanddorzh, Эрдэнэ дайчин чин ван Ханддорж [Biography of Erdeni Daicin Khanddorj]. Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Press, 1994. ———. Khoshoi Chin Van Khanddorzh [Imperial Prince Khanddorj] Ulaanbaatar: Ulaanbaatar deed surguul, 2003. Chuluun, Sampildondov and Uradyn E. Bulag, eds. The Thirteenth Dalai Lama on the Run (1904–1906): Archival Documents from Mongolia. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013. Hua yi zhi華一之, ed. Qinghai minzu shi rumen 青海民族史入門 [Introduction to Qinghai National History]. Xining: Qinghai renmin chubanshe 青海人民出 版社 [Qinghai People’s Publishing House], 1987.

54 

Ishihama Yumiko

Ishihama, Yumiko 石濱 裕美子. Chibetto Bukkyō Sekai no Rekishiteki Kenkyū チベ ット仏教世界の歴史的研究 [A Study of the History of Tibetan Buddhist World]. Tokyo: 東方書店Tōhō Shoten, 2001. ———. “Manneruheimu no ajia ryoko kanren siryō to soreni motozuku chibetto bukkyōto no dōkō ni tsuite” マンネルヘイムのアジア旅行関連資料とそれに基 づくチベット仏教徒の動向について [“Photographs and antiquities of Tibetan Buddhism taken from Central Asia by C. G. Mannerhiem in 1908 and interaction among Tibetan Buddhists beyond borders”]. Nairiku ajiashi kenkyū 内陸アジア 史研究 [Inner Asian History studies], 31, no. 3(2016): 145–163. ———. “Darai rama 13 sei no sōin no kōki shukusei to sono igi ni tsuite” ダライラ マ13世の僧院の綱紀粛正とその意義について [“The Enforcement of a Monastic Discipline and Education Program by the 13th Dalai Lama and its significance”]. Ōmon Ronsō 桜文論叢 96(2018): 193–216. ———. “Nijyu seiki shotō tibetto to Mongoru wo musunda futarino mongoru ōkō” 20世紀初頭、チベットとモンゴルを結んだ二人のモンゴル王公 カンドー親王と クルルク貝子 [“Two Mongolian Princes, Hand-Qingwang and Kurlyk-Beise, who bridged Tibet and Mongol in the early 20th century”]. Waseda Daigakudaigakuin kyōikugaku kenkyūka kiyō早稲田大学大学院教育学研究科紀要[The Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education of Waseda University], 29 (2019): 33–46. Ishihama, Yumiko, Makoto Tachibana, Ryosuke Kobayashi, and Takehiko Inoue, eds. The Resurgence of “Buddhist Government”. Tibetan-Mongolian Relations in the Modern World. Osaka: Union Press, 2019. Kozlov, Petr. “Tibetskii dalai-lama.” Istoricheskii vestnik 1(1907): 230–249. Mannerheim, C. G. Across Asia from West to East in 1906–1908. Helsinki: Otava Publishing Company, 2008. Ochir, A, Lonzhid, Z., & Tōrbat, Ts. eds. А. Очир, З. Лонжид, Ц. Төрбат,Зарлигаар тогтосон Монгол Улсын щастирын хураангуй [Of itsial’naya biograf iya knyazey i lam pravitel’stva Bogd-khana] [Authorized biography of princes and lamas of Bogd Khan government]. Монгол Улсын Шинжлэх Ухааны Академийн Түүхий Хүрэээлэн Улсын нийтний номын сан [Institute of History of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences National Public Library], Ulanbator: 1997. [MUS] Przhevalsky, Nikolai. Монголія и страна тангутовъ [Mongoliya i strana tangutov] [Mongolia and the country of the Tanguts]. St. Petersburg: V. S. Balashev, 1875. Shaumian, Tatiana. Tibet: The Great Game and Tsarist Russia. Oxford/New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000. Snelling, John. Buddhism in Russia: The Story of Agvan Dorzhiev, Lhasa’s Emissary to the Tsar. Shaftsbury, Dorset: Element Books, 1993. Sperling, Elliot. “The Thirteenth Dalai Lama at Wutai Shan: Exile and Diplomacy.” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies 6(2011): 389–410.

The Impact of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama’s Sojourn in Mongolia

55

Tachibana, Makoto 橘誠. Bogudo haan seiken no kenkyū ボグド ▪ ハーン政権の 研究 [A Study of the Bogd Khaan’s Administration: History of state-building in Mongolia, 1911–1921]. Tokyo: Kazama shobō風間書房, 2011. ———. “Mongoru dokuritsu to Seikai Mongoru: Nishikōki no zasagu keishō mondai to Bogudo haan seiken no taiou wo chūsin ni” モンゴル独立と青海モンゴル: 西後旗のザサグ継承問題とボグド ▪ ハーン政権の対応を中心に [“Mongolian and Independent Mongols: With a Focus on the Struggle for Succession to Zasag in the West−Rear Banner and the Response of the Bogd Khaan Government”]. Nairiku ajiashi kenkyū 内陸アジア史研究 27(2012): 19–33. Tashi Tsering, ed. The Centennial of the Tibeto–Mongol Treaty, 1913–2013. Lungta 17, Dharamsala: Amnye Machen Institute, 2013. Teichman, Eric, Travels of a Consular Officer in Eastern Tibet. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1922. Teramoto, Enga 寺本婉雅. Zōmō Tabi Nikki 藏蒙旅日記 [A diary of travels to Tibet and Mongolia]. Tokyo: Fuyō Shobō 芙蓉書房, 1974. Wada, Daichi 和田大知. “Darai rama jyusan sei no idō kikan 1904–1909” ダライ ▪ ラ マ十三世の移動期間[一九〇四-一九〇九]におけるブリヤート人との関係に ついて [“The relationship between the 13th Dalai Lama and Buryat Buddhists from 1904 to 1909”]. Shi kan 史観 (Shikan: The Historical Review) 181(2019): 63–85. Zhalsanova, B. Ts. “Namdak Dylykov, A Prominent Buryat Public Figure of the Late 19th – Early 20th Centuries.” In Vestnik Buriatskogo Nauchnogo Tsentra Sibirskogo Otdeleniia Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk [Вестник Бурятского научного центра Сибирского отделения Российской академии наук] [Bulletin of the Buryat Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences] 4(2015): 28–42. Zhecang 哲倉 and Cairang 才譲, eds. Qingdai qinghai mengguzu dangan shiliao jibian 清代青海蒙古族档案史料輯編 [Historical materials of the Qinghai Mongolian archives in the Qing era]. Xining: Qinghai renmin chubanshe 青海 人民出版社, 1994. Zhongguo diyi lishi dangan guan, ed. Guangxu chao zhupi zouzhe中国第一歴史 档案館編, [China’s First History Archives]. 光緒朝硃批奏摺. Vol. 116. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju chuban中華書局出版 [Zhonghua Bookstore], 1995–1996. [GZZ] ———, ed. Qingmo shisanshi dalai lama dangan shiliao xuanbian清末十三世達 頼喇嘛档案史料選編 [Selected historical archives of the 13th Dalai Lama at the end of Qing]. No place of publication: Zhong guo zangxue chubanshe 中国蔵学 出版社 [China Tibetology Publishing House], 2002. [QSD] No author. Neiting zhencha dalai baogao內廳偵査達賴報告 [Dalai Lama Reconnaissance Report]. 東洋文化研究所図書室 [Library of Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia] B1802100

56 

Ishihama Yumiko

About the Author Professor Ishihama Yumiko is a tenured faculty member of the School of Education, Waseda University, Japan, and the author of a number of English- and Japanese-language articles in the field of Tibetan and Central Asian history. Email: [email protected] Table 1 Monastery for which composed, with location 1 2 3

4 5

bkra shis chos ‘phel gling (Ikhe Khuree) Buyan Cogtu’s School of Philosophy (Torghut) theg chen dam chos dga’ tshal gling (Tüsheet Khan) dung dkar bkra shis chos rdzong dgon (Dung dkar) spyan g-yas dgon (‘Phyongs rgyas)

6

dga’ ldan bstan rgyas gling (Alashan)

7

dgon bde chen pho brang (Sain noyan)

8

9

jam dbyangs bshad sgrub gling college in dam chos ‘gyur med gling (Setsen Khan) Khanddorj’s bkra shis chos ‘khor lhun po gling

Medical school at 10 Kumbum Monastery (Kökenuur) Esoteric school at 11 Kumbum Monastery (Kökenuur)

Year (A.D.)

Month

Place of composition

sa byi (1888)

sixth month

sa glang (1889)

seventh month

sa kyi (1898)

second month

CYP: 387–403

lcags byi (1900)

first month

CYP: 404–412

lcags glang (1901)

fifth month

nor bu gling kha nor bu gling kha

nor bu gling kha dga’ ldan theg shing sbrul chen gling at (1905) Ikhe Khuree dga’ ldan dge rgyas gling at me rta (1906) third month Jaya Pandita’s Khuree dga’ ldan dge rgyas gling at me rta (1906) third month Jaya Pandita’s Khuree dga’ ldan tshe me rta (1906) sixth month ‘phel gling at Sain Noyan bla brang bkra shis khang gsar me lug (1907) at Kumbum Monastery bla brang bkra shis khang gsar me lug (1907) at Kumbum Monastery

Source

CYP: 348–364 CYP: 365–379

Chi: 128b2–132a4 Chi: 98b4–108a7 Chi: 110b3–111b6

Chi: 125b1–127a6 Chi: 96a6–98b4 Chi: 9a4–14b6

Chi: 14b6–29b3

57

The Impact of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama’s Sojourn in Mongolia

Monastery for which composed, with location

Year (A.D.)

Month

12

bkra shis rdzogs ldan gling (Dorbet)

me lug (1907)

second month

13

bkra shis chos ‘khor gling (mDo smad)

me lug (1907)

eleventh month

14

phun tshogs bkra shis gling (Wutaishan)

sa sprel (1908)

eighth month

sa sprel (1908)

tenth month

bde chen chos ‘khor gling (Buryat) Kumbum Monastery 16 (Kökenuur) Kālacakra school at 17 Kumbum Monastery (Kökenuur) 15

sa bya (1909) sa bya (1909)

18

brtag mthun gling dgon (mDo smad)

sa bya (1909)

fourth month

19

dga’ ldan dar rgyas gling

sa bya (1909)

fourth month

20

dgon bkra shis bde chen gling (Nag chu)

sa bya (1909)

tenth month

21

nag chu rdzong (Nag chu)

sa bya (1909)

tenth month

22

byang or thog thar gling dgon

sa bya (1909)

23

dgon ‘gro ‘dren bde skyid gling (Nag chu)

sa bya (1909)

tenth month

Place of composition bla brang rtse at Kumbum Monastery Kumbum Monastery bde skyid kun gsal at Wutaishan Huang si at Beijing steng mkhar sgar sa bla brang rtse at Kumbum Monastery bla brang rtse at Kumbum Monastery bla brang bkra shis khang gsar at Kumbum Monastery bde ldan byang chub mngon dga’’i pho brang at Nag chu bde ldan byang chub mngon dga’’i pho brang at Nag chu bde ldan byang chub mngon dga’’i pho brang at Nag chu bde ldan byang chub mngon dga’’i pho brang at Nag chu

Source

Chi: 94b7–96b7 Chi: 115b2–119a4 CYP: 439–445 Chi: 121a3–125b1 Ji: 20b6—24b2 Chi: 1a1–9a4 Chi: 111b6–113a4 Chi: 119a5–121a3

Chi: 114a1–115b2

Chi 24b3–28a2

Chi: 127a6–128b2

Chi: 52b6–56a3

58 

Ishihama Yumiko

Table 2 Tribe

Name of banner

Title

First generation

Jasaγ in Age Total Xuan tong 1 Population

left wing 1

Khoshuds

qing hai wang

jun wang

da la’i da’i cing (A6B3)

yeke jirgal

63

179

2

Khoshuds

tuo mao gong

fu guo gong

bsod nams bkra shis (5th son of Ocirtu Khan)

dkon mchog gsung grub

欠

61

3

Khoshuds

köke beile

beile

ta yan hung tha’i ji (A6B4C1)

tshe ring don grub

42

181

4

Khoshuds Khuluk beizi

1st taiji

bsod nams bkra shis be si (A9B1C2)

rnam ‘dren chos skor

35

1195

5

Khoshuds juligai jasaγ

1st taiji

blo bzang dar rgyas (A2B1C1)

mgon po skyabs

38

70

6

Khoshuds

a ka gong

fu guo gong

dga’ ldan bkra shis (A1B2C2D1)

yabudal

18

50

7

Khoshuds

bu ha gong

fu guo gong

tshe ring (A1B5C1)

bsod nams bkra shis

21

44

8

Khoshuds

ke lu jasaγ

1st taiji

rta mgrin tshe brtan (A2B2C2D3)

bsod nams don grub

42

51

9

Khoshuds

cha ka wang

1st taiji

ye shes sgrol skyabs (A6B3C2D2)

bsod nams seng ge rab brtan

36

90

tai ji nai er

1st taiji

25

443

10 Khoshuds

tshe ring rnam tshe ring don grub rgyal (descendent of Gushi Khan’s elder brother)

11

Torghut

tuo li ha jasaγ

1st taiji

tshe thar ‘bum

rin chen nor bu

18

59

12

Torghut

jiao ang jasaγ

1st taiji

bstan skyong

duorui

24

50

right wing 13

Coros

er li ke beile

beile

tshe brtan rgyal

rin chen dbang rgyal

28

169

14

Coros

shui xia beizi

beizi

rab brtan rgya mtsho

bkra shis rnam rgyal

20

291

mgon po (A4B1)

dong kuo rin chen

45

199

15 Khoshuds

mole wang jun wang

59

The Impact of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama’s Sojourn in Mongolia

Tribe

Name of banner

Title

First generation

Jasaγ in Age Total Xuan tong 1 Population

16 Khoshuds

qun ke jasaγ

1st taiji

e rte ni hung tha’i ji rin chen rnam rgyal (A2B2C1)

chamuduor jirγal

欠

147

17 Khoshuds

zong beizi

beizi

tshe ring don grub (A7B1C1D1)

chos ‘phel nor bu

35

43

18 Khoshuds

mo le jasaγ

1st taiji

rab brtan (A4B2C4)

’chi med rin chen

76

115

19 Khoshuds

zong jia jasaγ

1st taiji

qalγas (descdnent of Gushi Khan’s younger brother)

dbang thang rdo rje

20

無

20 Khoshuds

bayan naγur jasaγ

1st taiji

skyabs (A3B’8)

tshe brtan don grub

73

12

21 Khoshuds

ba long jasaγ

1st taiji

tshe brtan bo shog thu (son of Bintu)

nor bu dar rgyas

47

280

22

Khoid

duan da ha

fu guo gong

kun dga’

padma dbang rgyal

15

52

23

Torghut

yong an jasaγ

1st taiji

bsod nams rab brtan rdo rje

dam pa

52

36

24

Khalkha

ha li ha jasaγ

1st taiji

bkra shis don grub

rab bsam nor bu

30

6

jun wang da’i ching ho sho dpal ‘byor rab chi (A5B2C3) brtan

31

1047

25 Khoshuds

he nan wang

26 Khoshuds

da can

1st taiji

rab brtan rgya mtsho

tshe ring thar

29

248

27 Khoshuds

lajia

1st taiji

cha gan rab brtan (A5B2C2D1E1)

bsod nams rdo rje

28

67

an li he jasaγ

1st taiji

dar rgyas

bskal bzang dbang rgyal

30

192

28

Torghut

60 

Ishihama Yumiko

Table 3

1

Year

Date

13th Dalai Lama Related (DL)’s Grand to Khuluk Movement Beise

wooddragon (≒1904)

27 Jul

Entered Tsaidam Beise father and son saluted Dalai Lama

Related to Khanddorj

Related to Dylykov

Source (D13N)

ka 395a5

2

1 Aug

DL entered Beise’s main tent

ka 396a2

3

10 Aug

DL bestowed the longevity empowerment on Beise

ka 396b1–2

4

12 Aug

Beise gave DL livestock as offering

ka 396b3–4

5

30 Aug

Beise bid farewell to DL

ka 397b5–6

6

20 Oct

7

27 Oct

8

WoodSerpent (≒1905)

17 Jul

ka 404b1–2

Arrived at the Ganden Monastery in Ikh Khuree

Moved to Khanddorj’s banner

9

1 May

10 FireHorse (≒1906)

27 Jan

Left Khanddorj’s banner for kōkenuur

11

14 Sep

arrived at Kumbum monastery at kōkenuur

DL bestowed the initiation on Khanddorj

ka 405a4

DL moved to Khanddorj’s banner

ka 416a6

DL had an audience with Kozlov and his translator Dylykov DL left Khanddorj’s banner for kōkenuur

Kozlov 1907

kha 3b4–5

kha 12a4–b1

61

The Impact of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama’s Sojourn in Mongolia

Year

Date

13th Dalai Lama Related (DL)’s Grand to Khuluk Movement Beise

Related to Khanddorj

Related to Dylykov

Beise and Khanddorj’s envoys brought a letter and an offering

Source (D13N)

kha 18b4

12

year’s end

13 Fire Sheep (≒1907)

Apr

Beise came to the DL’s place

14

21 Aug

The envoys of Taiji nor banner and Beise offered three objects of worship to DL

15

27 Nov Left the Kumbum monastery for Mount Wutai

16 EarthMonkey (≒1908)

17 Jan

17

18 Jan

18

19 Jan

19

Feb

The envoy of DL bestowed kha blessings on 43b2–3 Khanddorj an old Buryat offered an object of worship to DL

20

17 Mar

Khanddorj presented himself at Mount Wutai

DL bestowed teachings to the abbot of Khanddorj’s monastery

kha 24a2–3

kha 27b2–3

kha 29a6–b2 Dylykov and Kangyur Lama from Buryat sent an envoy to salute DL

Arrived at the seat of Mount Wutai

kha 39b5–6

kha 40b6– 41a1 DL bestowed kha the longevity 42a2–3 initiation on Dylykov at the assembly hall of Bodhisattva Peak

kha 44b6– 45b2

62 

Ishihama Yumiko

Year

Date

13th Dalai Lama Related (DL)’s Grand to Khuluk Movement Beise

Related to Khanddorj

Related to Dylykov

Source (D13N)

kha Khanddorj’s chief chamberlain and Dylykov 45b1–2 bid farewell to DL

21

29 Mar

22

Apr

23

3 Aug

24

20 Aug Audience with Empress Dowager and the Guangxu Emperor at Yiheyuan

25

21 Aug

26

23 Dec Returned to the Kumbum monastery

Khanddorj and others read out the edict of Empress Dowager and the Guangxu Emperor

kha 53b6

Arrived at the Huang-si at Beijing

kha 54b3– 56a5

DL had an audience with Khanddorji and seven Buryats.

27 EarthNew Bird Year Year (≒1909)

kha 46b2–3

『内庁偵 察達頼 報告』: 292 kha 63b2

The wife of Beise came to salute DL

kha 64a6

28

14 Apr

Left Kumbum for Lhasa

68b6– 69a3

29

18 Apr

30

18 May

The envoy of Beise appeared

kha 73a5

31

20 May

Beise asked the DL for a secret audience

kha 73b2

The envoy of Khanddorji came to salute DL

kha 69b1

The Impact of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama’s Sojourn in Mongolia

Year

Date

13th Dalai Lama Related (DL)’s Grand to Khuluk Movement Beise

Related to Khanddorj

Related to Dylykov

63 Source (D13N)

32

21 May

DL gave upasaka discipline to Beise’s father

kha 73b5–6

33

26 May

DL gave Beise father and son some advice, Beise performed the longevity ceremony for DL

kha 74a4–6

34

9 Nov

35

11 Nov Assumed a new title and a golden seal

Returned to Lhasa after five years’ absence

kha 85a5–b4 kha 87a4–b4

2

The Modern and Traditional Diplomacy of the Thirteenth Dalai LamaDuring His Sojourn in Khalkha and Qinghai (1904–1907) Wada Daichi Abstract Daichi Wada draws on Russian, Chinese, and Japanese sources to analyse the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s diplomatic activities during his sojourn in Khalkha, Qinghai, and Mount Wutai (1904–1909). Daichi demonstrates how the Dalai Lama’s diplomatic efforts manifested both traditional and modern aspects that were deployed as appropriate, and how his worldview was enhanced by his travels. The author particularly focuses on the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s relationship with the Buryat Buddhist community, which in some aspects represented Russian interests but also held traditional ties with the Tibetan Buddhist centre. The support he gained among the Buryats helped him survive in a dangerous situation as not only a ruler of Tibet but also as the highest authority over Tibetan Buddhists. Keywords: Thirteenth Dalai Lama, Buryats, Diplomacy, Tradition, Modernity, Russia

Introduction In 1904, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama (thub bstan rgya mtsho, 1876–1933) left Lhasa for Khalkha because of the invasion of the British Indian forces, known as the “Younghusband Expedition” or “Mission.” This began his multi-stop foreign travel around continental Asia, via Qinghai, Shanxi, Beijing, and Darjeeling. He only returned home to Lhasa at the end of 1912, after the

Ishihama, Y. & McKay, A. (eds.), The Early 20th Century Resurgence of the Tibetan Buddhist World. Studies in Central Asian Buddhism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi: 10.5117/9789463728645_ch02

66 

Wada Daichi

confusion of the Xinhai Revolution had settled down. Immediately after his return, he faced the need to adapt Tibet to the system of modern international relations, at least at some level. The conclusion of the Tibet-Mongolia Treaty of 1913 and the proceedings of the Simla Conference represent his struggle for the establishment of Tibet and/or his attempt to secure the Dalai Lama’s government as a “modern” state. In 1909, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama changed his title. He declared that his status should be based only on Buddhism itself, not on the authority of the emperor of the Qing dynasty—thus bringing an end to the “chaplain-donor relationship” between the Dalai Lama and the Qing emperor, which had been maintained since its beginning, the reign of Emperor Shunzhi (1644–1661).1 It appears that his experience of traveling abroad for almost nine years had given the Thirteenth Dalai Lama the opportunity to cultivate his knowledge of the “modern” and reformed his views of the world. This paper deals with the earliest period of his international travels: his stay in Khalkha and Qinghai from 1904 to 1907. During this period, the Dalai Lama deepened his understanding of modern international systems and used this new knowledge to try to resolve the uncertainty over Tibet’s situation in international law and his own role as a religious and political leader. However, his “modern” approach, transforming the traditional pre-Nation state political understandings, did not yield results, because Russia began negotiations with Britain that resulted in the Anglo-Russian Entente (1907) and officially ended any possibility of Russia acting as a patron to Tibet. At the same time, the Chinese government increased its efforts to establish sovereignty over Tibet. Earlier studies have discussed the situation surrounding the Dalai Lama during this period in light of the Great-Power relationships in Central Asia.2 This paper, on the other hand, focuses on the relationship between the Dalai Lama and Buryat Tibetan Buddhists in Russia to examine how the Thirteenth Dalai Lama was capable of both diplomatic negotiations and preserving his own safety as a result of his religious authority in the Tibetan Buddhist World.

1 Ishihama, “Dalai Lama 13sei,” 15–16. 2 In recent years there has been considerable research on the relationship between Tibet and Mongolia during this period: see for example, Batbayar, Grand Union; Kuzmin, The 13th.

The Modern and Traditional Diplomacy of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama

67

The Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s Sojourn in Khalkha (1904–1906) On July 26, 1904, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama left Lhasa and made his way to Khalkha, Ikh Khuree (Ulaanbaatar, Urga) on the recommendation of Agvan Dorjiev (1854–1938), a Khori Buryat and the Dalai Lama’s close associate. Dorjiev had informed the Dalai Lama of the rivalry between Russia and Britain and advised that he could depend on the Russian empire, where Tibetan Buddhists enjoyed freedom of religion, for support against the British.3 At the end of 1904, the Dalai Lama arrived at Ikh Khuree, where a Russian consulate had been opened in 1863. At first, the Dalai Lama hoped to travel to Russia himself, so that he could have a personal interview with Tsar Nikolai Ⅱ and request the Russian government to give him instructions and advice on negotiating with the British, as well as the posting of a Russian official in Lhasa, through whom he could consult with the Russian government. 4 Contrary to the Dalai Lama’s expectations, however, the Russian Minister in Beijing P. M. Lessar (1851–1905) hesitated to offer support to the Dalai Lama publicly. Shaumian (2000) has demonstrated that Lessar believed that the Russian government needed complete tranquility in Mongolia and was concerned with the possible Chinese reaction to such support. At the same time, Lessar also wanted to make use of the Dalai Lama’s religious authority to improve the governance of the eastern Russian Empire after the end of the Russo-Japanese war. On December 26, 1904, Lessar advised the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs V. N. Lamsdorf (1844–1907) that granting subsidies to the Dalai Lama, even in small amounts, was unlikely to be productive for Russia because of the difficulty in concealing it from other countries—and especially from the Chinese government. Lessar’s report concluded by saying that, as the Chinese government had agreed to allow the Dalai Lama to remain in Ikh Khuree until the spring, the Russian government could postpone their decision about how to deal with him.5 Thus, while the Thirteenth Dalai Lama stayed in Ikh Khuree for ten months

3 Tanase, “Dorujehu jiden (sono 1),” 19–20. 4 Belov, Rossiia i Tibet, No. 27. January 20, 1905; Secret telegram from the military governor of the Trans-Baikal region, Lieutenant-General I.P. Nadorov, to the Tsarist governor in the Far East, Admiral E.I. Alekseyev. (Hereafter cited as “RiT”). 5 RiT, No. 25, 26. December 26, 1904; Secret telegram of the envoy in Beijing P.M. Lessar to Foreign Minister V.N. Lamsdorf.

68 

Wada Daichi

and continuously requested support from the Russian government, official support for Tibet was never forthcoming.6 Of course, the Dalai Lama had other options besides relying only on Russian support. By considering how he sought to remedy this stalled situation, it is possible to sketch out the contours of the Dalai Lama’s perception of the world during this period. For example, at the beginning of his stay in Ikh Khuree, a Tibetan mission arrived from Lhasa and entreated the Dalai Lama to return to his capital, suggesting that Tibet should instead request support from France and Germany.7 By April of 1905, some of the Dalai Lama’s entourage were also suggesting that they could present their case to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague (The Netherlands).8 While he did not follow any of these suggestions, it is evident that he considered involvement in Western, modern, and international society at the time. In April 1905 he dispatched his envoy Agvan Dorjiev to St. Petersburg with a letter bearing his seal. In this letter, the Dalai Lama wrote that, As stated above, we ask you to disassemble and separate black from white in the treaty between Tibet and England, we ask your Imperial Majesty, the champion for prosperity for all living on earth, so that religion and state of Tibet would be inviolable forever, so that no one should oppress the existing order in Tibet, and so that the British government would not encroach on Tibet, but, so that all great powers enjoy equal rights here. Until now, the Tibetan state conducted its affairs independently, and afterward, no one should interfere in the internal affairs of the state. Wishing to join in the circle of civilized great nations together, we gave plenary powers to the aforementioned Tsanit Khambo [Dorjiev], so that he could reach all agreements with all states.9

In this letter, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama expresses his desire for Tibet to “join in the circle of civilized great nations” and clearly states that he had invested Dorjiev with full powers to conclude a treaty with the Western nations. However, the Russian Tsar and his ministers rejected this request for support delivered by Dorjiev on the grounds of their defeat in the war 6 See Shaumian (The Great Game, 94–116) for a discussion of the correspondence between the Dalai Lama and Russian officials at the time. 7 RiT, No. 28. January 28, 1905; secret telegram from the envoy in Beijing, P.M. Lessar, to Foreign Minister V.N. Lamsdorf. 8 RiT, No. 39. April 27, 1905; secret telegram from the Russian consul in Urga, V.F. Lyuba, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 9 RiT, No. 42. July 4; letter from the Dalai Lama to the Government of Russia.

The Modern and Traditional Diplomacy of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama

69

against Japan.10 In Ikh Khuree, obtaining information that Russia was getting into peace negotiation with Japan, the Dalai Lama vainly suggested to the Russian Consul in Ikh Khuree V. F. Lyuba (1861–1921) that he could use his religious authority to broker a peace between Russia and Japan.11 Despite all of these efforts by the Dalai Lama, the Russian government continued to resist his overtures. Although his attempts proved unsuccessful, the Dalai Lama was prepared to engage in “modern” society; he and his entourage continuously explored possible ways they could adapt to the international political order. While he also sought to conduct such forms of “modern” negotiation,12 he simultaneously maintained forms of “traditional” diplomacy with Tibetan Buddhists in Russia. When he visited Ikh Khuree, for example, a large number of Tibetan Buddhist pilgrims from the Russian Buryat region came to see him: “Kozlov, who had an audience with the Dalai Lama at Ikh Khuree in his capacity as a representative of the Russian Royal Geographical Society on July 5, 1905, reports that there were large numbers of the pilgrims along the Kyakhta-Urga road, and Qing officials too had trouble managing the Buryat pilgrims flowing across the border toward Ikh Khuree.”13 In fact, on April 16, 1905, Yanzhi (延祉), the Chinese Amban in Ikh Khuree, reported concerns about crimes to property committed by Buryats in Ikh Khuree. In this report, he notes that “there is an increased number of pilgrims recently, and seven or eight out of ten are Buryat pilgrims.” He also mentions the difficulty of taking measures against criminals because of the contemporary situation in Ikh Khuree, in which Russian Buryats and other Mongolian peoples were mixed among the pilgrims. Both Chinese and Russian authorities were faced with two problems, jurisdiction and a concrete method of identifying these pilgrims’ nationalities.14 It was not only laypeople that visited Ikh Khuree as pilgrims at this time. Their number also included the Eleventh Bandido Khambo Lama Ch. D. Iroltuev (1843–1918), who was a leader of the Trans-Baikal and Siberian Tibetan Buddhists. Shaumian (2000: 94) notes that Iroltuev had an audience with the Dalai Lama on November 18, 1904. The Dalai Lama had wished to 10 Norbu and Martin, “Dorjiev: Memoirs,” 33. 11 RiT, No. 43. August 3, 1905; secret telegram from the Russian consul in Urga, V. F. Lyuba, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, V. N. Lamsdorf. 12 In fact, the Dalai Lama did make contact with other countries during this period; see for example, Kobayashi, “Exile and Diplomacy”; Kobayashi, “Darai Rama 13 sei,” both of which shed light on his contacts with the United States and Japan. 13 Ishihama et al., Resurgence of “Buddhist Government,” 19–20. 14 QDX, No. 108.

70 

Wada Daichi

meet him, so the Governor General of the (Russian) Far East, E. I. Alekseyev (1872–1942), allowed Iroltuev to proceed to Ikh Khuree on the condition that this meeting was solely to greet his spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, and not for any political purpose. Once in Ikh Khuree, however, Iroltuev unambiguously expressed the Buryats’ desire to install the Dalai Lama in Selenginsk to establish it as a new Buddhist center under the Dalai Lama’s leadership.15 Following this offer, the Dalai Lama requested that Russia allow him to enter the Russian Buddhist regions.16 Needless to say, Iroltuev’s “religious” offer was a political issue for Russian diplomacy with China and Britain. Therefore Russia didn’t allow the Dalai Lama within its borders at that time, but this option, absorbing the supremo of Tibetan Buddhism within the Russian regions, was kept open by Russian authorities until the Dalai Lama left Mongolia. In continuing to receive pilgrims and giving audiences to eminent figures such as the Bandido Khambo Lama, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama continued to build religious relationships based on a “traditional” worldview and his own traditional religious authority. Both Qing and Russian officials saw potential dangers in these relationships. On December 13, 1904, Lianshun (連順), the Military Governor of Uliastai, warned that the respectful attitude of Buryat Buddhists toward the Dalai Lama and their “cajolement” of him would lead to him to seek exile in Russia.17 Russian officials were also afraid of the religious relationship between the Dalai Lama and Buryat Buddhists, which became increasingly close during his sojourn in Khalkha. For example, Lessar watched the activities of Buryat Buddhists carefully and reported that the Russian attitude of holding back from supporting Tibet would not change drastically “unless Dorjiev and Iroltueve spoil the case”18 (by bringing about further suspicion from Chinese authorities). In a similar way, Lyuba, the Russian consul in Ikh Khuree, warily reported that Dorjiev “maintained constant contacts with Iroltuyev, [and] many influential Buryats and Kalmyks, who dreamed of establishing the Dalai Lama in Russia in furtherance of their own interests.”19 15 Shaumian, The Great Game, 93–95. 16 RiT, No. 37. March 19, 1905; secret telegram from the Russian envoy in Beijing, P. M. Lessar, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; RiT, No. 38. April 15, 1905; secret telegram from the envoy in Beijing, P. M. Lessar, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, V. N. Lamsdorf. 17 QDX, No. 94. 18 RiT, No. 25, 26. December 26, 1904; secret telegram from the envoy in Beijing, P.M. Lessar, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, V.N. Lamsdorf. 19 RiT, No. 39. April 27, 1905; secret telegram from the Russian consul in Urga, V. F. Lyuba, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Modern and Traditional Diplomacy of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama

71

Since Russia intended to maintain the status quo in Mongolia, they were afraid that the Tibetan Buddhists in Tibet and Mongolia and in Russia were forming close relationships in Ikh Khuree and were acting not in Russian interests but in their own. Their intention to install the Dalai Lama in Russia, for example, was completely contradictory to the policy of the Russian government. When he initially came to Ikh Khuree, Lessar had hoped that he could make use of the authority of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, and it was difficult for him to accept the relationship between the Dalai Lama and the Buryat Buddhists as it burgeoned beyond the control of the Russian government.20 During his time in Ikh Khuree, the Dalai Lama conducted both “modern” and “traditional” diplomacy in parallel. Although they were unsuccessful, he and his entourage were trying to adapt to the modern treaty system by, for example, attempting to negotiate with Russia and dispatching Dorjiev to St. Petersburg as ambassador plenipotentiary to declare the Dalai Lama’s intention of joining the circle of great civilized nations. At the same time, the Dalai Lama built a relationship with Buryat Buddhist society that fitted within their conventional and traditional view of the Tibetan Buddhist World, and this religious relationship functioned with its own logic, not with that of the Russian government.

Escorting the Dalai Lama Southwards (1906) The Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s growing relationship with Buryat Buddhists made a concrete contribution to his security when he traveled south from Khalkha in 1906. In the autumn of 1905, the Dalai Lama left Ikh Khuree and moved northwest to the Khuree of Daichin Van. From there he continued his negotiations with Russian officials, including asking the Russian government to support Tibet through Dorjiev’s mission to St. Petersburg. Russian officials tried to convince the Dalai Lama to go back to Tibet, on the grounds that publicizing the close relationship between Tibet and Russia would exacerbate the Tibetan situation in view of the Russian negotiations in progress with Britain and China, as well as the possibility that the Dalai Lama’s prolonged absence from Lhasa could result in increased Chinese

20 Garri, “Religioznye sviazi,” argues that in cooperating with Russian expeditions and research in Asia, key Buryat personalities were conscious of being “mediators” between Asia and Russia, and that this consciousness contributed to their development of Buryat nationalism.

72 

Wada Daichi

influence there and undermine his position.21 In March 1906, he told Lyuba that he would depart for Tibet around the end of the month.22 The possibility of the Dalai Lama returning to Tibet raised the question of whether the Russian government should provide an escort for him on his way to Lhasa via Xining in Qinghai province. From the beginning of the Dalai Lama’s stay in Ikh Khuree, the Russian Foreign Minister Count Lamsdorf, wanted him to retain his pro-Russian sensitivities and argued that his physical security and his position in Tibet must be guaranteed by the provision of an escort when he returned home.23 However, as found by earlier studies, 24 there was a disagreement on this issue among the Russian authorities. For example, the Russian consulate in Ikh Khuree and the Russian military in the Far East approved of offering arms to the Dalai Lama and sending him an envoy, but Foreign Minister Lamsdorf eventually rejected this suggestion. Lamsdorf preferred ensuring the safety of the Dalai Lama through diplomatic efforts. He sent a letter to the Dalai Lama to persuade him to return to Lhasa, reassuring him that Russia had obtained guarantees of the Dalai Lama’s physical security from Prince Qing (慶親 王).25 This divergence of views within the Russian government created an ambiguous situation in Mongolia; for example, in the Khuree of Daichin Van “Russian military training” was secretly provided by Buryat Cossacks to Tibetans. Ultimately, the extent to which the Dalai Lama enjoyed either official Russian support or unofficial assistance from local Buryat and Russian people remains unclear. Here we should also note that the idea of putting together an escort of Russian Tibetan Buddhists for the Dalai Lama emerged from these disagreements. As Andreyev explained,26 the Russian explorer P. K. Kozlov (1863–1935) had an audience with the Dalai Lama in April 1905, during which he proposed his idea of putting together an escort of Cossack and Tibetan Buddhists from Russia. The Dalai Lama welcomed this idea, but 21 RiT, No. 45. October 8, 1905; a note compiled in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, concerning negotiations with Dorjiev on the question of the return of Dalai Lama to Tibet. 22 RiT, No. 52. March 8, 1906; secret telegram from the consul in Urga, V.F. Lyuba, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, V.N. Lamsdorf. 23 RiT, No. 33. February 14, 1905; note by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, V. N. Lamsdorf. 24 Several studies have discussed the envoy dispatched to the Dalai Lama from Russia. Andreyev, Tibet v politike tsarskoi, 135–148 describes the standpoint of the Russian government, and Lamb, McMahon Line, 83–86 describes that of the British government. However, neither work clearly articulates whether the proposed envoy was actually dispatched. 25 RiT, No. 47. February 14, 1906; letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, V.N. Lamsdorf, to the Dalai Lama. 26 Andreyev, Tibet v politike tsarskoi, 135–148.

The Modern and Traditional Diplomacy of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama

73

the Russian foreign ministry ultimately rejected it. Later, when the Dalai Lama was in the Khuree of Daichin Van, Dorjiev appealed in St. Petersburg for a Russian “escort disguised as pilgrims.” However, it remains uncertain whether this “escort disguised as pilgrims” was ever actually assembled.27 It is possible to ascertain the actual situation of the Dalai Lama’s escort in Sain Noyon Aimag on the route from the Khuree of Daichin Van to Xining, based on information from a diary “You Meng Riji” (游蒙日記) written by Li Tingyu (李廷玉). When the Thirteenth Dalai Lama departed the Khuree of Daichin Van and traveled south, the Qing Emperor dispatched Bodisu ( 博廸蘇), a Grand Minister in Attendance, to meet him. On January 6, 1906, Bodisu had an audience with the Dalai Lama in Zaya Bandida Monastery in Sain Noyon Aimag. Li Tingyu accompanied Bodisu as his bodyguard and wrote his diary “You Meng Riji” during his mission. Li explains that, in Xuanhua-fu (宣化府), he had been ordered by the Minister Superintendent of Trade for the Northern Ports of China to secretly choose some soldiers to equal the Russian soldiers accompanying the Dalai Lama, and that he chose only forty cavalry because he thought too large an escort of soldiers would make the Dalai Lama suspicious of their intentions.28 On June 22, 1906, when he was in Zaya Bandida Monastery, he wrote of the Buryats surrounding the Dalai Lama: When I was in Zhangjiakou 張家口, I received a telegram from waiwu-bu 外務部. It told me that Hu,29 an ambassador to Russia, had reported in telegram that the Dalai Lama would return to Tibet and Russia had dispatched forty Tibetan Buddhists accompanying him as bodyguard. I have already led thirty horse soldiers to compete with them in Xuanhua-fu. After I arrived at Zaya Bandida Monastery, tens of Russian Buryat Buddhists have come here every day. They are led by one military officer (his name is Damuding 打木丁) and some soldiers. All of them are dressing as Lamas and, on the pretext of worship to the Dalai Lama, they remain here and have decided to escort the Dalai Lama to Tibet. I think that the forty Tibetan Buddhists mentioned in the telegram from waiwu-bu must

27 RiT, No. 43. August 3, 1905; secret telegram from the Russian consul in Urga, V. F. Lyuba, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, V. N. Lamsdorf. In this Russian record, it is reported that the Dalai Lama had showed his appreciation to Lyuba, the Russian consul in Ikh Khuree, “for allowing the Buryat volunteers to accompany him to Tibet under the guise of pilgrims.” 28 Li, “You Meng Riji,” 572. 29 Hu Weide 胡惟徳 (1863–1933), who served as a Chinese ambassador to Russia from 1902 to 1907.

74 

Wada Daichi

match up with this troop. The military officer looks handsome and the soldiers have fighting spirit.30

According to the account in his diary, Li observed a number of Russian Buryats visiting the Zaya Bandida Monastery every day. They were led by a military officer (named Damuding) and some soldiers, and they were all dressed as Lamas and were escorting the Dalai Lama on the pretext of worshipping him. Li thought these Buryat Buddhists were the soldiers Russia had dispatched. Two days later, on June 24, Li again wrote about the people surrounding the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama’s staff […] when the Dalai Lama left Lhasa, he was accompanied by bka’ blon (噶 布倫) [the highest ranking official in Tibet], mda’ dpon (戴琫) [a military chief], gsol dpon (師本) [a senior officer], mkhan po (堪布) [a learned lama] and another thirty or forty people. After they reached Ikh Khuree, tens of Tibetans came and joined them, and after they arrived at Zaya Bandida Monastery, tens more Tibetans came in. Now they total 183 in number […] and, at the same time, there are a hundred and several tens of Russian Tibetan Buddhists (Buryat) here, who are spying behind-thescenes, dressing like Lamas, wearing Western boots, and speaking both Mongolian and Russian.31

According to his account, almost half of the people accompanying the Dalai Lama at Zaya Bandida Monastery were Russian Buryat Buddhists. Although the Russian Foreign Minister Lamsdorf obtained assurances regarding the Dalai Lama’s physical security from Prince Qing through “official” modern diplomatic negotiation, Buryat Buddhists did escort the Dalai Lama at Zaya Bandida Monastery. It is unclear who actually dispatched 30 Li, “You Meng Riji,” 672–673. The source text in Chinese is as below: “前在張家口、接外務部電云、駐俄胡星使電称、達頼喇嘛回藏、俄派黄教人四十名随行 護衛、当経派帯宣北馬兵三十名為抵制之計　自至咱雅沙比後、連日訪得俄布里雅特人 来此数十名、統以武官(名打木丁)一員、武弁数員、均著喇嘛服装、藉與達頼叩頭為名、相 随不去、并决送達頼入藏等情。想外務部電称俄派黄教四十人、即是此股、該武官相貌英 挺、各弁亦有尚武精神…” 31 Li, “You Meng Riji,” 678–683. The source text is as below: “因調査達頼人格其行為、略記概要、以供研究…〈達頼喇嘛之随侍〉其逃出時、自噶布倫 (藏一品)戴琫(統領)師本(有司官)堪布(通経喇嘛)以下只三四十人、至庫倫後続来数十人、 抵咱雅後又来数十人、計共一百八十三人…并有俄屬奉黄教者百数十人(布里雅特)随聴指 使、装飾與喇嘛同、惟脚著洋靴、兼通蒙俄語言…”

The Modern and Traditional Diplomacy of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama

75

the Buryats as the Dalai Lama’s escort and whether this escort was approved, officially or not, by the Russian ministry. Certainly, the Chinese official Li Tingyu was concerned about this situation.

The Thirteenth Dalai Lama at Kumbum Monastery, Qinghai (1906–1907) In the previous section, we saw that Buryat Buddhists disguised as pilgrims acted as bodyguards to the Dalai Lama at least while he was at Zaya Bandita Monastery. It is unclear if they were volunteers, but it should be noted that while the Dalai Lama was traveling south from Khalkha the Russian Foreign Ministry abruptly changed its diplomatic tack: the newly appointed Russian Foreign Minister Izvolsky declared a policy of non-intervention toward Tibet. In June 1906, Britain proposed to Russia that both states should recognize China’s suzerainty over Tibet and forswear any interference in Tibet’s internal affairs. Izvolsky concluded that it was risky to depend on the Dalai Lama’s personal pro-Russian feelings, and that it would be preferable to resolve the Tibet issue by signing a treaty with Britain.32 The two nations subsequently signed the Anglo-Russian Convention in August 1907. At the same time, the Russian government needed to maintain its relationship with the Dalai Lama. On October 29, 1906, Izvolsky instructed the Russian Minister in London, Benkendorf, to explain to the British government that, although Russia and Britain were starting to discuss their non-intervention agreement on Tibet, the Russian government could not ignore the Dalai Lama while he traveled in Qinghai because of his great influence over Tibetan Buddhists in Mongolia and Russia.33 The Dalai Lama’s stay in Khalkha and his establishment of a much closer relationship with the Buryats thus had important implications. While Russia was taking an increasingly negative attitude toward involvement in Tibet, they simultaneously tried to maintain friendly relations with the Dalai Lama because of his influence and authority among Tibetan Buddhists, particularly the Buryats. Their likely provision of an escort to the Dalai Lama (the “pilgrims” discussed in the previous section) can be located in this context of ambivalence. 32 RiT, No. 54. June 12, 1906; note by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, A.P. Izvolsky. 33 RiT, No. 62. October 29, 1906; secret letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, A.P. Izvolsky, to Ambassador A. Benkendorf in London.

76 

Wada Daichi

The Thirteenth Dalai Lama stayed in Qinghai’s Kumbum Monastery from November 1906 until the end of 1907. During this period, the Russian government negotiated their Agreement with Britain, concluded in August 1907. As this treaty recognized Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, it became difficult for the Dalai Lama to obtain any open support from Russia. However, he was able to keep in touch with Buryats during his time in Kumbum Monastery. In this section, I examine these ties using records written by two Japanese individuals who visited Kumbum during this period: the Japanese traveler Hatano Yōsaku (波多野養作 1882–1935) and Teramoto Enga (寺本婉雅 1872–1940), a Japanese Buddhist monk of the Shinsyū Ōtani school (真宗 大谷派).34 Hatano witnessed some Buryats contacting the Dalai Lama and wrote about it in Shinkyō Shisatsu Fukumeisho (新疆視察復命書), an observational report about Xinjiang submitted to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In this report, he wrote: When I was in Ta’ersi 塔爾寺, I saw these “Buryats” always coming in and out of the court of the Dalai Lama and casually taking their own actions. […] I heard that there were thirteen Buryats there. They said that they were assistants to the chamberlain of the Dalai Lama who came from Ikh Khuree, and they freely visited the Dalai Lama’s court. They persistently pretended to be residents of Ikh Khuree, but in fact, they lived within Russian territory and we should consider them to be Russian.35

Teramoto wrote a more detailed account of the situation in his diary Zōmō Tabi Nikki (藏蒙旅日記). Teramoto stayed at Kumbum from 1906 to 1907 and had audiences with the Dalai Lama several times while he was there. In his diary entry dated November 16, 1907, Teramoto wrote as below; Russia still keeps contact with the Dalai Lama as before […] Russia and the pro-Russian group in the Party of the Dalai Lama have corresponded with each other and they are talking about something. In this March, two Buryat-Mongolians living in Russia came to this place as Russian messengers and negotiated something with the Dalai Lama, and in April they left here and went back to Russia via their homeland Buryatia. But, these two men came here again on this September 25 from Buryatia and 34 Kobayashi, “Chibetto no seiji teki,” 45–47, briefly discusses Teramoto’s contacts with the Thirteenth Dalai Lama in Kumbum Monastery. 35 JACAR: B03050331500, Shinkyō Shisatsu Fukumeisho: 59.

The Modern and Traditional Diplomacy of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama

77

negotiated with the pro-Russian group […] These two are staying at the residence of “Lamen Kempo” [the traitor], who has a plenary power in the Dalai’s court, has tried to make the Dalai go to the capital of Russia for several years, and has just made the Dalai run away from Lhasa few years ago. These two men and Lamen Kempo have discussed something secretly and had an audience with the Dalai Lama one after another. […] I struggled to spy on them, but they were on their guard. I asked servants of the head of the pro-Russian group, but they never answered. Then I had no way to check what kind of people they were. So, I have only heard that they came here last spring, deepened their friendship with Lamen Kempo, had an audience with the Dalai, negotiated with him, and brought the Dalai’s letter to Russia, and now they came back here again. And it seems so much easier for them to have audience with the Dalai than other Mongolian officials who tried to do so. […] They left here this early morning for Russia. (Teramoto, Zōmō Tabi Nikki, 244)

Both the Japanese report and this diary mention the activities of Buryat visitors to Kumbum. These Buryats acted as messengers between Russia and the Dalai Lama and the Dalai Lama thus kept in touch with Russia during his stay in Kumbum with the Buryats whose identities were unclear to foreigners such as the Japanese. Foreign Minister Izvolsky believed that he should not ignore messengers from the Dalai Lama at that time, and Buryats, the Tibetan Buddhists in Russia, did act in the role of messengers for/of the Dalai Lama. It seems that the more difficult it became for the Dalai Lama to conduct “modern diplomacy” due to the negotiations in progress between Russia and Britain, the more value the close relationship between the Dalai Lama and the Buryats held because it was religious in nature and not dependent on Russian foreign policy. On August 31, 1907, the Anglo-Russian Convention was concluded. In this treaty, Britain and Russia recognized the suzerainty of the Qing over Tibet and agreed not to interfere in Tibet’s internal affairs. It is often said that this agreement led to the end of the “Great Game” and that Tibet lost its chance to make use of one side or the other to improve its international status. Article 2 of this treaty is noteworthy in the context of the relationship between the Dalai Lama and the Buryat. This Article begins by stating that “in conformity with the admitted principle of the suzerainty of China over Tibet, Great Britain and Russia engage not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government.” But then it makes an exception: “Buddhists, subjects of Great Britain or of Russia,

78 

Wada Daichi

may enter into direct relations on strictly religious matters with Dalai Lama and the other representatives of Buddhism in Tibet.” The latter sentence has often been considered a point of compromise in the negotiations between Russia, which had highlighted its peoples’ religious relationship with Tibet, and Britain, which had stressed India’s geographical connection with Tibet. However, this Article also affected the Dalai Lama by allowing him to keep in touch with Tibetan Buddhists in other countries, such as the Buryats. Even after the treaty was concluded, he was still able to contact Russian authorities through the Buddhist Buryats.36

Conclusion In Ikh Khuree, at the beginning of his travels, the Dalai Lama showed his intention to join “in the circle of great civilized nations.” He cultivated his own knowledge about the modern world and tried to adapt to the modern treaty system, but his attempts at “modern diplomacy” did not bear fruit. The Dalai Lama had also simultaneously been building religious relationships with the Buryat Tibetan Buddhist pilgrims who rushed to Ikh Khuree from Russian territory to worship him. As the Russian consul feared, these Buryat Buddhists seemed to act in their own interests, following the logic of Tibetan Buddhists rather than promoting Russian interests. In this sense, the Dalai Lama conducted both “modern diplomacy” and “traditional diplomacy” in Ikh Khuree. In March 1906, the Dalai Lama left the Russian border area and travelled south. During this journey, Buryat Buddhists disguised as pilgrims escorted the Dalai Lama. The Russian authorities were not necessarily able to control this close relationship between the Dalai Lama and Buryat Buddhists. Even after Russia began the talks with Britain that culminated in the AngloRussian Convention, Buryat Buddhists devoted themselves to serving the Dalai Lama as messengers, and the Russian authorities were forced to accept this. The Dalai Lama’s authority over Tibetan Buddhists meant that he could both survive and to an extent hold his own vis-à-vis Russia. Article 2 of the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention marked the end of “modern diplomacy” by the Dalai Lama while simultaneously making the 36 In fact, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama remained in contact with Buryat Buddhists throughout his journey. In 1908, Buryat pilgrims visited him in Mt. Wutai (五臺山) after travelling from Buryatia via Harbin by rail. The Dalai Lama’s troops also received military training from Buryat soldiers in Qinghai on the way to Lhasa from Beijing in 1909 (Wada, “Darai Rama 13 sei”).

The Modern and Traditional Diplomacy of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama

79

role of “traditional diplomacy” especially valuable for him. From 1904, when the Dalai Lama left Lhasa, to 1907, when the Anglo-Russian Entente was concluded, the Dalai Lama’s “modern diplomacy” was repeatedly limited by circumstances, rendering his “traditional diplomacy” ever more effective. This development was part of the process by which the Dalai Lama, who was struggling in the unstable circumstances created by the “Western Impact” on Asia, rediscovered his own religious authority and its value.

Bibliography Abbreviations JACAR: Japan Center for Asian Historical Records QDX: Zhongguo diyi lishi danganguan 中国第一历史档案馆 [China’s First Historical Archives], Zhongguo zangxue yanjiu zhongxin 中国藏学研究中心 [China Tibetology Research Center]. Qingmo shisanshi dalailama shiliao xuanbian 清 末十三世達頼喇嘛档案史料選編 [Selected historical materials of the 13th Dalai Lama during the final years of the Qing]. Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe 中国蔵学出版社 [Zhongguo Tibetology Publishing House], 2002. RiT: Belov (Белов) E. A., ed. Rossiia i Tibet: sbornik pucckikh arkhivnykh dokumentov 1900–1914 [Россия и Тибет: сборник русских архивных документов 1900–1914] [Russia and Tibet: A Collection of Russian Archival Documents 1900–1914]. Moskba: Vostochnaia literatura [Москва: Восточная литература] [Moscow: Oriental Literature], 2005. Andreyev, Alexander. “Russian Buddhists in Tibet, from the end of the nineteenth century–1930.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 3.11.3 (2001): 349–362. ———. Tibet v politike tsarskoi, sovetskoi i postsovetskoi Rossii [Тибет в Политике Царской, Советской и Постсоветской России] [Tibet in the Politics of Tsarist, Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia]. Saint Petersburg: University Publishing House/A. Terent’ev Publishing House, 2006. ———. “An Unknown Russian Memoir by Agvan Dorjiev.” Inner Asia 3, no. 1 (2001): 27–39. Batbayar, Tsedenbamba. “Grand Union between Tibet and Mongolia: Unfulfilled Dream of the 13th Dalai Lama.” Mongolian Journal of International Affairs 17 (2012): 75–80. Bulag, Uradyn E. “Introduction: The 13th Dalai Lama in Mongolia, or the Dawn of Inner Asian Modernity.” In The Thirteenth Dalai Lama on the Run (1904–1906):

80 

Wada Daichi

Archival Documents from Mongolia, edited by Sampildondov Chuluun and Uradyn E. Bulag, 1–25. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013. Garri, Irina. “Religioznye sviazi Tibeta i Buriatii v kontekste imperskikh protivorechii,” [“Религиозные Связи тибета и Бурятии в Контексте Имперских Противоречий”] [“Religious Relations of Tibet and Buryatia in the Context of Imperial Contradictions”]. Вестник Бурятского Научного Центра Сибирского Отделения Российской Академии Наук [Bulletin of the Buryat Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences] 4, no. 20 (2015): 48–60. Inoue, Takehiko井上岳彦. “Damubo Uriyanohu ‘Budda no yogen’ to Rosia bukkyō kōteizō.” ダムボ ▪ ウリヤノフ『ブッダの予言』とロシア仏教皇帝像 [“Dambo Ul’ianov’s Prophecies of Buddha and His Interpretation of Russian Monarchs as ‘Buddhist Emperors’”]. Slavic studiesスラヴ研究 63 (2016): 45–77. Ishihama, Yumiko 石濱 裕美子. Chibetto Bukkyō Sekai no Rekishiteki Kenkyū チ ベット仏教世界の歴史的研究 [A Study of the History of the Tibetan Buddhist World]. Tokyo: Tōhō Publisher 東方書店, 2001. ———. “Darai Rama 13 sei no chosakuni miru zishōhyōgen no henkani tsuite” ダラ イラマ13世の著作に見る自称表現と政体表現の変化ついて [“On the Transition of the Appellation of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan and Chinese Government by the 13th Dalai Lama”]. Waseda Daigaku daigakuin kyōikugaku kenkyūka kiyō 早稲田大学大学院教育学研究科紀要 [The Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education of Waseda University] 24 (2014): 1–18. ———. “Darai Rama 13 sei no sōin no kōki shukusei to sono igi ni tsuite” ダライラ マ13世の僧院の綱紀粛正とその意義について [“The Enforcement of a Monastic Discipline and Education Program by the 13th Dalai Lama and its significance”]. Ōmon Ronsō 桜文論叢 96 (2018): 193–216. Ishihama, Yumiko, Makoto Tachibana, Ryosuke Kobayashi, and Takehiko Inoue, eds. The Resurgence of “Buddhist Government:” Tibetan-Mongolian Relations in the Modern World. Osaka: Union Press, 2019. Jagou, Fabienne. “The Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s Visit to Beijing in 1908: In Search of a New Kind of Chaplain-Donor Relationship.” In Buddhism between Tibet and China, edited by Matthew Kapstein, 349–377. Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2009. Kobayashi, Ryosuke 小林亮介. “Chibetto no seiji teki chii to shimura kaigi: hon’yaku gainen no kentō wo chūshin ni” チベットの政治的地位とシムラ会議：翻訳概念 の検討を中心に [“The Political Status of Tibet and the Simla Conference: The Translated Concepts”]. In Sōshuken no sekaishi: tōzai ajiano kindai to hon’yaku gainen 宗主権の世界史：東西アジアの近代と翻訳概念 [The History of Suzerainty: Asian Modernities and Translations], edited by Okamoto Takashi 岡本 隆司, 262–290. Nagoya: University of Nagoya Press 名古屋大学出版会, 2014. ———. “Darai Rama 13 sei no Kawashima Naniwa ate shokan ni miru Chibettto Nihon kankei: Nichiro sensou to Chibetto mondai” ダライ ▪ ラマ13世の川

The Modern and Traditional Diplomacy of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama

81

島浪速宛書簡にみるチベット ▪ 日本関係: 日露戦争とチベット問題 [“The 13th Dalai Lama’s Letter to Kawashima Naniwa and Tibet-Japan Relations: The Tibetan Issue Amidst the Russo-Japanese War”]. Shiteki 史滴 41 (2019): 102–179. ———. “The exile and diplomacy of the 13th Dalai Lama (1904–1912): Tibet’s encounters with the United States and Japan.” In The Resurgence of “Buddhist Government:” Tibetan-Mongolian Relations in the Modern World, edited by Yumiko Ishihama, Makoto Tachibana, Ryosuke Kobayashi, and Takehiko Inoue, 37–68. Osaka: Union Press, 2019. ———. “Rokuhiru to kindai chibetto: sono shinchō chibetto kankeishi kenkyu no seika wo megutte” ロクヒルと近代チベット：その清朝 ▪ チベット関係史研究の 成果をめぐって [“Rockhill and Modern Tibet: His Research on the Qing-Tibet Relation”]. In Current Affairs in Modern East Asia: From the Shelves of the George Morrison Pamphlet Collection, edited by Shiba Yoshinobu 斯波義信, 123–146. Tokyo: Tōyō Bunko 東洋文庫, 2017. Kuzmin, Sergius. “Prebyvanie Dalai-lamy XIII v Mongolii i plany provozglasheniia nezavisimosti” “Пребывание Далай-ламы ХIII в Монголии и планы провозглашения независимости” [“The 13th Dalai Lama’s stay in Mongolia and plans for the declaration of independence”]. Известия Иркутского государственного университета. Серия «Политология. Религиоведение» [Irkutsk State University Bulletin] 9 (2014): 33–39. Lamb, Alaster. The McMahon Line: A Study in the Relations Between, India, China and Tibet, 1904 to 1914. 2 volumes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966. Li, Tingyu 李廷玉. “You Meng Riji” 游蒙日記 [“Youmeng Diary”]. In Qingmo menggushi diziliao huicui 清末蒙古史地资料荟萃 [A Collection of Mongolian History and Geographical Materials], edited by Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan zhongguo bianjiang shide yanjiu zhongxin 中国社会科学院中国边疆史地研究中心 [Zhongguo Research Center of Chinese Borderland History and Geography, Academy of Social Sciences], 565–714. Beijing: Quanguo tushuguan wenxian suowei fuzhi zhongxin 全国图书馆文献缩微复制中心, 1990. Norbu, Thubten Jigme, and Dan Martin. “Dorjiev: Memoirs of a Tibetan Diplomat.” Hokke Bunka Kenkyū 法華文化研究 17 (1991): 1–105. Sawada, Jirō 澤田次郎. “Chibetto wo meguru nihon no chōhō katsudō to himitsu kōsaku: 1890 nendai kara 1990 nendai wo chūshin ni (1)” チベットをめぐる日本 の諜報活動と秘密工作 ―一八九〇年代から一九一〇年代を中心に―（一） [“Japanese Intelligence Activities and Covert Operations Concerning Tibet: From the 1890s to the 1910s (Part Ⅰ)”]. The Journal of Humanities and Sciences 拓殖大学論集. 人文 ∙ 自然 ∙ 人間科学研究 40 (2018): 1–42. Shaumian, Tatiana. Tibet: The Great Game and Tsarist Russia. Oxford/New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000.

82 

Wada Daichi

Shirasu, Jōshin 白須浄真. “Darai Rama 13 sei ni yoru Meiji Tennō heno jōsho kennōhin shazetsu no tenmatsu” ダライラマ13世による明治天皇への上書 ∙ 献 納品謝絶の顛末 [“The 13th Dalai Lama’s letters and gifts to Emperor Meiji and his refusal to accept them”]. In Ōtani Kōzui to kokusai seiji shakai: Chibetto, Tankentai, Shingai kakumei大谷光瑞と国際政治社会：チベット ∙ 探検隊 ∙ 辛 亥革命 [Ōtani Kōzui and International Political Society: Tibet, Expeditions, and the Xinhai Revolution], edited by Shirasu Jōshin 白須浄真, 325–372. Tokyo: Bensei Shuppan勉誠出版, 2011. Snelling, John. Buddhism in Russia: The Story of Agvan Dorzhiev, Lhasa’s Emissary to the Tsar. Shaftsbury, Dorset: Element Books, 1993. Sperling, Elliot. “The Thirteenth Dalai Lama at Wutai Shan: Exile and Diplomacy.” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies 6 (2011): 389–410. Tachibana, Makoto 橘誠. “Shinchō hōkaigo no Mongoru Chibetto kankei: Zōmō jōyaku no dōzidaiteki igi ni chakumoku shite” 清朝崩壊後のモンゴル ∙ チベット 関係―蒙蔵条約の同時代的意義に着目して― [“Mongol-Tibetan Relations after the Fall of the Qing Dynasty: Contemporary Significance of the Mongol–Tibetan Treaty of 1913”]. Shimonoseki City University review 下関市立大学論集 62, no. 1 (2018): 71–83. Tamai, Yoko 玉井陽子. “1904 nen rasa jyōyaku kōshō niokeru chūzōdaijin no yakuwari” 1904年ラサ条約交渉における駐蔵大臣の役割―ダライラマ政庁 との関係を中心に [“The Role of Amban, Chinese Resident in Tibet, in the Negotiation of Lhasa Treaty 1904—Focusing on the Relationship between the Amban and the Dalai Lama’s Government”]. Chūō Daigaku Ajiashi Kenkyū 中 央大学アジア史研究 [Chuo Journal of Asian history] 25 (2001): 63–79. Tanase, Jirō 棚瀬慈郎. Darai Rama no Gaikōkan Dorujiehu- Chibetto bukkyō sekai no 20 seiki ダライラマの外交官ドルジーエフ―チベット仏教世界の20世紀 [Dorjieff: the 20th century Emissary of the Dalai Lama]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten 岩波書店, 2009. ———. “Dorujehu Jiden (sono 1)” ドルジェフ自伝 (その1) [“Autobiography of Dorjiev No. 1”]. Ningen Bunka 人間文化 [School of Human Cultures the University of Shiga Prefecture Bulletin] 17 (2005): 14–23. ———. “Dorujehu jiden (sono 2)” ドルジェフ自伝 (その2) [“Autobiography of Dorjiev No. 2”]. Ningen Bunka 人間文化 [School of Human Cultures the University of Shiga Prefecture Bulletin] 18 (2005): 29–38. Teramoto, Enga 寺本婉雅. Zōmō Tabi Nikki 藏蒙旅日記 [A diary of travels to Tibet and Mongolia]. Tokyo: Fuyō Shobō芙蓉書房, 1974. Tsarong, Dundul Namgyal. In the Service of his Country: The Biography of Dasang Dundul Tsarong, Commander General of Tibet. New York, NY: Snow Lion Publication, 2000.

The Modern and Traditional Diplomacy of the Thirteenth Dalai L ama

83

Tuttle, Grey. Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2005. Wada, Daichi 和田大知. “Darai Rama 13 sei no idou kikan ni okeru Buriyāto jin tono kankei ni tsuite” ダライ ∙ ラマ十三世の移動期間(一九〇四-一九〇九) におけるブリヤート人との関係について [“The relationship between the 13th Dalai Lama and Buryat Buddhists from 1904 to 1909.”] Shikan 史観 [Shikan: the historical review] 181 (2019): 63–85.

About the Author Daichi Wada holds a JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) Research Fellowship for Young Scientists at the Graduate School of Education, Waseda University. Email: [email protected]

3

Friendship and Antagonism Tibetans and Money in Early Twentieth-Century Mongolia1 Tachibana Makoto Abstract This paper is particularly concerned with the economic aspects of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s Mongolian exile. His presence there eclipsed the authority of Mongolia’s highest incarnation, the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu, and offerings formerly given to the Mongolian leader were gifted to the Tibetan leader. Tibetans accompanying their leader also became an important economic presence in Mongolia, and in the final part of the paper the author discusses the implications of this Tibetan presence after 1913, when Mongolia and Tibet afforded each other mutual diplomatic recognition amidst claims to independence. The revitalization of the interchange between Tibet and Mongolia resulted not only in friendship, but also in antagonism. Keywords: Thirteenth Dalai Lama, Eighth Jebtsundamba Khutughtu, Khanddorj, sang, 1913 Mongol-Tibetan treaty

Introduction One of the shared themes of the modern histories of Mongolia and Tibet is their continuous attempts to achieve independence from the Qing Dynasty and later the Republic of China. Many studies have examined the international relations context in which Mongolia and Tibet found themselves in the early twentieth century—analysis that is needed to 1 This paper is based on a presentation given at the 15th Seminar of International Association for Tibetan Studies in Paris on July 8, 2019. I would like to thank Alex McKay for his valuable comments at the conference.

Ishihama, Y. & McKay, A. (eds.), The Early 20th Century Resurgence of the Tibetan Buddhist World. Studies in Central Asian Buddhism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi: 10.5117/9789463728645_ch03

86 

Tachibana Makoto

understand the road that has brought Mongolia and Tibet to the present day. However, these studies tend to place disproportionate weight on nationalist or Great Power perspectives, which means they assume the importance of the modern nation-state. Reflection on the benefits and shortcomings of these studies has recently led to new research examining the nature of the relationship between the Mongols and Tibet in the early twentieth century.2 The most signif icant event in Mongol‒Tibetan relations during this period was the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s sojourn in Mongolia from 1904 to 1906 because of the British invasion of Tibet led by Colonel F. Younghusband. The movement of the Dalai Lama—the highest authority in Tibetan Buddhism—through Mongolia and his arrival in Urga (today’s Ulaanbaatar) led to renewed interactions within Tibetan Buddhist societies in Mongolia, Tibet and Russia. The Dalai Lama was enthusiastically welcomed in Mongolia, with many Mongolian Buddhists traveling to Urga and making offerings to him. The Dalai Lama’s sang,3 which managed his property, was established in Urga and stimulated the economic activities of the Tibetans there. 4 It is said that the Dalai Lama’s sang enjoyed special privileges in Mongolia under the protection of the Eighth Jebtsundamba Khutughtu, the most worshiped incarnation in Mongolia.5 The Dalai Lama’s sang mainly engaged in moneylending to the Mongols, much like a bank, and a dronyer (mgron gnyer 卓尼爾) took charge of the funds. This organization continued even after the Dalai Lama returned to Tibet and continued to be considered a bank. In a document from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China dated January 1922, for example, a Tibetan arrested by the Red Army is described as “a Tibetan off icial of the rank of kempo in charge of the Bank of Tibet at Urga named Chonil.”6 Later, Nga-wang Trakpa was

2 For example, Ishihama et al., Resurgence of “Buddhist Government.” 3 “Sang” is derived from Chinese word “cang 倉.” It means “a fund in a lamasery, the capital fund of a high lama.” The Jebtsundamba Khutughtu’s sang was famous in Mongolia, and it was involved in a wide range of activities such as breeding livestock, agriculture, and moneylending (Nasanbaljir, “Jibzundamba khutagtyn san,” 144). 4 Dügersüren, Ulaanbaatar khotyn tüükhees, 42. 5 Dügersüren, Ulaanbaatar khotyn tüükhees, 73. 6 ZMWD: 03-32-192-03-004; 03-32-474-02-005.

Friendship and Antagonism

87

dispatched from Tibet to Mongolia to manage the Dalai Lama’s “private bank” there in 1931.7 One of the Tibetan signatories to the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty of 1913 was dronyer Agvanchoijin.8 The title of Ishjamts, one of the other signatories, is “khu ral dngul skyed do dam pa rtse drung,” translated in the English version of the treaty into the “bank manager” of “the Bank of Tibet.” The Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s biography mentions another signatory named Gendengalsan as a “manager of the Dalai Lama’s Urga Treasury.”9 Because of the prominent position of the bank’s staff amongst the treaty signatories, some researchers have pointed out that the Dalai Lama’s sang seems to have played a role similar to the representative of the Tibetan government in Mongolia.10 For these reasons, the Dalai Lama’s sang was closely related to every significant event that happened in early twentieth-century Mongolia, including the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s sojourn and the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty of 1913. However, the sang does not usually appear in the official documents of the Mongolian government because its main activity was moneylending to individuals in Mongolia and according to international law its position was very different from that of a consulate. The seventh article of the MongolTibetan Treaty reads as follows: From now on, when making loans the lender and the borrower should inform the government off ice possessing a governmental seal. If [the loan] is not guaranteed by a true seal, then at the time of payment it will be treated as lacking off icial sanction. As concerns [loans] made before the conclusion of this treaty, in the case of very serious problems, and when both sides disagree, compensation will be given. In general, this does not concern relevant subjects and banners [the] sabi and qosiγun.11

Some of the documents that do mention the Dalai Lama’s sang therefore request the Mongolian Government to deal with a delayed payment. One example, a letter dated April 21, 1915, from Ishjamts, dronyer of the Dalai 7 India Office Library and Records, L/P&S/10/1228. 8 Tsering, Centennial of the Tibeto-Mongol Treaty, 105–106. 9 Sperling, “The 1913 Tibeto-Mongol Treaty,” 11. 10 Batbayar and Gombosüren, Mongol ba Tüvd, 132. Luciano Petech also reported that a member of the Lha-sdings family was sent to Mongolia in 1930 (Aristocracy and Government, 199). I am grateful to Ryosuke Kobayashi for providing this information. 11 Tsering, Centennial of the Tibeto-Mongol Treaty , 107–108.

88 

Tachibana Makoto

Lama’s sang, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Mongolian Government reads as follows: Two years ago, Khasvandan of Zorigt wang Tserenbaabai’s banner of Tüsheet khan league borrowed 1,000 tselkov tsaas12 from our sang with monthly interest of 3 mungu13 on a loan of one tselkov tsaas. He repaid 500 tselkov tsaas with interest and three month’s interest for the remaining 500 tselkov tsaas. Although we repeatedly urged him to settle the remaining principal, he spoke evasively and did not repay for months.14

In this letter, Ishjamts asks the Mongolian Government to urge Khasvandan to repay his debt, but it is not clear whether Khasvandan ever settled it. This Ishjamts is the one who was a signatory to the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty. Due to the lack of surviving sources about the activities of the Dalai Lama’s sang, it is often difficult to ascertain the whole picture of any event in which it was involved. However, one issue that is possible to examine in detail is Khanddorj’s debts to the Dalai Lama’s sang, which is a rare example where all related documents were kept in the National Central Archives of Mongolia. Khanddorj was the leader of the Mongolian independence movement who had a good relationship with the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. Apart from the Dalai Lama’s sang, his debt problems also involved a Chinese minister stationed in Urga and a Chinese merchant in Beijing from whom he borrowed silver. In Mongolian history, moneylending is usually considered to be dominated by Chinese merchants during the Qing period, and exploitation by Chinese loan sharks is often regarded as one of the factors that led the Mongols to separate from the Qing dynasty.15 However, in the early twentieth century moneylending by Tibetans was an important aspect of Mongol-Tibetan relations. The aim of this paper is to clarify this aspect of the Mongol-Tibetan relationship and examine the changes in the political situation in Mongolia during this period by studying the activities of the Dalai Lama’s sang using Tibetan and Mongolian documents kept in the National Central Archives of Mongolia. The tale told by these documents demonstrates that interchanges 12 Tselkov was a folk name for the Russian ruble. In Mongolia, 1 tselkov was converted into 0.72 lang silver in 1913 (Tserendorj, Niislel Khüreenii Mongol, 27). Tsaas literally means paper. 13 Originally mungu meant “silver,” but here it should mean one-hundredth of a ruble; a tugrug (Mongolian currency) equaled 100 mungu in the Mongolian People’s Republic. 14 NCAM: FА4-D1-KhN365-N5. 15 In history writing during the socialist period of the Mongolian People’s Republic, it was argued that the Mongolian people suffered from the activities of Chinese “loan sharks.”

Friendship and Antagonism

89

between Tibet and Mongolia did not only result in friendship, but also in antagonism.

Contact Between Mongolia and Tibet During the Twentieth Century The first significant contact between Mongolia and Tibet in the twentieth century was an encounter between the Eighth Jebtsundamba Khutughtu and the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, the top religious figures of each country. Following the advice of Agvan Dorzhiev, who played an important role in establishing relations between Russia and Tibet, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama escaped to Mongolia in 1904 in search of Russian support against the British invasion led by Colonel Younghusband.16 Details of the meeting between the two religious leaders remain unclear, but N. Magsarjav, a famous Mongolian historian, has stated that the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu fell out with the Dalai Lama at this meeting.17 One of the reasons for this falling out was that Jebtsundamba Khutughtu was afraid of losing the preeminence he enjoyed in Mongolia if the Dalai Lama, the highest incarnation in the Gelug order, remained in Mongolia.18 And many Mongolian Buddhists did in fact start making offerings to the Dalai Lama rather than to the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu. This suggests that the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu was apprehensive about suffering a loss of authority and revenue with the appearance of the Dalai Lama, who occupied a higher position in the religious hierarchy of Tibetan Buddhism. There was reportedly friction between them at the time because the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu did not show due respect to the Dalai Lama. However, contacts with the Dalai Lama saw the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu again acknowledge the Dalai Lama’s stature. Thus, it seems the Mongolian leader had mixed feelings of awe and rivalry towards the Dalai Lama. In the last years of the Qing, after returning to Tibet in 1908, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama had to flee again in 1910, this time because of the invasion of 16 Snelling, Buddhism in Russia, 32–42. 17 Magsarjav, Mongol ulsyn shine tüükh, 7. According to a study by Ts. Batbayar and D. Gombosüren based on the memoir of Jambal, the Dalai Lama and the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu had a peaceful discussion and promised to meet again (Batbayar and Gombosüren, Mongol ba Tüvd, 45). 18 Batsaikhan, Mongolyn süülchiin ezen khaan, 6–7. On the other hand, S. L. Kuzmin argues that the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu maintained normal relations with the Dalai Lama but was compelled to hide them (“Mongolian-Tibetan Relations,” 192).

90 

Tachibana Makoto

Tibet by Chinese troops. The Mongols proclaimed their independence from Qing domination on December 1, 1911, immediately after the outbreak of the Xinhai Revolution in China, and the Eighth Jebtsundamba Khutughtu was enthroned as the Bogd Khaan on December 29. According to historian Yumiko Ishihama, in emulation of the higher power, the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu’s coronation was modelled on the Dalai Lama’s enthronement.19 In January 1913 the Dalai Lama returned to Lhasa and issued the so-called “Declaration of Independence” on February 13, 1913. While the legality of this declaration under international law remains debateable, it was a clear statement of his desire to separate Tibet from China. On January 11, 1913, Mongolia and Tibet concluded the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty between Dorzhiev and representatives authorized by the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu, in which they recognised their “independence” from each other.20 I. Ya. Korostovets, the Russian plenipotentiary who had signed the Russo-Mongolian Agreement on November 3, 1912, wrote the following to S. D. Sazonov, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, on January 19, 1913, concerning the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty: In the opinion of the Buddhists, applause from and approval by the head of the religious sect (the Dalai Lama) has great ethical and religious significance, and helps the masses accept the complete coup d’état by the Khutughtu and his gaining a new title. For the Khutughtu, who occupies a lower rung in the religious hierarchy, concluding a treaty with the Tibetan incarnation, whose authority is regarded as absolute in the religion, was very attractive.21

As Korostovets points out, under this Treaty the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu has the same standing as the Dalai Lama. The first and second articles of the Treaty read, “Article 1. The Monarch of the State of Tibet, the Dalai Lama, approves and recognizes the formation of an independent State of Mongolia, and the proclamation of Jebtsundamba Lama, leader of the Yellow religion, as Monarch of the State” and “Article 2. The Monarch of the State of Mongolia, Jebtsundamba Lama, approves and recognizes the formation of an independent State established by Tibetans, and the proclamation of

19 Ishihama et al., The Coronation of the Jebtsundamba. 20 The validity of this treaty was questioned from the outset. For more details on this Treaty, see Tachibana, “Re-examination of the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty.” 21 JACAR: Ref. B06150061300: 74–75.

Friendship and Antagonism

91

the Dalai Lama as Monarch of the State.”22 Before being enthroned as Khaan Jebtsundamba Khutughtu had been overshadowed by the religious authority of the Dalai Lama, but through the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty he became the Dalai Lama’s political equal. In this way, the treaty significantly enhanced the authority of the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu.

Khanddorj’s Debts to the Dalai Lama’s Sang Khanddorj, who borrowed money from the Dalai Lama’s sang, is one of the most important persons in the modern history of Mongolia.23 He was one of the leaders of the independence movement of Mongolia and was sent to St. Petersburg in 1911 and 1912 to secure Russian support for Mongolia’s separation from the Qing and the Republic of China. After Mongolia’s Declaration of Independence in 1911, Khanddorj was appointed the first Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mongolia. His relationship with the Thirteenth Dalai Lama started in 1904, when the Dalai Lama came to Mongolia and Khanddorj offered him assistance. As mentioned above, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama was not welcomed by the Eighth Jebtsundamba Khutughtu in Urga. In response, in October 1905 he was invited to spend the winter in Khanddorj’s banner. P. K. Kozlov, a famous Russian explorer visiting Mongolia at that time, mentioned that Khanddorj and the Thirteenth Dalai Lama met frequently during his stay at Khanddorj’s banner.24 The Dalai Lama left his banner in April 1906 traveling to Xining via Zaya Pandita’s monastery. He subsequently visited Wutaishan and Beijing and returned to Tibet through Qinghai in 1908.25 According to Yumiko Ishihama, Khanddorj remained in touch with the Thirteenth Dalai Lama after the latter left Mongolia.26 In 1906, while the Dalai Lama was still in Mongolia, Khanddorj borrowed money from both the Dalai Lama’s sang and a Chinese merchant. Khanddorj died on February 20, 1915,27 and the conflict over the payment of his debts to the Dalai Lama’s sang developed after that. The conflict started with an 22 Tsering, Centennial of the Tibeto-Mongol Treaty, 107. 23 There are many studies on Khanddorj in Mongolia. See, for example, Boldbaatar, Erdene Daichin Chin Van. 24 Boldbaatar, Erdene Daichin Chin Van, 28. 25 The Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s experience meeting foreign diplomats at Wutaishan and in Beijing influenced his view of the world; see Kobayashi, “Exile and Diplomacy.” 26 Ishihama, “20 Seiki Shotō.” 27 Boldbaatar, Erdene Daichin Chin Van, 104.

92 

Tachibana Makoto

appeal made by the banner of Jambaldorj, the third son of Khanddorj,28 in the spring of 1916. Their claim was as follows: Formerly, [Khanddorj] borrowed 40,000 and thousands lang silver from the Dalai Lama’s sang. [We] paid off [Khanddorj’s] debts with interest and 10,000 lang silver still remained. The late qin wang Khanddorj borrowed 5,000 lang silver from a Chinese person, Buyandalai [the Mongolian name of the Chinese merchant, Yi He Cheng 義和成], in Beijing and used it for the Dalai Lama’s business. Now the interest [5,000 lang silver] has become equal to the principal [5,000 lang silver], and the debts have become 10,000 lang silver in total. The Chinese person is asking for repayment. We hope that the Dalai Lama’s sang returns the debts [to the Chinese merchant] first; after that we will pay off the debts [to the Dalai Lama’s sang] at the proper time.29

If this appeal were accepted, Jambaldorj could reduce his debts by half by having the Dalai Lama’s sang pay off 10,000 lang silver. What mattered was whether the Dalai Lama’s sang should pay off the 5,000 lang silver that Khanddorj had borrowed from Yi He Cheng to conduct the Dalai Lama’s business, as well as its interest of 5,000 lang silver. When Khanddorj borrowed money from the Dalai Lama’s sang in 1906, Mongolia was under the rule of the Qing. Mongolia then declared independence in 1911, and Tibet declared independence in 1913. It was therefore the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty concluded on January 11, 1913, that regulated relations between the two nations. Article 6 of the treaty states, “Mongolia and Tibet will continue, as formerly, to trade goods produced in their territories, such as livestock, skins and other such items; to manufacture [them]; and to provide for monetary circulation.”30 Therefore, it can be assumed that the activities of the Dalai Lama’s sang did not really change during this period. In response to Jambaldorj’s appeal, the officials of the Dalai Lama’s sang in Urga stated, “We have never heard how much silver Khanddorj used for the Dalai Lama’s business,” thereby refusing to take on his debts.31 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Mongolian Government ordered the Dalai Lama’s sang to make sure of this statement. On November 3, 1916, the dronyer of the Dalai Lama’s sang, Jamchoi and Jamba, submitted a letter written 28 Ochir, Lonjid, and Törbat, Zarligaar togtooson, 11. 29 NCAM: FA4-D1-KhN458-N3. 30 Tsering, Centennial of the Tibeto-Mongol Treaty, 107. 31 NCAM: FA4-D1-KhN458-N3.

Friendship and Antagonism

93

in Tibetan to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that reported the details of Khanddorj’s debts: “When the Dalai Lama was staying in Urga, on June 10, 1906, Khand[dorj] wang asked [the Dalai Lama] to lend him 42,000 lang silver and the Dalai Lama lent the silver with one percent interest [per month]. After that, [Khanddorj] did not pay off principal and interest. The interest rose to 37,800 lang silver in nine years from June 10, 1906, to May 21, 1915.”32 At the end of this letter, they demanded that these debts be repaid. After receiving this report, on December 4, 1916, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested Chen Lu [陳籙], the Chinese Minister stationed in Urga [庫 倫辦事大員] after the Kyakhta Agreement of 1915, to conduct an investigation on this matter, because it affected the Chinese merchant Yi He Cheng.33 On the following day, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ordered the chief of the Tüsheet khan league, which Jambaldorj’s banner belonged to, to clarify the purpose of Khanddorj’s debt. Thus, the appeal initially made by Jambaldorj’s banner developed into a major issue involving the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Mongolian Government, the Dalai Lama’s sang in Urga, the Chinese Minister stationed in Urga, and the Chinese merchant Yi He Cheng in Beijing.

Chen Lu’s Report and the Dispute Between the Dalai Lama’s Sang and Jambaldorj’s Banner On February 14, 1917, Chen Lu sent a report about the investigation to the Mongolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The report of the Bureau of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs [蒙蔵院] dated January 12, 1917, and a copy of Khanddorj’s 1906 bond written in Mongolian were attached to the report. After the establishment of the Republic of China, the Lifan bu [理藩部], which managed Mongolian and Tibetan affairs, was reorganized into the Mongolian Tibetan Affairs Agency [蒙蔵事務局] under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior in April 1912. In July 1912 it was renamed the Bureau of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs and was under the jurisdiction of the presidential office until it was placed under the direct supervision of the President in 1914. On January 8, 1917, Yi He Cheng was summoned by the Bureau of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs. They asked him whether it was true

32 NCAM: FA4-D1-KhN458-N1. 33 NCAM: FA4-D1-KhN458-N2.

94 

Tachibana Makoto

that he had lent 5,000 lang silver to Khanddorj. Yi He Cheng answered as follows: In February, Guangxu’s 32nd year (1906) when Khanddorj was staying in Beijing, an officer of his banner, Dashdelger, borrowed 5,000 lang silver and said that [Khanddorj] wang stated, “the Dalai Lama of Tibet will use this silver.” What we agreed was that he would return the principal with the interest within a year, and we made a private bond in Mongolian. Next year, this officer came to Beijing, but he did not pay off the debts. We collected the bond and newly made a contract. In Guangxu’s 34th year (1908), [Khanddorj] wang came to Beijing, but he did not return his debts.34

It became clear from this testimony that Khanddorj borrowed 5,000 lang silver from Yi He Cheng in February 1906, during his stay in Beijing. Khanddorj seems to have carried out activities to extend the Dalai Lama’s stay in Mongolia in Beijing.35 If so, the words “the Dalai Lama of Tibet will use this silver ” may refer to this activity. Yi He Cheng continued: In the second and third years of the Republic of China (1913 and 1914), we could not send a person to dun for the debts because the roads outside of the Great Wall were [in a state of] unrest. […] In September, the fifth year of the Republic of China (1916), Gao Luding [高鷺鼎], a Tibetan member of the House of Representatives, visited our store and asked why [Khanddorj] wang borrowed 5,000 lang silver. He saw the bond and copied it into Tibetan.36

In 1913 and 1914, the roads outside of the Great Wall were quite dangerous because the Mongolian Government was carrying out military activities in Inner Mongolia to unify the banners in that region. The Dalai Lama’s sang seems to have asked Gao Luding to visit Yi He Cheng to confirm the fact that Khanddorj borrowed silver for the Dalai Lama. After receiving Chen Lu’s report on March 22, 1917, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs decided to make the Dalai Lama’s sang pay 5,000 lang silver and 5,000 silver in interest to Yi He Cheng because the bond said, “[Khanddorj] borrowed 5,000 lang silver with interest instead of the Dalai Lama’s sang.” 34 NCAM: FA4-D1-KhN458-N4. 35 Shaumian, Tibet, 111. 36 NCAM: FA4-D1-KhN458-N4.

Friendship and Antagonism

95

However, because Jambaldorj still owed an additional 10,000 lang silver to the Dalai Lama’s sang, the matter would be easily resolved if Jambaldorj returned 10,000 lang silver directly to Yi He Cheng.37 In other words, according to the decision of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Khanddorj’s debts would be wiped out by paying 10,000 lang silver to Yi He Cheng, as Jambaldorj had insisted. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the dronyer of the Dalai Lama’s sang, Jamchoi and Jambaldorj, of this decision and explained the decision to Chen Lu on the same day.38 The Dalai Lama’s sang strongly protested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’s decision that the Dalai Lama’s sang should wipe out Khanddorj’s debts to Yi He Cheng. On May 17, 1917, Jamchoi and Jamba sent the Ministry of Foreign Affairs a letter, in which they said: “If the debts were borrowed for the business of the [Tibetan] government and there was a Tibetan bond with Tibetan seal, we would obey the decision. If there was not a Tibetan document with Tibetan seal, the debts were borrowed for the business of [Khanddorj] wang himself; we could not pay them off.”39 In other words, their counterargument was that a Mongolian bond stating “[Khanddorj] borrowed 5,000 lang silver with interest instead of the Dalai Lama’s sang,” was not enough to prove that the debts were incurred for the Dalai Lama. On July 21, 1917, Darkhan qin wang Puntsagtseren, the chief of Tüsheet khan league and the vice-minister of Interior Affairs, sent the Ministry of Foreign Affairs a letter, to which a report from Jambaldorj’s banner was attached. In the report, words were exchanged between Zagd, an officer dispatched from Jambaldorj’s banner, and a Tibetan officer. The Tibetan officer said: “We do not accept the Mongolian bond, which is said to be possessed by a Chinese person, at all. Is there the Dalai Lama’s signature or seal on the bond that was made to borrow money from the Chinese merchant? We would never talk before we confirm that the bond was reliable.” An officer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs then suggested that, if they did not trust the bond, the Dalai Lama’s sang should ask Yi He Cheng in Beijing by telegraph to confirm it. In response, the Tibetan side said that they would write a letter to a leader40 of their government in Beijing, requesting that he ask Yi He Cheng about the bond. The Dalai Lama’s sang consistently refused to admit that the money was borrowed for the Dalai Lama because there were no documents written in 37 38 39 40

NCAM: FA4-D1-KhN458-N5. NCAM: FA4-D1-KhN458-N6. NCAM: FA4-D1-KhN458-N7. This seems to be Gao Luding as above mentioned.

96 

Tachibana Makoto

Tibetan. Once things had come this far, Jambaldorj’s banner tried to solve the problem thus: “In April of this year (1917), we met a Chinese person dispatched from Yi He Cheng in Beijing to collect the debts and repaid 10,000 lang silver to the merchant as [the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs] ordered. We sent an officer to the Dalai Lama’s sang to collect the bond, which was [written by Khanddorj and] kept by them.” In other words, Jambaldorj’s banner first paid 10,000 lang silver to Yi He Cheng and then tried to collect the bond kept at the Dalai Lama’s sang. When the Dalai Lama’s sang refused to return this bond to Jamboldorj, he asked Puntsagtseren, the chief of his league, to order the Dalai Lama’s sang to return the bond to him. 41 Finally, on August 8, 1917, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs resolved this issue as follows: It is a fact that 5,000 lang silver borrowed from Yi He Cheng by Khanddorj was used for the Dalai Lama. Therefore, 10,000 lang silver, the principal and the interest, should be cleared by the Dalai Lama’s sang. […] Since Jambaldorj had already paid 10,000 lang silver to Yi He Cheng instead of the Dalai Lama’s sang, this matter has been already resolved. […] The bond kept by the Dalai Lama’s sang has become invalid. Even though the Dalai Lama’s sang did not return the bond, a dispute would never have happened in the future. 42

Thus, this matter was resolved as Jambaldorj had insisted: namely, the Dalai Lama’s sang took up the burden of 10,000 lang silver that had been borrowed by Khanddorj from Yi He Cheng.

Mongol-Tibetan Relations as Seen From Khanddorj’s Debts According to the Russo-Mongolian Agreement of 1912, Russian subjects were exempt from import and export duties; citizens of other countries such as the Chinese were taxed at five percent across the board, and liquor and tobacco were taxed at ten percent during that time.43 500 to 1,500 Tibetans were living in Urga in the 1910s when the Treaty was concluded, many of them engaged

41 NCAM: FA4-D1-KhN458-N8. 42 NCAM: FA4-D1-KhN458-N9. 43 Lonjid, Mongol ulsyn sankhüügiin, 16.

Friendship and Antagonism

97

in trade. 44 Tibetans in Mongolia were said to be under the protection of the Khaan of Mongolia, or the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu, and therefore enjoyed the privilege of tax exemption. After the conclusion of the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty of 1913, however, most ministries of the Mongolian Government agreed that tax should be collected from Tibetans. For the Mongolian Government, which depended largely on duties for its revenue, 45 taxing Tibetans was a crucial source of income. Still, as some researchers have pointed out, Tibetans continued to be exempt from taxation in Mongolia until after the 1921 Mongolian Revolution. It seems that the opinion of the government was reversed by the Bogd Khaan—indicating that he had the power to reject the demand of the government at that time. Notably, the Bogd Khaan or Jebtsundamba Khutughtu was not involved in the matter of resolving Khanddorj’s debts. This indicates that the protection of the Bogd Khaan over the Tibetans in Mongolia had weakened by that time. In July 1921, the Mongolian People’s Party, supported by the Soviet Russians, established the People’s Government and enthroned the Bogd Khaan as a limited monarchy. The People’s Government abolished the privileges of Tibetans in Mongolia, such as tax exemption, but “the managers of the Dalai Lama’s sang in Urga and some Tibetans rejected paying the tax that was established by the People’s Government.”46 The Bogd Khaan then lost his political power through the so-called “Oath Treaty,” which was approved in a broad governmental meeting on November 1, 1921. While he was still acknowledged as the supreme authority of Buddhism in Mongolia, his political power became highly restricted. For example, all affairs of state were conducted through the Premier of the People’s Government. As a result, the Bogd Khaan could no longer protect the Tibetans. In October 1921, the so-called “Saj Lama Plot” came to light. According to this plot, the Tibetan Saj Lama Jamiyandanzan, with the Bogd Khaan as an ally, tried to overturn the People’s Government and was arrested. 47 Commanding Tibetan soldiers, Saj Lama, who belonged to the Dalai Lama’s sang, had rescued the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu, who had been placed in confinement by Chinese soldiers when Baron Ungern attacked Urga, at midnight on January 31 and February 1, 1921. 48 The Tibetan involvement in 44 Mitsui bussan kabushiki gaisha gyōmuka, Kūron ryokō hōkokusho, 70; Tanaka, Kūron shucchō hōkokusho, 8. 45 Tariff revenue accounted for approximately 70–80 percent of the national budgeted income in the 1910s (Lonjid, Mongol ulsyn sankhüügiin, 21–22). 46 Shirendev et al. Bügd Nairamdakh Mongol, 180. 47 Bat-ochir and Dashjamts, Damdingiin Sükhbaatar: Namtar, 219. 48 Kuzmin, “Mongolian-Tibetan Relations,” 194–195.

98 

Tachibana Makoto

the rescue of the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu was linked to his protection of the privileges granted to Tibetans in Mongolia. Saj Lama was released temporarily for his achievement at that time. However, he was shot in August 1922 for his involvement in the Bodoo’s plot to overthrow the People’s Government. Although the details of this incident remain unclear, it is highly probable that the “Saj Lama Plot” was fabricated to sever the relationship between the Bogd Khaan and the Dalai Lama’s sang, or with Tibet. While the Tibetans in Mongolia depended on the Bogd Khaan as their protector, the Bogd Khaan was able not only to gain authority over the Tibetans in Mongolia, but also to obtain financial support from them by protecting them. They seem to have depended on each other before the Mongolian Revolution. Therefore if it was to restrict the power of the Bogd Khaan, the People’s Government needed to break up this relationship.

Conclusion How should the relationship between Mongolia and Tibet in the early twentieth century be evaluated? It is true that the personal relationship between the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu and the Dalai Lama was not positive during the latter’s stay in Mongolia, but they never came into conflict after the Dalai Lama left Mongolia and they were separated from each other. The Jebtsundamba Khutughtu, who was enthroned as the Khaan of Mongolia in 1911, achieved political equality with the Dalai Lama through the MongolTibetan Treaty of 1913. In other words, the Dalai Lama’s presence played an important role in enhancing the authority of the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu in Mongolia because the Tibetan ruler treated the Jebtsundamba as the leading religio-political authority in Mongolia. The Dalai Lama’s sang seems to have made a handsome profit by moneylending in Mongolia, and the profit should have been repatriated to Tibet. Still, despite opposition and discussion within the Mongolian Government about taxing the Tibetans in Mongolia, the Tibetans continued to have tax exemption under the protection of the Bogd Khaan. After the Mongolian Revolution of 1921, relations between Mongolia and Tibetans in Mongolia entered a new phase. When the Bogd Khaan lost his political power after the Mongolian Revolution the special treatment given Tibetans ended. Moreover, the incident intended to sever the relationship between the Bogd Khaan and Tibet, namely, the Saj Lama’s plot, also occurred.

Friendship and Antagonism

99

The matter of Khanddorj’s debts was resolved as Jambaldorj insisted, and the Dalai Lama’s sang took on the burden of 10,000 lang silver borrowed from Yi He Cheng. The Bogd Khaan, who had protected the privileges of Tibetans in Mongolia, was not involved in this matter at all. The influence of the Bogd Khaan might have already been weakened at that time. Therefore, his power could be measured through factors affecting Tibetans in Mongolia. After the incorporation of the People’s Republic of Mongolia into the Soviet sphere of influence, any Mongolian efforts to maintain its traditional relations with Tibet were doomed to fail. 49 After the Eighth Jebtsundamba Khutughtu died in May 1924, the search for his incarnation was forbidden by the Mongolian government and it was not until 1991 that his successor was publically recognised by the Fourteenth Dalai Lama.

Bibliography Abbreviations NCAM: National Central Archives of Mongolia. JACAR: Japan Center for Asian Historical Records. IOR: India Office Records, Asia, Pacific and Africa Collections, British Library. ZMWD: Zhonghua Minguo Waijiaobu Dang’an. [The Archives, Institute of Modern History], Academia Sinica, Taipei. Andreev, Alexandre. Soviet Russia and Tibet: The Debacle of Secret Diplomacy, 1918–1930s. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003. Batbayar, Ts., and D. Gombosüren. Mongol ba Tüvd: ХХ zuuny ekhnii khagast: ХIII Dalai lam Tüvdenjamts Mongold zalarsan tüükh [Mongolia and Tibet in the Beginning of the 20th Century: 13th Dalai Lama Tubten Gyatso in Mongolia in 1904–1906]. Ulaanbaatar: Bembi san, 2009. Bat-ochir, L., and D. Dashjamts. Damdingiin Sükhbaatar: Namtar [Damdingiin Sükhbaatar: Biography]. Ulaanbaatar: Ulsyn khevleliin gazar, 1973. Batsaikhan, O. Mongolyn süülchiin ezen khaan VIII Bogd Javzandamba [The Last Emperor of Mongolia: 8th Bogd Jebtsundamba.]. Ulaanbaatar: Admon, 2008. ———. IV Bogd Javzandamba khutagt: Amidral ba tsag khugatsaa [9th Jebtsundamba Khutughtu: Life and Times]. Ulaanbaatar: Mönkhiin üseg, 2015.

49 Gombosuren, “Comparative Analysis,” 73–77. For the Soviet policy toward Tibet, see Andreev, Soviet Russia and Tibet.

100 

Tachibana Makoto

Boldbaatar, J. Erdene Daichin Chin Van Khanddorj [Biography of M. Khanddorj]. Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Press, 1994. Chuluun, S., T. Yusupova, A. Andreyev, M. Matveeva, eds. Mongol oron ba Mongolchuud IV: P.K. Kozlovyn mongold ajillasan süülchiin shinjilgeenii angiin tüükh (1923–1926 он) [Mongolia and the Mongols IV: The History of P. K. Kozlov’s Last Expedition to Mongolia]. Ulaanbaatar: Admon, 2018. Dügersüren, L. Ulaanbaatar khotyn tüükhees [The History of Ulaanbaatar City]. Ulaanbaatar: Ulsyn khevleliin gazar, 1956. Gombosuren, D. “A Comparative Analysis of the Mongolia-Tibet Treaty of 1913 and the 1922 Mongolian Diplomatic Note.” Lungta 17 (2013): 73–78. Hyer, Paul. “Politics and Religion in Inner Mongolia: Japan’s Plans for the 9th Jebtsundamba ‘Living Buddha.’” The Mongolian Journal of International Affairs 17 (2013): 64–74. Ishihama, Yumiko. “Nijyu seiki shotō tibetto to Mongoru wo musunda futarino mongoru ōkō” 20世紀初頭、チベットとモンゴルを結んだ二人のモンゴル王 公 カンドー親王とクルルク貝子 [“Two Mongolian Princes, Hand-Qingwang and Kurlyk-Beise, who bridged Tibet and Mongol in the early 20th century”]. Waseda Daigakudaigakuin kyōikugaku kenkyūka kiyō早稲田大学大学院教 育学研究科紀要[The Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education of Waseda University], 29, (2019): 33–46. ———. “The coronation of the Jebtsundamba modeled on the Dalai Lama’s Enthronement.” In The Resurgence of “Buddhist Government:” Tibetan-Mongolian Relations, edited by Yumiko Ishihama, Makoto Tachibana, Ryosuke Kobayashi, and Takehiko Inoue, 107–124. Osaka: Union Press, 2019. Kobayashi, Ryosuke. “The exile and diplomacy of the 13th Dalai Lama (1904–1912): Tibet’s encounters with the United States and Japan.” In The Resurgence of “Buddhist Government:” Tibetan-Mongolian Relations, edited by Yumiko Ishihama, Makoto Tachibana, Ryosuke Kobayashi, and Takehiko Inoue, 37–68. Osaka: Union Press, 2019. Kuzmin, S. L. “Mongolian-Tibetan Relations in the Struggle for Independence: The First Half of the 20th Century.” In Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Mongolists: Vol. V Independence and Revolutions Mongolia, no editor indicated, 191–197. Ulaanbaatar: International Association for Mongol Studies, 2013. Lonjid, Z. Mongol ulsyn sankhüügiin albany tüükh [The History of the Finance Department of Mongolia]. Ulaanbaatar: no publisher indicated, 2000. Magsarjav, N. Mongol ulsyn shine tüükh [The New History of Mongolia]. Ulaanbaatar: No publisher indicated, 1994. Mitsui bussan kabushiki gaisha gyōmuka 三井物産株式会社業務課 [Mitsui & Co., Ltd., Corporate Planning Department]. Kūron ryokō hōkokusho 庫倫旅行報告書 [Travel report to Khüree]. Tokyo: Mitsui bussan gyōmuka 三井物産業務課, 1918.

Friendship and Antagonism

101

Nasanbaljir, Ts. “Jibzundamba khutagtyn san” [“The Jebtsundamba Khutughtu’s sang”]. Tüükhiin sudlal [Historical Studies] 8 (1970): 133–143. Ochir, A., Z. Lonjid, and Ts. Törbat, eds. Zarligaar togtooson Mongol ulsyn shastiryn khuraangui [Brief History of Mongolia granted by the Emperor]. Ulaanbaatar: No publisher indicated, 1997. Petech, Luciano. Aristocracy and government in Tibet 1728–1959. Roma: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1973. Shaumian, Tatiana. Tibet: The Great Game and Tsarist Russia. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Shirendev, B., Sh. Natsagdorj, eds. Bügd Nairamdakh Mongol Ard Ulsyn Tüükh, gurvan boti [History of the Mongolian People’s Republic, Vol. 3]. Ulaanbaatar: Ulsyn khevleliin khereg erkhlekh khoroo, 1969. Snelling, John. Buddhism in Russia: The Story of Agvan Dorzhiev, Lhasa’s Emissary to the Tsar. Shaftesbury/Rockport, MA: Element Books, 1993. Sperling, Elliot. “The 1913 Tibeto-Mongol Treaty: its international Reception and Circulation.” Lungta 17 (2013): 7–14. Tachibana, Makoto. “A Re-examination of the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty of 1913: Its Contemporary Signif icance.” In The Resurgence of “Buddhist Government”. Tibetan-Mongolian Relations, edited by Yumiko Ishihama, Makoto Tachibana, Ryosuke Kobayashi, and Takehiko Inoue, 141–154. Osaka: Union Press, 2019. ———. “Tibetans in Mongolia: Mongol-Tibetan relations in the early twentieth century.” In The Resurgence of “Buddhist Government”. Tibetan-Mongolian Relations, edited by Yumiko Ishihama, Makoto Tachibana, Ryosuke Kobayashi, and Takehiko Inoue, 155–168. Osaka: Union Press, 2019. Tanaka, Katsuhiko 田中克彦, ed. “Ōshima Kiyoshi Kūron shucchō hōkokusho” 大島清庫倫出張報告書 (“Ōshima Kiyoshi’s travel report to Khüree”). Yūboku shakaishi tankyū 遊牧社会史探求 [Quest for the History of the Nomadic Society], 41 (1969): 1–46. Tserendorj, G. Niislel Khüreenii Mongol khudaldaany toim: 1912–1920 [Overview of Trade in the Capital of Mongolia]. Ulaanbaatar: Shinjlekh ukhaany akademiin khevlekh üildver, 1961. Tsering, Tashi, ed. The Centennial of the Tibeto-Mongol Treaty: 1913–2013. Lungta 17, Dharamsala: Amnye Machen Institute, 2013.

About the Author Tachibana Makoto is a Professor at Shimonoseki City University and the co-author of The Resurgence of “Buddhist Government”. Tibetan-Mongolian Relations in the Modern World. Email: [email protected]

4

The Tibet-Mongolia Political Interface in the First Half of the Twentieth Century Data from Russian Archives Sergius L. Kuzmin

Abstract Sergey Kuzmin’s paper draws on Russian and Mongolian archives to discuss the relationship between the Thirteenth Dalai Lama and the Jebtsundamba Khutagtu in the context of their joint hopes for future independence. This was promoted by the prevalence of Tibetan Buddhism in Mongolia, the leadership of the Tibetan-born Jetsun Dampa Khutuktu, the influential Tibetan colony in the Mongolian capital of Niislel Khuree, and permanent contacts between Mongols and Tibetans. It demonstrates how the two states co-ordinated their independence struggle during the first half of the twentieth century. This association continued after the two states had broken away from China and continued into the 1930s, with individual Tibetan hierarchs becoming involved in local resistance to the Socialist suppression of Buddhism in Mongolia. Keywords: Thirteenth Dalai Lama, Eighth Jebtsundamba Khutughtu, Russia, China

During the crisis and collapse of the Manchu Qing Empire in the early twentieth century, the Chinese (Han), Mongols, and Tibetans each sought to build their own independent nation-states. Mongolia and Tibet, which formed a single Tibet-Mongolian civilization,1 closely interacted in this 1

Kuzmin, “The Tibet-Mongolian civilization,” 93–103.

Ishihama, Y. & McKay, A. (eds.), The Early 20th Century Resurgence of the Tibetan Buddhist World. Studies in Central Asian Buddhism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi: 10.5117/9789463728645_ch04

104 

Sergius L. Kuzmin

pursuit. To prevent occupation of their lands by the Chinese, both tried to rely on Russia, which had close ties with the Mongols as well as with the Thirteenth Dalai Lama during his stay in Mongolia. There is a considerable amount of data on the relationship between Russia and Mongolia/Tibet in Russian archives, recorded by diplomats, military personnel, pilgrims, special envoys, officials, and others. It is interesting to compare some of this information with the Mongolian archival data, which has been partly published. Although a part of the Russian information is based on data received from Mongols and Tibetans, the Russian understanding of that data was based within the European political and historical paradigms of that time. Mongolian sources, on the other hand, tend to do the same within a traditional Mongolian or Tibet-Mongolian worldview, which sometimes leads to different understandings. However, there are many similarities in the basic conclusions each set of records reaches. After the establishment of the Mongolian People’s Republic (MPR) under the guidance of Soviet Bolsheviks, official Mongolian documents took on a phraseology that was similar to Soviet ones. Many archival documents on the relations between Tibet and Russia, along with a few selected ones on the relations between Tibet and Outer Mongolia, have been published earlier.2 Here I present and analyse new documentary data, much of which is unknown to historians. In 1904, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama fled from Tibet due to the British invasion. He arrived in the capital of Outer Mongolia, Ikh Khuree (usually called Urga by Europeans), in search of Russian support. M. N. Kuzminskii, the secretary of the Russian Consulate in Urga, reported on September 4, 1905: The sympathy of the Tibetan Pontiff for Russia, in connection with the ancient Buddhist legend that the teaching of the Buddha should spread northwards in future, resonated both among simple Mongolian people and among the princes and lamas who hate their Chinese enslavers and are eager to return to their supreme Pastor the country [that was] taken by the British due to the criminal connivance of China. In addition, the implementation of the Chinese governmental reform in the reorganization of management and alienation of khoshuu [banner] lands, immediately inhabited by alien Chinese elements, aggravated the discontent of the

2 Belov, Rossiia i Tibet.

The Tibet-Mongolia Political Interface

105

aboriginal population, making it aspire to get rid of the Chinese yoke with the help of Russia.3

This report refers to the Qing “new policy” of Chinese (Han) colonization and assimilation of Mongol lands based on their fear that these lands might fall to Russia. There is a lot of archival information on the implementation of this policy on the lands of Mongols and their discontent with it. 4 The problem of whether to support the Dalai Lama had been repeatedly discussed by the Russian leadership. It was even proposed that Russia could settle the Dalai Lama on the lands of the Buryats or Kalmyks using this settlement as a tool in the Mongolian policy of Russia.5 However, Russian diplomats rejected this idea on the grounds if the Dalai Lama were settled in Russia he could lose his influence in the Buddhist world. The prevailing view of the Russian officials was therefore that he should return to Tibet.6 This view aligned with that of the Qing court, which feared the appearance of a Tibet-Mongolian political alliance. The Qing Government wanted to suppress the national consciousness of the Mongolian people to aid the Sinicization of their country. So it was not indifferent to the Dalai Lama’s stay in Mongolia.7 However, the Dalai Lama remained in Outer Mongolia from 1904–1906 in the hope of making an alliance with Mongols using the help of Russia. The Qing court only agreed to allow his stay thanks to the diplomatic influence of Russia, although it continued to pressure him to leave Mongolia as soon as possible.8 In 1904, having learned about the imminent arrival of the Dalai Lama in Ikh Khuree, the Eighth Bogd Gegeen Jetsun Dampa Khutuktu (Mo: Javzandamba Khutagt), leader of the Buddhists of Outer Mongolia, ordered the preparation of a solemn reception for him. He also sent several people to meet him. The Eighth Jetsun Dampa was Tibetan, as were his earlier third to seventh incarnations. A room was prepared for the Dalai Lama in the old Jetsun Dampa’s palace. As he was in conflict with the Qing amban (resident) in Urga, the Eighth Jetsun Dampa wanted to meet the Dalai Lama without the amban after his arrival.9 The Dalai Lama arrived in Urga on

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/644/11-11rev. AVPRI/MID Chancellery/470/196; AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/78 etc. AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/78/4-5. AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/79/19-21. AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/413/341-344. AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/79/22-23, 80. AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/1454/12, 27, 41-42; AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/413/44-48.

106 

Sergius L. Kuzmin

November 14, 1904, and was solemnly greeted by the people, rulers, and Qing troops.10 This indicated their high respect for him. Many publications, based mainly on reports by P. K. Kozlov (who met the Dalai Lama but not the Jetsun Dampa) and a handful of Russian diplomatic correspondence,11 have discussed a conflict between the Thirteenth Dalai Lama and the Eighth Jetsun Dampa.12 This problem is clearly described in a 1905 document from Mongolian nobles and high officials—including the heads of leagues (Mo: chuulgan), assistants of the aimag janjins (military commanders), the Erdene Shanzav of Khuree, Da Lama, Khambo Nomun Khan of Khure, Achitu Nomun Khan, and Duinkhor Khutuktu—that was given to the Manchu and Mongol ambans of Ikh Khuree.13 This document states that there were indeed disagreements between the Dalai Lama and the Jetsun Dampa. The Dalai Lama sent a message about this to the ambans of Khuree, and several lamas and noyons of Khalkha responded to this message with a rebuttal in which they addressed each of the eight accusations set out in the Dalai Lama’s original message. According to this document, the Jetsun Dampa did not show antagonism to the Dalai Lama; instead, the misunderstandings were related to an inaccurate understanding of certain circumstances (there were obstacles for early meeting of the Dalai Lama with the Jetsun Dampa, but he sent a representative who offered a mandala; disciples of the Jetsun Dampa never saw him drunk, he never sent a drunk representative to the Dalai Lama, etc.); and the unauthorized behaviour of some of the Jetsun Dampa’s confidants (as with the case of moving of the Dalai Lama throne). High nobles and lamas from different aimags made the danshig (offering) ceremony to the Dalai Lama and the Jetsun Dampa. The Dalai Lama then withdrew his message to the ambans. Later, when the Dalai Lama was in the monastery of Wangiin Khuree, the Jetsun Dampa and his entourage sent him gifts and wished him health, after which both of them prayed for the other’s well-being.14

10 AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/454/47. Here and below all dates are given as in original documents, usually by Julian calendar. In the case of dates divided by oblique line, the first date is according to the Julian and the second the Gregorian calendar. 11 Belov, Rossiia i Tibet, 59, 63, 108, 113. 12 A message from V. F. Luba, the Russian diplomatic representative in Khuree, is a good example: AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/78/5rev. 13 MUUTA/179/1/1219, 1230. In Ulziibaatar and Dashnyam, “XIII Dalai Lam Tuvdenjamts,” 51–58. 14 Ulziibaatar and Dashnyam, “XIII Dalai Lam Tuvdenjamts,” 51–58.

The Tibet-Mongolia Political Interface

107

Analyses of this 1905 document and many other Mongolian and Russian diplomatic sources 15 have revealed a number of intrigues directed by Beijing with the plan of causing a division between the Dalai Lama and the Jetsun Dampa, who was in a diff icult position. Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) documents show that the Qing court replaced the ambans in Urga at the request of the Jetsun Dampa and sought to isolate the Dalai Lama from him. As a result, the Jetsun Dampa had to hide his contact with the Dalai Lama.16 Accusations against the entourage of the Jetsun Dampa by the Dalai Lama’s entourage cannot be considered accusations against the Jetsun Dampa himself because the opposite was not documented. Agvan Dorzhiev, the well-known confidant of the Dalai Lama who attended him in Mongolia and also knew the Jetsun Dampa, later recalled: “The Jetsun Dampa welcomed us and greeted us with lavish welcome ceremonies and other expressions of hospitality. Some of the people, who had erroneous and incorrect thoughts about the relationship between Tibet and Mongolia, created tension. Therefore, complete understanding was not immediately reached between the newcomers and the hosts.”17 Russian and Mongolian data indicate that the Dalai Lama and Jetsun Dampa met several times in secret; the content of these discussions is unknown. During the Dalai Lama’s stay in Mongolia, the Mongols highly revered both hierarchs and not only one of them. The Dalai Lama leaving Ikh Khuree was not due to antagonism with the Jetsun Dampa. In his letter to the Cixi Empress Dowager and the Guangxu Emperor, the Dalai Lama wrote that the Qing amban Yanzhi repeatedly illegally forced me to leave Urga, referring to the Supreme Decree, as if received by telegraph. In view of these oppressions, I was forced to move to the Qing Wang Khanda Dorji headquarters, from where I have now moved to the monastery of the Zaya Pandita Khutuktu. Having learned from here about the Supreme Decree concerning affairs in Tibet, I asked to prepare everything necessary for coming to Tibet via Xining.18

15 Kuzmin, “Prebyvanie Dalai Lamy XIII,” 33–39; Kuzmin, Teokraticheskaya Gosudarstvennost, 70–79, 87. 16 Kuzmin, Teokraticheskaya Gosudarstvennost, 72–73, 87. 17 Damdinov and Chimitdorjiev, Agvan Dorjiev, 53. 18 AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/1457/63-66rev.

108 

Sergius L. Kuzmin

The Dalai Lama arrived at Qing Wang Khanddorj’s headquarters on September 7, 1905.19 Then, the Dalai Lama visited the monastery of Zaya Pandita Khutuktu from March to July 1906. There he approved the identification of the Sixth incarnation of this Khutuktu, so there was no need to approve him in Lhasa.20 While away from Ikh Khuree, the Dalai Lama sent his representatives to contact the Jetsun Dampa.21 The Russian Kyakhta Border Commissioner A. D. Khitrovo, who, on the instructions of the Russian envoy in Beijing Dmitry D. Pokotilov, established a secret connection with the Thirteenth Dalai Lama during his stay in Mongolia, wrote: The Dalai Lama reported that the Beijing Government violates his rights and the rights of Mongolia […] For the reasons that both Tibet and Mongolia have never been under the rule of China, and Mongolia itself owned China, with the abolition of the Manchu Dynasty it is obvious that Mongolia and Tibet should be as independent as before the Manchu House […] the Dalai Lama with supporters, Mongol princes and influential Khutuktus and Gegeens [from Jerim and Ordos leagues of Inner Mongolia, as well as Khalkha], irrevocably decided to separate from China into an independent union state, performing this operation under the patronage and support of Russia, avoiding bloodshed. If Russia refuses, it will not change the decision to separate from China, and this operation will be performed under the auspices of another great power, in the extreme case even England.22

In other words, in the summer of 1905 nobles from Inner Mongolia asked the Dalai Lama for advice on establishing an independent khanate under Russian patronage. The Dalai Lama sympathized with this movement and supported agitation for it, but he considered it necessary to first get support from Russia.23 According to Luba’s report of September 4, 1905, the Dalai Lama considered this project feasible, but perhaps not in the near future. In the Dalai Lama’s opinion, the movement that engulfed Mongolia had a serious character and cannot be stalled, since, in addition to the lamas and common people, who have long tended towards Russia, almost all 19 AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/79/189. 20 AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/ 409/184-199a. 21 AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/409/318-332rev. 22 AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/409/310-315a; AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/1457/33-37. 23 AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/78/25-25rev., 169-171rev., report on July 29, 1905 by Victor F. Lyuba, at that time special official of the Russian MFA in Urga.

The Tibet-Mongolia Political Interface

109

the princes of Jerim League, two wangs of Uzemchin and two wangs of Sunud [banners], Jastu [Jasagt] Wang and Abolga [Abaga] Wang, the Chairman of Khorchin League from Eastern and Southern Mongolia are ardent supporters of the idea of independence. In Khalkha, supporters of the project of an independent khanate are Khand Qing Wang, princes, and khutuktus.24

After his restoration to Tibet, the Dalai Lama was ready to support Russia in the unification of Mongolia, but in the meantime he asked Russia to allow him to provide moral support to the Mongols.25 On November 30, 1905, nobles of the Shilingol (Silingol) League, led by its chairman, entered into close relations with the Dalai Lama after a series of meetings, sharing his ideas of uniting the Mongols and Tibetans. It was reported that the head of the League communicated with the leading “Gegeen-Khutuktu in Beijing,” that is, with the Lcangskya Khutuktu, about the same issues. The latter was “quite in solidarity with the Dalai Lama.” It was decided to agitate in the Juuud and Josot leagues of Inner Mongolia, and hold discussions at the meeting of Mongol nobles in Beijing, where they usually gathered to give New Year’s greetings to the Emperor. The Dalai Lama planned to send a representative to these meetings in Beijing in early February 1906, as he informed the Russian Mission in Beijing.26Accompanied by the aforementioned Khitrovo, a delegation from the Jerim League went to worship the Dalai Lama.27 In October 1905, this delegation arrived at Ikh Khuree and went to the Qing Wang Khanddorj headquarters where the Dalai Lama was staying.28 Khitrovo reported that on October 15 he was leaving Kyakhta for Qing Wang Khanddorj’s headquarters (Mo: Daichin vangiin khuree).29 However, “following the order from General Nadarov, Khitrovo stopped in Kyakhta and did not proceed further. To monitor the actions of the Mongolian delegation from the Jerim League, who went to worship the Dalai Lama, he sent his agent Kostritskii completely privately and without any official instructions.”30 According to instructions, the agent did not convey any information to the Dalai Lama from the Russian authorities, but only listened to what the 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/413/245-247. AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/413/245-247. AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/413/383-384. AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/1463. AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/1463/3. AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/1463/7. AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/1463/35.

110 

Sergius L. Kuzmin

Dalai Lama said to him.31 The Mongols of the Jerim League asked the Dalai Lama to visit their banners. One of the most active initiators of this was Prince Jasagt Wang Udai, who is the most loyal to us [Russia] and maintains permanent relations with us. He asked for the maintenance of the deputation during its move across Manchuria and Transbaikalia to Urga, for which he asked to appoint, to accompany the deputation, the head of our Mongolian Expedition, Lieutenant Colonel Khitrovo, who enjoys special goodwill and trust not only of Prince Udai himself but also of the entire Eastern Mongolia.32 Udai dispatched a deputation to the Dalai Lama […] the result of which was the blessing of the Dalai Lama for unimpeded sales of cattle to Russians, despite the fact that the decree of the [Qing] emperor bans this sale, in [the name of] the protection of neutrality [of the Qing Empire in the Russo-Japanese War].

Prince Udai, whose lands were under the threat of Chinese colonization, tried to avoid this, first of all, with Russian aid. He supported the movement for independence of Mongolia. Later he raised a rebellion against the Chinese colonizers, which was brutally suppressed by the troops sent by the Republic of China. According to the Russian diplomatic official P. K. Usatyi, during the Russo-Japanese War the Mongols, despite their declared neutrality, never observed it, and we owe this to Prince Udai, who sent a delegation from the Jerim League to the Dalai Lama which asked for instructions on how to act and whom to hold. A favourable response came from the Dalai Lama, thanks to whom our army was provided with cattle throughout the war.33

Therefore, the Dalai Lama’s advice to the Mongols assisted Russia in the war with Japan by providing cattle to the theatre of war. On January 7, 1906, Lyuba reported to the Russian MFA: The Dalai Lama does not abandon the idea of political unification of Mongolia and Tibet on religious grounds under his personal leadership, 31 AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/1463/35. 32 AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/1463/20-20rev. 33 AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/755/54-57.

The Tibet-Mongolia Political Interface

111

and therefore attaches particular importance to the current congress of princes and khutuktus in Beijing and [his] long-planned trip to the banners of Eastern Mongolia adjacent to Manchuria, where this movement has the most ardent adherents and from where he received a number of invitations.34

Russian MFA sources indicate that the main Mongolian actors behind the movement for independence were the khutuktus and nobles of Khalkha, particularly the nobles of Inner Mongolia from the Jerim and Yekejuu leagues. The Khalkha nobles and lamas would not negotiate with the Dalai Lama without the consent of the Jetsun Dampa Khutuktu; according to Lyuba, “the khans and princes of Khalkha in political and other important matters are grouped around the Khutuktu. His opinion and word are holy.”35Therefore, although the Khalkha Mongols highly revered and followed the Dalai Lama, their political decisions could not contradict the opinion of the Jetsun Dampa. The hopes for the unification of Tibet and Mongolia were not fulfilled. Not only Beijing, but also the Russian MFA was against this. For example, the Russian Envoy to Beijing, D. D. Pokotilov, wrote on February 6, 1906, that the Dalai Lama was evidently supported by the Russian military authorities in Manchuria, but that their views were the opposite of those of the Russian MFA.36 The Mongols offered to help the Dalai Lama return to Tibet, as the Dalai Lama wrote to the Russian Envoy in Beijing on October 25, 1905: My spiritual disciples Lcangskya Gegeen, princes and lamas of Jerim, Silingol and other leagues promised to help as much as possible to remove the British from the limits of the newly captured Tibetan lands. Do not refuse to provide these persons with your wise assistance for the successful completion of the planned affairs. It would be desirable to get a sealed paper from the British that they will not try to invade the inner provinces of Tibet again.37

Thus, even when the Dalai Lama had to come back to Tibet, he continued to contact Mongols and Russian officials in an attempt to make his position on his return as influential as possible. 34 35 36 37

AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/85/1. AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/78/5rev. AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/85/13-14. AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/409/50-51.

112 

Sergius L. Kuzmin

In the autumn of 1906, the Dalai Lama went from Outer Mongolia to Khukhnuur (Kukunor).38 While waiting for his arrival at Beijing, the Qing authorities were planning to use him to neutralize the Mongols’ discontent with their “new policy.” According to the report of B. K. Arseniev, the First Secretary of the Russian Diplomatic Mission in Beijing, to the Russian MFA on July 29, 1908, The Chinese Government has big hopes for the Dalai Lama’s arrival to Beijing. It expects his assistance to deal a decisive blow to the selfdependence of the Mongols. Only with this goal did it seem to agree to the arrival of the Pontiff. There is no doubt that if the Chinese succeed in winning the Dalai Lama over to their side in the Mongolian question, whether by making concessions in Tibet or in any other way, then the present system of Mongolia will come to an end, for one imperative word from the spiritual ruler of the Lamaites [“Lamaists”], the Living Buddha, will be enough to make the blindly believing Mongols accepting of the transformation of their land into a Chinese province with Chinese rule. Under these conditions, the future of Mongolia is largely in the hands of the Dalai Lama. To ensure that he fulfils the task for which he is called to Beijing, the Chinese Government is now discussing the issue of summoning all Mongol princes here for the arrival of the Pontiff, both those princes who have their queue to be at the court this winter, and others.39

Thus, the Qing authorities planned to use the Dalai Lama’s influence on the Mongol nobles for extinguishing their movement against the “new policy.” His stay in Beijing on the way to Tibet, when he was surrounded by Qing officials, might had been considered a good time to put pressure on him. Around the same time, a group of high-ranking Mongol nobles decided to petition the Ministry of Colonies to submit their report to the emperor “on the restoration of the rank” of the Dalai Lama. One of these nobles was waiting for the arrival of the Mongol members of the Constitutional Chamber in Beijing; when they met, they would discuss the Dalai Lama issue, collect signatures from the Mongolian nobles, and submit a joint report to the emperor.40 In October 1908, these Mongolian nobles petitioned the Ministry of Colonies to restore the Dalai Lama to the rank he had been 38 AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/1457/73. 39 AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/410/57-57rev. The princes followed a time schedule, according to which they had to be at the court in turn. 40 AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/411/320.

The Tibet-Mongolia Political Interface

113

“deprived” of by the Qing Emperor’s decree after fleeing from Tibet. In turn, the Minister of Colonies presented this issue to the Committee of Ministers for discussion. 41 As mentioned above, the Dalai Lama maintained contacts with the high-ranking nobles and lamas of Outer Mongolia. He visited the monasteries of Erdene Zuu and Zaya Pandita Khutuktu and lived for some time in the headquarters of the Wang Khanddorj. The Dalai Lama’s contact with Mongolian nobles to elaborate plans for independence seems to have been impossible without sanction from the Jetsun Dampa (whose “opinion and word are holy” for them—see above). In Khalkha, he met secretly with the Jetsun Dampa several times. These contacts probably became one of the important factors in the struggle of the Mongols for independence. In particular, his association with the Dalai Lama laid the foundation for Khanddorj becoming one of the main participants in this struggle in 1911. He maintained contacts with the Dalai Lama after his departure from Khalkha. For example, in April 1907, the abbot of the Khanddorj’s monastery, having returned from the monastery of Kumbum, said that the Dalai Lama “dismissed a lot of people from his entourage because of suspicions of spying for the British and Chinese.”42 It seems no coincidence that at that time it was the abbot of the Khanddorj’s monastery who went to the Dalai Lama and then told Khanddorj about the current state of things. After reconciling with the Qing court, the Dalai Lama returned to Lhasa, but did not stay there long. The outrages committed by the Qing expeditionary forces in Tibet, including shooting in the direction of the Potala and Jokhang, which are among the main sacred places in Tibet, and the potential of being arrested forced the Dalai Lama to flee to India in February 1910. Immediately, the Qing court issued an imperial decree stated that the Dalai Lama had been “deposed,” which neither Tibetans nor Mongols intended to abide by. According to a March 24, 1910 report by Ya. P. Shishmarev, the Russian Consul General in Ikh Khuree, to the MFA, the Dalai Lama’s flight from Tibet made a great impression on the Mongols, especially the nobles and lamas, and an even bigger one on the Tibetans. The Beijing Government telegraphed orders to the amban of Ikh Khuree and the janjin of Uliastai that they should detain the Dalai Lama if he went to Russia. But, upon hearing of the Dalai Lama’s flight, the Jetsun Dampa Khutuktu told the amban Yanzhi that no matter where he went, even in Mongolia, the Khutuktu could do 41 AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/411/320. 42 AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/409/442.

114 

Sergius L. Kuzmin

nothing and nothing depended on him. The Chinese were convinced that the Dalai Lama would be going to Russia and spread this rumour among the Mongols. 43 The Jetsun Dampa’s words meant that he wouldn’t help the Qing government find or arrest the Dalai Lama. The Diguo Shibao newspaper of the first day of the third moon of the second year of Xuantong (spring 1909), noted that “if in the future complications in Mongolian affairs begin, they will inevitably affect Tibet, but, on the other hand, Tibetan Affairs cannot remain without influence on the affairs of Mongolia.”44 This assumption was soon justified: Tibet and the Dalai Lama continued to influence the situation in Mongolia. On December 29, 1911, the Mongols enthroned the Eighth Jetsun Dampa Khutuktu as their Great or Holy Khan (Mo: Bogd khaan). Mongols granted him the same honour as they had given to Hongtaiji, the Khan of the Manchus in 1636. One can say that this was translatio imperii. The Mongols preferred to have a Tibetan as the leader rather than a Mongol because there were not enough charismatic leaders among the descendants of Chinggis Khan and the search for a suitable candidate among the Mongols could lead to civil strife. The Mongol proclamations of independence and of the instalment of the Jetsun Dampa as the Bogd Khaan both emphasize that one of the main reasons for these changes was the need to preserve the Gelug faith in Mongolia. The State of Tibet led by the Dalai Lama was used as a model for the new theocratic monarchy in Mongolia. For example, the highest authority of the Dalai Lama was designated by the formula “holding the religious and the secular [power]” (Tib: Chos srid gnyis ldan). The Jetsun Dampa’s power in Mongolia was denoted by a similar formula: “holding together the religion and the state” (Mo: Shashin turiig khoslon barigch). The word tur has the meaning of “power, state administration, system, order.” The full title of the Bogd Khaan also had Indian connotations. The Bogd Khaan’s title “Elevated by the Many” (Mo: Olnoo urgugdsun) is the translation of Mahasammata, a legendary Indian King-Chakravartin, from whom the genealogy of Chinggis Khaan was derived in the Buddhist Mongolian historiography. Another Bogd Khaan’s title, “Sun-Shining” (Mo: Naran gerelt) also derived from the titulature of Indian kings (one of meanings of the word root raj- is “shine”). Therefore, this titulature combined Indo-Tibetan and Mongolian components of supreme power legitimization.

43 AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/600/2-5. 44 AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/411/26-29.

The Tibet-Mongolia Political Interface

115

During speeches at the enthronement, the Panchen Lama was mentioned as the Teacher (of the people), while the Dalai Lama was mentioned in the written national anthem of independent Mongolia. Since that time, the state emblem of Mongolia has been the soyombo (from sanskr. Svayambhu). This ancient symbol is connected to the ten Indian symbols that make up the Tantric monogram namchuvangdan in Tibetan Buddhism. 45 The Eighth Jetsun Dampa encouraged the Mongols to read the works of the Fifth Dalai Lama on the doctrine of religion and power. 46 This treatise contains, among other things, brief information about how the heads of the Sakya Sect established a “Priest-Patron” relationship with the Mongols, how later Mongol rulers accepted the teachings of Tsongkapa, resulting in their pacification, how the Chos srid (“religious and secular”) principle was established in Tibet, how the fragmentation of Tibet by religious sects (Nyingma, Sakya, etc.) ended, how the Mongol rulers interpreted secular affairs as religious, and how Tibet and Mongolia established their friendship.47 According to a report to the Russian Diplomatic Mission in Beijing from the Russian Consul General in Harbin on July 19, 1912, the Harbin military daotai Li Jiao sent a report to the chief of the Mukden Province, the dudu Zhao Erxyun, on June 16, 1912, to transmit to the President Yuan Shikai proposals for measures in relation to Mongolia and Tibet: At present, we hear that the Dalai Lama has already set a time at which he intends to personally visit the Khutuktu of Urga for secret negotiations on many issues, the main one of which is the alliance between Mongolia and Tibet, in order to jointly declare independence and thereby create new obstacles for China, which may indeed entail many bad consequences for China. If this plan is not destroyed at the very beginning, how can the young Republic of China be strengthened and disasters from outside be prevented? The main culprits of the alleged union of Mongolia and Tibet and their declarations of independence this time are the Russians. On the Mongolian side, this idea is supported by ardent Russophiles, the Russian language expert Song Guang Yang Khan and Dorzhiev. Both these individuals have considerable influence throughout Mongolia. The Khutuktu of Urga trusts them in everything, and they also have great support from the Russians. A vigorous helper in their activities is the 45 For more information on Buddhist and Tibetan connotations, see Kuzmin, Teokraticheskaya Gosudarstvennost, 92–96. 46 Jamsranjav, The Bogd Khaan, 30–65, 110–112. 47 The Fifth Dalai Lama, Gangs Chan Yul, 192–195.

116 

Sergius L. Kuzmin

fearless and warlike Togtokh. These three persons are “three calamities” for China, and until they are exhausted or, better, eliminated altogether, the independence of Mongolia will not be destroyed, and, consequently, there will be no guarantee of preventing the split of Chinese territory.

The daotai proposed choosing 30–40 brave men from the local Manchu bandit gangs, who were familiar with Mongolia and the Mongols, to form a terrorist group to send to Mongolia to destroy the possibility of Mongolian independence. For the murders of the Jetsun Dampa and the Dalai Lama, it was proposed to assign a reward of $10,000 (Mexican silver dollars used in China) each, and for Togtokh $5,000. If any of this Manchu group were killed in Mongolia, their family would be given $10,000. 48 In early January 1913, Reuters reported that A. Dorzhiev came from Lhasa to Urga and announced that Tibet had declared independence, and that the Dalai Lama had ascended the throne. It said that Dorzhiev was trusted by the Dalai Lama. Based on Mongolian sources it stated: When the Khutuktu of Urga declared independence, the Mongols began to say that not only were the Khutuktu and the Dalai Lama in the most friendly relationship, but that the Khutuktu in all of his actions followed instructions from the Dalai Lama, with whom he maintains extensive business correspondence and now, with the proclamation of Mongolia’s independence, you can soon expect the independence of Tibet. 49

The despatch of Dorzhiev to Urga by the Dalai Lama had a far-reaching goal. In January 1913, Mongolia and Tibet signed an inter-state Treaty of mutual recognition. The original Treaty is stored in the archive in Ulaanbaatar (and probably also in Lhasa, but that archive is classif ied by China). A handwritten copy of the Mongolian text and a Russian translation are also available in Moscow archives.50 For a long time, the very existence of this Treaty was questioned, and some researchers still do not consider it a valid international document. Their main arguments are that Mongolia and Tibet were not independent states when it was signed, that the signing was a personal initiative of Dorzhiev, and the signing itself was relatively spontaneous. None of these are correct. The text of the Treaty was indeed 48 AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/647/165-168. 49 Shuntian Shibao, 23 December 1912/5 January 1913, AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/412/8182(transl.), 83 (orig.). 50 AVPRI/491/567/6-10, 11a, b; RGASPI/514/1/32/95-100

The Tibet-Mongolia Political Interface

117

prepared by Dorzhiev: its drafts have been preserved.51 But Dorzhiev was given approval to negotiate by the Dalai Lama.52 The Russo-Mongolian Agreement (or Treaty) of November 3, 1912 had been concluded earlier. In this treaty Russia did not include statements about a separation of Mongolia from China, but the preamble does state that the former relations of Mongolia with China had been ended. Instead of “Outer Mongolia,” broader terms are used: Mongoliya (Mongolia) in the Russian version and Mongol uls (State of Mongolia) in the Mongolian version. The Russian version contains the terms avtonomnyi and samobytnyi, which may be translated as “autonomous” and “original,” while the Mongolian version contains the terms uurtuu ezerkhekh and uurtuu togtnokh which mean “independence” or “self-dependence.” The same Mongolian words were later used for the term “independence” in the Treaty between Mongolia and Tibet. The signed Russian and Mongolian language versions of the Russo-Mongolian Agreement have the same validity. Therefore, we can agree with the Mongolian understanding of this agreement: Mongolia was formally recognized as an independent state by Russia. According to Article 3 of this Agreement, China was designated as a foreign state, and Mongolia acquired the capacity to conclude treaties with any foreign states. Therefore, Mongolia was capable of concluding an international treaty with Tibet. The following month, in December 1912, Dorzhiev came to Urga (Niislel Khuree, the new name for Ikh Khuree after the proclamation of independence) as the official envoy of the Dalai Lama. While there he met the Russian diplomatic representative I. Ya. Korostovets, who said to him: “Mutual recognition of independence might provide a basis for such an agreement. As Khalkha already declared her independence, recognized by Russia, her position is clearer than the position of Tibet.”53 In other words, the signing of the Treaty between Tibet and Mongolia was initially supported and sanctioned by the Russian plenipotentiary in Mongolia. However, on January 23, 1913, Korostovets wrote to the Russian Foreign Minister S. D. Sazonov that the document had no political value and could not be considered an international convention due to a “lack of legal capacity of the sides.”54 This looks ambiguous, as Korostovets had himself made Mongolia legally capable through his signing of the Russo-Mongolian Agreement of 1912.

51 Samten and Tsyrempilov, From Tibet Confidentially, 11–192. 52 For more information see Kuzmin, Teokraticheskaya Gosudarstvennost, 104. 53 Korostovets, Devyat Mesyatsev v Mongolii, 198. 54 AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/567/6-10.

118 

Sergius L. Kuzmin

The Treaty between Mongolia and Tibet was signed on January 11, 1913, in the capital city of Mongolia Niislel Khuree by plenipotentiary representatives of the Jetsun Dampa Khutuktu and the Dalai Lama. According to this Treaty, Mongolia and Tibet recognized each other as independent states. Dorzhiev stated that he sent a copy of this treaty to Lhasa for approval by the Dalai Lama, which he would undoubtedly receive “with regard to exact instructions and credentials to negotiations and concluding of treaty obtained by him.”55 On January 23, 1913, the Dalai Lama returned to Lhasa and published the declaration officially confirming the independence of Tibet.56 On June 7, 1915, a tripartite Agreement between Russia, Mongolia, and China was signed in Kyakhta. According to this agreement, Outer Mongolia was recognized as autonomous under the suzerainty of China; she refused her right of conclusion of international treaties on political and territorial issues; she had exclusive right for her domestic affairs and conclusion of international treaties on trade and economy; Russia and China were obliged to not interfere in her internal governing; the exact number of Russian and Chinese guard troups was indicated; the Chinese resident could observe implementation of the suzerain rights of China, territorial delimitation of the Outer Mongolia with China, customs regulations and other minor issues. At the same time, there are some differences in Russian, Mongolian, Chinese and French texts. For example, the title of Jetsun Dampa in the Mongolian text combines the words bogd and khaan, which allows us to understand it explicitly as Great (Holy) Khan, i.e., Emperor.57 Baron B.E. Nolde, one of leading specialists of international law and the Director of Legislative Section of the Russian MFA, explained the status of Outer Mongolia in a special paper. He explained in detail that Outer Mongolia is exactly a state by both state criteria, state-legal or international-legal. “Her legal capacity is incomplete, but this legal capacity cannot be denied The fact that her territory is called in the treaties as the territory of China does not hinder the recognition of Outer Mongolia as a state.” Nolde also analysed in detail what suzerainty meant at that time. He explained that this term meant the presumption of completeness of the rights of the subordinated state: the latter possesses of everything except for what was described for the suzerain. With regard to Mongolia, the suzerainty was no more than legal, “without any positive content, it is manifested in rather formal than material rights and obligations.” Nolde concluded that Outer 55 AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/567/6-10. 56 See Shakabpa, Tibet: A Political History, 246–248, for the full text. 57 For more information, see Kuzmin, Teokraticheskaya Gosudarstvennost, 116‒118.

The Tibet-Mongolia Political Interface

119

Mongolia is the state under suzerainty of China and protectorate of Russia.58 This explanation should be considered as official explanation of the Russian MFA. Mongolia had concluded the treaty with Tibet before the tripartite agreement, and the treaty was never revoked. The treaty between Tibet and Mongolia thus became the first demonstration of the international legal capacity of the State of Mongolia after its recognition by Russia in 1912. As a valid international document of mutual recognition between states, the Treaty of 1913 between Tibet and Mongolia also rendered Tibet into an independent actor under international law. Subsequently Tibet was an independent state de facto and de jure up to the time of its “peaceful liberation” by the People’s Republic of China in 1951. The conclusion of the treaty strengthened the relationship between Tibet and Mongolia. For example, the Russian diplomatic agent in Mongolia A. Ya. Miller telegraphed on September 5, 1913 to the MFA, that the Mongolian government was asking for 500 Berdan rifles and 50,000 rounds of ammunition. Miller notes that, “According to my information, these weapons are intended as a gift to the Dalai Lama from the Khutuktu.”59 The Russian Foreign Minister replied on September 9, 1913: Sending the weapons via the Mongolian Government to the Dalai Lama should cause displeasure in England, which is negotiating a triple agreement with the Chinese Government regarding Tibet similar to those we are conducting with regard to Mongolia. Please, advise the Mongolian Government not to spend the money it needs for more productive purposes on these weapons, and explain to the Mongolian ministers that we would consider it a crime on our part to promote such idle spending.60

Thus, the Bogd Khaan’s government tried to use its ties with Russia to arm the Tibetan troops, but Russia refused to provide weapons fearing problems with Great Britain, with which she was on the way to military union against Germany. What was the reason for this request for weapons? It may be connected to the rebellion of the Bargut Mongols in Hulunbuir (Barga), who declared their independence from China in 1912 and joined the independent Mongolia led by the Jetsun Dampa. General E. I. Martynov, the Chief of the Zaamurskii Region of the Russian Border Guard, and his subordinates played a prominent role in supporting the Bargut movement, 58 Nolde, Mezhdunarodnoe, 2153-2168, 2219-2231. 59 AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/655/141. 60 AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/655/161.

120 

Sergius L. Kuzmin

which ended with separation from China and the expulsion of Chinese troops. Lieutenant Colonel N. N. Baidak, who acted with the sanction of Martynov, played an important role in this. According to Baidak, besides some Bargut leaders, the most influential person involved was the Dalai Lama’s envoy, the Uselrimbuchi Gegeen.61 He promised to provide them with help from Russia, which they were willing to accept.62 According to Baidak’s note, he sent a letter by courier to the Uselrimbuchi Gegeen stating: the head of the Red-Hats [i.e. any Tibetan Buddhist sect other than Gelug], asking for a blessing to Barga for the holy cause of uprising. The Uselrimbuchi Gegeen in early August of 1911 arrived from India; he was sent by the Dalai Lama to promote the uprising against China. After learning from the Mongols that I am a Russian officer, who enjoyed the sympathy of the Mongols and helped them a great deal, he wished to meet me; not wishing to arouse Chinese suspicions, who, apparently, were aware of his mission, he did not visit me in Hailar, but asked me to come to him to his headquarters at the distance of 40 versts from the station of Wangun. There, amongst his lamas, he revealed to me his mission and asked me to help the Mongols with advice, because, in view of the persecution by the Chinese, he must go to Transbaikalia (Aginsk area), from where he will send lamas with appeals and, if there is a rebellion, his blessing will be a great driving force.

Uselrimbuchi also showed Baidak the letter that he had prepared for representatives of the Mongols, “in which he blesses Barga for the rebellion and says that the time for freedom has come.”63 On February 1, 1912, the Russian Consulate in Harbin received a report from the MFA official that Barga’s independence from China, declared a month before, could be considered established.64 In 1912, Barga subjected itself to the Bogd Khaan Jetsun Dampa Khutuktu. However, Russia prevented the reunification of Barga with Outer Mongolia, following secret agreements with Japan (containing demarcation of their spheres of influence in Manchuria and Mongolia) and not wanting to spoil relations with China. 61 He was the incarnation of the Odser Rinpoche. The current incarnation of the Odser Rinpoche was one of the associates of the Ninth Jetsun Dampa. The Odser Rinpoche now lives in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. 62 AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/760/51-58rev. 63 AVPRI/Kitaiskii stol/491/760/59-70rev. 64 AVPRI/761/Missiya v Pekine/761/386/1-4.

The Tibet-Mongolia Political Interface

121

In 1915, China and Russia agreed on the autonomy of Hulunbuir (Barga) and made efforts to politically isolate it from Outer Mongolia. In 1920, Hulunbuir’s autonomy was illegitimately revoked by China, soon after the same illegitimate action of China in Outer Mongolia. Tibetans continued to be a significant presence in Outer Mongolia for a decade later. They represented a channel for communication between Tibet and Mongolia. Tibet tried to use this channel to get help from Russia. According to a message from Miller, Russian diplomat in Outer Mongolia, to Foreign Minister Sazonov on September 2, 1915, Jampel Choinjor, the Dalai Lama’s envoy to Niislel Khuree, presented a Russian translation of the Dalai Lama’s request “to provide him with thousands of 5-charge three-line rifles, even without cartridges. The latter, according to the messenger, are produced in Tibet.” Miller rejected this request, hinting that the Dalai Lama might have better luck petitioning the British Government through the Indian authorities.65 There were some disagreements about the status of Tibetans in Outer Mongolia. On November 7, 1915, the Russian Vice-Consul in Outer Mongolia A. P. Khionin reported to Sazonov that the Chinese Government believed that its jurisdiction extended to Tibetans who lived in the autonomous Outer Mongolia on an equal basis as other Chinese subjects. The private opinion of the British Envoy in Beijing was that it was difficult to dispute this. The authorities of Outer Mongolia held a different opinion: Referring to the practice established under the Chinese ambans, even before the Mongol coup, according to which Tibetans living in Outer Mongolia were under the jurisdiction of the Shanzav [a monk in charge of civil and financial affairs of the disciples who worked for a khutuktu] without any relation to the Chinese authorities, the Government of Autonomous Mongolia stands for the preservation of this order at present time. It would seem that subjecting Tibetans living in Outer Mongolia to the jurisdiction of the Autonomous Government would not contradict our interests in this country.66

This meant that the Mongolian government considered Tibetans in Outer Mongolia as not being subjects of China. At the same time, they were considered as subjects of Tibet. In Mongolia, they formed a part of its clergy and business establishments. 65 AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/412/237-239. 66 AVPRI/Missiya v Pekine/761/412/242-245rev.

122 

Sergius L. Kuzmin

In 1919 China announced the elimination of the autonomy of Outer Mongolia, in violation of the tripartite Kyakhta Agreement of 1915. In 1920, the White Guard troops from Russia led by Baron R. F. von Ungern-Sternberg entered Outer Mongolia from Transbaikalia. Ungern was a monarchist who sought to restore Chinggis Khan’s Empire whose parts would be composed of a union of Tibet, Xinjiang, Khalkha, Inner Mongolia, Barga, Manchuria, and Shandong.67 According to his plan, each of these territories would be an autonomous state.68 This idea was not incidental: in the 1920s, the idea of a “federation of self-governing provinces” was spreading throughout the former Qing Empire. Ungern may have also known that Mongols and Tibetans had discussed plans to create an independent “union state” in 1905–1906. Ungern tried to capture Urga in the autumn of 1920 but was repulsed by Chinese troops. The Chinese arrested the Jetsun Dampa as well as several other influential lamas and nobles. Retreating to the east of Outer Mongolia, Ungern began to replenish his troops. Lamas agitated for the formation of Mongol troops and the expulsion of the Chinese. The Bargut warlord Luvsan joined Ungern, while one of the Jetsun Dampa’s confidants, the Tibetan Jamyandanzan known as Saj Lama (the Sakya Lama Jamyang Tenzin), and the Buryat Ts. J. Tubanov went to recruit Tibetan troops. As a result, at the end of January 1921 eighty Tibetans arrived to join Ungern. Ungern’s men called them “Tibetan Mongols,” while the Mongols called them “Tanguts.”69 The last term was a reminiscence of the ancient Tangut Kingdom, although these Tibetans, of course, were not real Tanguts. They were supposedly from the Tibetan colony in Urga, but some speculated that they had been sent from Tibet by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama himself. Before the capture of Niislel Khuree, Ungern’s troops had 1,460 men, including a separate detachment led by Ts. J. Tubanov (one Tibetan sotnia and one Buryat-Mongolian sotnia),70 comprising 170 men. The Chinese troops numbered about 7,000.71 On the night of February 1, 1921, two hundred Tibetans, Mongols, and Buryats led by Tubanov, Luvsan, and the Saj Lama set out to free the Jetsun Dampa from house arrest. On February 2 they liberated him and his spouse and transported them to Manjushri Khutuktu Monastery on the Bogd Uul Mountain. In the spring of 1921, the Tibetan and Mongolian detachments continued to participate in Ungern’s operations to 67 AVPRF/0111/2/104/47/45-46rev; RGVA/39454/1/9/104-107. 68 Quoted by Magsarjav, Mongol ulsyn shine tüüukh, 207–210. 69 Vecher, July 14, 1921. 70 Sotnia is an old Russian military term meaning a Cossack squadron which initially consisted of 100 horsemen. 71 Tornovskii, “Sobytiya v Mongolii-Khalkhe,” 208, 211.

The Tibet-Mongolia Political Interface

123

liberate Outer Mongolia from the Chinese occupation, particularly in the decisive battle at Ulaan Khad. In May 1921, Ungern began his campaign into Soviet Siberia, which ended unsuccessfully. The Tibetan detachment led by Nemchinov (or Nechaev) (two sotnias, 200 men) participated in this campaign.72 Then the Tibetan detachment participated in the defence of Urga against Russian Red troops, but unsuccessfully. After the defeat, its commander went to Ungern and the Tibetans returned to Urga to defend the Jetsun Dampa. After his defeat by the Reds, Ungern decided to go to Tibet to fight against the Chinese and British. However, his comrades in arms wanted to return to a more peaceful life. White Russian officers organized a plot against their commander, which led to the capture and execution of Ungern by the Reds. There is evidence that Ungern established a connection with the Dalai Lama through the Jetsun Dampa and maintained this connection through correspondence. He wrote to the Dalai Lama stating that he was fighting the Reds and urged him to fight for Buddhism. Envoys from Tibet brought him letters from the Dalai Lama. As a sign of his friendly attitude toward Ungern, the Dalai Lama sent him several talismans to protect his life and bring success, and Ungern did not part with them.73 This information is consistent with data from the memoirs of eyewitnesses N. M. Ryabukhin, S. E. Khitun, Golubev, and D. Alioshin.74 Another eyewitness, K. Gizycki, briefly described the Dalai Lama’s embassy to Ungern.75 According to his description, the embassy consisted of Tibetan officials who came from Lhasa. Shortly before being captured by the Reds, Ungern wrote to the Dalai Lama that he wanted to leave Mongolia and go to Tibet. However, the account of one of Ungern’s interrogations by the Reds, states that he never received a response from the Dalai Lama to his letters.76 I failed to find documents related to his correspondence with the Dalai Lama in archives, including in the preserved files of Ungern’s troop’s chancellery. The archives of Lhasa are not available to independent researchers. In the summer of 1921, with help from the Bolsheviks, the Mongolian People’s Party (MPP, later Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party, MPRP), came to power in Mongolia and removed the Jetsun Dampa from secular power. Before the end of the year, the first resistance to the Red power from 72 Tornovskii, “Sobytiya v Mongolii-Khalkhe,” 249–250. 73 See Kuzmin, Istoriya Barona Ungerna, 236. 74 See Kuzmin, Baron Ungern v Dokumentakh, 2004; Alioshin, Asian Odyssey, 167. 75 Gizycki, Przez Urjanchaj i Mongolje, 175–176. 76 GARF/9427/1/392/47-60.

124 

Sergius L. Kuzmin

Mongolian nobles and lamas, together with Tibetans from the Tibetan colony in Mongolia, began. The Saj Lama Jamyandanzan decided to recruit soldiers from among Mongolian Tibetans, including natives of Amdo, to overthrow the MPP.77 In 1922, a conspiracy aimed at restoring the monarchy and led by the Saj Lama was uncovered. Jambal, one of conspirators, said during his interrogation: The Saj Lama said that it is not only the Bogd Khaan who dislikes this People’s Party that has organized power. Our Tibetans and many lamas of Gandan and Khuree monasteries wanted to become a White Party. When I asked how many soldiers want to be there, the Saj Lama said that there are no trained soldiers, but there are 300 Tibetans, each with 2–3 guns, 200–300 rounds of ammunition; they are always ready to catch and shoot the ministers, leaders of the People’s Party; then we will have a lot of weapons and ammunition.78

The rebels had planned to start this uprising on November 21, 1921, but were arrested before any action happened. While in prison, the Saj Lama planned to escape with three prisoners, assist other conspirators, and overthrow the People’s Government. But before any attempt was made, the Saj Lama was executed by firing squad. At the same time, a group of Russians, Buryats, and seventeen Tibetans and Chinese, were arrested for counter-revolutionary activities.79 After the death of the Eighth Jetsun Dampa Khutuktu in 1924, the MPRP Government suppressed all attempts to identify his next incarnation using various pretexts—the most important being the need for the Dalai Lama’s sanction.80 In the early years of MPRP rule, the influence of Tibetans in the Mongolian People’s Republic (MPR) was significant. In 1926, 400 Tibetans, including the owners of nineteen businesses, still remained.81 After the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s stay in Mongolia, there remained large donations given to him by the Mongols. To manage this property, a donir was assigned to represent the Tibetan Government in Mongolia, transmit important information to 77 MUUTA/MBT/4/1/1a/1-14. 78 In: Purevjav and Dashjamts, BNMAU-d Sum, Khiid, Lam, 62. 79 Byulleten MONTA, 1922. 80 For more information, see Kuzmin, Teokraticheskaya Gosudarstvennost, 371–390. 81 Ulambayar, “Mongol Uls Tuvdtei,” 86–92.

The Tibet-Mongolia Political Interface

125

Lhasa, purchase goods for the Tibetan Government, monitor Tibetan trade, and issue pilgrim permits to Tibet. During the Mongolian monarchy, the Tibetans were completely subordinate to the donir. He had proxies who traveled around the country and collected the monetary donations that the people imposed on themselves during the Dalai Lama’s stay. The money were collected during the Dalai Lama’s stay in Mongolia on a voluntary basis and large sums were deposited in the Tibetan Treasury in Urga. The money was often put into circulation, until this was banned by the MPR Government. This ban reflected the MPRP fight against the Buddhist clergy according to the Bolsheviks’ prescriptions. Until 1919–1922, Tibet conducted intensive trade with Mongolia via Tibetan merchants, exporting images of Buddhist deities, incense, woodcuts of religious books, small batches of furs, lama’s robes, and high-quality Tibetan cotton fabric. Mongolian exports to Tibet mainly consisted of Chinese silk, imported goods, Russian brocade, leather, skins, and furs. Through its agents, the MPR Government brought this Tibetan trade under its control. It imposed high customs duties on all items of worship, which led to a stagnation in trade relations.82 The Tibetans in the MPR were dissatisfied with this policy. In the past, several hundred thousand Mexican silver dollars’ worth of Tibetan goods had been imported into Mongolia annually; the introduction of the new customs duties on Tibetan goods caused this inflow to decline considerably. Tibetan merchants began to avoid sending their goods to Mongolia: up to three-fourths of the goods going north were now sent to Xining, and many were sold in the Yum Beise area. It was reported that “Lobsang Choindon believes that the Mongolian customs policy does not correspond to Mongolia’s kinship and religious ties with Tibet.”83 The Thirteenth Dalai Lama and the Government of Tibet were wary of the MPR. The Tibetans were aware of the oppression of Buddhists in the USSR.84 In 1922, it was reported that the Dalai Lama: received a letter from the Khutuktu of Urga [Jetsun Dampa] where he had written that the Soviets, having destroyed their temples and sacred books, have finally approached Mongolia and dethroned him with the assistance of the MPP. As a result, the Dalai Lama ordered, according to

82 Roerich, Po Tropam Sredinnoi Azii, 111–112. 83 Intelligence report dated February 20, 1927, from a source close to Lobsang Choindon, the representative of Tibet in Mongolia, RGVA/25895/1/842/230. 84 Andreev, Tibet v Politike Tsarskoi, 297.

126 

Sergius L. Kuzmin

the Khutuktu’s appeal, special prayers in the temples of Tibet to destroy the enemies of the Buddhist faith.85

In 1927, a Soviet-Mongolian embassy arrived in Tibet and unsuccessfully tried to establish diplomatic relations between Mongolia and Tibet. The exchange by envoys corresponded to the plan of G. V. Chicherin, the USSR People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs: to create an unofficial Soviet representation in Lhasa under the guise of the MPR Plenipotentiary Mission.86 The envoys submitted a letter to the Tibetan MFA stating that they had received no response to earlier messages that had been sent in 1922 and 1924. The letter handed over by the Mongolian Envoy Gombo Idshin stated that Mongolia wanted to appoint an Ambassador to the Tibetan state, who would come to Lhasa to present a note to the Dalai Lama and his Government expressing a desire to establish friendly relations. Since Mongolia and Tibet were independent states, they should conclude a treaty of friendship.87 There is also a Russian draft of this project.88 The MFA of Tibet prepared a response stating: by the Dalai Lama’s order, the Khenpos of the three Great Monasteries, representatives of many secular and spiritual institutions, and laymen have discussed these issues several times and concluded that there are no restrictions on receiving messages from the Mongolian Government in the twelfth year of the Mongolian State (1922). Appointed by the Dalai Lama, the MFA head Yabshi Bonkhon Gung Ping Khan, Dunjin Chin Choijor (the Gyantze Governor), and Janza Khanchung Lozava (lower khenpo, translator) gathered with the Mongolian plenipotentiaries, who briefly explained the treaty project. The Tibetans said that the exchange of diplomatic representatives would be used by foreign states as a precedent for similar exchanges, but such representatives could not be admitted. Mongolia had been connected with Tibet by religion for a long time, and this connection could not be mixed with other issues. “This connection of Tibet with Mongolian countries was strengthened during the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s visit. Currently, the religious connection between Tibet and Mongolia is still very strong.” They said that the Tibetan Government would “provide trust and support to Mongolian subjects;” every issue could be solved based on the religious friendship between Mongolia 85 Andreev, Tibet v Politike Tsarskoi, 244, 297. 86 Andreev, Tibet v Politike Tsarskoi, 273, 287. 87 GKhTA/63/1/39/1, in Bor, Mongol Khiiged, 197–198. 88 AVPRF/Karakhan Secretariat/10/33/186, in Batbayar and Gombosuren, Mongol ba Tüvd, 184–186; TAFSB/65/9920/118-119.

The Tibet-Mongolia Political Interface

127

and Tibet. “Therefore, there is no need to talk about the mutual exchange of diplomatic representatives and the conclusion of a special agreement on this issue between our states. […] By special instructions of His Holiness, specially arrived representatives of Mongolia were honored as diplomatic persons.”89 Thus, the Tibetan side did not want to establish diplomatic relations with the MPR on the pretext of the already existing traditional religious Tibet-Mongolian relations. However, the real causes are evident from the envoys’ meeting with the Dalai Lama. On May 3, 1927, the Mongolian envoys were received by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. He explained that Tibet had not exchanged embassies with any state, and Mongolia had established a revolutionary rule that sought to extinguish Gelug Buddhism. The Eighth Jetsun Dampa had died and the ninth had not yet been identified; only when he was identified would discussions become possible, according to the situation at the time.90 The Lama Diluv Khutuktu Jamsranjav in his famous memoirs recalled that the Tibetans suspected that Ishdorj (Tib: ye shes rdo rje), one member of the Mongolian embassy, was sent by the Reds with a secret mission to spread the ideas of the Communist International (Comintern).91 The Mongol envoys left Tibet in October 1927 and returned to Ulaanbaatar (former Urga) in May 1928.92 From Tibet they brought the confirmation that a certain small boy from Central Mongolia was the ninth incarnation of the Jetsun Dampa. This confirmation was given by the Sakya Panchen (Mo: Saj Vanchin, Saj Banchin, Saj Bogd), the head of the Sakya Sect—not the Gelug sect to which the Eighth Jetsun Dampa belonged. In addition, according to the teacher of the late Eighth Jetsun Dampa, the Tibetan Yongzin Khenpo Lobsang Khaimchog (Mo: Yonzon Khamba Luvsankhaimchig), who permanently lived in Niislel Khuree (currently Ulaanbaatar), the work of identifying the new tulku (reincarnated lama) had not yet been implemented when this incarnation was identified.93 For these reasons the identification was not accepted. Later, attempts to search for any tulku incarnation in the MPR was blocked by the MPRP governments. In 1936 the Ninth Bogd Gegeen Jetsun Dampa Khutuktu was finally reliably identified in Tibet and was canonically recognized by the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, who officially 89 TAFSB/2/8/378/42-4, copy of translation to INO OGPU no 14644 on June 4, 1928. 90 Ulambayar, “Mongol Uls Tuvdtei,” 86–92. 91 Lattimore and Isono, “Diluv Hutagt,” 131–132. 92 Ulambayar, “Mongol Uls Tuvdtei,” 86–92. 93 MUUTA/MBT/4/6/80/1-112.

128 

Sergius L. Kuzmin

announced this in 1991, and shortly before his death in 2012, the ninth incarnation received Mongolian citizenship and was recognized as the head of the Buddhists of Mongolia. (He was also Tibetan.) The persecution of Buddhism and Tibetans increased during the period of the “Leftist Deviation” in the MPR (1929–1932). This “deviation,” directed by Bolsheviks, aimed at accelerated building of Socialism in Mongolia. On October 23, 1929, the Central Committee of the MPRP banned the import of Tibetan religious books and religious images, on the grounds that they were “contributing to the oppression of the people.”94 Along with the Mongol lamas, Tibetan lamas were also repressed in the MPR. In 1931, an underground group of lamas from the Tariatyn Khuree Monastery of the Arkhangai Aimag (province) of MPR was discovered. The court case involved fifty-eight people, including the Tibetan Eregdelburelgu Gegeen, ten other Tibetans, and eight high-ranking lamas. The verdict stated that their main task was to invite the Panchen Lama to Mongolia.95 In September 1931, the Supreme Court of Mongolia issued a verdict in the case of twenty-one “black and yellow lords” (i.e., clergy and nobles), the main leaders of which were Yongzin Khenpo Dorjzeveg Tulku and Luvsandanzan. The main charges against them were: creating a counter-revolutionary group, attempting to invite the Panchen Lama to Mongolia, agitating against the authorities, hostility to Lenin’s teachings about the religion, attempting to go abroad from the MPR, creating an armed detachment, and attempting to join nobles. They admitted to all the charges. The court sentenced Dorjzeveg and several other tulkus to be shot; for the Tibetan subjects Gachin and Ishdorj, execution was replaced with ten years of imprisonment. The sentence was to be carried out within twenty-four hours after the approval of the sentence by the Government. A general amnesty was declared in connection with the tenth anniversary of the MPR, but it did not apply to “higher yellow and black feudal lords.”96 The oppression of Buddhism and imposition of socialism caused popular uprisings in the MPR, which in 1932 turned into civil war. Some Tibetan lamas participated in these uprisings. Slogans concerning the Shambhala War, the advance of the Chinese, and/or the Panchen Lama’s troops were used during these uprisings. These slogans, directed against the MPRP power in Mongolia, did not correspond to reality: the predictions of the Shambhala War date to a much later time than 1932; Chinese warlords and the Beijing 94 MUUTA/MBT/4/3/28/3, 6/10/127, 151-152, 132/45-46, 134/130-131. 95 For details, see Kuzmin and Oyuunchimeg, Sotsializmyn Esreg, 40–41. 96 MUUTA/MBT/4/4/64/1-4.

The Tibet-Mongolia Political Interface

129

Government did not plan to capture the MPR; and the Ninth Panchen Lama, who was then in China, Inner Mongolia, and Manchuria after his flight from Tibet in 1924, opposed communism and defended Buddhism. He supported the incorporation of the Mongols in China, but planned to return to Tibet and not to intervene in the MPR. He neither planned to join the Mongolian rebels, nor provided real support to them.97 The end of the Mongolian civil war of 1932 was connected with the end of the “Leftist Deviation” (which was the main cause of the rebellion) simultaneously with the armed suppression of the rebels. After a brief respite, the repression of Buddhism in the MPR resumed and began to grow rapidly. In particular, tulkus, the highest Tibetan and Mongolian lamas, became one of the main targets of the great repressions in the late 1930s. These repressions were ordered by the MPRP leadership under the management of Soviet chekist (Soviet secret police) officers sent to the MPR. The goal was the complete elimination of Buddhism in Mongolia—thus exporting J. V. Stalin’s communist terror from the USSR to the MPR. In August 1937, M. P. Frinovskii, a high-ranking Soviet NKVD (People’s Comissariat of Internal Affairs) officer, arrived in the MPR to take charge of fabricating the “Counter-revolutionary centre” case. This plot was allegedly headed by the Tibetan Yonzon Khamba Luvsankhaimchig, the teacher of the Eighth Jetsun Dampa. The logic of the charges was: he went to Tibet— indicating ties in favour of England; he communicated with the Panchen Lama, who went to Inner Mongolia and Manchuria—communication that was in favour of Japan. A show trial of the “Counter-revolutionary centre” was conducted by the MPR Supreme Court on October 4–8, 1937. Twenty-three people were tried.98 This case was completely falsified by the Soviet and Mongolian security services. Luvsankhaimchig was declared the head of this “Centre”; he and a number of other lamas were shot; others received different terms of imprisonment. They were rehabilitated on July 25, 1990. After Frinovskii, M. I. Golubchik, another high chekist and adviser to the Mongolian Ministry of Internal Affairs, stayed in Ulaanbaatar. In January 1938, he wrote a detailed report to Moscow about the results of the “Counter-Revolutionary Center” case investigation. The investigation aimed to combine almost all cases of people’s discontent in the MPR into one great conspiracy as well as creating a number of new false claims attached to

97 For more information, see: Kuzmin, “Activity of the 9th Panchen Lama,” 123–137; Kuzmin and Oyuunchimeg, Sotsializmyn Esreg. 98 RGASPI/495/16/63/3-49 etc.

130 

Sergius L. Kuzmin

lamas.99 Continuing the task of eliminating Buddhism in the MPR, Golubchik recommended the elimination of all monasteries in Ulaanbaatar, Bulgan, and Tsetserleg towns, “where the Lama-Tibetan universities in Buddhist philosophy and Tibetan medicine are concentrated.”100 On April 3, 1938, his colleague chekist S. N. Mironov, the Soviet Plenipotentiary Representative in the MPR, sent a memorandum to Frinovskii that referred to the arrest, as of March 30, “in cases related to the United Centre for conspiracy” of 10,728 people, including 7,814 lamas (including “the higher [Russ: verkhushka—literally, “top”] Tibetan lamas”) and 322 “feudal lords,” as well as the upcoming arrests of another 6,000 lamas, including 4,000 to be arrested in April.101 These repressions finally destroyed the Tibetan presence in Mongolia, which resumed to a very small extent only after the revolution there in 1990s.

Conclusion The archival materials that I studied indicate that Mongols and Tibetans both chose to fight for independence from China, operating in coordination in their nation-state building during the period under study. Suggestions of a personal conflict between the Eighth Jetsun Dampa Khutuktu and the Thirteenth Dalai Lama are not confirmed by the studied sources. The oft-cited tensions in 1904–1906 involved their subordinates, and proved harmful for both hierarchs in conditions where the Qing court was seeking to prevent their alliance. However, all their misunderstandings were settled and the Dalai Lama and Jetsun Dampa met several times in secret, hidden from Qing authorities and their agents. During this early period, the Mongols (mainly from Inner Mongolia, but also from Khalkha) had the idea of uniting Tibetans and Mongols into one united state with the assistance of Russia. This idea did not receive Russian support and was quickly abandoned. However, the Dalai Lama’s stay in Mongolia in 1904–1906 served as one of the foundations of the Mongolian independence movement, and the State of Tibet served as a model for Mongolia’s declaration of independence in 1911. Mongolia and Tibet declared their independence in the early twentieth century in a legally correct form. They concluded a treaty in 1913, where they 99 See: Kuzmin, Teokraticheskaya Gosudarstvennost, 416–427. 100 RGVA/33987/3/1083/66-80. 101 RGANI/89/29/5/1, Archives of the Kremlin, 1995: 20, in: Kuzmin, Teokraticheskaya Gosudarstvennost, 342.

The Tibet-Mongolia Political Interface

131

recognize each other as independent states. This recognition was also legally correct. The “downgrade” of Mongolia’s independence to autonomy under Chinese suzerainty as set out in the 1915 tripartite Agreement did not lead to the disappearance of Mongolia’s statehood, nor to the disappearance of Tibet’s statehood, which was recognized by independent Mongolia before the Agreement was concluded. Tibetans played an important role in the movement for Mongolian independence in the early twentieth century. One of them, the Eighth Bogd Gegeen Jetsun Dampa Khutuktu, became the key figure in the independence of Mongolia and its nation-state building. Without him, there would be no modern State of Mongolia. Reliance on Tibetan Buddhism and the traditions of statehood developed on its basis, proved to be the only model for the Mongolian nation-state building project. Later, without actively intervening in politics, Tibetans stood for the preservation of Buddhism and traditionalism, and for the independence of Mongolia. They were one of the main targets of the repressions conducted by the pro-communist MPRP regime. At present, the revival of Mongol-Tibetan ties, primarily with the Tibetan community in exile, seems to be an important factor in preserving the national identity and independence of the modern State of Mongolia, the main strategic threat to which is the People’s Republic of China, which, being the main investor in the Mongolian economy, intervenes in Mongolian affairs more and more deeply. A century-old history is repeated in some aspects.

Archives AVPRI—Arkhiv Vneshnei Politiki Rossiiskoi Imperii (Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire), Moscow. AVPRF—Arkhiv Vneshnei Politiki Rossiiskoi Federatsii (Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation), Moscow. GARF—Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (State Archive of the Russian Federation), Moscow. MUUTA—Mongol Ulsyn Undestnii Arkhiv (Mongolian State National Archive), Ulaanbaatar. RGASPI—Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Sotsialno-Politicheskoi Istorii (Russian State Archive of Social and Political History), Moscow. RGVA—Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennyi Voennyi Arkhiv (Russian State Military Archive), Moscow. TAFSB—Tsentralnyi Arkhiv Federalnoi Sluzhby Bezopasnosti (Central Archive of the Federal Security Service), Moscow.

132 

Sergius L. Kuzmin

Bibliography Alioshin, D. Asian Odyssey. London: Cassell, 1941. Andreev, A. Tibet v Politike Tsarskoi, Sovetskoi i Post-Sovetskoi Rossii [Tibet in the Politics of Tsarist, Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia]. St. Petersburg: Petersburg University—Nartang, 2006. Batbayar, Ts., and D. Gombosüren. Mongol ba Tüvd: ХХ zuuny ekhnii khagast: ХIII Dalai lam Tüvdenjamts Mongold zalarsan tüükh [Mongolia and Tibet in the Beginning of the 20th Century: 13th Dalai Lama Tubten Gyatso in Mongolia in 1904‒1906]. Ulaanbaatar: 2009. Belov, E. A. ed. Rossiia i Tibet: Sbornik russkikh arkhivnykh dokumentov 1900–1914 [Russia and Tibet: Collection of Russian Archival Documents 1900–1914]. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura, 2005. Bor, Kh. B. J. Mongol Khiiged Evraziin Diplomat Shastir. Boti 4 [1759–2006] [Mongolian Diplomacy in Eurasia, Vol. 4, 1759–2006]. Ulaanbaatar: Taim printing, 2006. Byulleten MONTA [23], September 17, 1922. Dalai Lama, The Fifth. Gangs Chan Yul Gyi Sala sPyod Pa’i mTho Ris Kyi rGyal bLon gTso bor brJod Pa’i Deb Ther rZogs lDan gZon nu’i dGa ‘sTon dPyid Kyi rGyal Mo’i galu dByangs Zes y aba bZugs so [Complete History of the Land of Snow, Called “The Festive Song of the Young Spring Queen” [Cuckoo], Composed for the Chief Minister of the King of the Heavenly Realm]. Beijing: No publisher indicated, 1988. Damdinov, A. V. and Sh. B. Chimitdorjiev. Agvan Dorjiev, Vydayushchiisya Religioznyi i Obshchestvennyi Deyatel [Aghvan Dorzhiev, Outstanding Religious and public figure]. Ulan-Ude: Belig, 2010. Samten, Jampa, and Nikolay Tsyrempilov. From Tibet Confidentially. Secret Correspondence of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama to Agvan Dorzhiev, 1911–1925. Dharamsala: LTWA, 2011. Gizycki, K. Przez Urjanchaj I Mongolje [Through Urianchaj and Mongolia]. Lwow— Warszawa: wyd. Zakladu Nar. Im. Ossolinskich, 1929. Jamsranjav, G. The Bogd Khaan. Ulaanbaatar: Khadyn san, 1998. Korostovets, I. Ya. Devyat Mesyatsev v Mongolii. Dnevnik Russkogo Upolnomochennogo v Mongolii. Avgust 1912–Mai 1913 g. [Nine Months in Mongolia: Diary of the Russian Commissioner in August 1912–May 1913.]. Ulaanbaatar: Admon, 2004. Kuzmin, S. L., ed. Baron Ungern v Dokumentakh i Memuarakh [Baron Ungern in Documents and Memoirs]. Moscow: KMK, 2004. Kuzmin, S. L. Istoriya Barona Ungerna. Opyt Rekonstruktsii [The History of Baron Ungern: Reconstruction Experience]. Moscow: KMK, 2011. ———. “Prebyvanie Dalai Lamy XIII v Mongolii i plany vosstanovleniya nezavisimosti” [“The 13th Dalai Lama’s stay in Mongolia and recovery plans”]. Bulleten Irkutskogo Universiteta. Politologiya i Religiovedenie 9 (2014): 33–39.

The Tibet-Mongolia Political Interface

133

———. “The Activity of the 9th Panchen Lama in Inner Mongolia and Manchuria.” Far Eastern Affairs 1 (2014): 123–137. ———. Teokraticheskaya Gosudarstvennost i Buddiiskaya Tserkov v Mongolii v nachale XX Veka [Theocratic Statehood and Buddhist Church in Mongolia in the beginning of the twentieth century]. Moscow: KMK, 2016. ———. “The Tibetan-Mongolian civilization: some issues for the theory.” Mongolian Civilization in the Focus of the Russian Oriental Science. Moscow (2020): 93–103. Kuzmin, S. L., and J. Oyuunchimeg. Sotsializmyn Esreg 1932 Ony Mongol Dakh Boslogo [The Rebellion of 1932 in Mongolia Against Socialism]. Ulaanbaatar: Munkhiin Useg, 2014. Lattimore, O., and F. Isono. “Diluv Hutagt: memoirs and autobiography of Mongolian Buddhist reincarnation in religion and revolution.” Asiatische Forschungen 74 (1982): 131–132. Magsarjav, N. Mongol ulsyn shine tüüukh [The New History of Mongolia]. Ulaanbaatar: Mongol ulsyn shinjlekh ukhaany akademiin tüükhiin hüreelen, 1994. Nolde, B.E.”Mezhdunarodnoe polozhenie Mongolii” [“International status of Mongolia”]. Pravo 34 (1915): 2153–2168; 35 (1915): 2219–2231. Purevjav, S., and D. Dashjamts. BNMAU-d Sum, Khiid, Lam Naryn Asuuslyg Shiidverlesen ni, 1921–1940 On [Solution of the Question of Monasteries, Temples and Lamas in the MPR in 1921–1940]. Ulaanbaatar: Ulsyn of Khevleliin Khereg Erkhlekh Khoroo, 1965. Roerich, Yu. N. Po Tropam Sredinnoi Azii [Along Central Asian Paths]. Khabarovsk: Khabarovsk Book Publishing House, 1982. Shakabpa, W. D. Tibet: A Political History. New York, NY: Potala, 1984. Tornovskii, M. G. “Sobytiya v Mongolii-Khalkhe in 1920–1921 Godakh. VoennoIstoricheskii Ocherk (Vospominaniia)” [“Events in Mongolia-Khalkha in the years 1920‒1921: Military-Historical Essay: memoirs”]. In Legendarnyi Baron: Neizvestnye Stranitsy Grazhdanskoi Voiny [Legendary Baron: Unknown Pages of the Civil War], edited by Sergius L. Kuzmin, 168–323. Moscow: KMK, 2004. Ulambayar, D. “Mongol Uls Tuvdtei ESYa-ny Khemjeend Diplomat Khariltsa Togtookh Gesen Oroldlogo” [“Attempt at Establishing Diplomatic Relations of the State of Mongolia with Tibet at the Level of Embassies”]. Olon Uls Sudlal 1 (2009): 86–92. Ulziibaatar, D., and G. Dashnyam. “XIII Dalai Lam Tuvdenjamts Mongold zorchson asuudald” [“On the Question of the 13th Dalai Lama Tubten Gyatso’s Visit to Mongolia”]. In Mongolyn Tusgaar Togtnol ba Mongolchuud [Mongolian Sovereignty and the Mongols], edited by S. Chuluun, 51–58. Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Ulsyn Shnjlekh Ukhaany Akademiin Tuukhiin Khureelen [Institute of History of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences], 2012. Vecher (Vladivostok: July 14, 1921).

134 

Sergius L. Kuzmin

About the Author Sergius L. Kuzmin, Ph. D. (Biol.), D. Sc. (Hist.), is the Leading Researcher at the Institute of Oriental Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow). Email: [email protected]

5

A Study of three Tibetan letters attributed to Dorzhievheld by the St. Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences1 Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko Abstract This article discusses three Tibetan letters held by the St. Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences and originally collected by the Russian Orientalist Fyodor Shcherbatskoy. The three letters are attributed to the well-known figure of Agvaan Dorzhiev, the Buryat who became an aide of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, but the authors determine that only the third letter is actually by Dorzhiev, while the other two were composed by a Kalmyk leader. The article discusses the historical significance of each of the letters and provides an annotated translation of them. Keywords: Tibetan letters, Agvaan Dorzhiev, Tshe ring zla ’od, Tibetan schoolboys at Rugby

Introduction This article deals with three Tibetan letters (two of which form a set), that are held by the St. Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences,2 and are attributed to Dorzhiev (1854–1938), an aide of the 1 This article was previously published in Japanese in Inner Asian Studies 33 (2018): 99–117. Our thanks are due to the editors of that journal for permission to publish this English language version. 2 The St. Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences is separate from the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which is well

Ishihama, Y. & McKay, A. (eds.), The Early 20th Century Resurgence of the Tibetan Buddhist World. Studies in Central Asian Buddhism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi: 10.5117/9789463728645_ch05

136 

Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko

Thirteenth Dalai Lama (1876–1933). We discuss their historical significance and provide annotated translations of each of the letters. In 1904, as British troops were closing in on Lhasa, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama headed north in hopes of winning the support of Russia. Thereafter he spent time in Khalkha, at Kumbum (sku ’bum) monastery in Kökenuur (Qinghai 青海), and at Mount Wutai (五台山). Wherever he stayed, large numbers of pilgrims gathered, crossing national borders and the boundaries of bannerlands to do so. The act of paying homage to the Dalai Lama created a sense of unity that transcended all borders.3 Behind this historical event of the Dalai Lama’s travels to the north is the presence of his Buryat aide, Dorzhiev. His real name was Nawang Lobsang (ngag dbang blo bzang), and he had been born on the eastern shores of Lake Baikal. After studying and practising Buddhism in Ikhe Khuree (present-day Ulaanbaatar), Mount Wutai, and elsewhere, at the age of 26, he clandestinely entered the Tibetan capital of Lhasa because of his Russian nationality. He obtained the degree of Geshe Lharampa (dge bshes lha rams pa) at Drepung (bras spungs) monastery around 1888, and was selected as the Dalai Lama’s debate partner (mtshan zhabs) for debates concerning exoteric Buddhism. Later, in 1898 and 1900, he had audiences with the Russian Tsar Nikolai II in St. Petersburg in order to seek support for Tibetan Buddhism and collected donations in Kalmykia, which he then distributed among the three main monasteries in Lhasa. In 1904, when British forces were drawing closer to Lhasa, Dorzhiev urged the Dalai Lama to turn to Russia for assistance, and the Dalai Lama accordingly departed for Mongolia. Traveling back and forth between St. Petersburg and wherever the Dalai Lama happened to be staying, Dorzhiev tried to secure assistance appropriate to the circumstances, but was ultimately unable to obtain Russian support. In 1907 Russia concluded the Anglo-Russian Convention with Great Britain, which recognized the Qing dynasty’s suzerainty over Tibet. In February 1912 the Qing dynasty collapsed, and later that same year the Dalai Lama returned to Tibet from British India where he had been in exile. In January 1913, Dorzhiev helped conclude the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty in Ikhe Khuree, 4 and subsequently built the first Tibetan temple in known to Orientalists (formerly known as the St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences and located at Dvortsovaya Naberezhnaya, 18), and is located at Universitetskaya Naberezhnaya, 1, on Vasilyevsky Island. 3 Belov, Rossiia i Tibet, 101–103 (no. 61). 4 There have been several publications on the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty, but for the most recent study, which clarifies its significance from the perspective of the Mongols and Tibetans involved

A Study of three Tibetan letters attributed to Dorzhiev

137

St. Petersburg. He was initially supportive of the Russian Revolution and took a lead in the reform of Buryat monasteries, but eventually died in prison during Stalin’s purges.5 The three letters in question that are attributed to Dorzhiev are all copies and are undated. They are included in the private collection of Fyodor Ippolitovich Shcherbatskoy (Stcherbatsky) (1866–1942) under the classification number Ф. 725. Оп. 3. Д. 267, and have been assigned a date of 1900. The catalogue description of their contents reads: “Letters by Agvan (Dorzhiev), a Buryat scholar, religious and social activist, and Dalai Lama’s teacher, to people unable to be identified. Appendix: 1) copy of letter to Dalai Lama, 2) copy of letter to Nikolai II. 1900. 6 sheets.”6 As will be explained below, the two letters that will for convenience’s sake be referred to together as “Letter A” are not by Dorzhiev and were instead written, probably in 1905, by Tsering zla ’od (Tshe ring zla ’od), tayiji (the common title of Mongolian nobility, also pronounced taish or tayisha by Kalmyks) of the Dörbets. Letter A-1 is a request from Tsering zla ’od, asking the Dalai Lama to intercede on his behalf with Nikolai II so that he might be granted a titular rank from the Tsar; Letter A-2, addressed to Nikolai II directly, is a statement of his reasons for seeking said titular rank. The third letter (Letter B) is by Dorzhiev and is addressed to four Tibetan students, commonly known as the “Four Rugby Boys,” who studied in England from 1913 to 1916. Thus, the date of 1900 assigned by the Archive to these letters is incorrect, and the writer of two of the letters was not Dorzhiev but Tsering zla ’od. It is not known how Letter A came to be included in the collection of Shcherbatskoy, who was a renowned Indologist. In 1905 Shcherbatskoy had and in the context of the times, see Tachiban, “A Re-examination of the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty…,” 141–154. 5 For an account of Dorzhiev’s life, see his autobiography (rdo rje yib, Chos brygad gdon) and its Japanese translation (Tanase, “Dorujehu ziden (sono 1)” and “Dorujehu jiden (sono 2)”). Based on sources from Great Britain and Japan, which were both at odds with Russia at the time, Dorzhiev has previously been viewed as a Russian spy or described as a prime cause of the confused situation at the time (Kuleshov, Russia’s Tibet File, 1–10, 36–44). In recent years, however, it has come to be generally accepted that he acted not for Russia but for the world of Tibetan Buddhism in his capacity as an agent of the Dalai Lama, as shown in studies by Snelling (Buddhism in Russia) and Shaumian (Tibet) that analyse official documents preserved in Russia. Some letters sent by the Dalai Lama to Dorzhiev in the 1920s that are now held in the National Museum of Buryatia have also been published recently by Samten and Tsyrempilov (From Tibet Confidentially). 6 These three letters were discovered by Inoue Takehiko at the St. Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences in May 2017.

138 

Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko

an audience with the Dalai Lama in Ikhe Khuree, and he was also on close terms with Dorzhiev; for example, he served as chairman of the executive committee when Dorzhiev built the Tibetan temple in St. Petersburg. It is therefore conceivable that Tsering zla ’od may have entrusted his letter to Shcherbatskoy and had it delivered to the Dalai Lama via Dorzhiev, or that Shcherbatskoy conveyed its contents in Russian to Dorzhiev who then composed a letter in Tibetan and presented it to the Dalai Lama. The relationship between Shcherbatskoy and Letter B, which is addressed to Tibetan students in England, is also unclear. In 1910, while in British India investigating manuscripts related to Indian philosophy, Shcherbatskoy met the Dalai Lama, who was residing in India at the time, on several occasions; in 1911, he delivered a letter from Nikolai II to the Dalai Lama in Kalimpong.7 It is therefore possible that Shcherbatskoy was entrusted with Dorzhiev’s letter and sent it to England for him. In the following, the explanatory comments on Letter A by Tsering zla ’od have been prepared by Inoue Takehiko while those on Letter B by Dorzhiev have been prepared by Ishihama Yumiko, who is also responsible for the translations and Romanized transcriptions of the letters.8

Letter of Tsering zla ’od (Letter A) Tsering zla ’od tayiji, who sent Letter A, was a Kalmyk-Dörbet noyon (nobleman). His Kalmyk name was Ceren Dawa Tundutov, and his Russian name was Tseren David Tsandzhinovich Tundutov (1860–1907). He studied at the Moscow Imperial Lycée in Memory of Tsesarevich Nikolai, a renowned school for aristocrats, and subsequently audited classes at several universities in Western Europe. As a prominent leader on the Kalmyk Steppe (hereafter “the steppe”), he played a major role in dispatching the monk Baaza Menkedzhuyev (Baaza-Bagshi) to Tibet, inviting Dorzhiev to visit the steppe, and building a temple in St. Petersburg. He was elected to the first Duma [Parliament] convened in 1906 to represent the steppe and joined the Agriculture Committee.

7 Belov, Rossiia i Tibet, 156–160 (no. 97); Shaumian, Tibet, 174. 8 When transcribing the cursive u-med (dbu med) script of the letters in the u-chen (dbu can) script, assistance was received from Nyima Dondrub (nyi ma don grub: secretary-general, Gyudmed Tantric Monastery, Karnataka, India), the Tibetan scholar Thupten Gawa Matsushita (Matsushita Gawa 松下賀和), and Kobayashi Ryōsuke 小林亮介 (lecturer, Kyushu University).

A Study of three Tibetan letters attributed to Dorzhiev

139

First, I focus on when Letter A was written. The letter states that the Thirteenth Dalai Lama was staying in Mongolia (from the end of 1904 until 1906), and that the Russian Academy of Sciences had dispatched the Indologist Fyodor Shcherbatskoy, the explorer Pyotr Kuzmich Kozlov (1863–1935), and Bazar Baradievich Baradin (1878–1937), a Buryat who was attending St. Petersburg Imperial University at the time, to meet Dorzhiev. The delegation departed St. Petersburg on April 26, 1905, and met with Dorzhiev in Siberia in May.9 This may indicate that Tsering zla ’od wrote Letter A before Shcherbatskoy left St. Petersburg. The reason Tsering zla ’od wrote that “the time is not right” to directly meet with the Thirteenth Dalai Lama could be related to the spread of the strike following the Bloody Sunday incident, which occurred across the Russian Empire on January 22, 1905 (January 9 in the Julian calendar). Let us now analyse the content of the letter. It begins with Tsering zla ’od describing himself as “noyon of the Torghut-Dalaiin Khan tribe” even though he was a Dörbet. He probably called himself a Torghut because the Torghut tribe, which had advanced as far as the Volga region, was known in Tibet due to religious exchanges in the time of the Fifth to Seventh Dalai Lamas. In addition, the tribe had been a Russian ally from the time of Šükür Dayičing in the mid-seventeenth century. Thus, Russia considered them to be a friendly group. A further reason could be that Tsering zla ’od’s wife, Elzyata,10 was the daughter of a powerful zayisan (a lower-level Kalmyk noble) of the tribe. The marriage therefore represented the unity of the Kalmyk people. Tsering zla ’od then refers to the Russian practice of “conferring on any members of royal families, both large and small, the rank called knyaz or tayiji,” and expresses his discontent that he had not been granted such a position. Knyaz, which means “prince” in Russian, was the highest title given to those who were not of the imperial lineage, even though there were a few exceptions. In the process of expanding its territory, the Russian Empire annexed regions inhabited by members of various ethnic groups 9 Snelling, Buddhism in Russia, 122. According to his diary, Shcherbatskoy himself translated the Dalai Lama’s petition for the position of Tundutov into Russian. Lomakina, Velikii beglets, 12.; Andreev, “Urginskii dnevnik,” 56. 10 Elzyata Tundutova was the daughter of Begali Onkorov, a powerful zayisan of the Torghut tribe in Bagatsokhur ulus. Known as a brilliant graduate of the Smolny Institute for Noble Girls in St. Petersburg, she belonged to the Imperial Russian Geographical Society and interacted with scholars such as Andrei Dmitrievich Rudnev (1878–1958) and Gustaf John Ramstedt (1873–1950). She contributed to the recording of ethnic cultures, and, along with her husband, was a devout Buddhist. She sought asylum during the revolution and civil war and died in Greece.

140 

Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko

and religions, usually adopting the social structure of each local community with certain modifications and establishing a system of indirect rule. For example, Hamamoto11 writes about the Tatars in the seventeenth century that those outside the Orthodox faith were allowed to retain their previous position within the community after converting to Russian Orthodoxy. While non-adherent aristocrats were normally given the title of knyaz only after their conversion, there were some cases of an official title being conferred on those who had not converted, according to Hamamoto. Akasaka12 points out that descendants of Genghis Khan who were treated as upper aristocrats in Russia, such as members of the Qasim Khanate or Sibir Khanate, were given the title of Sultan. Akasaka writes that this practice conformed to a traditional system in Central Asia under which official titles were given to Genghis Khan’s descendants. Amongst those who were not his descendants, such as the Mangghud tribe (Nogai Horde) which was descended from Edigu, Akasaka states that high-level aristocrats were given the title of knyaz and the lower-level aristocrats that of murza. The Kalmyk community had a similar system. Baksada, a Torghut, converted to Russian Orthodoxy in 1724 and was given the name Peter Tayshin and the title of knyaz. In addition, Dzhan (a Kabardian; she adopted the name Vera after her conversion), the wife of the Torghut Donduk Ombo Khan,13 and their children also converted to Russian Orthodoxy and became knyaz after the Khan’s death. The Dondukov family, descendants of Donduk-Ombo, merged with the Russian aristocratic family of Korsakov in the nineteenth century. The merged family thrived and gained renown as Dondukov-Korsakov and later produced a governor-general of the Caucasus. Would a Kalmyk noyon (tayisha) who had not converted to Russian Orthodoxy also receive the title of knyaz? To state the answer first, they 11 Hamamoto, “Seinaru Roshia” no Isurāmu, 77. 12 Akasaka, “Juchi-urusu shi kenkyū,” 95–96. 13 The Torghut lineage was passed on to Kho-Örlög (?–1644), who led the Oirat tribes’ move to the west, to Šükür Dayičing (?–1672), who formed an alliance with Russia, to his son Puncug (Monchak, ?–1672), and to Ayuka (Ayushi, Ayuki, Ā Yü He, 1642–1724). During a confrontation with Tsewang Rabtan of the Dzungars, Ayuka tactfully established diplomatic ties with Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and the Qing Dynasty. In 1697, he received the title of Khan from the Dalai Lama. Subsequently, the Russian government adopted a policy of giving the title Khan to a powerful Torghut. As a result, Ceren Donduk (Cering Dong Grub, Ayuka’s second son; r. 1724–1735), Donduk-Ombo (Dong Grub Drang Pu, son of Gun Cžab, fourth son of Ayuka; r. 1735–1741), and Donduk-Daši (Dong Grub Graši, son of Cakdor Čžab, eldest son of Ayuka; r. 1741–1761) also became Khans. Ubaši (Ubaša, son of Dong Grub Graši; 1744–1774), who became a subject of the Qing dynasty in 1771, was not given the title Khan by Russia. Baksada was born to Cakdor Čžab, the eldest son of Ayuka, and the daughter of a Nogai murza.

A Study of three Tibetan letters attributed to Dorzhiev

141

were not given a new formal title. However, it was widely understood among both Russians and Kalmyks that a noyon was equivalent to a knyaz. In 1844 the Russian baron Fyodor Andreevich Byuler (Bühler) (1821–1896)14 visited the steppe and was warmly welcomed by Serebčžab Tümen, noyon of the Khoshut ulus. At the time, Byuler questioned the practice of equating noyon and knyaz, making the following remarks in the draft of his report: The preference here is to refer to Tümen and his children who are Kalmyk lords (vladelets) as “knyaz” and “excellencies.” However, what is this based on? […] The rationale behind the imperial decree regarding knyaz was that it would be given to Kalmyk lords who accept a holy conversion. This was established through the case of Donduk-Ombo and his children, who were given official names such as Dondukov. However, it seems highly unlikely that noyon—ulus lords who are called “lords” and their children—have the legal right to acquire official titles. (The Kalmyk administrative council and the Zargo court call them simply “lords” [vladelets]).15

By the mid-nineteenth century the Russian government also began to question its policy of indirect governance through noyon. Triggering this debate was an inheritance problem involving the Tümen (Tumenev) family 16 in the Khoshut ulus. In 1850, when recognizing the nephew Ceren Čžab as successor to Serebdčžab Tümen,17 a deliberation was held regarding the 14 Byuler was a Russian legal scholar and diplomat who ultimately became a second-rank civil officer. While serving as a senate secretary, he accompanied members of the legal committee of Prince Pavel Petrovich Gagarin (1789–1872) to southern Russia, including the Astrakhan Governorate and the steppe. In 1850, he was appointed special assistant within the Asia Bureau of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He wrote a great deal about the Kalmyks and Buddhism and laid the foundations for understanding the history of the Kalmyks in Russia. 15 РГАДА. Ф. 186. Оп. 1. Д. 88. Л. 4об–5об. 16 During the 1771 Kalmyk exodus to the east, Zamyan of the Khoshuts had a dispute with Ubashi of the Torghuts and stayed in Russia. Tümen Jirgalang was born to Dečžit of Khoid and his wife Elze. He was given this name because he was born near Tyumen, a city in Siberia whose name is believed to derive from tümen, which means “ten thousand” in Mongolian. After her first husband died, Elze married Zamyan of the Khoshuts. Tümen Jirgalang, her son from her first marriage, took over leadership of the Khoshuts from his stepfather Zamyan. This is how the Tümen family began among the Khoshuts (Mitirov, Oiraty–kalmyki, 235). 17 Serebčžab Tümen (Serebdzhab Tyumenev, 1774–1848), a leading f igure on the steppe in the early nineteenth century, was also relied upon by the Russian authorities. In 1812, he led a Kalmyk regiment to f ight France and also established a Buddhist temple modelled on St. Petersburg’s Kazan Cathedral near the Volga River. He enjoyed entertaining visitors, cordially inviting not only high-ranking officials from Russia but also the German naturalist Alexander von Humboldt (1769–1859) and the French author Alexandre Dumas (1802–1870). Tümen Jirgalang

142 

Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko

rights and obligations, as well as the scope, of the status of noyon.18 This deliberation led to discussions about legal revisions that lasted thirty years, resulting in the abolition of the master-servant relationship between noyon or zayisan and commoners in 1892.19 During this process, in 1860 Ceren Čžab Tümen, who then governed the Khoshut ulus, demanded that he be given the title of knyaz—as Tsering zla ’od also does in Letter A. At the time, the Ministry of State Property, which oversaw the governance of the Kalmyks, acknowledged that a noyon was occasionally referred to as a knyaz, not only in normal conversations amongst the government but also in official letters sent by government agencies to noyon. As the empire sought to integrate the Kalmyk community, noyon were occasionally referred to as knyaz during the process of translation and interpreting. It is not clear when this practice began, but it eventually became customary. Ultimately, however, the view of the Ministry of Justice that there were no laws permitting this prevailed, and Ceren Čžab was denied an official title.20 In other words, what Tsering zla ’od wanted in his letter to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama around 1905 was something that had already been resolved within the Russian government decades earlier. Although the specif ic incident had revolved around the Khoshut tribe, it is unlikely that Tsering zla ’od, who belonged to the Dörbet tribe, would have been unaware of this. Still, he was so eager to receive an official title that he sent the letter. What could have compelled him to do so? A key to speculating about the answer would be the place “Den Haag” mentioned in Letter A-2. Tsering zla ’od emphasizes the accomplishments of Jampa Tayishi (byams pa tha’i zhi), who was four generations before his own in the same lineage, saying that “Chuchey [Tayiji]’s son Dzhampa Tayiji went to the kingdom of Den Haag.” The 1812 war against Napoleon in which Jumbo Tayishi participated was called the “Patriotic War” in Russia. It is believed that this name highlighted Russia’s military role in 1812. The arrival of the Russian army (including the Kalmyk army) in Paris, which symbolized the fall of Napoleon’s empire, was widely known throughout Europe. In fact, Tsering zla ’od contributed an article to The Citizen, a conservative magazine published in St. Petersburg, on April 10, 1901, in which he asserted that one of was his father, and Baator-Ubaši Tümen, who edited the History of the Four Oirat Tribes (1819), was his brother. 18 РГИА. Ф. 383. Оп. 13. Д. 14426. 19 Komandzhaev and Matsakova, Reforma 1892 goda v Kalmykii. 20 Gilyashaeva, “Kalmytskii noion-rossiiskii kniaz’?”

A Study of three Tibetan letters attributed to Dorzhiev

143

his ancestors took part in the 1812 war and the occupation of Paris. However, this article does not refer to “Den Haag,” while Letter A-2 emphasizes it. In 1899, the First Hague Peace Conference was held in Den Haag following the proposal of Nikolai II.21 It adopted the Convention with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and the Convention for the Pacif ic Settlement of International Disputes. Based on the latter, the Permanent Court of Arbitration was established in Den Haag as an international arbitration mechanism. In 1904, a year before Tsering zla ’od’s letter was written, US president Theodore Roosevelt proposed a second international peace conference. In early spring of 1905, Dorzhiev, on the Dalai Lama’s orders, attempted to secure Russia’s promise to provide refuge and protection to the spiritual leader. A secret telegram dated April 14, 1905 (in the Julian calendar) sent by Vladimir Fëdorovich Lyuba (1861–1928), the Russian consul in Ikhe Khuree, stated that Dorzhiev had secretly conveyed to him that the Dalai Lama relied only on Russia, as did Dorzhiev, and that the spiritual leader believed that moving to Russia would be beneficial. However, the telegram also stated that many of the Dalai Lama’s aides were sceptical that Russia would be able to provide effective support to Tibet in the existing circumstances, and that they were seriously considering handing over the Tibet-Britain matter to powerful European nations or the Hague court for deliberation. The telegram further indicated that the Dalai Lama was in a situation in which he had no choice but to accept the majority view, placing Dorzhiev in an extremely difficult position.22 It is highly likely that such developments involving the Dalai Lama may have been conveyed to Tsering zla ’od through Tibetan scholars, including Shcherbatskoy. It may therefore be surmised, with respect to the background against which Tsering zla ’od emphasized in Letter A-2 that one of his ancestors set Den Haag free, that he wanted to communicate to the Dalai Lama and Dorzhiev that he was ready to provide them with support, as his ancestor had done—even if Dorzhiev’s plan to relocate the spiritual leader to Russia failed, or if an international arbitration were held in Den Haag as demanded by many of the Dalai Lama’s aides. The fact that Shcherbatskoy carefully kept a copy of Letter A may demonstrate its importance. Tsering zla ’od continued to exert a powerful political, economic, and social influence on the steppe even after the 1892 legal revision, in which 21 Some Kalmyk monks believed that the First Hague Peace Conference was part of Nikolai II’s mission in this world as a Bodhisattva (Ul’ianov, Predskazaniia buddy, 94–105). 22 Belov, Rossiia i Tibet, 70–71 (no. 39).

144 

Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko

the Kalmyk noyon lost their privileges over the commoners, as indicated by his subsequent election to the Duma. There was no immediate need for him to bolster his influence on the steppe—and yet he went so far as trying to involve the Dalai Lama in his elaborate campaign to obtain the title of knyaz. Tsering zla ’od’s goal may have been to strengthen the voice of Tibetan supporters amongst the Russian government. The Tibetan supporters in Russia were Shcherbatskoy, who carefully preserved Letter A. There were also the geographer Pyotr Petrovich Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky (1827–1914), the botanist and zoologist Alexander Vasili’evich Grigoriev (1848–1908), the ethnologist Dmitri Aleksandrovich Klements (1848–1914), the Indologist and Buddhologist Sergey Fëdorovich Oldenburg (1863–1934), and Kozlov. They were all well versed in the developments in Tibet. Furthermore, Prince Esper Esperovich Ukhtomsky (1861–1921), a close associate of Nikolai II, was also a supporter of Dorzhiev. However, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was taking an opportunistic stance at the time, emphasizing Russia’s relations with Britain and the Qing. Those advocating for Tibet were therefore not in an influential position.23 Tsering zla ’od may have sought to become a public figure to strengthen the influence of these Tibet supporters, or at least to bring the matter to the international arbitration court in The Hague. If this hypothesis is correct, the period when this letter was written may be narrowed down to April 1905, when Dorzhiev’s negotiations in Siberia ended in failure. Another significant aspect of Tsering zla ’od’s letter is that he believed that the words of the Dalai Lama could be effective in getting the Russian government to change its legal interpretation over the designation of knyaz (prince). It is also noteworthy that the exchange of letters between the Kalmyks and the Tibetan government involved Russian Orientalists such as Shcherbatskoy—a challenging point that may deserve further discussion in the future.

Dorzhiev’s Letter to Tibetan Students in England (Letter B) The cover of Letter B only mentions “London” and judging from its contents, it was sent by Dorzhiev from St. Petersburg to “students,” but the date when it was written is unknown. However, taking into consideration the historical fact that in 1913 four young Tibetans were sent to Britain by the Dalai Lama to

23 Аndreev, Tibet v politike, 136.

A Study of three Tibetan letters attributed to Dorzhiev

145

receive a modern education, it becomes evident that these are the “students” to whom this letter was addressed.24 Following the collapse of the Qing dynasty, the Dalai Lama set out from his place of exile in British India on June 24, 1912.25 It took time for the Chinese troops to be driven out of Lhasa, so the Dalai Lama eventually entered Lhasa in January 1913. However, in August 1912 the Dalai Lama had already made plans to send the sons of some respectable families in Tibet to England to receive a modern education.26 According to Lamb, who undertook a study of the sending of these Tibetan students using documents from the British Foreign Office, the four Tibetan youths (Kyipup, Mondo, Gongkar, and Rinchengang), escorted by Lungshar (Lung shar), arrived in England in April 1913 and were provided with lodgings at “The Warren,” Heath End, Farnham. After studying English under the supervision of the Berlitz School of Languages, they were enrolled at Rugby, a public school.27 The Dalai Lama had expectations that Lungshar, the students’ escort, would fulfil the function of an “ambassador,”28 and he was entrusted with a letter and gifts from the Dalai Lama for King George V. Aware of the Dalai Lama’s intentions, the British were concerned about incurring Russia’s displeasure and restricted Lungshar’s activities by, for example, having him and his charges reside in Farnham at some distance from London.29 However, once they learned that fifteen Tibetan boys sponsored by Dorzhiev had appeared in St. Petersburg and that Dorzhiev had had an audience with Nikolai II and presented him with letters and gifts from the Dalai Lama, Lungshar was received by King George on June 28, 1913, and the Dalai Lama’s letter and gifts were accepted.30 In the context of this prior research, I now wish to consider the date of Letter B. The letter states that the Tibetan students had arrived in England and settled down, and it is also stated that Dorzhiev planned to visit Britain in autumn or winter. It can therefore be surmised that Letter B was written in the summer of 1913.

24 For profiles of the four Tibetan youths, see Shakya, “Making of the Great Game Players.” 25 Aoki, Seizō, 41. 26 Lamb, McMahon Line, 599; Aoki, Seizō, 99. 27 Lamb, McMahon Line, 600. 28 Lamb, McMahon Line, 602; Goldstein, A History, 160–161; Kobayashi, “Lungshar Delegation and Britain.” 29 Lamb, McMahon Line, 600–601. 30 On the Dalai Lama’s letter presented to King George, see Kobayashi, “Lungshar Delegation and Britain;” on the king’s gifts to the Dalai Lama, see Martin, “Fit for a King?”

146 

Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko

Next, to gain a better grasp of the letter’s contents, I retrace Dorzhiev’s movements during the previous year. In July 1912, Dorzhiev entered Tibet from Mongolia, travelled south to Phari on the Indo-Tibetan border, and met the Dalai Lama there as he was returning to Tibet from British India. The Dalai Lama and Dorzhiev exchanged their views on the Tibetan situation and discussed Tibet’s relations with Britain, China, and Russia. The contents of their discussions can be gleaned from “Note on the complete withdrawal of Tibet from the power of China and the proposal to the Government of Russia to intensify Tibetan Policy,” written by Dorzhiev on February 11, 1913 (24 February in the Gregorian calendar) to the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Dmitryevich Sazonov (Foreign Minister, 1910–1916).31 According to this note the Dalai Lama had granted Dorzhiev the authority to act as his intermediary in Tibet-Russia relations, entrusted him with letters and gifts for the Russian Tsar, and given him instructions for negotiating with the Russian Foreign Minister. Dorzhiev goes on to say: I was previously regarded [by the British] as a secret agent of the Russian government who had been bought off by Russia to incite hostility between Tibet and Britain. An extremely high reward was offered for my arrest, and I almost fell into the hands of the Indian police along the Nepalese border. [But] now I am quite freely received in British territories, and even the newspapers recognize that “Dorzhiev is no longer dangerous” […] There should be no doubt whatsoever that the British are now lending their support to the development of Tibet’s relations with the outside world.

Thus, although Dorzhiev had previously been on the wanted list in British India, the British government’s assessment of him had changed, and he was now free to come and go as he pleased. This tallies with his statement in Letter B that he was planning to go to Britain. On January 11, 1913, Dorzhiev was a signatory to the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty in Ikhe Khuree, in which Tibet and Mongolia recognized each other as “states.” He then set out for St. Petersburg. According to a classified document sent on February 13 (and received February 17) by George Buchanan, the British Minister in St. Petersburg, to Edward Grey, the British Prime Minister, fifteen young Tibetans sponsored by Dorzhiev would soon be arriving in St. Petersburg, while Dorzhiev himself proposed to stay in Europe until May and visit Britain:

31 Belov, Rossiia i Tibet, 195‒198 (no. 115).

A Study of three Tibetan letters attributed to Dorzhiev

147

With reference to my despatch No. 52 of the 11th instant, I have the honor to inform you that it is announced in the “Novoe Vremya” that the caravan from Thibet, which was for various reasons left behind by M. Dorjief, is expected to arrive here shortly. It is bringing presents from the Dalai Lama to the Emperor, and with it are some 15 young Thibetans, who are to be educated in Russian schools. M. Dorjief proposes to stay in Europe till May, when the grass will be growing in Mongolia, and he intends to visit London. He is to try and persuade Russia to act as mediator between England and Thibet, the Thibetans being much incensed with England at the proposal made by her to China in regard to Thibet and the possibility of a Chinese protectorate. Sir G. Buchanan to Sir Edward Grey (received February 17)32

About two months later, on April 6, 1913 (19 April in the Gregorian calendar), the Russian Prime Minster Vladimir Nikolayevich Kokovtsov (Prime Minister, 1911–14) forwarded a letter to Foreign Minister Sazonov that the Dalai Lama had sent to Nikolai II.33 This letter requested the acknowledgement and protection of Tibetan independence by Russia and England; the dispatching of diplomatic representatives of Russia and England to Lhasa, or, if this were impossible, persuading Germany, France, and Japan, which were not parties to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, to dispatch representatives;34 the provision of arms and the sending of military instructors; and the increase of an earlier loan. Lastly, the letter requested that another passport be issued for Dorzhiev so that he could travel freely abroad: Furthermore, in addition to the passport (lag ’khyer) previously issued to Tsenshap (Dorzhiev), granting him official (mi sna) status in your country (i.e., Russia), [I request] another [passport] (’phar bsnon). […] Although the issuance of a passport to conduct negotiations in other countries concerning matters of Doctrine may not be desirable to the British and 32 BICT: IOR/ L/P&S/10/537-1; File P.111/ 1915 Pt 2. 33 This letter was one that the Dalai Lama had entrusted to Dorzhiev in 1912 (OF 18617). For the Tibetan text of the letter formerly in Dorzhiev’s possession, see Samten and Tsyrempilov, From Tibet Confidentially, 132; for an English translation, see ibid.: 103–105; for a contemporaneous Russian translation, see Belov, Rossiia i Tibet, 194–195 (no. 114); and for differences between the Tibetan text and the Russian translation, see Samten and Tsyrempilov, From Tibet Confidentially, 25–26. 34 This letter to Nikolai II, with which Dorzhiev was entrusted by the Dalai Lama, is almost identical in content to the Dalai Lama’s letter to King George V from around the same time, which was entrusted to Lungshar, but the latter does not make specific mention of Germany, France, and Japan (Kobayashi, “Lungshar Delegation and Britain”).

148 

Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko

may incur their intense jealousy, I would appreciate it if henceforth the Tibetan question were not kept secret and could be made more open.

It seems that the Dalai Lama hoped that, rather than going back and forth in secret between Russia and the Dalai Lama as he had in the past, Dorzhiev might now be able to move openly between Britain and Russia. Aware of the fact that Lungshar and Dorzhiev were in contact, the British obstructed Lungshar’s activities in England, keeping him away from London and urging him to return to Tibet as soon as possible. Likewise, Russia cannot be said to have been cooperative towards Tibet’s approaches to international society to realize its independence: for example, it refused to recognize the validity of the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty that Dorzhiev concluded with Mongolia in January 1913.35 On the other hand, it is also true that the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government planned to have Lungshar and Dorzhiev act as ambassadors for the improvement of Tibet’s international position. This can be confirmed from the fact that, in a 1913 letter sent to Dorzhiev from the Tibetan Cabinet,36 they clearly give him secret instructions to discuss certain matters with Lungshar, who had been sent to England, and to convince Russia and Britain to enter into serious discussions about Tibet in the hope of preventing further incursions by Chinese troops. On April 24, 1913, four days after the Dalai Lama’s letter to Nikolai II reached Sazonov, Lungshar’s party arrived in Plymouth.37 The fact that Dorzhiev intended to stay in Europe until May and proposed to visit England, and also that in Letter B he wrote that he was planning to go to England in autumn or early winter, indicates that, in accordance with the orders of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Cabinet, he intended to meet up with Lungshar as soon as possible. Finally, I wish to consider whether Dorzhiev actually did visit England. In Dorzhiev’s autobiography there is no mention of his having visited London in 1913, but in a letter that George Deniker later wrote to the Theosophist Jeffrey Somers (dated 5 February 1981),38 it is noted that Dorzhiev visited Deniker in 1913 and told him that he had visited Berlin, 35 Shaumian, Tibet, 150. 36 Samten and Tsyrempilov, From Tibet Confidentially, OF18579. 37 Telegram sent to the Sikkim Political Officer, Sir Charles Bell, on May 14, 1913, by Sir Basil Gould, who took the Tibetan students to Britain (BICT: IOR/ L/P&S/10/536; File P.111/1915 Pt1). 38 George Deniker (1885–1952) was the son of Joseph Deniker (1852–1918), a French naturalist who was acquainted with Dorzhiev.

A Study of three Tibetan letters attributed to Dorzhiev

149

Rome, London, and Paris.39 Further, in the above-mentioned letter sent to Dorzhiev by the Tibetan Cabinet (OF 18579), it says: “That your encoded message, stating that you then visited London as a representative [of the Dalai Lama], bearing the title of hu tho, arrived at the office of the Inner Chamber (nang khang) was cause for relief, as it will surely be helpful for religious and secular affairs. Therefore, the response letter immediately dispatched [from here] might have reached you.”40 This letter therefore states—in the past tense—that Dorzhiev had visited London. 41 Thus several extant sources suggest that Dorzhiev did, in fact, visit England in 1913. 42 In the same letter by the Tibetan Cabinet to Dorzhiev (OF 18579), it is stated that Lungshar would be leaving India for England in four days.43 Since Lungshar and his charges set sail for England from Bombay on April 5, 1913,44 the Cabinet believed that Dorzhiev had returned from London by about April 1. Therefore, the period when he could have visited London would have been some time between February 24, 1913 (February 11 in the Julian calendar), when he submitted his note to Sazonov, and April 1. On April 19 (April 6 in the Julian calendar), he submitted another memorandum to the Russian Prime Minister Kokovtsov, so it can be confirmed that he was in St. Petersburg at this time. 45 Thus, although there are indications that Dorzhiev may have visited London around March 1913, it is not clear whether he visited England again sometime after May to meet up with Lungshar, as stated in Letter B and suggested by Buchanan’s classified document. Following the collapse of the Qing dynasty, Tibet declared independence and Tibet’s international status was being discussed at the Simla Conference. At this time the Dalai Lama and Tibetan government sent Dorzhiev and Lungshar to Europe and ordered them to act as Tibet’s representatives in Russia and Britain, respectively. Letter B is significant because it provides evidence that Dorzhiev did indeed endeavour to act on these orders of the Dalai Lama. 39 Snelling, Buddhism in Russia, 153. 40 Samten and Tsyrempilov, From Tibet Confidentially, 105. 41 de rjes ldan la ho thu’i go ming thog sku tshab tu phebs zin lugs nang khang du ang yig gnang ’byor bstan srid la phan re blo bder gyur gshis de ’phral gnas tshul phul ba ’byor shag. 42 Samten and Tsyrempilov (From Tibet Confidentially, 67) state that Dorzhiev did not visit London at this time. 43 Samten and Tsyrempilov, From Tibet Confidentially, 106. 44 Shakya, “Making of the Great Game Players,” 9. 45 Belov, Rossiia i Tibet, 192–195 (no. 113 and 114); Snelling, Buddhism in Russia, 153.

150 

Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko

Materials: Annotated Translations and Transcriptions of Letters A and B Letter A-1: Translation Draft of letter submitted by Tsering zla ‘od, noyon of the Torghut-Dalai Khan lineage, to the King of Russia, requesting titular rank: To His Holiness, the victorious and supreme Rinpoche who is the protector and support of all Doctrine and beings on earth. Tayiji Tshe ring zla ’od makes a request. At this time when you, the one lord of the Land of Snow [i.e., Tibet], have traveled to the land of Great Mongolia and all are satisfied with the great banquet that increases the benefit and happiness of the Doctrine and beings, I too would just like to have an audience with your jewel-like golden visage without delay, but currently for a while the time is not right. A trifling request such as this of mine is one for which it would be appropriate to ask your blessing when I meet you in person, but because that would take time, there is no way but to ask [in this manner]. Under the rule of successive kings of Russia, there has been since former times until the present day the custom of conferring on any members of royal families, both large and small, the rank called knyaz [in Russian] or tayiji [in Mongolian]. Further, that I, too, am of the genuine royal lineage of the Dalai Khan of the Dörbets is clearly known to all, but when I previously submitted a letter about this to the King, ministers who disliked me did not submit it to the King and caused obstruction, as a result of which [the conferral of] a rank did not eventuate. Now, at a time when the protector of beings has appeared here [on earth], this request is not something difficult for you to accomplish and will, I believe, become a cause for mutual rejoicing by patron and recipient. At a time when it is agreeable to your mind, I beg you to send these, with the attached handwritten letter as it is, to King [Nikolai II] through the [Russian] consul [in Ikhe Khuree]. Thank you! Please take care! Please look on me kindly in all your wisdom!

Letter A-1: Transcription (here and below, numbers in parentheses indicate line numbers) thor god tā la’i han gyi mi brgyud no yon tshe ring zla ’od nas ru su’i rgyal por go gnas zhu rgyu’i zhu yig phul ba’i zin bris //

A Study of three Tibetan letters attributed to Dorzhiev

151

(1) sa steng gi bstan ’gro yongs kyi mgon dpung ^rgyal mchog rin po che’i (2) zhabs drung du/ tha’i zhi tshe ring zla ’od nas zhu (3) gsol/ ^gangs can lha gcig gang nyid chen po hor gyi yul grur (4) chibs skyod mdzad bstan ’gro’i phan bde mdzad pa’i dga’ ston chen pos kun (5) kyang tshim pa’i dus ’dir/ gus phran kyang gser zhal rin po che ring min mjal rtsis (6) kho na las deng dus cung zhig skabs su mi ’bab pa’i dus lags na/ phran gyi (7) dgos don phran bu ’di bzhin sku bcar zhu dus skyabs ’jug zhu ’os yin (8) rung/ ’on te skabs yol gyi rkyen gyis mi zhu ba mthu med du/ ru su’i rgyal po’i rim (9) par mnga’ zhabs su rgyal rgyud kyi drag zhan gang la’ang/ khi nya dza tha’i (10) ji zhes pa’i go gnas gnang ba’i lugs srol sngar nas da bar yod la/ phran (11) kyang dur bed tā la’i han gyi rgyal brgyud ngo ma kun gyi mkhyen gsal brjod (12) yod kyang/ sngon ’di skor rgyal por zhu yig ’bul bar phran tsho la mi (13) dga’ ba’i blon chen zhig rgyal por mi ’bul bkag rkyen gyis go gnas (14) ma byung ba dang/ deng ’gro ba’i mgon po ’dir byon skabs/ dgos don ’di (15) ni mdzad mi bde ba min pas/ mchod yon phan tshun thugs mnyes su (16) song ba’i rkyen du ’gyur ba’ang srid snyam/ ’thugs dgongs su ’thad tshe (17) phyag bris zur gsal ltar ’di dag hong ser brgyud rgyal por gtong gnang (18) bka’ drin bskyangs pa brtse bas gzigs pa mkhyen mkhyen mkhyen mkhyen mkhyen mkhyen // //

Letter A-2: Translation Content of memorial to king At the time when a conflict arose among the Oirats, the three [tribes of] Torghuts, Dörbets, and Khoshuts, the most populous among the Kalmyks, together with the king of the Torghuts called Kho-Örlög, 46 subjugated a group of people they encountered while heading away from the vicinity of the southeastern frontier of the Kingdom of Russia and took possession of the land from the land called Ural, with good grass and water suitable for raising livestock, to the Volga and from a river called the Don to the Caucasus mountains. At that time, the Kingdom of Russia differed greatly from the present time, but knowing that the Kingdom of Russia would give good protection, they became its subjects.

46 A Torghut taish who played a leading role in the westward migration of the Oirats. In 1644 he was defeated and killed in battle by the combined forces of the Nogais and Kabardians. As a result, the Kalmyks withdrew for a time from the western banks of the Volga.

152 

Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko

After Kho-Örlög’s son Šükür Dayičing47 had been exalted as king, he exerted himself earnestly as a servant of the Great Kingdom, 48 and so the ministers [of Russia] all trusted him. He became like a bulwark of the southeast of the Kingdom, protected it from brigands and wicked people, and when those who adhere to the teachings of Islam, or Mussulmen, conspired and a large group of people called Khir ge su49 rebelled,50 he did not lose [to them]. Until now these have been subjects of the Great Kingdom. To us, too, about ten envoys were specially sent from Turkey and a reply arrived calling for an alliance.51 But considering our alliance with the Great Kingdom, we did not turn our backs and did not change from what had been before. Therefore, having been trusted by successive kings, having been dispatched as reinforcements when war broke out, and having protected as before the border of those who stayed in their domain, the title of Khan has been given to the Torghut kings for several generations.52 When the king Ubashi rebelled two hundred and thirty years ago, led people in the direction of Manchus, and fled,53 we Dörbets stayed where we were,54 and Catherine [II] was especially pleased. Chuchey Tayiji, of my fifth [previous?] generations, was granted the title of king and

47 The chieftain of the Torghuts in 1644–1661; he took possession of the steppe west of the Volga. 48 From 1649 onwards, Šükür Dayičing entered a military alliance with Russia. He took part in the Russo-Polish War at the request of Russia and fought against the Crimean Tatars in the vicinity of the Sea of Azov. Later, he also supported Russia in f ighting against the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Tatars. 49 This refers to the present-day Kazakhs. During the Russian Empire and in the Soviet Union until 1925, the Kazakhs were called “Kirgiz” or “Kirgiz-Kaysak.” The present-day Kyrgyz, on the other hand, were known by various designations such as “Kara-Kirgiz.” 50 This may refer to the revolt of Kenesar Kasimov, which lasted for about ten years, starting in 1837. But if one considers the context in which the letter was written, it could refer to a series of battles between the Oirats (Dzungars and Kalmyks) and Kazakhs that occurred in the first half of the 1800s. 51 From the late seventeenth century onwards in particular, the Kalmyks frequently exchanged diplomatic envoys with the Ottoman Empire and tried to extract favourable conditions from both the Ottoman and Russian Empires. 52 The Russian government conferred the title of Khan on four Torghut chieftains, from Ayuka to Donduk Dashi. 53 This refers to the eastward migration of the Kalmyks in 1771 under Ubashi, who left Russia and submitted to the Qing dynasty. 54 For various reasons, the Dörbets, Khoshuts, and some of the Torghuts remained on the steppe to the west of the Volga.

A Study of three Tibetan letters attributed to Dorzhiev

153

appointed lord of all Kalmyks.55 The ensign, garments, and valuables bestowed on having been extolled by the King have been preserved until now. Chuchey [Tayiji]’s son Dzhampa Tayiji56 went to the kingdom of Den Haag as reinforcements and won victory, and generally the fifth generation of those who have given assistance [to Russia] is me, Tshe ring zla ’od. I completed studies at Russia’s university called the Lycée and was appointed ruler of the Dörbets, but when the Great Kingdom’s system was renewed and lords and subjects were divided, former members of royal families, [namely,] Kyrgyz (Kazakhs), Tatars, Kalmyks,57 Nogais, and so on who had been granted ranks such as tayiji or knyaz, are even today given [those ranks]. Chuchey Tayiji, who held the position of king, his son Captain Dzhampa Tayiji,58 Ma sur min khe’i cher,59 Khar nyed cha Tshang(s) can u pa she,60 and his son is myself, Tshe ring zla ’od. May what I have stated above be realized! Please look on me kindly in all your wisdom!

Letter A-2: Transcription [p. 1] (1) rgyal por zhu yig zhu don gnad (2) og rod ’tsham pa bkye ba’i skabs/ khal meg nang nas ’tsho pa mang shos thor god/ dur bed/ ho shod gsum po/ (3) thor god kyi hor lig ces pa’i rgyal po zhig (4) dang mnyam du/ ru su’i rgyal khab sa mtshams shar lho’i phyogs kyi nye mtshams nas phyogs (5) pa’i bar lam du thug pa’i mi sde rnams dbang du bsdus. nor phyugs ’tsho bde rtsva chu (6) legs pa/ u ral zhes pa’i sa cha nas/ e cil bar dang/ sdong zhes pa’i chu klung (7) nas/ khab kha rtsi’i ri bar gyi sa cha bdag po byas/ de dus ru su’i rgyal khab (8) deng dus las khyad par shin tu che yang ru su’i rgyal khab mgon 55 In 1800, the Russian emperor Paul I (r. 1796–1801) revived the Kalmyk Khanate and appointed the Dörbet Chuchey (?–1803) Khan of the Kalmyks. But when he died in 1803, the Kalmyk Khanate was once again abolished. 56 Dzhamba Tundutov (Dzhampa Tayiji, Dzhanbo Tayiji) joined the Russian army at the head of a regiment of Kalmyks and fought against the French. 57 In Kalmyk, this may be a transcription of Kirgut, the plural of Kirgiz. 58 This presumably refers to Dzhamba Tundutov (1792?–1828?). Because of his military exploits, Alexander I granted him the rank of army captain, and for this reason Dzhamba frequently referred to himself as “Captain,” even when writing in the Clear Script. His father was the Kalmyk Khan Chuchey, and his older brother was Erdeni Tundutov, lord of Baga-Dörbet ulus. When Erdeni died, his son Dedzhit Zambo Tundutov (1812?–48) was still an infant, and so Dzhamba acted as his guardian. 59 It may have been Mönko-Ochir (1816?–1851), who succeeded his cousin Dedzhit Zambo after his death of cholera in 1848, but he, too, died soon after. 60 It may have been Tsandzhin Ubushi Tundutov (?–1866), who came of age and ruled the ulus, but died soon after.

154 

Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko

rgyab bzang por go shes (9) kyis de’i mnga’ zhabs su chud/ hor lig gi sras shu khur ta’i ching rgyal po’i (10) gzengs bstod de nas bzung rgyal khab chen po’i zhabs ’degs su snying thag pa nas brtson (11) bzhin par rgyal blon thams cad kyis thugs yid ches/ rgyal khab shar lho’i lcags ri (12) lta bur ’gyur te rkun jag mi ngan srung zhing/ kha che’i ’am/ mo sur man gyi chos (13) lugs ’dzin pa lag sbrel/ khir ge su zhes pa’i mi sde chen po ngo log skabs (14) mi shor ba de dag da bar rgyal khab chen po’i mnga’ ’bangs su yod kyang / (15) rang cag la yang thu ri sa kha nas mi sna bcu skor ched mngags kyis gnyen (16) ’brel dgos rgyu’i lan ’byor yang/ rgyal khab chen po’i gnyen ’brel bsam gzhigs kyis (17) rgyab kyis ma phyogs par sngar rgyun las mi ’gyur/ de phyir rgyal po rim brgyud nas (18) yid ches dmag ’khrugs byung tshe dmag rogs su btang ba dang/ gzhis su sdod (19) pa rnams sa mtshams sngar mus bzhin srung ba bcas/ thor god rgyal por hang (20) gi go gnas nas mi rabs kha shas bar du brtsal/ rgyal po o ba she lo nyis (21) brgya sum cu tsam gyi sngon du ngo log/ manyju’i phyogs su mi ser khrid nas bros pa’i tshe/ [p. 2] (22) rang re dur bed pa rang bcags su bsdad par rgyal po kha’i spel nas lhag (23) par mnyes/ phran gyi mi rabs lnga pa chu zhe tha’i zhir rgyal po’i go gnas gnang (24) ste/ khal meg thams cad kyi bdag por bskos/ rgyal po’i gzengs bstod du (25) gnang ba’i ba dan dang na bza’ rin thang che ba rnams/ da bar nyar tshags su (26) yod mus/ chu zhe’i sras byams pa tha’i zhi rdā hā sgo’i rgyal khab tu dmag rogs (27) su phyin/ rgyal kha blangs pa dang bcas gang spyir rogs rim bgyis pa’i mi (28) brgyud lnga pa/ phran tshe ring zla ’od yin la/ phran ru su’i slob grwa chen mo (29) li tshe zhes par slob gnyer mthar phyin/ dur bed kyi mgo dpon du bskod pa (30) lags kyang/ rgyal khab chen po’i srol gsar ’gyur skabs dpon ’bangs bkye ba (31) bcas ’di ltar la/ sngon gyi rgyal brgyud rnams/ tha’i ji ’am/ khyi ka dza’i go gnas (32) gnang bzhin pa/ khir sge su/ tha thar/ khal meg/ sno ga’i sogs mang dag la (33) da lta yang rtsal bzhin gyis mus/ rgyal po’i go gnas ’dzin pa chu zhe tha’i zhi (34) de’i sras kha phi thang byams pa tha’i zhi/ ma sur min khe’i cher/ khar nyed (35) cha tshang(s) can u pa she/ de’i bu bdag tshe ring zla ’od lags na gong du (36) zhus pa don smin gyi brtse gzigs mkhyen mkhyen mkhyen // //

Letter B: Translation [p. 1] To you students who have mastered a hundred branches of learning I send a special message. It is a matter for rejoicing that you are now in good health and, wishing to do a great service for religious and secular

A Study of three Tibetan letters attributed to Dorzhiev

155

affairs, have traveled to a distant land, disregarding a hundred difficulties, have settled down, are relaxed, and are studying happily. Here, I too am well and have not abandoned the wish to act for religious and secular affairs. I am planning to go there [i.e., England] in autumn or early winter, but it is not yet decided. I pray to the Three Jewels that I will be able to meet you on that occasion. Please send me a letter about the situation and [p. 2] news [there], especially anything you have heard from Tibet. I, Ngag dbang, have offered [this letter] from Petersburg on such-and-such a date. With several drams of gold as a gift. I expressly ask you to tell me who and from where you are. [p. 3] Russia. Petersburg, Staro Derev. Blagoveshchenskaya 11, to Dorzhiev. Please write the address like this on the envelope and send it.

Letter B: Transcription [p. 1] (1) mkhyen brgya’i dbang phyug slob grwa lhan rgyas gang der (2) ches spel deng khyad cag gi (3) sku khams bzang ngos bstan srid zhabs ’degs rlabs po che dgongs (4) bzhed kyis bshul ring yul du ngal ba brgya phrag khyad gsod (5) kyis phebs nas bde ’jags mkhos phebs kyi slob gnyer yid (6) spro’i gnas su gyur pa ni rjes su yid rangs pa’i gnas su che (7) ’dir phran kyang bde mtshams bstan srid la lhag bsam (8) mi ’dor bar yod. phran ston dus sam dgun ’gor de phyogs (9) bskyod rtsis lags kyang gtan khel med pas/ de mtshams (10) zhal mjal yod pa mchog gsum rin po che nas thugs (11) rjes gzigs shag. phran la gnas tshul dang [p. 2] (12) gsar ’gyur gang ’byung lhag par bod nas ci thos (13) phyag bris kyang yang yang phebs pa cis kyang mkhyen. (14) phran ngag dbang nas zla tshes phi ther nas phul. (15) zhu ’degs gser zho ’khor bcas (16) ched zhu su dang ga nas yin pa gsung rogs mkhyen [p. 3] Rossi. Петербург Старо Дереб. Благовещенская 11 Доржиеву rgya skog kha yig la ’di ltar bris nas gtong rogs zhu

Bibliography Archives BICT: British Intelligence on China in Tibet, 1903–1950 [microfiche]. India Office Records, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library (editor: A. J. Farrington).

156 

Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko

RGADA (Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts) [РГАДА: Российский государственный архив древних актов.], F. 186 (F.A. Bühler) [Ф. 186 (Ф.А. Бюлер)]. RGIA (Russian State Historical Archive) [РГИА: Российский государственный исторический архив], F. 383 (First department MGI) [Ф. 383 (Первый департамент МГИ)]. Akasaka Tsuneaki 赤坂恒明. “Juchi-urusu shi kenkyū no tenbō to kadai yori” ジュ チ ∙ ウルス史研究の展望と課題より [“The Outlook and Challenges of Historical Research on the Ulus of Jochi”]. In Mongorushi kenkyū—genjō to tenbō モンゴ ル史研究―現状と展望 [Mongolian History Research-Current Situation and Prospects], edited by Yoshida Jun’ichi 吉田順一, (General Editor), and Waseda Daigaku Mongoru Kenkyūjo 早稲田大学モンゴル研究所 (Waseda Institute for Mongolian Studies), 91–105. Tokyo: Akashi Shoten 明石書店, 2011. Andreev, Alexander (Andreyev) [Андреев, А.И.]. Tibet v politike tsarskoi, sovetskoi i postsovetskoi Rossii [Тибет в политике царской, советской и постсоветской России], [Tibet in the Politics of Tsarist, Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia]. Saint Petersburg: Saint-Petersburg University Press and A. Terent’ev’s Publishing House “Nartang” [Издательство Санкт-Петербургского универститета; Издательство А. Терентьева “Нартанг”], 2006. Andreev, A. I. [Андреев, А. И.]. “Urginskii dnevnik F. I. Shcherbatskogo (1905). Predislovie i kommentarii” [“Ургинский дневник Ф. И. Щербатского (1905). Предисловие и комментарии”] [“F. I. Shcherbatskoy’s Diary in Urga (1905). Preface and comments”]. Pis’mennye pamiatniki Vostoka [Письменные памятники Востока] [Written monuments of the East] 14 (1) (2017): 48-67. Andreyev, Alexander. “Agwan Dorjiev and the Buddhist Temple in Petrograd.” ChöYang: The Voice of Tibetan Religion and Culture, Year of Tibet Edition. Dharamsala: Council for Religious and Cultural Affairs of H. H. the Dalai Lama, 1991: 214–222. ———. “The Buddhist Temple in Petersburg and the Russo-Tibetan Rapprochement.” In Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Fagernes 1992, edited by Per Kvaerne, 1–6. Oslo: Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, 1994. Aoki, Bunkyō 青木文教. Seizō 西藏 [Tibet]. Tokyo: Fuyō Shobō 芙蓉書房, 1969. Belov, E. A. [Белов, Е. А.]. Rossiia i Tibet: sbornik russkikh arkhivnykh dokumentov. 1900–1914 [Россия и Тибет: сборник русских архивных документов. 1900–1914], [Russia and Tibet: collection of Russian archival documents, 1900–1914]. Moskva [Moscow]: Vostochnaia literatura [Oriental literature], 2005. Gilyashaeva, M. N. [Гиляшаева, М. Н.]. “Kalmytskii noion-rossiiskii kniaz?” [“Калмыцкий нойон – российский князь?] [“Kalmyk noyon—Russian prince?”]. Vostokovednye issledovaniia v Kalmykii [Востоковедные исследования

A Study of three Tibetan letters attributed to Dorzhiev

157

в Калмыкии] [Oriental studies in Kalmykia] 2, Elista: Izdatel’stvo Kalmytskogo universiteta [Kalmyk University Press], 2007: 62–67. Goldstein, Melvyn C. A History of Modern Tibet, 1913–1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989. Hamamoto, Mami 濱本真実. “Seinaru Roshia” no Isurāmu 「聖なるロシア」のイ スラーム [Islam in holy Russia: The Tatar conversion to the Russian Orthodox Church]. Tokyo: Tōkyō Daigaku Shuppankai 東京大学出版会, 2009. Kobayashi, Ryosuke. “The Lungshar Delegation and Britain in 1913: Focusing on the Letters of the 13th Dalai Lama.” Inner Asia 18 (2016): 288–308. Komandzhaev, A. N., and N. P. Matsakova [Команджаев, А. Н., Мацакова Н. П.]. Reforma 1892 goda v Kalmykii [Реформа 1892 года в Калмыкии], [Reform of 1892 in Kalmykia]. Elista: Izdatel’stvo FGBOU VPO “KalmGU” [Publishing House FGBOU VPO “Kalmyk State University”], 2011. Kuleshov, Nikolai S. Russia’s Tibet File: The Unknown Pages in the History of Tibet’s Independence, edited by Alexander Berzin and John Bray. New Delhi: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1996. Lamb, Alastair. The McMahon line: A Study in the Relations between India, China and Tibet, 1904 to 1914. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966. Lomakina, I. I. [Ломакина, И.И.]. Velikii beglets [Великий беглец] [The Great Fugitive]. Moskva [Moscow]: Dizain. Informatsiia. Kartografiia [Design. Information. Cartography], 2001. Martin, Emma. “Fit for a King? The Significance of a Gift Exchange between the Thirteenth Dalai Lama and King George V.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 3.24.3 (2014): 1–28. Mitirov, A. G. [Митиров, А. Г.] Oiraty–kalmyki: veka i pokoleniia [Ойраты– калмыки: века и поколения] [Oirats–Kalmyks: Centuries and Generations]. Elista: Kalmytskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, [Kalmyk Book Publishing House], 1998. rDo rje yib, Ngag dbang blo bzang [Yap Nawang Lobsang Dorje]. Chos brygad gdon gyis zin byas te, rgyal khams don med nyul ba yi, dam chos nor gyis dbul ba’i sprangs, btsun gzugs shig gi bgyis brjod gtam. 1923. In La rtse, 8 (2014–15): 95–119. Samten, Jampa, and Nikolay Tsyrempilov. From Tibet Confidentially. Dharamsala, Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 2012. Shakya, Tsering. “Making of the Great Game Players: Tibetan Students in Britain Between 1913 and 1917.” Tibetan Review 21, no. 1 (1986): 9–20. Shaumian, Tatiana. Tibet: The Great Game and Tsarist Russia. New Delhi/New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Snelling, John. Buddhism in Russia: The Story of Agvan Dorzhiev, Lhasa’s Emissary to the Tsar. London: Element Books, 1993. Tachibana, Makoto. “A Re-examination of the Mongol-Tibetan Treaty of 1913: Its Contemporary Signif icance.” In The Resurgence of “Buddhist Government:”

158 

Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko

Tibetan-Mongolian Relations in the Modern World, edited by Yumiko Ishihama, Makoto Tachibana, Ryosuke Kobayashi, and Takehiko Inoue, 141–154. Osaka: Union Press, 2019. Tanase, Jirō 棚瀬慈郎. Darai rama no gaikōkan Dorujīefu: Chibetto Bukkyō sekai no 20 seiki ダライラマの外交官ドルジーエフ　チベット仏教世界の20世紀 [The Dalai Lama’s diplomat Dorziev: The 20th century Tibetan Buddhist world]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten 岩波書店, 2009. ———. “Dorujehu jiden (sono 1)” ドルジェフ自伝 (その1) [“Autobiography of Dorjiev No. 1”]. Ningen Bunka 人間文化 [School of Human Cultures the University of Shiga Prefecture Bulletin] 17 (2005): 14–23. ———. “Dorujehu jiden (sono 2)” ドルジェフ自伝 (その2) [“Autobiography of Dorjiev No. 2”]. Ningen Bunka 人間文化 [School of Human Cultures the University of Shiga Prefecture Bulletin] 18 (2005): 29–38. Tundutov, Ts.D. [Тундутов, Ц. Д.]. “Pis’mo g. Tundutova” [“Письмо г. Тундутова”] [“The letter of Mr. Tundutov”], Dnevnik kniazia V. P. Meshcherskogo [Дневник князя В.П. Мещерского] [The diary of Prince V. P. Meshchersky]. Sankt Peterburg [Saint Petersburg]: Tipografiia kn. V. P. Meshcherskogo [V. P. Meshchersky’s Printing House], 1901: 38–45. Ul’ianov, D. [Ульянов, Д.]. Predskazaniia buddy o dome Romanovykh i kratkii ocherk moikh puteshestvii v Tibet v 1904–1905 [Предсказания Будды о Доме Романовых и краткий очерк моих путешествий в Тибет в 1904–1905] [Buddha’s predictions about the House of Romanovs and a short sketch of my travels to Tibet in 1904–1905]. Sankt Peterburg [Saint Petersburg]: Tsentral’naia Tipo-Litografiia, [Central Typo-Lithography], 1913.

About the Authors Professor Ishihama Yumiko is a tenured faculty member of the School of Education, Waseda University, Japan, and the author of the number of English- and Japanese-language articles in the field of Tibetan and Central Asian history. Email: [email protected] Inoue Takehiko is a Specially-Appointed Assistant Professor at the SlavicEurasian Research Center, Hokkaido University. His research focuses on Kalmyk History and Russian Buddhist culture. Email: [email protected]

A Study of three Tibetan letters attributed to Dorzhiev

Letter A1

159

160 

Letter A2

Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko

A Study of three Tibetan letters attributed to Dorzhiev

Letter A3

161

162 

Letter B1

Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko

A Study of three Tibetan letters attributed to Dorzhiev

Letter B2

163

164 

Letter C1

Ishihama Yumiko and Inoue Takehiko

A Study of three Tibetan letters attributed to Dorzhiev

Letter C2

165

6

Russian Archival Documents on the Revitalization of BuddhismAmong the Kalmyks in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries Baatr Kitinov Abstract Baatr Kitinov’s paper uses Russian archival documents to examine the late nineteenth century revitalisation of Buddhism among the Russian Kalmyk population. He identifies three stages in this process: 1. 1860–1880, when Mongols wanted to “find” an incarnation of the Seventh Jebtsundamba Khutughtu among the Kalmyks (“Turgut”) in Russia or Olüts in Chinese Xinjiang; 2. 1880–1904, when the Dalai Lama was in Mongolia and Kalmyks traveled to Tibet; and 3. from 1904 to the first years of Soviet power, during which they maintained close contacts with the Dalai Lama. He also identifies three internal factors for the revitalization of Buddhism amongst the Kalmyks: 1. the revival of Tantrism in khurul practices; 2. the presence of Buddhists from other lands among Kalmyks; 3. and the Russian authorities permitting Kalmyks to visit the Dalai Lama in Urga. Keywords: Kalmyks, Dalai Lama, Mongols, incarnation, tantrism

Introduction The history of Buddhism among the Kalmyks is closely related with the history of this religion among Tibetans and Mongols. Beginning from 1771 due to restrictions in contacts with Tibet and Mongolia the Kalmyks’ religious development became more autonomous and in some sense separated from the same processes in the Central Asian Buddhist world.

Ishihama, Y. & McKay, A. (eds.), The Early 20th Century Resurgence of the Tibetan Buddhist World. Studies in Central Asian Buddhism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi: 10.5117/9789463728645_ch06

168 

Baatr Kitinov

The late nineteenth and early twentieth century revitalization of Buddhism among the Kalmyks was both similar to and distinct from the contemporary developments among other Buddhist nations in Russia, namely the Buryat, Tuvian, and Altai peoples. For all of these Buddhist groups, this revitalization was shaped by religious and political events in the territories of the Qing and Russian Empires, including those connected to the flight of the Dalai Lama to Mongolia in 1904. However, the Kalmyk’s relative geographic distance from Mongolia and Tibet made their situation unique, as did a series of events that occurred in Mongolia in the late 1860s due to the death of the Seventh Bogdo-gegen Jebtsundamba Khutughtu and search of his incarnation that likely had a great impact on the growth of Kalmyk religious self-awareness. This chapter examines the external and internal factors that influenced the revitalization of Buddhism among Kalmyks in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as they are reflected in Russian archival documents.

External Factors of Revitalization Kalmyks are part of the Oirad Mongols, a confederation that played a significant role in the history of Tibet, especially when the Fifth Dalai Lama, due to Oirad military support, became the secular and spiritual leader of a united Tibet in 1642. From that time on, the Oirad and Kalmyks maintained the closest of relations with the Dalai Lamas: their rulers received the title of Khan from the Tibetan leader, they carried out religious ceremonies and services in the leading monasteries and temples of Tibet, and so on. Living near the Caspian Sea and North Caucasus, far away from the rest of the followers of Tibetan Buddhism, Kalmyks had faced problems in keeping their Buddhist culture and identity. The difficulties of reaching religious centres such as Lhasa, the “pro-Buddhist” politics of Qing court, as well as bad inner political and economic conditions forced them to leave the Russian lands for their previous homeland. After the early 1771 exodus of most of the Kalmyks back to Jungaria (which became the Chinese province of Xinjiang), the Kalmyk Khanate was liquidated by the decree of the Russian Empress Catherine the Second, who was extremely displeased by their “betrayal,” especially because it happened on the eve of the Russian-Turkish war. The remaining Kalmyks were banned from maintaining any relations with Tibet and the Dalai Lama. Their ties with Tibet and Tibetan lamas revived significantly during the second half of the nineteenth century, a revival most likely associated with events that occurred in distant Mongolia.

Russian Archival Documents on the Revitalization of Buddhism

169

In a letter from Urga on February 22, 1869, an official of the Russian envoy’s staff named A. Kornirov reported to Pyotr N. Stremoukhov, Director of the Asian Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that the Mongols were looking for the reincarnation of the Seventh Jebtsundamba Khutughtu, Nawang Chokyi Wangchuk Trinle Gyatso (1849–1868), who had passed away in December 1868. The Mongols hoped to find him either among the Olüts (in Xinjiang, that is, among the Oirad), or the Turguts, i.e., the Kalmyks in Russia.1 According to the established historical tradition and demands of the Qing court, the Mongols usually would try to find the new incarnation of Jebtsundamba Khutughtu in Tibet. At the end of 1860, because of the Dungan uprising that had swept up the whole of north-west China, the Mongols were not able to travel directly to Tibet through the usual route. There were other reasons why, as Mongols did say, “our eyes turn on the Olüt and Turgut.”2 In particular, they did not want the incarnation to be found “among the Shabins,”3 “in some part of Khalkha, among the people subordinate to the Khoshun rulers,”4 or in Inner Mongolia: “the latter are not alien to Khalkhas (i.e., are also Mongols), but not close, so therefore it would be better if Khutughtu appears somewhere among Olutes and Turguts [… finding] Khutughtu from these tribes, after the Tibetan, would certainly be the best, but is this possible also?”5 The search options among Uryankhai (Tuvinians) and Buryats were also rejected by Mongols—the first were considered as people of not of the same “race,” the second, though accepted as the Mongols, weren’t estimated as being of “proper” status for the new incarnation.6 The Mongols’ opinions concerning where the incarnation would be found can be interpreted not only as a high valuation of the “quality” of the Kubilgans among the Oirad and Kalmyks,7 but also as partaking of the same religious fervor as found elsewhere in the period under review. 1 Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire (from now on, AVPRI). Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 575, 27-33. 2 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 575, 28. 3 Shabins (Shabiners)—the members of Shabi group, were high incarnate lamas’ servants and dependent people. 4 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 575, 28. 5 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 575, 29. 6 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 575, 29–29v. 7 There were such prominent incarnations among Kalmyks and Olutes (Oirats), as Neichi Toyin (1557–1653), Zaya-pandita (1559–1662), Galdan Boshogtu-khan (1644–1697) and others, who played an outstanding role in the history of Tibetan Buddhism among Mongolian nations.

170 

Baatr Kitinov

Another reason for such sentiment can be traced to financial circumstances. As A. Kornirov noted in a January 1871 letter from Beijing to Pyotr N. Stremoukhov, the task of searching for and transferring a new incarnation from Tibet to Mongolia was a very expensive one for Mongols. The cost of the previous embassy, equipped from Mongolia to Tibet to bring the Seventh Jebtsundamba Khutughtu, cost 40,000 lans of silver for four aimaks,8 and another 30,000 lans “from the Lama office”—70,000 lans—“a sum that is very significant for Mongolia.”9 The Mongols therefore probably also wanted to save on the financial costs of discovering the incarnation in Tibet. For the Qing court the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu was not only the leading incarnation, but also a tool of their policy in Mongolia, which is why all incarnations of the first Bogdo-gegen have been found among the Tibetans. Such decision guaranteed the absence of the union of the civil and clerical powers in Mongolia, which could be a threat for the Qing presence there. Thus, after Beijing put pressure on them, the Mongols had to agree to find the incarnation among the Tibetans. In 1873 a large delegation went from Mongolia to Tibet, and two years later Nawang Lobsang Chokyi Nyima Tenzin Wangchuk (1869–1924) was brought back to Urga and was officially named the Eighth incarnation of Jebtsundamba Khutughtu. After the revolution of 1911, he became known as the Bogdo Khaan, the first and the last theocratic ruler of Mongolia. It seems that news about the Mongols’ interest in the Kalmyks, and particularly about the prospects of f inding incarnations among them, soon reached the Kalmyks. In the second half of the nineteenth century, Buddhism amongst the Kalmyks developed both quantitatively (the erection of cult buildings) and qualitatively (the revival of tantric practices). This period—from 1869 (1870) to the beginning of the twentieth century—can be considered the first stage of the revitalization of Buddhism among the Kalmyks, when they developed a growing interest in their co-religionists in the East, particularly in Tibet. The end of this period was characterized by the beginning of Kalmyks’ travels to Tibet—a phenomenon that was especially highlighted in the regional Russian press.10 Hence Kalmyks, despite the prohibitions from the Russian authorities, were able to visit Tibet and the Dalai Lama at the end of 1860. For instance, Parmen Smirnov, an Orthodox priest and teacher of the Kalmyk language at the Astrakhan Theological Seminary who visited the Kalmyks in the early 8 Aimak (i.e., ulus). 9 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 575, 55 v. 10 Palomnichestvo kalmykov.

Russian Archival Documents on the Revitalization of Buddhism

171

1870s, noted that Lamas assured the ordinary Kalmyks that the figures of deities from the Buddhist pantheon, including that of the Dalai Lama, “had been received from Tibet from the Dalai Lama, who had had such an abundance of gold that even the roof of his palace is golden.”11 He also noted that when the Kalmyk lamas changed the location of their nomadic khurul (Buddhist temple), they carried a special case with a figure of the Dalai Lama on the saddle of a special white horse.12 This information coincides with the travel notes of Prince E. E. Ukhtomsky, who visited the Astrakhan Kalmyk steppes in 1889: some Kalmyks […] recently traveled to Transbaikalia to Buryats and to Urga ([…] there is a great Buddhist “holy” Chebdzun-damba-hutugtu over there), or by sea from Odessa to Tien-dzin, the port of Beijing, and then across the Chinese border to Tibet. Books, [and] idols were bought up abroad, [Kalmyks] had received the dedication and instruction from the famous religious teachers.13

He also noted an increase in the Kalmyks’ religious sentiments: “There are dozens of kumirnya [chortens or small temples] in the Astrakhan Kalmyk steppe, and their number increases every year.”14 All these processes had been supported by activities of the Kalmyk lamas, who were able to keep the ties with their spiritual centres in Tibet. According to A. I. Vorontsov, a member of the Archival Commission of the Astrakhan spiritual consistory, the Kalmyk clergy played a significant role as the guardian of national traditions and attitudes, were responsible for conducting Buddhist rituals, and opposed the Russification policy of the government, including the Christianization of the Kalmyks.15 It should be noted that in the Russian regions where Kalmyks lived, the local authorities supported the Buddhist needs of the Kalmyks with understanding and even some sympathy. For example, a letter dated October 10, 1890, from Nakaznoi Ataman (principal military head) of the Don Cossack troops (North Caucasus region) to the Department of Internal Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, requests the issuance of passports to Gelyung (a monastic title) Menko Bakirov and Manzhik (a monastic title) Sanzhe 11 Smirnov, Putevyye zapiski, 10. 12 Smirnov, Putevyye zapiski, 6. 13 Ukhtomsky, Ot Kalmytskoy stepi, 20–21. 14 Ukhtomsky, Ot Kalmytskoy stepi, 6. 15 Vorontsov, “Neskol’ko dney prebyvaniya moyego,” 12; Vorontsov, “Po voprosu,” 54.

172 

Baatr Kitinov

Susinov “for a trip to the Chinese empire and Mongolia for a pilgrimage for a period of ten months.”16 The issue was resolved positively in May 1892.17 According to the correspondence, Gelyung Susinov also traveled to Tibet in 1895 (this time with another Kalmyk, Menko Boromanzhinov).18 The same archival document contains correspondence between Nakaznoi Ataman of the Don Cossack troops and various departments of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the issuing of passports to spiritual and secular Kalmyks from 1890 to 1903: for Bagsha (head of a Khurul) Setenov and layman Ochurov (June 7, 1900), for Khurul Bagsha Dambo Ulyanov with Gelyung Ivan Kitanov (June 23, 1903), and for Gelyung Menko Batyrev and the Cossacks Alexey Godanov and Doldon Chepeikov, amongst others.19 In addition, Kalmyks could move to the East for specific reasons; for example, in 1889, an Astrakhan Kalmyk appeared in the Mongolian steppe, calling himself Ja-Lama (Damba Dzhaltsan), and declared himself to be an incarnation of Amursana, a famous fighter against the Qing regime in Jungaria in the mid-eighteenth century. In 1891–1894 Baaza-Bagshi Menkedzhuyev visited Tibet twice, and in 1898–1900 and 1902–1903 Bagsha Purdash Dzhungruev came to Lhasa to bow to the Dalai Lama. In 1904–1905 the Tibetan leaders were visited by Bagsha Dambo Ulyanov (his companion, military officer Naran Ulanov, died on the way to Tibet in April 1904). The Stavropol Kalmyk Ovshe Norzunov visited Tibet three times in 1898–1901 and took the first photos of Lhasa and the Potala. Many books and articles had already been written about their trips to Tibet, and the travelers themselves also published notes and books about their travels. The second stage of the revitalization of Buddhism among the Kalmyks began in 1904 and lasted until 1920th. The beginning of this stage was connected to the geopolitical circumstances: in 1903 the English expeditionary corps began to move towards central Tibet, leading the Thirteenth Dalai Lama (1876–1933) to flee to Mongolia in the summer of 1904, arriving in Urga in November. The Dalai Lama intended to go further and cross into Russian territory, but did not receive permission. After unsuccessful negotiations, he left Mongolia in the spring of 1906 and returned to Lhasa only in December 1909. However, he took interest in his Kalmyk followers, who from time to time visited him, especially if they were fluent in Tibetan. As 16 17 18 19

AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1432. Case 79-k, 1. AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1432. Case 79-k, 4. AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1432. Case 79-k, 6–7. AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1432. Case 79-k, 8–14.

Russian Archival Documents on the Revitalization of Buddhism

173

early as the beginning of 1909 he sent the Russian authorities a request to allow the Kalmyk lama Sharap Tepkin to go to Lhasa as a Russian-Tibetan translator.20 Two years later Tepkin did travel to Tibet, where he remained until 1922. Despite the Dalai Lama’s interest in and sympathy for Russia, the Russian authorities were cautious about developing relations with him. In the Report of the Meeting on Tibetan Affairs on June 6, 1906, it was noted that: The Thirteenth, the Current Reincarnate […] in view of his exceptional personal qualities and ascetic lifestyle […] enjoys special honor and respect in the eyes of Buddhists all over the world who are flocking to worship him […] We are interested in Tibet primarily in the sense that among our subjects there are a considerable number of Buddhists, and that’s why it is of course advantageous for us to use the disposition of their spiritual head, who is recognized and honored by all of them.21

The establishment of closer Russian-Tibetan relations also worried Britain, which suspected Russia of also having plans of aggression against Tibet because of the Russian military successes in Central Asia and the presence of Russian Buddhist Buryats and Kalmyks among the closest circle of the Dalai Lama. This Report allows us to remark on such specific aspects of the situation as the influence of the religious mood of Kalmyks on the state policy towards Dalai Lama. But, besides their interest in rebuilding the ties with Tibet and Dalai Lama, there was one more reason for Kalmyks which was inspired by the revitalization processes in Buddhism: they correlated themselves with the same Kalmyks who lived in China, because they were aware of their unity and coherence. This idea was highlighted by the Kalmyk Derbet Zaisang Lejin Arluyev, who wrote about the reasons for his trip to the Buddhist East: In the summer of 1899, I, accompanied by Iseyev and Odzhanaev, two fellow travelers of the same ulus, made a trip to the borders of Western Mongolia. The purpose of this trip, on the one hand, was to renew and maintain contact with our kindred tribes: Torgut and Derbet;22 and on the other, to inspect the lands occupied by them after leaving Russia [in 1771].23 20 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1466. Year 1905–1913, 78–78 v. 21 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1468. Year 1906, 8 v. 22 Torguts and Derbets were two main ethnic groups among Kalmyks. 23 Badmaev, Kalmytskaya dorevolyutsionnaya literatura, 124.

174 

Baatr Kitinov

Earlier, in 1891, Baaza-Bagshi Menkedzhuyev had written that, knowing about the former connections between Kalmyks and the Dalai Lamas, “even many years earlier his soul suggested that now, perhaps, one can reach (Tibet) and introduce oneself (to the Dalai Lama).”24

Internal Factors of Revitalization The special role of the geographic factor in the revitalization in Kalmyk Buddhism manifested through the regional identity of each group. For example, Kalmyks called themselves the Stavropol, Don, Ural, or Astrakhan Kalmyks depending on the administrative affiliation of the territory where they resided. Despite the spread of Christianity among them (when a separate Christian Kalmyk subethnic group had appeared—the so-called [and little studied: ed.] “Buzava”), it was Buddhism that continued to be a connecting tie that determined the unity of the Kalmyks. However, it also obeyed the prevailing circumstances: each Kalmyk ulus had their own khuruls, and even the title “Bagsha/Baksha” (main lama of a khurul, head of the local sangha) had different meanings: for Torguts it was the head of khurul—i.e., one person—whereas among the Derbet any lama could be called Bagsha.25 The revival of Tantrism in khurul practices and rituals was one of the important features of the revitalization of Buddhism among Kalmyks in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. According to Alex Berzin, “Tibetans and Mongols […] at the beginning of the twentieth century […] spread [the teachings and practices of the Kalachakra tantra] among the Kalmyk-Mongols on the Volga [River].”26 This quotation highlights two important issues: first, the presence of Buddhists from other regions among the Kalmyks; and second, the spread of Tantrism among the Kalmyks. At the end of the nineteenth century, the Russian authorities noted that “the Kalmyk steppe has recently begun to be visited by Lamaist inorodets (foreigners) from other parts of the empire,”27 and demanded that lamas from other regions be banned from receiving “leaving certificates and passports for traveling to the Kalmyk steppes.”28 The reason for such decision could 24 Baaza-Bakshi, Skazaniye o khozhdenii. 25 Zhitetsky, Astrakhanskiye kalmyki, 64. 26 Berzin, Prinyatiye posvyashcheniya Kalachakry, 42. 27 Russian State Historical Archive (from now on, RSHA). Fund: 821. Inventory 133. Case 395, 218. 28 National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia (from now on, NARK). Fund И-9. Inventory 2. Case 77, 3 v.

Russian Archival Documents on the Revitalization of Buddhism

175

lie in the anxiety concerning the spreading of separatist ideas that took place among Muslims at that time. The evidence of this practice of Tibetan Buddhists traveling to the steppe can be found, for example, in the records of the famous Russian Buddhologist Feodor Shcherbatskoy; in his “A brief report on the trip to Urga” he noted that, having arrived in Urga, before meeting with the Dalai Lama (in May 1905), he spent some time practicing Tibetan language with a Tibetan who “had been among Kalmyks and therefore knew Russian.”29 The situation remained the same at the beginning of the twentieth century: in a letter from the Imperial Russian Consul General in Urga to the Irkutsk Governor-General dated May 20, 1909, it is noted that some Tibetan and Tangut lamas “seek to penetrate, in order to get money, to Buryats in Transbaikalia, and [a] few—to the Astrakhan Kalmyks.”30 In the Kalmyk steppe, the search and deportation of such “unwanted” guests was organized by the police up to the end of Tsarist regime. Tantrism was familiar to the Kalmyks due to the long history of Tibetan Buddhism among them. For example, as noted in the Autobiography of the Fifth Dalai Lama, in the beginning of 1643 he was visited by the Kalmyk (Torgut) ruler Shukur Daichin and his entourage. A year later, before their departure to their homeland, the Dalai Lama personally conducted a tantric service for them: “[In Drepung], the elder queens and Daichin received [from me] the main religious and [subject] gifts and teachings they wanted. In the tantric hall, [I] performed a specially installed service to Dharmapala, and also presented [them] a khada with written [words] to the protectors of the dharma.”31 This passage proves the deep devotion of Kalmyks to the tantric services, which were actively practiced by them. Among the famous Kalmyk lama-practitioners of Tantra are included Neichi Toyin (1557–1653), Andzhatan, Shakur (both in the first third of the eighteenth century), and several other prominent lamas and their students. As for khuruls, some of them had a special kibitka (a small mobile building) dedicated to the Tantric (Dokshit) rituals; i.e., Tsagan-Aman Khurul.32 It was first built at the end of the eighteenth century; in the 1870s Smirnov wrote that during services the lamas in the khurul “put a special kind of bandage on their heads, such as a kokoshnick33 made of five wooden 29 Shcherbatskoy, “Kratkiy otchet o poyezdke,” 251. 30 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1467. Year 1904–1906, 35. 31 “Rgyal mo che chung dang dai chin gyis gtsos pa rnams la gang ‘dod kyi chos ‘brel dang dngos po ‘i rdzong ba bzabs/ sngags khang du bkang gso btsugs thog chos skyong rnams la ‘phrin bcol bris pa ‘i snyan shal phul/” (Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho, Rgyal dbang lnga pa ngag, 223). 32 Borisenko, Khramy Kalmykii, 46 33 Kokoshnick describes the traditional Russian womens’ headwear.

176 

Baatr Kitinov

planks or cardboard paper with teeth pointed upwards. Each larva [i.e., wooden plank.] has images of the Burkhans: Abida, Amog-Sidi, Biryuzana, Ochir-Sadov and Randa-Samboba […] The unfolded bandage represents a five-toothed crown-titilge.”34 This kind of “kokoshnick” was worn during the performance of Tantric rituals dedicated to the yidams of Anuttarayogatantra, such as Yamāntaka and Guhyasamāja. A. Pozdneev, writing about the religious rituals carried out by the Mongolian lamas, pointed out these Burkhans depicted on Chodbons (the same headwear called as kokoshnick by P. Smirnov) used by them, as amongst “the specifics of the Dokshit (i.e., Tantric) services.”35 Other Kalmyk temples also practiced Tantric rituals. G. Avlyaev names “Dokshadyn Big Temple” in Erketenovsky ulus, which was famous for its Dokshit worship.36 The same special kibitka (“Dokshiten ergke”), devoted to the Tantric rituals, was one of the five kibitkas, which composed Iki-Khurul of Maloderbetovsky ulus.37 Though the lack of the sources doesn’t allow us to identify the date of their construction, it is possible to assume that they were built during the second half of the nineteenth century. As A. Pozdneev noted, the ritual practices among Kalmyks were no different from those practiced among Buryats and Mongols, and the Kalmyk lamas were as well-qualified as the clergy of Mongolian monasteries.38 Kalmyks participated in the Tantric services or ordered them in their Khuruls as well as when they were able to visit the Tibetan temples. The Kalmyk pilgrim Dzhungruev wrote that while he was in Lhasa, he ordered sacrifices in the Jokhang (“in the great tszu temple”) “in front of the Tibetan Burkhan patron of Be-Lhamo (Baldan-Lhamo) […] Besides, this is the patron of our homeland, and she [is a patron] of our clan.”39 Known as the Feminine Great Dharmapāla, Śrī Devī, or Palden Lhamo (Tib.: Dpal ldan lha mo; Skt.: Śri Devī; Mo.: Ökin tngri), her cult requires Tantric practices thanks to her fame as the keeper of the secrets of life and death. Another example of its importance as a Tantric talisman could be seen on such occasions: in 1918, she was depicted on the flag of the Third Donskoy Kalmyk regiment with the Tibetan inscription: dmag zor rgyal mo (དམག་ ཟ རོ ་ ར ྒ ལྱ ). It is known that

34 Smirnov, Putevyye zapiski, 20. 35 Pozdneev, Ocherki byta buddiyskikh monastyrey, 322. 36 Avlyaev, Kalmytskiye khuruly v XIX veke, 68. 37 Zhitetsky. Ocherki byta, 48. 38 Pozdneev, Ocherki byta buddiyskikh monastyrey, xiii. 39 Rudnev, “Khozhdeniye v Tibet,” 139.

Russian Archival Documents on the Revitalization of Buddhism

177

Palden Lhamo is also linked to the institution of the Dalai Lamas, and the First Dalai Lama (1391–1474) adopted her as his personal protective deity.40 Thus, among the specific characteristics of the revitalization processes among the Kalmyks should be considered, in particular, the revival of Tantric practices in khurul rituals. On November 27, 1904, the Dalai Lama and his entourage arrived at Ih-Khure—the centre of Mongolian Buddhists and the seat of their leader Bogdo-gegen. This news encouraged the Astrakhan Kalmyks, who began to urge the Russian authorities to allow him to come to them. However, the authorities were afraid of diplomatic complications: in a secret telegram from the Nadvorny (the Court) Counselor V. F. Lyuba, dated December 19, 1904, he notes that he had informed the Kalmyks through the Astrakhan Governor that “the Dalai Lama’s trip to Russia is not planned and the Kalmyks’ invitation of him will not be allowed.”41 Still, the Astrakhan Kalmyks themselves traveled to Mongolia to bow to the Dalai Lama. In January 1905, Baksha of the Don Kalmyks appealed to the Nakaznoi Ataman of the Don Cossack troops with a petition to allow him, together with the “deputation from the [Don] Kalmyks,” to go to Urga “to introduce themselves to the Dalai Lama as their highest spiritual leader.”42 Due to the growth of such appeals, the Russian authorities sent the Court Counselor V. F. Lyuba to Urga; after studying the local situation he sent a secret telegram from there on February 5, 1905: “Buryats, [and] the Astrakhan Kalmyks freely flock to Urga, and therefore I suppose there is no reason to prevent the arrival of the Don Kalmyks.”43 Of undoubted interest is one word from the resolution to this report of the Russian Tsar Nikolai II: His Imperial Highness underlined the word “to prevent” and wrote nearby: “Why. Tsarskoe Selo. February 12, 1905.”44 Apparently, the Russian Tsar had special feelings for the Eastern region, thanks to his journey through the countries of the East in 1890–1891 when he was still the crown prince. From mid-May 1891, he traveled from the Far East (via Ussuriysk, Khabarovsk, Irkutsk, Tobolsk, and other Russian towns up to Saint-Petersburg) to some places along the Russian-Chinese border. On this occasion, the Urga Amban Gui-bin, at a reception party organized by the Russian Consul General Jakov P. Shishmaryev, said that 40 41 42 43 44

Heroldová, “Female Deities,” 65. AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1467. Year 1904–1906, 1. AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1467. Year 1904–1906, 2. AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1467. Year 1904–1906, 3. AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1467. Year 1904–1906, 4.

178 

Baatr Kitinov

“the recent travel along the border, not far from it, the Russian heir [to the Throne …] will undoubtedly have beneficial results on the border regions of the Russian Empire […] and on the development of relations with the possessions of the Middle Kingdom, that means, also for a great bond of friendship.”45 The Manchus were interested in good relations with Russia, which was turning to the East and becoming active in Mongolia, also due to the visits of the Russian Buddhists to Mongolian lamas. Nonetheless, the attitude of the Russian authorities towards Mongolia, and especially towards its spiritual leader, the Bogdo-gegen, depended on current events to a large extent. In 1893, the celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Eighth Bogdo Khaan was planned by the Mongolian clergy as a big event. The Asian Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent 1,500 silver rubles to Ja. P. Shishmaryev to buy gifts for the Bogdo-gegen on behalf of the Russian Government. However, the relations of the Russian authorities later became more cautious, especially because the Japanese had invited the Bogdo Khaan to “consecrate the chapels at the Japanese embassy in Beijing” before the Russo-Japanese war. 46 Returning to the beginning of 1905, when the Tsar allowed the Don Kalmyks to go to Mongolia: on February 7, a few days before his decision, a secret telegram was received from the Russian envoy in Beijing, T. S. Lessar.47 He wrote, “The Kalmyk deputation would have made unwanted exaltation now, but gathering will take considerable time and perhaps their arrival in Urga could be scheduled for late summer or early autumn.”48 This indicates that the Don Kalmyks were expected to go to Mongolia in fall 1905. Thus the revitalization processes in the religious sphere influenced the changes in the attitude of the Russian state institutions to the Kalmyks as Buddhists. From January to March 1905, meetings of the Special Skull Session, consisting of high Russian officials and experts, were held in St. Petersburg to discuss issues related to the Buddhist faith. Kalmyks had not been invited, but they still came on January 27, 1906, “from the Astrakhan province— Noyon Tundutov, from the Stavropol province—Zaisang Mikhailov and Kharmandzhiev, and also the Tibetan Elder Tsannit Hambo-Lharambo 45 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 575, 98–98 v. 46 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1467. Year 1904–1906, 19 v. 47 An error probably crept into the text of the document, since at that time P. M. Lessar was the envoy in Beijing. He arrived in Beijing in September 1901, from London, where he had been a Russian political agent for Asian affairs. He passed away in Beijing in April of 1905. 48 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1467. Year 1904–1906, 5–6.

Russian Archival Documents on the Revitalization of Buddhism

179

Agvan.”49 There were also Buryats there. At one of the meetings, Acting Privy Councilor V. P. Cherevansky, who before the meeting wrote an analytical paper on issues of Buddhist faith (among the Buryats and Kalmyks), noted that these believers should be called Buddhists, or Buddhists-Lamaists, not just Lamaists, as pointed out in the “statements made by their representatives.”50 He also mentioned in a telegram sent on March 25 of that year to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, that “it was pleasing to His Imperial Highness” to call the Dalai Lama’s spiritual chad (children, i.e., followers) “people of the Buddhist religion;”51 it had therefore been decided to call Kalmyks and Buryats the Buddhist-Lamaists, banning the use of the words “idolater” and “pagan” to refer to them in official documents.52 On the same day, the Kalmyks managed to solve another problem concerning the title of their chief lama: in the opinion of these representatives, “their superior lama could have been given the name […] ‘Shazhini-Lama,’” although they allowed for “the possibility of [the] naming of a senior Buddhist faith serviceman, in the [Russian] law” as ‘“Preeminent Lama.’”53 Prior to this discussion the leading lama of the Kalmyks was called Lama of the Kalmyk people (due to the Decree “Regulations on the management of the Kalmyk people” of 1847), before him there was the institution “Lamaiskoye duhovnoye pravleniye” (“The Lamaist spiritual Board,” established in 1836). But they both were the constructions of the Russian administrative system, and neither properly matched the meaning of this position—the main lama as the leader of the Teaching (shazhin). This problem arose after 1771, when the long lasting practice of the Dalai Lama appointing the main lama among the Kalmyks came to an end; such lama didn’t need any special title besides the DalaiLama’s approval. Therefore, it was an important issue for Kalmyks. In the same period, Don Kalmyks-Cossacks heard rumors about the Dalai Lama arriving in St. Petersburg, and they again approached the Russian authorities “with requests for permission to go to St. Petersburg to worship the Dalai Lama.”54 In response, V. N. Lamsdorf, the Minister of Foreign 49 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1467. Year 1904–1906, 12–12 v. 50 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1467. Year 1904–1906, 13–13v. It was an important decision, because, being called “Lamaists,” the believers were accepted as different from other Buddhists of the world. Getting this new name—Buddhists—also allowed them to renovate their identity; besides, this new name led to the expulsion from the official papers such words as “idolaters” and “pagans.” 51 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1467. Year 1904–1906, 13. 52 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1467. Year 1904–1906, 14. 53 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1467. Year 1904–1906, 15. 54 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1467. Year 1904–1906, 9–9 v.

180 

Baatr Kitinov

Affairs, wrote to the War Minister V. V. Sakharov: “The Dalai Lama will not come to St. Petersburg, so there’s no point in the arrival of the delegation of Kalmyks.”55 Agvan Dorzhiev, the most prominent Russian Buddhist leader of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, played a major role in the revival of Buddhism among the Kalmyks. In the literature it is usually noted that he initiated the construction of the first philosophical schools of Choyra (Chos grwa) in the Kalmyk steppes. But in fact this was done at the direction of the Dalai Lama. According to a document stored in the National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia, in 1902 Chongon Mongolov, a senior Bagsha of Iki-Tsokhurovsky khurul, along with a group of lamas, had an audience with the Dalai Lama. The Holy Dalai Lama, asking about being and way of life of our Kalmyks, [after] the report of Bagsha Mongolov on the way Buddhism flourished and the welfare of the people, noted, that such […] is possible only by studying the basics of the philosophy of the Buddhist religion in Choyra schools, and thus, insisting on it as necessary to raise the education of the clergy, and for the welfare of the people, [he] deigned to donate thirty volumes of Buddha scriptures to Bagsha Mongolov to study them in the newly built schools of Choyra and ordered his closest dignitary, Khambo Buryat lama Aghvan Dordzhiev, to establish and manage […] Choyra.56

This was first announced on April 10, 1907, at the Iki-Tsokhurovsky ulus Congress. The first Choyra school was built by lama Menkedzhuyev in the late 1890s but it closed after his death in 1903. After receiving the instructions of the Dalai Lama, the new one was opened in 1907 in the area of A ​​ mta-Burgusta of the Maloderbetovsky ulus. It was headed by Dorzhiev himself, who, since visiting the Kalmyks for the first time in 1899, had been engaged in the execution of various orders from the Dalai Lama. The second Choyra school was opened in 1908 at Iki-Tsokhurovsky ulus. These Choyra intended to educate Buddhist clergymen to work in the difficult political, social, and economic conditions of the Kalmyk steppe of the early twentieth century. The Kalmyk lamas also wanted to see a revival of the previously functioning khuruls. Thus, in the fall of 1905 the Lama of the Kalmyk people 55 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1467. Year 1904–1906, 10. 56 NARK. Fund: P-145. Inventory 1. Case 217, 66–67.

Russian Archival Documents on the Revitalization of Buddhism

181

asked for “permission to open eight khuruls in the Maloderbetovsky and Bolshederbetovsky uluses, [to replace those] which were closed in 1856.”57 Khuruls were built at the expense of the believers. Kalmyks were aware of lagging behind the Buryats in terms of spirituality, and therefore asked the Russian authorities “about comparing [i.e., to equalize] Kalmyk schools58 in everything with the Buryat ones.”59 Buddhism also was revived among Kalmyks-Buzavas, who were formally recognized as Orthodox Christians and listed as Cossacks. According to a letter from the Orenburg Governor’s Ministry of Internal Affairs to the Asian Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated April 20, 1908, Kalmyks-Cossacks of some villages of the province (there were twenty-nine names of Kalmyks of both sexes, most of which had Russian names and surnames) solicited “to allow them in worship of the Dalai Lama’s faith,” and they had received permission from the Russian authorities to follow him. Interestingly, in concluding the letter, the Governor asked the Asian Department to “inform the Dalai Lama living in Tibet”60 about his positive decision. The Kalmyks themselves also sometimes acted as mentors in the revival of Buddhism outside of their territory. For example, on the way to Urga in 1896, two Astrakhan Kalmyks, a merchant and a nobleman with the title “taisha,” visited the Altai region, and met with the local population, seeking in every way to revive their interest in Buddhism, which was the faith followed by their ancestors.61 The search for a spiritual basis and the desire to preserve their ethnic and cultural identity under the onslaught of Russian colonization led to the formation of a spiritual movement in the Altai: the so-called “White Faith” (ak dyang) movement, also known as “Burkhanism.” In fact, Buddhist leaders were so active that some members of the Special Skull Session gathered in St. Petersburg at the end of January 1906 noted the lamas’ desire “for world domination” and the “forming of […] panBuddhism.”62 Understanding the importance of Buddhism in the domestic and foreign policy of the state, the Russian authorities still supported the idea of building a Buddhist temple in St. Petersburg—a plan initiated by the Dalai Lama. As Foreign Minister A. I. Izvolsky wrote in the summer 57 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1467. Year 1904–1906, 16 v.–17. 58 Named as Choyro and Dzhud (‘Dzud). 59 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1467. Year 1904–1906, 22 v. 60 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1467. Year 1904–1906, 30. 61 Kitinov, Sacred Tibet, 145. 62 AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1467. Year 1904–1906, 13 v.

182 

Baatr Kitinov

of 1908, “Our favorable attitude towards this desire of the Dalai Lama [to build a temple] will make a deep impression in our favor both on him and on numerous Lamaists within Russia.”63 The Minister of the Home Affairs P. A. Stolypin noted that he was “on my part quite sympathetic to such a petition of the spiritual head of the followers of the Buddhist confession,”64 and Tsar Nikolai II wrote in early 1909 that “Buddhists in Russia can feel themselves as if under the wing of a mighty eagle.”65 It was a significant proposal—the Russian Buddhists came under the protection of the Orthodox Ruler. The Kalmyk Buddhists provided a significant part of the finances for the construction of this Tantric temple, dedicated to Kalachakra teaching. Later, in the Special Skull Session document drawn up in 1912— after the declaration of independence of Mongolia—it was noted that Russia had no interest in Tibet and had only a religious connection with the Dalai Lama “of our Buryat Lamaists,” but also that such a connection of believers with the Tibetan leader “from the state viewpoint is rather undesirable, for it can feed the ideas of separatism in them and serve as a basis for dreams of uniting all Lamaists, first religiously, and then maybe politically.”66 As early as 1871, the Russian officer A. Kornirov believed that “it is possible to assume that the entry of Khalkha and the neighboring Russian regions in mutual relations will not happen without influencing the followers of Buddhism from both sides.”67 It is not surprising that in July 1906, after the departure of the Dalai Lama from Mongolia, in a secret note from the Titular Adviser Kuzminskoy to the Russian-Imperial Consul General in Urga (July 26, 1906) it was noted that the influence of the Dalai Lama in Mongolia during his stay there revealed the significance of the “awakening national identity of the Mongolian people.”68 I believe that a similar process can also be attributed to the Kalmyks. As it have been written earlier, Kalmyks went to Tibet for studies or to worship the Dalai Lama and other high incarnate lamas. These processes lasted at the beginning of the new century: in 1904, twenty-two Astrakhan and Stavropol Kalmyks studied in Lhasa,69 including Badma Bovayev, Geshe Wangyal (who went to Tibet in 1917), and Geshe Chimba.

63 64 65 66 67 68 69

RSHA. Fund: 821. Inventory 133. Case 448, 1. RSHA. Fund: 821. Inventory 133. Case 448, 2. RSHA. Fund: 821. Inventory 133. Case 446, 35. AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1479. Year 1912, 15 v. AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 575, 56–56 v. AVPRI. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory 491. Case 1468. Year 1906, 36 v. RSMA. Fund: 165. Inventory 1. Case 1036, 2–3.

Russian Archival Documents on the Revitalization of Buddhism

183

The Role of Identity Religion has traditionally helped nations to maintain a sense of cultural and civilizational unity, even if the community of believers are divided by the borders of states.70 Believers, even if they lived in the different parts of the world, could form special transnational communities that could unite people and institutions from different countries and territories,71 particularly if they had the same origin or history, or a common lot in the past. Thus one who identified oneself as a Buddhist correlated himself not only with a certain ethnic community, but also associated with co-religionists in different regions of the world. Thus, the geographical factor loses its spatial significance, but, at the same time, expands the boundaries of the presence of “ours.” Those, who are “ours,” grow in quantity, but what is important—this new element, i.e., the connection with some distant "ours", served as the most important condition for overcoming the limitations of tribal and ethnocentric orientations, and yielded an important result—not only helping to expand “self,” or “our” community, but also to overcome potential conflict with representatives of “alien.” This cultural and religious stencil had a significant impact on society, along with the constant rethinking of cultural ideas and symbols that directly affect the behavior of the ethnos and any social organism.72 Homi Bhabha, a well-known theorist of postcolonial society, wrote that the history of a people is divided into two parts: in one people are busy with affairs, creating their own history to fulfill their destiny, in the other the unity of the people must be constantly confirmed, repeated and created.73 In our opinion, this unity is largely based on the cultural or religious foundation; accordingly, confessional markers and patterns, and contacts of people close to each other in culture and religion should be “constantly going on and repeating.” It is this kind of processes that motivated Buddhists from different countries and regions not only to preserve their identity, but also to help to maintain it among their distant like-minded people, including Kalmyks.

70 Krejci, Paths of Civilization, 15. 71 Robinson, “Theories of Globalization,” 137. 72 Swidler, “Culture in Action.” 73 Bhabha, DissemiNation.

184 

Baatr Kitinov

Conclusion According to Russian archival documents, the beginning of the revitalization of Buddhism among the Kalmyks can be traced to the end of the 1860s, when the Mongols wanted to find an incarnation of the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu among the Kalmyks (“Turgut”) in Russia. This event seems to have provoked interest among Kalmyks in re-establishing their contacts with the Dalai Lama, and the first pilgrims started to go to the East. A significant impetus to the process of revitalization was given by the Dalai Lama’s stay in Mongolia in 1904–1906, particularly through attempts to invite him to the Kalmyk region and Kalmyk delegations’ meetings with him. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the revitalization of Buddhism and the growth of religious and national identity among the Kalmyks involved the following outer and inner conditions: Outer: – (geo)political transformations in the Russian and Qing Empires, which influenced the religious (spiritual) movements among Buddhists within those states – the “internal” dialogue between Buddhists representing the various political, social, and cultural environments of their states and the formation of a consensus – an attempt by Mongolian Buddhists to “find” the next incarnation of the Jebtsundamba among Kalmyks in Russia – the presence of the Dalai Lama of Mongolia in 1904–1906 Inner: – the travels of Kalmyks from different Russian regions to Tibet and Mongolia to meet the Dalai Lama, which had not been possible since 1771. – the role of lamas from outer Russian regions and other countries on Kalmyks – changes in the Russian state’s policy towards religion, including Buddhism and Buddhists – the revival of previous (tantric) religious practices, such as those dedicated to the Palden Lhamo cult The arrival of Buddhist clergy from other regions contributed, among other things, to the expansion of Kalmyks’ ideas about the presence of Buddhists, far in the East, including Kalmyks, who left for Jungharia in 1771. Lamas

Russian Archival Documents on the Revitalization of Buddhism

185

from other regions strengthened relations with Kalmyk believers, supported the local sangha, and revived the transnational community of Buddhists. The religious identity of Russian Buddhists developed alongside their ethnic one(s), and at the same time, ​​t he importance of the unity of the Buddhists within the Russian empire prevailed over the ideology of (ethno) nationalism; in other words, the ideas of pan-Mongolism were subordinated to the ideas of pan-Buddhism. The activity of lamas increased after the declaration of the Imperial manifesto of October 17, 1905, “On strengthening the principles of religious tolerance.” The consequences of the adoption of this document included: – the return of Cossacks, originally Kalmyks and Buryats, who had been baptized, back to Buddhism – the erection of new religious buildings – more simplified procedure for obtaining passes (passports) for travel to foreign religious centers, etc.

Bibliography Archives Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire. Fund: Chinese table. Inventory no 491: Case 575; Case 1432. Case 79-k; Case 1466. Year 1905–1913; Case 1467. Year 1904–1906; Case 1468. Year 1906. Russian State Historical Archive. Fund: 821. Inventory 133: Case 395; Case 448. National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia. Fund: I-9. Inventory 2. Case 77. Fund: P-145. Inventory 1. Case 217.

Books and Articles Avlyaev G. O. “Kalmytskiye khuruly v XIX veke (Istoriya sozdaniya, administrativnaya sistema, prihod, hozyaistvo)” [The Kalmyk khuruls in XIX. The history of creation, managing system, income, farming]. Lamaizm v Kalmykii [Lamaism in Kalmykia], 56–69. Elista: Kalmytsky NIIYALI, 1977. Baaza-Bakshi (B. Menkedzhuyev). Skazaniye o khozhdenii v Tibetskuyu stranu MaloDerbetovskogo Baaza-bakshi [Story of Maloberbetovsky Baaza-bakshi’s voyage to the Tibetan country]. The Kalmyk text, with translation and notes by A. Pozdneev. St. Petersburg: Fakultet vostochnyh yazykov Peterburgskogo Universiteta, 1897.

186 

Baatr Kitinov

Badmaev, A. Kalmytskaya dorevolyutsionnaya literatura [Kalmyk pre-revolutionary literature]. Elista: Kalmyk Book Publishing House, 1984. Berzin, Alexander. Prinyatiye posvyashcheniya Kalachakry [Taking the Kalachakra Initiation]. St. Petersburg: Narthang, 2002. Bhabha, Homi K. “DissemiNation: time, narrative, and the margins of the modern Nation.” In Nation and Narration, edited by Homi K. Bhabha, 291–322. London: Routledge, 1990. Borisenko I. Khramy Kalmykii [The Temples of Kalmykia]. Elista: Kalmyk Book Publishing House, 1994. Heroldová, Helena. “Female Deities in Mongolian Buddhist Votive Paintings.” Annals of the Naprstek Museum 36, no. 1 (2015): 61–74. Kitinov, B. The Sacred Tibet and the Warlike Steppe: Buddhism among Oirad. Moscow: KMK Publishing House, 2004. Krejci, Jaroslav. The Paths of Civilization: Understanding the Currents of History. New York, NY/London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho. Rgyal dbang lnga pa ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho’i rnam thar du ku la’i gos bzang [Autobiography of the Fifth Dalai Lama Ngawang Lobsan Gyatso, Wrapped in the Best Silk]. Vol. 1. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2012. “Palomnichestvo kalmykov v Tibet i Mongoliyu” [“Kalmyk Pilgrimage to Tibet and Mongolia.”] Astrakhansky listok, no 170, 1897. Pozdneev, A. M. Ocherki byta buddiyskikh monastyrey i buddiyskogo dukhovenstva v Mongolii v svyazi s otnosheniyem sego poslednego k narodu [Essays on the life of the Buddhist monasteries and the Buddhist clergy in Mongolia in connection with the attitude of the latter to the people]. Elista: Kalmyk book publishing house, 1993. Robinson, William I. “Theories of Globalization.” In The Blackwell Companion to Globalization, edited by George Ritzer, 125–143. London: Blackwell, 2007. Rudnev, A. D. “Khozhdeniye v Tibet kalmytskogo bakshi Purdash Dzhungruyev” [“Travel to Tibet of the Kalmyk Bakshi Purdash Dzhungruyev. Part 2. At the shrines of Tibet.”] In Problems of the Mongolian philology, no editor listed, 135–155. Elista: Kalmyk Book Publishing House, 1988. Shcherbatskoy, Fyodor I. “Kratkiy otchet o poyezdke v Urgu” [“A brief report on the trip to Urga”]. East—West: Research, translations, publications, edited by L. Alayev, et al., 250–254. Moscow: Nauka, 1989. Smirnov, Parmen. Putevyye zapiski po Kalmytskim stepyam Astrakhanskoy gubernii. [Travel notes on the Kalmyk steppes of the Astrakhan province]. Elista: Kalmyk Book Publishing House, 1999. Swidler, A. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review 51, no. 2 (1986): 273–286.

Russian Archival Documents on the Revitalization of Buddhism

187

Ukhtomsky, Esper Esperovich. Ot Kalmytskoy stepi do Bukhary [From the Kalmyk steppe to Bukhara]. St. Petersburg: The printing house of Prince V. P. Meshchersky, 1891. Vorontsov, A. I. “Neskol’ko dney prebyvaniya moyego v Tyumenevke” [“A few days of my stay in Tyumenevka”]. Astrakhanskiye eparkhialnye vedomosti 13, 1875. Vorontsov, A. I. “Po voprosu o neobkhodimosti preobrazovaniya byta kalmykov” [“On the question of the need to transform the life of the Kalmyks”]. Astrakhanskiye eparkhialnye vedomosti 49, 1878. Zhitetsky, I. Ocherki byta Astrakhanskih kalmykov (Etnograficheskiye nablyudeniya 1884–1886) [Sketches of everyday life of the Astrakhan Kalmyks (ethnographic observations 1884–1886)]. Moscow: Tipografiya M. G. Volchaninova, Bolshoi Chernyshevski per., dom Pustoshkina, protiv Angliiskoi tserkvi, 1893.

About the Author Baatr U. Kitinov is a Senior Researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of RAS, and has a Ph.D. from IAAS of MSU (Moscow, Russia). Email: b.kitinov@ gmail.com

7

Buddhist Devotion to the Russian Tsar: The Bicultural Environment of the Don Kalmyk Sangha and Russian Orthodox Church in the 1830s Inoue Takehiko Abstract Inoue Takehiko’s paper analyses how the close and long-lasting relationship between Kalmyk Buddhists and Don Cossacks (in the Don Cossack province) developed during the nineteenth century. This relationship was mediated both by Kalmyk Buddhist monks and the requirements of military and religious services to the Tsar, leading to transformations in the identity of this Kalmyk group. He uses the example of the ceremony surrounding the opening of a Kalmyk Parish school in 1839 to demonstrate how both parties sought to combine their socio-religious cultures in furtherance of the alliance of their interests. Keywords: Kalmyks, Don Cossacks, Russian Orthodox Church, Tsar

Introduction At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Kalmyks living on the steppes of Southern Russia broadly consisted of two groups: the majority Dörböd, Torghūd, and Khoshūd, who were under the control of Astrakhan province,1 and the minority Don Kalmyks (Buzāva), a distinct group of people from Torghūd and Dörböd origins who migrated to the Don region in the 1 In 1802 the Russian government separated the Caucasus region (the land from the Caspian Sea to the estuarine region of the Laba and from the Manych to the Caucasus foothills) from Astrakhan province and designated it as the Caucasus province. The province changed its name to Caucasus oblast (administrative district) in 1822. The oblast became Stavropol province in

Ishihama, Y. & McKay, A. (eds.), The Early 20th Century Resurgence of the Tibetan Buddhist World. Studies in Central Asian Buddhism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi: 10.5117/9789463728645_ch07

190 

Inoue Takehiko

eighteenth century.2 In 1806 the Don Kalmyks were officially incorporated into the Province of the Don Cossack Host, where they served in the military with the Cossack soldiers. The Russian authorities established an administrative district for the Don Kalmyks called the Kalmyk district (Kalmytskii okrug). This administrative district was divided into three units (ulus): Upper (Verkhnyi ulus), Middle (Srednii ulus), and Lower (Nizhnii ulus). The Upper unit consisted of four squadrons (sotnia),3 the Middle—two, the Lower—four, and the other three squadrons moved separately. A squadron had a chief (sotnik), chosen by squadron members themselves. Two judges, also elected, assisted the chief.4 Eight out of the thirteen Buzāva squadrons were primarily of Dörböd extraction while the remaining five were primarily of Torghūd origins.5 The Don Kalmyks had at least one Buddhist temple (khurul) in each squadron, and in each temple there was a bagsha.6 The temples were portable tents (khurla ger). In 1806, while not banning Buddhism outright, the Russian authorities tried to both reduce the number of Kalmyk temples from twenty to thirteen and limit the number of monks attached to these temples. Galina Dordzhieva’s survey of the attempts of the Russian administration to limit and control the number of Don Kalmyk Buddhist temples and monks points out that “This [the limit of thirteen temples] began the Tsarist government’s intervention in the spiritual affairs of the Don Kalmyks.”7 However, she emphasizes that the construction and foundation of new temples actually 1847. The Baγa Dörböd entered Stavropol province in 1860, thereby becoming the third group of Russian Kalmyk people. 2 Bormanshinov, Lamas of the Kalmyk People, 7–8. 3 “Squadron (sotnia)” is a military term, which literally means “hundred.” It also means a territorial subdivision. At that time the Don Kalmyks were not yet fully settled. Squadron (sotnia) was called ayimag or eemg in Kalmyk. 4 As of 1806, the Upper unit of the Buzāva squadrons consisted of four squadrons: Khar’kovskaia sotnia (Tsevniakin), Vlasovskaia (Bembdiakin or Iki Chonos), Namrovskaia (Iki Burul), and Ryntsanovskaia (Zungar); the Middle unit consisted of two squadrons: Chonosovskaia (Baga Chonos), Potapovskaia (Baldar), and the Lower unit consisted of four squadrons: Erketinskaia stonia, Bultukovskaia (Bogshargakin), Burul’skaia (Baga Burul), and Batlaevskaia (Baldar); Verkhne-Tarannikovskaia sotnia, Nizhne-Tarannikovskaia, Beliaevskaia moved separately. Maksimov and Ochirova, Istoriia Kalmykii, 637; Maksimov, Kalmyki v sostave donskogo kazachestva, 210–222. 5 Guchinova, The Kalmyks: A Handbook, 44. 6 Bagsha (bagshi, baksha, bakshi) is a teacher of Buddhist precepts and a head of large temple. On the other hand, the head and the highest-ranking person of all monks in the Don Kalmyks was called “bagsha of the Don Kalmyks (bagsha donskikh kalmykov)” or “lama of the Don Kalmyks (lama donskikh kalmykov).” 7 Dordzhieva, Buddizm Kalmykii, 158.

Buddhist Devotion to the Russian Tsar

191

continued and the Don Kalmyks held on to their Buddhist beliefs despite the nineteenth-century Russian policy of Christianization and assimilation.8 In the 1870s, the Don Kalmyks resumed pilgrimages to Tibet and Mongolia. The revival of their pilgrimages eventually led to the resumption of communication between Tibetan Buddhist followers, both within Russia and across Eurasia.9 This revival was the result of efforts by Don Kalmyk monks to build a close relationship with the Russian authorities despite the authorities’ support for the Orthodox Church and policy of assimilation towards the Kalmyks. As Arash Bormanshinov has described,10 this culminated in Arkad Chubanov (1840–1894), a Don Kalmyk monk, becoming the lama of the Don Kalmyks, the head of the Don Kalmyk temples, in 1873. He made the acquaintance of the Russian ruling elites, including the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich (1831–1891), the third son of Emperor Nikolai I and uncle of the then-ruling Russian Tsar, Alexander II. These connections enabled the resumption of the pilgrimage to Ikh Khüree and Lhasa. In this paper I introduce one aspect of the historical process of developing a close relationship between the Don Kalmyks and the Russian elites—the development of Kalmyk Buddhists’ reverence for the Russian Tsar—using the example of Kalmyk Buddhist monks and Russian officials jointly organising the opening ceremony of an intermediary institution of the school for the Kalmyk children in 1839.

The Don Kalmyk Sangha in the 1830s During the 1830s, the Don Cossack Host discussed measures to reduce the number of monks and temples in their region. The Military Council of the Don Cossack Host considered that, while maintaining the existing temples, the number of monks appointed to them should be reduced, reflecting the population in each squadron. The Council head, Appointed Ataman 11 Maksim G. Vlasov (1767–1848), argued that the number of monks should 8 Dordzhieva, Buddizm Kalmykii, 160. 9 Ishihama et al., Resurgence of “Buddhist Government,” 69–82. 10 Bormanshinov, Lamas of the Kalmyk People, 11. 11 Appointed Ataman (Nakaznoi Ataman) was a formal Cossack post and the chief of the Cossack army in the Imperial Russia. He was appointed by the tsarist authorities, in contrast to previously elected Ataman amongst the Cossacks. In addition, the heir to the throne came to take the position of Honorary Ataman (Pochyotnyi Ataman) of all Cossack troops from 1827. Therefore, the Appointed Atamans actually governed the Cossack armies.

192 

Inoue Takehiko

be reduced to the minimum that could sustain Buddhist rituals. After discussion, the Military Council decided to leave twelve monks in each temple, giving the bagsha of each temple the responsibility of deciding who to retain or remove. In the end, the Military Council concluded that the temples should each retain two gelungs, one getsul, and one manji per 600 inhabitants—and the manji would have to enter Kalmyk school and know Russian. The Council also decided to revoke the status of monks from those who were considered to be hostile to the regime.12 The decision to reduce the number of monks was kept secret from ordinary Kalmyk Buddhist followers. The Military Council also sought to transform Kalmyk society into a settled lifestyle, and implemented measures to bring the pasture lands of the Kalmyks closer to Cossack villages, translate the Orthodox Christian texts into the Kalmyk language, and allow missionaries to visit the Kalmyks to preach the Christian faith.13 “The Regulations for administration of the Land of the Don Army” of May 26, 1835, guaranteed the inviolability of the Don Kalmyks’ right to practice Buddhism. In accordance with the suggestions of the Military Council, these Regulations restricted the number of monks in each temple to twelve. In addition, the Regulations limited the judicial competence of the temples to only matters relating to the faith and family. As of January 1836, the government recorded that the thirteen Kalmyk squadrons had a population of 16,981 people of both sexes, served by a total of 205 Buddhist monks (one bagsha-lama, sixty-eight gelungs, sixty-eight getsuls, and sixty-eight manji) working in thirteen temples.14 In 1837 the bagsha of the Don Kalmyks requested the restoration of two temples in the Middle unit (ulus) that had been liquidated under the Regulations of 1835. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Appointed Ataman Vlasov agreed to reject this request.15 The Russian administrative control of the Buddhist communities was strong. However, it was not a simple oppression of Buddhism. By creating a spiritual link between the Russian Tsar and Buddhist laypeople, the Russian authorities used Buddhist monks to promote the integration of the Don Kalmyks into Russian society, as the following documents show.

12 Dordzhieva, Buddizm Kalmykii, 160–161. 13 Dordzhieva, Buddizm Kalmykii, 161. 14 Maksimov, Kalmyki v sostave donskogo kazachestva, 221–226. 15 RGIA. F. 1286. Op. 6. D. 199. L. 1–21.

Buddhist Devotion to the Russian Tsar

193

The Opening Ceremony of the Kalmyk Parish School in 1839 The source for what follows is a report dated July 10, 1839, that was compiled by the Appointed Ataman of the Don Cossack Host, Maksim G. Vlasov, for the Minister of National Education, Count Sergei S. Uvarov (post. 1833–1849). The report, which is held in the Russian State Historical Archives (RGIA) in St. Petersburg, describes in detail the opening ceremony of the Kalmyk Parish School for children. The opening ceremony of the school was impressive. In November 1838, the Appointed Ataman Vlasov requested the Minister of War, Alexander I. Chernyshyov (1786–1857), to open a “parish” school attached to the Kalmyk Board (kalmytskoe pravlenie), the administrative organ of the Kalmyk district. The school was established because the local authorities needed translators and clerks with a knowledge of both the Kalmyk and Russian languages. Kalmyk parents did not send their children to other army schools or district schools of the Don Cossack Host because they were located so far from the Kalmyk district, and because they were concerned “that their children, being out of view of the relatives and the clergy (dukhovenstvo), could deviate from their own religion.” In other words, the Kalmyks were afraid that they might be converted to Christianity. The Appointed Ataman Vlasov expected the school to spread “the true understanding” of the settled lifestyle among the Kalmyks and demonstrate the government’s “beneficial will” by giving full financial aid to the education of Kalmyk children as it did to the children of the Don Cossacks. It was planned that the subjects taught in the “parochial” school would include not only general elementary subjects like those taught in the other schools in the Don Cossack region, but also reading and writing in the Kalmyk language, Kalmyk language grammar, and an introductory study of Buddhism.16 The English translation of the Russian report 17 is as follows. (The numbered points are those given by Ataman Vlasov himself.) Description of the opening ceremony of the Kalmyk parish school, which followed on the birthday of Tsar Nikolai I, 25th June 1839, in the village of Orlovka, the First Don District, the Don Cossack Host. 1. According to preliminary notification from the Appointed Ataman, General Lieutenant Vlasov, all current officials, staff officers and company 16 RGIA. F. 733. Op. 49. D. 1272. L. 2–4b. 17 RGIA. F. 733. Op. 49. D. 1272. L. 20–22b.

194 

Inoue Takehiko

officers, who arrived on various assignments in the settlement [sloboda] of Orlovka, where the Main Kalmyk Board was, as well as officials in this Board, on June 25th, on a highly solemn birthday, that of His Imperial Majesty, at 8 o’clock in the morning, gathered in the headquarters of the Appointed Ataman, and part of the Kalmyk army, which had been on parade the night before, was formed by platoon, in the square between his [Ataman’s] headquarters and the church. — The clergy and other estates of the Kalmyk people gathered in places specially designated for them. 2. At the meeting of all the officials, during ringing of a church bell for the liturgy, the Appointed Ataman, bringing with him a Judge of the Kalmyk Board, the District Detective Chief, the Acting Representative of the Director of the Schools in the Host, and all available officials—the staff officers and company officers, went ceremonially to the church, where the liturgy and solemn prayer for the health and longevity of His Imperial Majesty the Sovereign Emperor and his entirely August House were accomplished. Moreover, according to the proclamation wishing many years of health to the Sovereign Emperor and his most august family, the Kalmyk army, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Isaev, with a three-time proclamation—hurrah!, fired three rounds with their rifles. 3. After that, all the officials, in the same ceremonial order led by the Appointed Ataman, went out of the church toward the school building, passing the Kalmyk army formed by the platoon. The Appointed Ataman, stopping many times in front of them [the Kalmyk soldiers] and greeting them on this highly solemn holiday, tried to explain to them the greatness of this day, for all the loyal subjects of His Imperial Majesty, and the importance of the event for which the [various] estates of the Kalmyk people were assembled. The loud-voiced—hurrah!, which repeatedly passed in sequence, was their common reaction to that [Ataman’s words]. 4. At the end of the procession, the troops stood closely around the schoolhouse, and the other estates of the Kalmyk people, such as the clergy, ulus chiefs and squadron chiefs, retired Cossacks, and other Kalmyks of both sexes, also assembled around the schoolhouse up until the end of the liturgy and arrayed in a ceremonial circle. The right side of this circle was occupied by Bagsha-Lama18 and the Kalmyk clergy, fully dressed and with all the instruments of their sacred music, and on the left students 18 In the original text, it was written “Baksha-Giliun.”

Buddhist Devotion to the Russian Tsar

195

stood in rows, with their teachers and parents. On the most advanced place of the circle on the east side, to which the whole spiritual procession turned, was the portrait of the Sovereign Emperor, which was held by two non-commissioned officers from the Kalmyk army, who were in many campaigns and decorated with military distinctions. 5. Immediately after the Appointed Ataman and other officials joined in this circle, according to the custom of their faith, with a roar by pipes, timpani, and other instruments of their spiritual music, a solemn prayer for the health and longevity of His Imperial Majesty and his most august House was made by Bagsha-Lama and the Kalmyk clergy. At the end of this prayer, entreating that His August Emperor and His House would have many long years of reign, a roar by pipes and timpani rang out again, rifles were fired and a loud cheer sounded—hurrahs! from all Kalmyk estates. 6. Afterwards, the Deputy Director of the School read out the order of His Excellency the Minister of War,19 addressed to the Appointed Ataman: the permission of His Imperial Majesty to establish the Parish School for training the Kalmyk children in the Don Army. 7. After reading this order, Bagsha-Lama, approaching the portrait of the Sovereign Emperor with signs of greatest reverence, expressed before it the feelings of the Kalmyk people to the Monarch of Russia, for all his mercies and newly shown beneficence; and then, with a feeling of true allegiance, he cast all the children of the Kalmyk estate [Kalmytskoe soslovie] before the sacred image of the August Monarch, who deigned His benevolence and expressed a desire that they enter the school newly established for them. 8. Then, the articles were read from the Regulations for the Educational Institutions of 1828 and the Imperial Approved Regulation on the Administration of the Don Cossack Army, which explain the advantages of the parish schools and the students in them and, especially, relate to the upbringing of Kalmyk children and the advantages granted to them. 9. At the end of this, the Acting Representative of the Director of the Schools in the Don Cossack Host, Lieutenant Colonel Zolotarev gave a speech on the reasons for the establishment of the Kalmyk School and the 19 Alexander I. Chernyshyov (in post 1827–1852)

196 

Inoue Takehiko

benefits to be derived by the children from studying in it. The same speech was also made in the Kalmyk language by Gelun[g] Dzhanguro-Gabunov. 10. After that, the names of the students who entered the Kalmyk school were called from the list. Moreover, all the books and dictionaries necessary for starting study both in Kalmyk and in Russian were distributed to them free of charge. 11. Then the Appointed Ataman, inviting Bagsha-Lama and some of the most honourable clergy, ulus and squadron chiefs, surveyed with them the school premises, furniture, and other educational aids; and then, returning to the circle, first he wrote down his donation in a charity book and invited other visitors to join in this voluntary offering in favour of the school,—and the conviction of the need and benefit of this institution, even in the opinion of the Kalmyks, was already so strong that up to seven hundred rubles were collected at the gathering place, within a few minutes, of which most were donated by the Kalmyks. 12. In the end, the Appointed Ataman, addressing the Kalmyk clergy, the Army, and the people, greeted them and the Imperial mercy newly shown them, and at the same time reminded them of many other mercies of the Great Sovereign, who benefited them, and expressed the desire that they should always remember the greatness of the bounties granted them by the August Monarch, and try to respond to them by the exact and diligent performance of all service duties and also raise their children in these feelings. Loud-voiced hurrahs, accompanied by volleys of rifles, were the answer to these words, and repeated even more among the many Kalmyk people. 13. Finaly, in accordance with the Army Authorities and the Judge of the Kalmyk Board, the clergy, the army, the students with their parents, and all estates of the Kalmyk people were given a feast to their great satisfaction,—and the voices of jubilations and of reverence for the mercies of the August Monarch, which inspired all the participants during the festivity, continued late into the night, even after the departure of the Appointed Ataman to Novocherkassk. Lieutenant General Vlasov20

20 RGIA. F. 733. Op. 49. D. 1272. L. 20–22b.

Buddhist Devotion to the Russian Tsar

197

Interpretation of the Ceremony This is the scene of the opening ceremony as described by the Appointed Ataman Vlasov to the Minister of National Education Sergei S. Uvarov. The date was fixed for June 25, 1839, the birthday of Tsar Nikolai I. The ceremony progressed as follows. All local officials and officers such as the Appointed Ataman Vlasov gathered in the Orlovka village, where the Kalmyk Board were. Monks and other Kalmyks of all ages also gathered. The church bells were rung for the liturgy and all off icials and off icers walked into the church, where they offered prayers for Tsar Nikolai I. The Kalmyk Cossacks gave a war whoop three times and fired their rifles three times. Everyone paraded to the school building, then Vlasov praised the Tsar many times and celebrated the significance of the event for the Kalmyks. The people answered loudly with “Hurrah!” The people surrounded the school building. On the right side of the circle stood the Kalmyk clergy in formal costume with musical instruments, and on the left side stood the students, teachers, and parents. On the eastern side the portrait of the Tsar was set up high, and all the Kalmyk clergy faced it. The Kalmyk clergy started to read sutras for the health and long life of the Tsar and his Family, and played wind, percussion, and other instruments. Rifles were fired again, and the Kalmyk people all shouted “Hurrah!” After that, the order of the Minister of War to Vlasov was read out, and the Imperial assent to open the “parish” school for the Kalmyk children was pronounced. After hearing this, bagsha-lama (the chief monk of the Kalmyk Buddhist community) approached the portrait of the Tsar and in front of it expressed great reverence and the gratitude of the Kalmyks to the Russian sovereign regarding his mercy and beneficence. Bagsha-lama made the children stand in front of the portrait. Then, the privileges of the “parochial” school and the Kalmyk students were explained. The Deputy Director of the Don Army schools described the benefits of establishing the schools, and a monk translated this into Kalmyk language. The students were presented with books and writing samples in the Kalmyk and Russian languages. Vlasov, inviting bagsha-lama and other honourable monks and village chiefs to join him, walked and looked around the school. Vlasov offered the first donation and asked for others to give more, and they were soon given. Finally, Vlasov turned to “the Kalmyk clergy, the Army, and the people,” greeted them, and asked them to remember the “greatness and generosity” of the Tsar at all times. Rifle volleys followed the loud cry of “Hurrah!” After the ceremony, the Don Army leaders and the chief of Kalmyk

198 

Inoue Takehiko

Board invited the Kalmyk clergy, Cossacks, students and parents, and all other Kalmyks to the reception. The party continued until late at night. This detailed description of the opening ceremony reflects the close relationship between the Tsar and the Buddhist followers. The ceremony implied that the Don Cossacks, who played the interesting role of a mediator, manifested the sacredness of the Tsar, who connected God and the church, and brought this sacred quality to the Kalmyk Buddhist monks. In turn, the Buddhist monks acted as intermediaries between the Tsar and the ordinary Kalmyks, in this case students and their parents. This symbolic ritual indicated the importance of the Cossacks as military servicemen for the Tsar and of Buddhist monks as “religious servicemen” for the Tsar. The Russian authorities had the goal of settling Kalmyk society and converting them to Christianity. However, Vlasov’s report suggests that the Don Cossack authorities recognised that the Kalmyks were a unique group in the Cossack army and that they needed to be integrated in Russian society in some special way. The parish school opening ceremony of 1839 is a good example of the special process of integrating the Kalmyks into Russian society. The ceremony was clearly choreographed. It enabled Vlasov to show his own good management of the administration of the Don Cossack Province. It should also be noted that Vlasov does not use the terms Buddhism, Lamaism, “idol worship,” and others in his description, but instead uses “their belief (ikh vera)” and “clergy (dukhovenstvo).”21 Use of this terminology may be linked to the 1833 publication of Sergei S. Uvarov, who was the Minister of National Education and the addressee of Vlasov’s report. In 1833 Uvarov introduced the state program known as “Official Nationality” which emphasized the close ties between the Tsar and his subjects. The ideological doctrine was summed up in the official slogan “[Russian] Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality [narodnost’].” Therefore, Uvarov proposed to give new original shape to the national educational system. He argued that the educational system should not only provide knowledge to people, but also make them absolutely loyal to the Tsar. In the case of the Don Cossack Host, Ataman Vlasov may have been trying to secure loyalty to the Tsar while promoting cooperation among Buddhist followers, rather than forcing them to convert to Christianity. In any case, such cooperation seemed valuable to the Don Cossack Province administration. For example, the Don military writer Vladimir B. Bronevskii emphasized the collaborative relationship between the Don Cossacks and the new Kalmyk Cossacks. He wrote that the Kalmyks are “the most peaceful, obedient and most useful of 21 RGIA. F. 733. Op. 49. D. 1272. L. 24.

Buddhist Devotion to the Russian Tsar

199

all the foreign [inorodnie] (except the Kazan Tatars) subjects of the Russian Empire.”22 That is, Ataman Vlasov adopted a pragmatic approach to include the Kalmyk Cossacks into the Russian empire, despite the strong hard-line views of the Military Council in the early 1830s. Finally, let us consider the portrait of the Tsar in the description of the ceremony. Vlasov noted in scene no. 4 that the portrait of the Tsar was shown on the most elevated eastern side of the circle. He does not indicate the presence of any Buddha statues or tangkas. However, in neighbouring Astrakhan province, the image of the Tsar was often combined with Buddhist images. For example, in 1844 Fyodor A. Bühler (1821–1896) of the Asian Bureau in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs accompanied high-ranking government officials to the house of Tümen, a Kalmyk noble (noyon) in Khoshūd ulus (nutug) of Astrakhan province. Bühler noted that a portrait of the Russian Tsar was displayed on the wall along with an image of Buddha.23 This illustrates that the image of the Tsar usually juxtaposed with the Buddhist image or the tangka. In his report, Ataman Vlasov only mentioned the image of the Tsar in the rituals. Vlasov may have simply forgetten to mention the presence of images of Buddha. However, if Buddhist images were absent and only the portrait of the Tsar was displayed on the eastern side of the circle, then the monks apparently revered it and reportedly made the children kneel under the portrait. Whether this is an indication of a deification of Tsar Nikolai I among the Don Kalmyks is not clear; I have not seen any other sources that would corroborate that interpretation. Based on the present evidence, it is only possible to conclude that the Russian officials in Don Cossack Host emphasized cooperation with Buddhist followers and tried to cultivate their loyalty to the Tsar through school education.

Conclusion This paper used a historical document to demonstrate that Russian Cossacks and Buddhist monks cooperated to hold the opening ceremony of the parish school for the Kalmyk children and praise the Tsar’s mercy as delivered to the Kalmyk Buddhist followers. At that time, Buddhist monks served as a link between the Russian Tsar and the Buddhist followers. They also played a role in creating a cooperative relationship between the Russian Cossacks who believed in Russian Orthodoxy uniting God, the Tsar and 22 Bronevskii, Istoriia Donskogo Voiska, 91. 23 RGADA. F. 186. Op. 1. D. 88. L. 13

200 

Inoue Takehiko

the people spiritually, and the Kalmyk Buddhist followers. Naturally, this coexistence was the result of a policy to efficiently integrate the Kalmyks into the Russian empire as Cossack soldiers. From the 1870s onwards, the Don Cossack authorities began to take a harsher stance towards the Buddhist community, accepting the critical views of Russian Orthodoxy toward Buddhist followers. At the end of the 1870s the Don Kalmyk Buddhist monks resumed their pilgrimages to Buddhist holy places in Mongolia and Tibet, ahead of the Buddhist monks in the neighbouring Astrakhan province. Although there is not yet sufficient historical evidence, it is likely that the pilgrimages were motivated by a sense of crisis in the Buddhist community in response to the changing attitudes of the Don Cossack authorities. However, the resumption of the pilgrimage was not achieved solely by Buddhist monks. Sufficient information and money were needed to restart the pilgrimage. The information needed for the pilgrimage came from the Cossack community and the money came from the livestock trade (especially horse trade) on the Russian market. The basis of the Kalmyk Buddhist pilgrimage was the coexistence between Don Kalmyks and Russian Cossacks, which had been built up by the 1870s. We need to consider the possibility that it was this coexistence that led Russian Buddhist followers to support the Dalai Lama with the help of the Russian Tsar.

Bibliography Archives RGADA: Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts RGIA: Russian State Historical Archive Bormanshinov, Arash. The Lamas of the Kalmyk People: The Don Kalmyk Lamas. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Research Institute of Inner Asian Studies, 1991. Bronevskii, V. B. Istoriia Donskogo Voiska. Opisanie Donskoi zemli i Kavkazskikh mineral’nykh vod [History of the Don Host: Description of the Don land and the Caucasus mineral waters]. Saint Petersburg: Tipografiia Ekspeditsii zagotovleniia gosudarstvennykh bumag [Publishing House of the Expedition of Storing State Papers], 1834. Dordzhieva, Galina Sh. Buddizm Kalmykii v veroispovednoi politike Rossiiskogo gosudarstva (seredina XVII–nachalo XX vv.) [Buddhism of Kalmykia in the religious policy of the Russian state (mid-XVII–early XX centuries)]. Elista: Izdatel’stvo

Buddhist Devotion to the Russian Tsar

201

Kalmytskogo gosdarstvennogo universiteta [Kalmyk State University Publishing House], 2012. Guchinova, Elza-Bair The Kalmyks: A Handbook. London: Routledge/Curzon Press, 2006. Ishihama, Yumiko, Makoto Tachibana, Ryosuke Kobayashi, and Takehiko Inoue, eds. The Resurgence of “Buddhist Government:” Tibetan-Mongolian Relations in the Modern World. Osaka: Union Press, 2019. Maksimov, K. N., and N. G. Ochirova, eds. Istoriia Kalmykii s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei [History of Kalmykia from Ancient to Modern Times], vol. 1. Elista: Gerel, 2009. Maksimov, Konstantin N. Kalmyki v sostave donskogo kazachestva (XVII–seredina XX v.) [Kalmyks as part of the Don Cossacks (XVII-mid-twentieth century). RostovonDon: Izdatel’stvo Iuzhnogo nauchnogo tsentra RAN [Publishing House of the Southern Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences], 2016.

About the Author Inoue Takehiko is a Specially-Appointed Assistant Professor at the SlavicEurasian Research Center, Hokkaido University. His research focuses on Kalmyk History and Russian Buddhist culture. Email: [email protected]

8

Russian Tsar as Cakravartin A Buryat Lama’s View of the Coronation of Nicholas II Nikolay Tsyrempilov Abstract Based on Russian archival documents and hitherto poorly known primary sources, Nikolay Tsyrempilov’s paper is a study of the Buryat Buddhist perception and interpretation of the Russian emperors’ enthronement ceremonies. Buryat Buddhist hierarchs were among the many Central Asian elites invited to the coronation of Tsar Nicholas II in 1896. The paper argues that the Buddhists did not simply share their Orthodox counterparts’ understanding of the ceremony, but also gave new meaning to it within the frames of their own religious worldview and Buddhist conceptions of kingship. In this understanding, Moscow and St. Petersburg became Pure Lands made holy thanks to the presence of an enlightened deity, the Tsar. Keywords: Coronation, Tsar Nicholas II, Buryat Buddhists, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Pure Lands

The enthronement ceremony of the Russian tsar was a key channel for the monarchy to convey an idealized image of the ruler and the empire to his subjects. In his widely known work on the subject, Richard Wortman demonstrates how the concept of Russia’s supreme authority evolved from the image of a lofty ruler far removed from the masses, to one of a lord bound to his people by unbreakable spiritual ties.1 Elsewhere, Wortman just as convincingly shows how the position of the empire’s non-Russian peoples changed alongside these symbolic transformations. While non-Russians had long remained undifferentiated from the general masses of subjects, by the 1 Wortman, Scenarios of Power.

Ishihama, Y. & McKay, A. (eds.), The Early 20th Century Resurgence of the Tibetan Buddhist World. Studies in Central Asian Buddhism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi: 10.5117/9789463728645_ch08

204 

Nikolay Tsyrempilov

mid-nineteenth century they came to occupy a specific place among them.2 The rulers of the empire gradually came to realize that the diversity of its subjects bore vivid witness to its greatness. These metamorphoses can be observed in the peculiarities of ceremonial practice; in plans and scenarios for ceremonial events; in coronation proclamations; and in descriptions published in newspapers, magazines, and anthologies. The enthronement ritual was about more than a powerful elite reflecting on its own power. The sparkle and grandeur of the ceremonial activities, public illuminations and entertainments, fireworks, theatrical productions, and excursions that accompanied the ritual were all designed to impress delegates from all the regions and peripheries of the Russian Empire, who were each charged with returning to their home region and spreading the myth of the superiority and unrivaled greatness of the Russian monarch.3 Historians have focused on how the authorities created an image of the empire through ceremonial celebrations and commemorations. We run into problems, however, when we try to examine how these representations were interpreted by the subjects themselves. For the most part, this difficulty stems from the paucity of trustworthy documents, and thus any new sources that illuminate how participants understood the meaning of the coronation ceremony and their own place in it are extremely valuable for historians.4 In this article, I present one such document, a little-known work written by a Buryat Buddhist lama who was one of the Buryat delegates to Nicholas II’s coronation in 1896. Before addressing the author and his work, however, it is important to examine the history of the participation of Buddhist deputations—i.e., those from the Kalmyks and Buryats—in the coronation ceremonies of Russian monarchs.

Russia’s Buddhists in Coronation Ceremonies in Moscow Kalmyk princes participated in Russian monarchs’ coronations from at least the eighteenth century, although I was not able to find clear documentation of when exactly this first occurred. Together with the Bashkirs, Tatars, and Kazakhs, the Kalmyks were some of the early representatives of non-Russian 2 Wortman, “Symbols of Empire.” 3 Following Wortman, Remnev, and Sukhikh, it is worth noting Orientalist V. V. Grigor’iev’s argument that impressions from trips to Russia’s capital cities were an effective means of cultivating a sense of Russia’s superiority among Asian visitors. See, for example, Remnev and Sukhikh, “Kazakhskie deputatsii,” 145. 4 Remnev and Sukhikh emphasize the importance of understanding subjects’ reception of imperial messages (“Kazakhskie deputatsii,” 122).

Russian Tsar as Cakravartin

205

peoples who represented Russia’s “Asiatic” subjects. Vadim Trepavlov notes that the Kalmyk khanate sent a delegation to the coronation of Elizabeth in 1742, and it can be assumed the practice began earlier.5 A description of the ceremonial procession before Nicholas I’s coronation in 1829 mentions Kalmyks among other Asian peoples, “in their warrior garb, with their characteristic, expressive faces.”6 Importantly, this source also states that the chief Kalmyk lama Orlai-bakshi participated in the same procession. This may be the earliest documentation of a Buddhist religious figure’s participation in a coronation ceremony. In 1856, another leading Kalmyk lama, Gelik, requested permission to participate in the coronation of Alexander II. This request was denied at first, with the recommendation to “postpone it until another, freer and more suitable occasion.” This denial was later reviewed and Gelik was permitted to congratulate the new emperor in person at the Winter Palace.7 Gelik lama’s presence in the coronation procession made a powerful impression on the Russian public. His Buddhist religious garments and attributes, which most viewers had never seen before, were deemed overly theatrical: “The most striking of all proved to be an old mullah of the Kalmyks, who wore a broad red robe over his bony body and a yellow hat on his head, cut like those worn by the chorus in the opera Ruslan and Liudmila, in the castle of Chernomor.”8 The Buryat spiritual leader, the Bandido Khambo Lama of Eastern Siberia Choivan Ishizhamsuev, also tried to attend this coronation and submitted a request for permission to travel to Moscow with the aim of “repaying the debt of loyal service on the celebratory day of His Imperial Majesty’s Sacred Coronation.” However, this request was declined due to it being submitted too late.9 Archival documents show that the Buryats began to participate in Russian emperors’ enthronement ceremonies much later than the Kalmyks. This may have been connected to the far greater distances separating their 5 Trepavlov, “Rossiiskoe poddanstvo kalmykov,” 11. In addition, the names of Kalmyk emissaries can be found in Elizabeth’s coronation album. See Trubetskoi, Obstoiatel’noe opisanie, 111. 6 Svin’in, Istoricheskoe opisanie, 375. 7 Delo po otnosheniiu Ministra Gosudarstvennykh Imushchestv o pribytii v S. Peterburg Lamy Kalmytskogo naroda Gelika, dlia prineseniia vernopoddanneishego pozdravleniia, po sluchaiu sviashchennogo koronovaniia Ikh Imperatorskikh Velichestv, 6 August 1855, F. 821. Op. 8. D. 1224, RGIA. 8 Komarov, V pamiat’ sviashchennogo, 56–57. It should be noted that the author’s remarks regarding the Kalmyk lama drip with biting irony. 9 Delo Vostochnoi Sibiri Mongolo-Buryatskogo Dukhovenstva Bandidy Khamby pros’ba i. o. Voennomu Gubernatoru ZO, 1 July 1856, F. 84. Op. 1. D. 148, GARB. The Khambo Lama’s request was submitted on July 1, 1856, less than two months before the beginning of the coronation events on August 26, at a time (prior to the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway) when the trip to Moscow from Tranbaikalia alone took several weeks.

206 

Nikolay Tsyrempilov

Fig. 1 Asian delegates at Alexander III’s coronation. V pamiat’ sviashchennogo koronovaniia, 1883. From the author’s collection.

lands from the imperial capitals. It is also likely that the Romanovs saw the Buryats as less politically and militarily important, and thus did not invite them to participate in the ceremonies. As one of the Siberian peoples, the Buryats occupied a lower rank in the unofficial imperial hierarchy of peoples compared with Russia’s “Asiatic subjects,” which included Kalmyks, Bashkirs, Tatars, the peoples of the Caucasus and the Kazakh steppe, and, by the second half of the nineteenth century, all of Central Asia. The earliest instance I found of Buryat participation in coronation ceremonies was the attendance of the chief taishas of the Buryat Khori and Aga Steppe Dumas at the coronation of Emperor Alexander III in May 1883.10 Once again, at this coronation the Kalmyks received different treatment from the Buryats, whose delegation lacked any representative of the Buddhist clergy.11 The Buryats were only granted the opportunity to assemble a full-fledged delegation in 1896, for Nicholas II’s ascension to the throne. The coronation ceremony of the last Russian emperor not only emphasized the idea of the 10 Komarov, V pamiat’ sviashchennogo, 357. 11 Some observers claimed that the Khambo Lama Dampil Gomboev’s request to participate in the coronation of Alexander III was denied. See Chimitdorzhin, Pandito Khambo Lamy, 87.

Russian Tsar as Cakravartin

207

peoples of Russia as a single nation, but also highlighted Russia’s mission as a civilizing force. The empire traditionally addressed the European powers represented at the ceremony by members of royal dynasties, the diplomatic corps, and journalists, demonstrating its might through a rich display of the colorful costumes of the diverse peoples under Russia’s rule. The preparations for the ceremonies began in February 1895 and organizers paid particular attention to the role of non-Russian peoples. The enthronement ceremony of the last Russian emperor was the most expensive in Russia’s history. This was partly due to the far larger number of representatives from Russia’s Asian and Siberian peoples.12 The empire’s Asian subjects were represented by emissaries from Bukhara and Khiva and delegates from Trans-Caspian oblast, Turkestan, Central Asian cities, the Kazakhs, and the peoples of the Caucasus, Transcaucasia, and the Volga River regions.13 While the number of delegates from Central Asia at Alexander III’s coronation totaled thirty-five, those attending the enthronement ceremonies for Nicholas II from Bukhara and Khiva alone numbered twenty-five.14 Russia’s non-Orthodox and non-Christian spiritual leaders were also widely represented at the coronation. The overview list of representatives of nonChristian faiths who attended the coronation includes muftis of Orenburg, Taurida, and Transcaucasia; the Transcaucasian Shaykh-ul-Islam; and the religious leader, or Gaham, of the Crimean Karaites.15 The list also includes Buddhist leaders: the Bandido Khambo Lama of Eastern Siberia Choinzin Iroltuiev (also spelled Ureltuiev) and Bara-Shara Mandzhiiev, who held the position of the Lama of the Kalmyk People at the time.16 Unlike non-Orthodox Christian clergy, the representatives of non-Christian faiths were not allowed into Uspensky Cathedral where the coronation ceremony took place. They also did not take part in the ceremonial procession and were not invited to the traditional feast in the Palace of Facets (Granovitaia Palata).17 12 However, Remnev and Sukhikh note that the Kazakh delegation to the 1896 coronation was more modest than the ones of past coronations. (Remnev and Sukhikh, “Kazakhskie deputatsii,” 150). 13 Spiski soslovnykh predstavitelei, prinimavshikh uchastie v koronatsii Nikolaia II. 1896 g., F. 473. Op. 3. D. 561, RGIA: F. 2-20. 14 Delo koronatsionnoi kantseliarii № 45. Pribytie, priem predstavitelei, prinesenie pozdravlenii, podnesenie ikon i drugikh predmetov. 189–96 gg., F. 472. Op. 65. D. 45, RGIA: F. 329–330. 15 Ibid, F. 32. Jewish leaders, who were originally excluded from the list of representatives, submitted a special petition which was personally approved by the Minister of the Imperial Court Voronstov-Dashkov. Perepiska po vyzovu v Moskvu predstavitelei dukhovenstva inostr. ispoved. 1896 g., F. 473. Op. 3. D. 498, RGIA: F. 11. 16 Ibid., F. 5ob. 17 Ibid., F. 27.

208 

Nikolay Tsyrempilov

In the summer of 1895, a memo was sent from the Military Governor of Transbaikal Province (Oblast) to the Trans-Baikal’s Buddhist temples via the steppe dumas about the need for funerary services to be held in connection with the death of Alexander III.18 In another memo in February of the following year, the head regional official announced the creation of a deputation from the steppe dumas to participate in the upcoming coronation ceremonies. Participation in this deputation would require the delegates to fund their own trip to Moscow and pay all expenses related to their stay. Moreover, they were required to order a specially made silver tray to present the traditional bread and salt of welcome to the imperial couple. To cover these costs, the regional government permitted the Steppe Dumas to gather funds from the local population in their jurisdiction.19 The Khambo Lama Choinzin Iroltuiiev, who had just been elected and confirmed in his position by the emperor,20 was invited as the head of the Buryat Lamaists.21 Other Buddhist lamas joined the delegation as representatives of the Barguzin, Khori, Aga, and Selenga Steppe Dumas.22 Strictly speaking, the Dumas did not have the right to form a delegation independently, and the delegates were supposed to be selected by imperial, provincial, and local authorities. The only approved delegates were the Bandido Khambo, who was invited as the leading representative of an officially recognized religion and the chief taishas, who belonged to the same social class (sosloviie) as volost heads.23 However, when Buryat institutions suggested the addition of several others the governor’s office responded positively, with the condition that 18 Rasporiazhenie o vydelenii 400 rub. ot khorinskikh Buryat dlia podneseniia khleb-sol’ Gosudariu-Imperatoru v den’ koronatsii Nikolaia II, F. 8. Op. 4. D. 237, GARB: F. 1-1ob. 19 See for example Delo Aginskoi stepnoi dumy o naznachenii deputatsii dlia prisutstvovaniia pri Sviashchennom Koronovanii Ikh Imperatorskikh Velichestv, F.129. Op. 1. D. 3078, GARB: F. 1-1ob. 20 See Delo o predstavlenii dukhovenstvom inostrannykh ispovedanii Aleksandru III i Nikolaiu II vernopoddanicheskikh adresov, F. 821. Op. 10. D. 1095, RGIA: F. 131. Volost’ was the lowest territorial-administrative unit in the Russian Empire. 21 Lamaists (lamaity) was the standard term for the Buddhists in the Russian Empire. 22 On how the suglans or meetings to select delegates from each Steppe Duma were conducted, see Delo Selenginskoi SD o poezdke Glavnogo Taishi Selenginskikh inorodtsev Zhambaltarova v Sanktpeterburg dlia podneseniia IIV khleba-soli, 22 October 1895, F. 2. Op. 2. D. 2046, GARB; Rasporiazhenie o vydelenii 400 rub. ot khorinskikh Buryat dlia podneseniia khleb-sol’ GosudariuImperatoru v den’ koronatsii Nikolaia II, F. 8. Op. 4. D. 237. GARB; Delo Aginskoi stepnoi dumy o naznachenii deputatsii dlia prisutstvovaniia pri Sviashchennom Koronovanii Ikh Imperatorskikh Velichestv, F.129. Op. 1. D. 3078, GARB. Also see Zhalsanova and Kuras, Istoriia Barguzinskoi Stepnoi dumy. 23 Delo Aginskoi stepnoi dumy o naznachenii deputatsii dlia prisutstvovaniia pri Sviashchennom Koronovanii Ikh Imperatorskikh Velichestv, F.129. Op. 1. D. 3078, GARB: F. 5-5ob.

Russian Tsar as Cakravartin

209

these additional delegates would not be considered official members of the delegation, and thus would not be guaranteed entry to coronation events.24 For the Buryats, participation in coronation ceremonies was extremely important. A little more than twenty-five years before, in 1872, a scandal erupted when the East Siberian Governor-General Nikolai Sinel’nikov attempted to remove a number of Buryat sacred sites, the oboos and bumkhans, that were not listed among the permitted Buddhist religious infrastructure in the 1853 Charter on the Lamaist Clergy. To protect their religious interests, the Trans-Baikal Buryats were forced to ask for protection from the emperor Alexander II.25 Alexander III’s reign saw the Orthodox mission in Irkutsk Province and Trans-Baikal strengthen its position, launching constant attacks on Buddhism and sparking a new wave of conversions and baptisms.26 In the late nineteenth century, the highly unpopular volost reforms arrived, as conflicts over land between Buryats and Russian settlers intensified.27 It is unsurprising, then, that Buryats pushed to expand their delegation and to use the trip to Moscow and St. Petersburg to lobby for their own interests.28 The trip also presented an opportunity to increase the prestige of their faith, which had been granted official status as a “tolerated faith” but was frequently condemned as “idolatry.”29 The 1896 coronation was the first major event of its kind when the Buryat Buddhists were granted official representation. The coronation itself was of no small significance to the Buryat Buddhists. By the late nineteenth century, they had come to firmly associate 24 Ibid., F. 14-15. 25 See Tsyrempilov, Buddizm i imperiia, 174–177. The Buryat petitioners never got any response to their request but Sinel’nikov was dismissed and the destruction of sacred sites was stopped and never resumed until the end of the empire. 26 See Schorkowitz, “Orthodox Church.” 27 The volost reform was aimed at abolishing of the Buryat semi-autonomous bodies—steppe dumas—and replacing them with district governments based on territorial as opposed to kin-based steppe dumas. 28 Members of the Buryat deputation to Nicholas II’s coronation brought a petition related to land issues that they hoped to submit to government officials via Piotr Badmayev, the prominent Buryat Christian convert and doctor of Tibetan medicine. See Delo Aginskoi stepnoi dumy o naznachenii deputatsii dlia prisutstvovaniia pri Sviashchennom Koronovanii Ikh Imperatorskikh Velichestv, F.129. Op. 1. D. 3078, GARB: F. 44-45ob. 29 Some official documents from the Ministry of the Imperial Court used the term “idolaters” to describe Buddhists. See, for example, Perepiska po vyzovu v Moskvu predstavitelei dukhovenstva inostr. ispoved. 1896 g., F. 473. Op. 3. D. 498, RGIA: F. 27: “Idolopoklonniki ne uchastvuiut v Torzhestvennom vyiezde.” It was not until 1905 that Buryat activists managed to have wording included in the Manifesto on Religious Freedom that banned the use of this term in reference to Buddhists. See Tsyrempilov, “From the Faith of Lamas.”

210 

Nikolay Tsyrempilov

the Russian monarch with the White Tārā, an enlightened Buddhist celestial bodhisattva-deity. Russian monarchs likely began to acquire sacred status in Buddhist consciousness by the eighteenth century. This may have been connected to the special roles of Empresses Elizabeth and Catherine the Great in the legalization of Buddhist practice. For the Buryats, whose faith had a somewhat uncertain status in the empire, incorporating Russian monarchs into Buddhism’s sacred symbolic geography may have been a way of expressing their desire to maintain their religious identity while remaining devoted subjects of the Romanovs. Thus, there is little reason to doubt the Buryats’ sincerity in honoring members of Russia’s ruling dynasty. The coronation was not the f irst opportunity the Buryats had had to express their religious feelings toward the Romanovs. Several years before the coronation, the future emperor Nicholas had traveled through Trans-Baikal while returning home from a grand tour of Asia. His main companion on this journey was Prince Esper Ukhtomsky, the well-known Asia enthusiast and admirer of Buddhist art.30 Under Ukhtomsky’s influence, the future emperor saw his Buryat subjects with fresh eyes.31 The Buryat elite was later given the chance to reinforce these special relationships at his coronation. At the same time, the trip to Moscow had a religious aspect for the Buryats, as it was a pilgrimage of sorts to the sacred dwelling place of a deity. Thus, the Buryat deputation included the most important secular and sacred representatives of Buryat society: the Bandido Khambo Lama Choinzin Iroltuiev, abbots and lamas from several of Trans-Baikal’s datsans, and the chief taishas of the Selenga (Vandan Zhambaltarov), Khori (Tsyden Aiusheiev), Aga (Zhian Bodiiev), and Barguzin (Rinchino Sotiiev) Steppe Dumas, as well as clan heads and other respected Buryats. The Ministry of the Imperial Court stipulated that all delegates had to be in Moscow no later than May 5.32 A send-off was organized for the delegates in Verkhneudinsk.33 From there, they took the post road to Irkutsk, where the Trans-Siberian Railway that connected Siberia with St. Petersburg terminated at the time. 30 See Ukhtomsky, Puteshestvie po Zabaikal’iu, 10–17. 31 For more on Prince Ukhtomsky’s sympathetic views towards Russian Buddhists and his influence on the young Nicholas, see Oye, Navstrechu voskhodiashchemu solntsu, 70–94. 32 Delo koronatsionnoi kantseliarii № 45. Pribytie, priem predstavitelei, prinesenie pozdravlenii, podnesenie ikon i drugikh predmetov. 1895–96 gg., F. 472. Op. 65. D. 45, RGIA: F. 194. 33 The Russian State Historical Archive has a photograph of this send-off that shows the Bandido Khambo Lama and other delegates to the coronation headed for Moscow. Provody Khambo-lamy v Verkhneudinske, F. 132. Op. 1. D. 308, RGIA.

Russian Tsar as Cakravartin

211

Buddhists at the 1896 Coronation The festivities honoring the new emperor’s ascension to the throne lasted from May 6–26, 1896. The coronation itself was the most important event and was held at the Moscow Kremlin. It consisted of a ceremonial procession of the emperor and his entourage into Moscow from the Petrovsky Palace along the Petersburg Roadway and down Tverskaya Street to the Kremlin, the ritual anointment of the new ruler in the Uspensky Cathedral, a feast in the Palace of Facets, reception of the delegations in St. Andrew’s Hall, a banquet for the volost elders in the Petrovsky Palace, and public amusements at Khodynka Field. The participation of representatives of various ranks in the ceremonies was carefully detailed in written plans created by an entire army of officials from the Coronation Commission of the Ministry of the Imperial Court. This protocol expresses with great vividness the rankbased, hierarchical structure of the empire. Every participant was placed within strict boundaries according to what officials deemed appropriate to their significance. The Bandido Khambo Lama and the Lama of the Kalmyk People were given honored places in this system. Though Buddhist spiritual leaders were not permitted to be present at the anointment in the cathedral, they were granted high-prestige places on the grandstands set up on Cathedral Square with other individuals of high status who did not take part in the procession. They sat with the muftis, Shaykh ul-Islām, and Karaite Gaham.34 When the Bandido Khambo Lama requested that other Buddhist lamas be allowed to sit in the stands, the Court Ministry replied that was “unthinkable.”35 Still, officials responded with an offer of six spots for lamas and six for secular notables from the Buryat deputation36 among the rural representatives on Red Square “next to the monument to Minin and Pozharsky, starting at Nikol’skaya Street and extending 210 paces.” This was the same location where several members of the Kalmyk delegation had their designated spots.37 Thus, all of the Buryat delegates who were permitted to attend were on Red Square outside the Kremlin walls at the time of the coronation except the Bandido Khambo Lama. 34 Perepiska po vyzovu v Moskvu predstavitelei dukhovenstva inostr. ispoved. 1896 g., F. 473. Op. 3. D. 498, RGIA: F. 27. 35 Ibid., F. 21. 36 The document lists the names of these delegates. The lamas were Tsyngunzhap Baniiev, Tsybak-Danzan Dorzhiiev-Irdyniev, Tsyden Sodoev, Ishidorzhi Akhaliiev, Dava-Zhanson Zhigzhitov, and Samdan Sigenov (obvious distortion of “Tsydenov”), and the interpreter was Zhigzhit Tubanov. 37 Ibid., Ff. 20, 25, 28, 32.

212 

Nikolay Tsyrempilov

Though the chief taishas from the Buryat Steppe Dumas were not granted the right to an honored place near the Uspensky Cathedral during the coronation itself, the protocol for May 18 shows they were invited to dine at the Petrovsky Palace, an event traditionally held by the imperial family for volost elders.38 It was only during the delegate reception on the morning of May 17 in St. Andrew’s Hall of the Kremlin Palace that the off icial Buryat delegation included both secular and religious representatives—a moment captured in one of the drawings included in the Coronation Album of 1896.39 In the moments between off icial events, the delegates were taken on various excursions to see the sights of Moscow, as well as to tour a variety of manufacturing and economic facilities and factories. They also had the opportunity to attend theatrical productions. 40 Authorities thus aimed to use the coronation days to showcase the achievements of Russian culture and the Russian economy. The Ministry of the Imperial Court and another state organization that was responsible for each delegation 41 assigned a responsible off icial and translator if the delegation did not have their own. Archival materials and press reports do not record what the Buryat delegates did with their time at the coronation festivities. We only know that they were awarded medals in memory of the occasion a year after they returned home. The recently uncovered source discussed below provides additional details about the Buryats’ coronation program and, more importantly, a better notion of how one of the delegates thought and felt about the coronation ceremonies.

About the Author The author of the work considered in the second half of this article was an officially sanctioned lama at the Kudun Datsan in the Khori Steppe Duma, 38 See Krivenko, Koronatsionnyi sbornik, 327–331. 39 Ibid., F. 299. In the drawing of the procession of various deputations of Asian and Siberian peoples, it is easy to make out the Buryat group led by a lama wearing the characteristic khambo hat. 40 Remnev and Sukhikh describe one such excursion that was organized for the Kazakh delegation (“Kazakhskie deputatsii,” 145–147). 41 In the Buryats’ case, this institution was the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Other deputations might be under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of State Domains and Agriculture, the Ministry of General Affairs, the War Ministry, or the Main Cossack Directorate.

Russian Tsar as Cakravartin

213

Fig. 2 Asian delegates at Nicholas II’s coronation. Koronatsionnyi sbornik, 1899. From the author’s collection.

Lubsan Samdan Tsydenov. Unlike other lamas in the delegation, Tsydenov was not an abbot (or shiretu) at the time. One source explains his inclusion in the deputation by noting that though he supposedly dreamed of becoming shiretu and even had ambitions to become the Bandido Khambo Lama, he had lost the abbot election to another candidate who was supported by the

214 

Nikolay Tsyrempilov

Fig. 3 Lubsan Samdan Tsydenov (in Saint Petersburg?). From the author’s collection.

Khambo Lama Iroltuiev.42 As a consolation, Iroltuiev purportedly included Tsydenov in the deputation. The same source reports that the former chief taisha of the Khori Steppe Duma Erdeni Vambotsyrenov, an authoritative member of the Buryat clan aristocracy, was also involved in his inclusion. 43 Another author argues that another reason Tsydenov came along on the trip to Moscow and St. Petersburg involved certain plans to organize a scholarly debate with several Orientalists in the capitals. Thus, Tsydenov might have been included thanks to his reputation as a highly educated monk.44 As a result of his coronation trip, Tsydenov, along with other delegates, received a silver medal in memory of the Sacred Coronation, and a year later received a silver medal “For Dedication and Hard Work” on a St. Stanislav ribbon.45 According to the existing official record of service, Samdan Tsydenov was born in 1850. In 1872, he was sent as a khuvarak (novice) to the Gusinoozerskii 42 Fond Samdana Tsydenova. Zhigmidon B. Kontrrevoliutsiia pod maskoi teokratizma (Balagatchina). Ekspozitsiia Antireligioznogo Muzeia, NMRB: F. 2. One should treat this source with care due to its clear ideological bias. 43 Ibid., F. 2. See also Fond Samdana Tsydenova, Lichnye fondy. D. 636. Papka 10, TsVRK IMBT SO RAN: F. 5. Certification No 151 regarding the Samdan Tsydenov’s leave to travel to Moscow for the “Sacred Coronation of His Imperial Majesty” is found in the File on Samdan Tsydenov. 44 Ochirzhapov, Teokraticheskoe balagadskoe dvizhenie, 80. 45 Posluzhnye spiski lam, F. 1. Op. 1. D. 5329, GAZK: F. 174ob. If the first award was given to all participants in the coronation, the second medal was awarded for special services to the Russian state.

Russian Tsar as Cakravartin

215

datsan and after completing his religious education at the school at that datsan, he returned to his native Kudun to become an officially enrolled lama. In 1907 he finally became the abbot of the datsan and was included in the Buryat deputation to attend the celebration of the 300-year anniversary of the House of Romanovs in 1916, once again receiving a medal as a memento for his participation. 46 Scholars, myself included, have painted a clear portrait of Tsydenov’s later life, when he managed to establish a quasi-autonomous Buddhist theocratic state, the Erkhij Balgasan Ulus, under his own leadership. 47 The project collapsed, the state was dissolved, and Tsydenov himself was arrested. In 1922 he was exiled to Novonikolaevsk (today’s Novosibirsk), where he soon passed away in the prison hospital from pleurisy of the left lung. 48 Tsydenov’s personality became the stuff of legend, a tradition that continues to blossom today. Local lore describes Tsydenov as possessing extraordinary spiritual qualities, as a miracle worker and yogi. According to this tradition, in contrast to other lamas at the datsans, Tsydenov did not live inside the monastery but at some point in his life came to prefer staying in a small hermitage outside the monastery walls. This is supported by the unique observations made by a People’s Will exile, the Siberian ethnographer Moisei Krol’. Randomly happening on Tsydenov in his meditation hut, Krol’ spent two days trying to answer the holy lama’s numerous questions about Christianity, Western philosophy, and European concepts of the world’s workings. After this encounter, Krol’ wrote in his diary: Who knows how many years these questions lay hidden in his soul, questions he pelted me with from our very first meeting. I can’t say if I sated even a small portion of his spiritual hunger, but he heard lots of new things from me. He became acquainted with a view of the world that he had not even the faintest idea about before meeting me […] Once more he will retreat into himself, once more he will shoo the Buryats bowing down before him from his ascetic’s cell. But so many new thoughts are sealed in his head that he may spend the rest of his days considering and

46 Ibid. In 1917, however, Tsydenov was removed from his post by decision of the Khambo Lama D.-D. Itigelov. The reason for this removal was that Tsydenov did not in fact live in the datsan but instead managed it from a cell in the nearby Soorkhoi locality. See the description of this matter in Fond Samdana Tsydenova, Lichnye fondy. D. 636. Papka 10, TsVRK IMB SO RAN. 47 See Daribazaron, “Teokraticheskoe dvizhenie;” Baiartueva, “Tvorcheskoe i dukhovnoe nasledie;” Tsyrempilov, “Samdan Tsydenov,” 26–52. 48 Dandaron, Izbrannye stat’i, 276.

216 

Nikolay Tsyrempilov

deepening them, in the moments between reading Tibetan sacred books and fulfilling his duty as spiritual shepherd. 49

In considering Samdan Tsydenov’s participation in the coronation of Nicholas II, I could not help but recall an anecdote shared in popular and scholarly works without any reference to a concrete source. Here is a version, for example, by Ts. Ochirzhapov, who worked at the Verkhneudinsk AntiReligious Museum: While in St. Petersburg, [Tsydenov] took part in an audience with Nicholas II, but refused to bow to Nicholas II like other delegates. This not only proved very awkward for them, but aroused suspicions among court officials and the Ministry of Interior. When the delegates led by the Bandido Khambo Iroltuiev condemned his action, Tsydenov replied that he as a gelong [full monk] was not required to bow to the tsar who was a Christian, that his refusal to bow in this case was no crime, and that this kind of bowing by a Buddhist deputation, in particular the Khambo Lama Iroltuiev as a gelong and leader of the Buddhist community of Siberia, violated the law of vinaya [Buddhist monastic code] and brought shame.50

The text goes on to report that this incident sparked a confrontation that involved the Minister of Interior Goremykin. According to other accounts, Ochirzhapov writes, the chief taisha of the Khori Steppe Duma, Tsyden Aiusheiev, claimed to the authorities that Tsydenov’s act was due to temporary mental confusion caused by a shock he experienced during the ceremonial portion of the audience.51 Ochirzhapov goes on to state that this explanation completely satisfied officials, but not Tsydenov himself, who objected to the fact that Aiusheiev hid the real motives for his act.52 This curious case has been presented by various authors in different forms, but not one of them provides any documentation to confirm this extraordinary event. Searching the archives reveals no evidence to confirm or dispute the reality of this incident. Thus, the discovery of a description of the coronation written in Tsydenov’s own hand proves a truly fascinating find. 49 Zhukovskaia, “Buryatiia i Buryaty,” 80. 50 Ochirzhapov, Teokraticheskoe balagadskoe dvizhenie, 81. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid.

Russian Tsar as Cakravartin

217

Description of the Source Strictly speaking, Samdan Tsydenov’s work describing his trip to Moscow and St. Petersburg in 1896 has been known to scholars for quite some time. It was first published in shortened Mongol-language form in the vertical script by Tsendiin Damdinsuren, in his anthology of Mongolian literature titled Flying Through Heaven (Mong. Oγtarγui-dur niysünem) in 1959.53 In his introduction to the anthology, Damdinsurung specifies that he is only publishing part of the text, and his version does lack descriptions of scenes from the coronation and audience with the tsar.54 Several years ago, I discovered the full version of this work in Tibetan in the archives of the National Museum of the Republic of Buryatia. It was written in ordinary pencil in a 20-page grid paper school notebook from the Svetoch Paper Factory in Leningrad. The work’s full name is written on the first page of the notebook’s interior, which can be translated as “A new song inspired by the great joy at the occasion of the final ascension to the indestructible diamond throne of the mighty Chakravartin, the deity established by heaven, tsar Nicholas, praising his enthronement and briefly relating the glory of Russia, possessing the might of two capitals, called “The Public Spectacle of Terrifying Bengal and African Lions in the Zoological Garden.”55 Judging by the title, the author himself defines the genre of the work as a song or hymn and asks that it not be read as a travel account, thus requiring us not to consider his descriptions as simple documentation. He writes that he decided to start crafting this song on the train on the way from Irkutsk to Moscow, finishing the dictation of the first draft to his student Agvan Darja in St. Petersburg “at night by candlelight.”56 The first text of the song he gave to Prince Ukhtomsky “to immortalize the events occurring at court.” 53 Damdinsurung, Mongol uran jokiyal degeji, 541–547. This anthology presents literary works in the vertical Mongol script. 54 Baiartuyeva relies on this version for her analysis in Baiartueva, “Tvorcheskoe i dukhovnoe nasledie.” 55 Тиб. stobs kyi ‘khor los bsgyur ba chen po gnam bskos kyi lha ni h’u la’i rgyal po mi ‘jigs rdo rje’i khri la bzhugs te ‘phrin las rdzogs ldan gsar ba ngoms pa’i dus kyi spa yar chen po mjal ba’i skabs rgyal po khrir phebs kyi che brjod pho brang chen po gnyis kyis gtso byas pa’i yul ru shshi’i grags brjod dang bcas pa mdo tsam brjod pa’i skyid glu gsar ba jo’u lo ki’i skyid tshal du bha ngala dang a phri ka’i seng ge rnam par bskyings pa lan mang mthong ba zhes bya bzhugs so. Fond Samdana Tsydenova, NMRB. 56 Tsydenov gives the address of the apartment that several members of the Buryat delegation appear to have rented during their stay in St. Petersburg. This is also where he worked on the f irst version of his work. It was at the corner of Nevsky Prospekt, Liteiny 59, third floor, apartment 47.

218 

Nikolay Tsyrempilov

Later, after returning to his homeland, the author edited his work. He also reports that he translated the text into Mongolian, affirming the centrality of the Tibetan text. The work can be roughly divided into two parts. In the first part, the author gives his impressions of Moscow and a poetic description of the coronation ceremonies. The second part discusses the Buryat delegation’s trip to St. Petersburg, describing the northern capital in delighted terms, recounting his sightseeing excursion around the city, and detailing the audience with the emperor. The entire work is written in high Tibetan style, filled with many allegories based on Indian mythology and taking a syncretic approach to genre. The author unites traditional Buddhist eulogy (bstod brjod), travel accounts (lam yig), and descriptions of Pure Lands. Combining these genres, the author introduces two fundamental ideas to his readers: a) the Russian emperor is a divine being, and his coronation is a sacred ritual; b) Moscow and St. Petersburg are Pure Lands made holy thanks to the presence of the enlightened deity.

Moscow and St. Petersburg as Buddhist Paradise As far as we know from available archives, before this trip to the European regions of Russia Samdan Tsydenov had never left Trans-Baikal. Moscow and St. Petersburg, festively decorated and lit to celebrate the coronation, must have made a powerful impression on him, as they did on everyone who arrived from the provinces; the organizers designed the ceremonies to do just that. In his attempts to express his feelings, Samdan Tsydenov turned to the language of description he knew best, the language he felt was most appropriate for the situation—the language that Buddhist works use to describe buddhakṣetra, the miraculous worlds created by the power of Buddhist enlightened beings’ karmic merits. Works describing these Pure Lands are popular across the Buddhist world, from Japan to Mongolia. They express the Mahayana concept of nonduality and sameness of the mind and the external world. In this non-dualist interpretation, Pure Lands represent a special reality that can be experienced only by a consciousness purified of all affects via spiritual practice, as these lands are the creation and reflection of the practitioner’s enlightened mind. The concept of buddhakṣetra also includes the idea that these realities are created by enlightened beings as a response to the prayers and hopes of believers; as an embodiment of their boundless compassion to the turmoil of unenlightened minds trapped in saṃsāra; and as a sanctuary provided

Russian Tsar as Cakravartin

219

for beings striving for enlightenment but needing the right conditions for spiritual practice. In the Tibetan tradition, Pure Lands can be understood as concrete geographic locations, hidden from the uninitiated eye, much like Śambhala, which gained notoriety in the West. Scholars argue that the geographic and material tangibility that the idea of Pure Lands gained in Tibet and Mongolia can be explained by the religious logic of its development: Sacred geographies heighten the attractiveness of soteriological theories by giving them immediately graspable and often aesthetically compelling forms, thus increasing their scope and efficacy. In this sense, they enable believers to relate religious concerns to their own environment—that is, to specific loci that may constitute part of their everyday world, as in the case of pilgrimage sites infused with spiritual qualities; or they can constitute an imagined realm of bliss, beauty, and order, as in the case of heavenly realms.57

For this very reason, works in this genre often contain colorful, poetic descriptions of completely banal and familiar things, like bodies of water, plants, fruits, and foods. These things acquire idealized forms and qualities, much like the Platonic world of ideas. An excerpt from one of the most popular works in this genre in East Asia and Tibet, the Shorter Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra, demonstrates this dynamic well: Śāriputra, in the world of Sukhāvati, living creatures feel neither bodily pain or mental suffering and the reasons for their peace bliss are without number. This is why this world is called Sukhāvati. Moreover, Śāriputra, the world of Sukhāvati is surrounded on all sides by seven levels of terraces, seven rows of palm trees, and a myriad of little bells. It is radiantly wonderful. Śāriputra, this realm of the Buddha is beautifully adorned with the manifestations of the Buddha kṣetras, as well as with the four types of precious substances, namely gold, silver, beryl, and crystal.58

In his initial impression of Moscow, Samdan Tsydenov clearly imitates this genre’s approach: When I looked upon the city more closely, gazing more deeply at the brick and stone buildings, I determined that their essence was the five precious 57 Halkias and Payne, Pure Lands, 190. 58 TBRC: f. 196.

220 

Nikolay Tsyrempilov

qualities. They are adorned with treasures, literally covered in them. The buildings like mountain ranges with their towers that reach the heavens are filled with an ocean of treasures and rival the treasury of Vaiśravaṇa. There are no hungry families here. The word poor is merely a word. The food here is prepared from precious grains of a hundred different flavors to suit any desire. This city, adorned with beauty of all kinds, enchanting in its forms, resembles the palace of Indra, as if it had manifested there.59

Tsydenov’s description of St. Petersburg is similar in spirit. The city appears in his work as a city that dwells in “divine flourishing and tranquility” and is “free from rākṣasa and demons,” that “is not subject to decay though it sits on the water,” and “that does not fall apart though it is crossed by a network of canals.” Keeping to this same style, Tsydenov describes the city’s sights he managed to visit: the city granary, the Summer Garden, the Neva embankments, and several unnamed palaces and cathedrals. In all these descriptions, he consistently paints an idealized portrait of a Buddhist paradise: In the buildings that reach the sky, in the domes high as the heavens made of transparent crystal, the eye delights in the views of the heavenly spheres, as if at a festive encounter with the world of the gods! Among the spiraling walls of the tall buildings wonderfully ornamented with pillars many stories high rise sculptures of human figures. They stand in a row in constant nocturnal vigil protecting the city like the gandharvas in the flesh or like the offerings of otherworldly gods who have fallen silent in humility before conversing ḍākinīs. Amid this city that stands at the peak of a sphere twisted in the shape of a swastika, fertile groves unfolded before our eyes with all types of trees imaginable. Separated by lakes and streams, they are all adorned with the five types of sensual pleasure.

It is easy to see how the world of Indo-Buddhist mythology and symbolism is woven into the narrative as Tsydenov organically summons images of Indra,

59 This and the excerpts that follow appear in my translation, based on the copy held in the National Museum of the Republic of Buryatia, Stobs kyi ‘khor los bsgyur ba chen po gnam bskos kyi lha. Fond Samdana Tsydenova, NMRB.

Russian Tsar as Cakravartin

221

Maheśvara, Viśvakarman, Viṣṇu, Vaiśravaṇa, Māndhāta, Rāvaṇa, Garuḍa, nāgas, gandharvas, ḍākinīs, and rākṣasas in his descriptions. Tsydenov alternates his delighted praise of the cities’ architecture, décor, and infrastructure with excited description of technological achievements, discussing railways, steam engines, telegraph, radio, indoor plumbing, electric lighting, and f ireworks. In these encounters with technology, Tsydenov prefers to attribute them to “magic,” “unprecedented artificial wizardry,” “an act of Viśvakarman,” or “the gift of Indra to Europe.” Yet in one instance Tsydenov does acknowledge that these technological feats may originate in the human intellect: when, at the foundation of a multistory house, I observed those erecting these buildings and other various creations through a window, I reflected that one cannot find such masters of magical construction in other places, and the entire world would be stunned by their method of making these material constructions by means of minds that invent ways of using chisels to carve the hardness of stone.60

These excerpts make it clear that Moscow and St. Petersburg were a source of pride for the author, who saw them as the sacred center of the world. He writes that St. Petersburg “had gathered the wealth of the world,” and compares Moscow to “the ocean that all people, like the streams and rivers, long to join.” But the capital cities were merely the dwelling place of the main center of gravity, the Russian emperor. Tsydenov is generous in his praise of the tsar, calling him “cakravartin,” “Prince Rāma,” “Viṣṇu,” “our only father,” “mighty protector,” “greatest of all monarchs,” “godlike husband,” “great wonder,” and “a delight to the mind.” Tsydenov portrays the coronation of the emperor as a deeply religious act, a mystical fantasy interwoven with what he saw around him. The tone of his description of the ceremonial procession to the Uspensky Cathedral stands out in contrast to how he describes the ritual anointment itself. The procession that culminates in the emperor’s ascension to the throne is depicted in vivid, colorful terms: He rode a white horse with airy wings adorned with various precious gems, his person clad in auspicious signs, his heels resting in 60 Interestingly, according to Krol’ who spoke with Tsydenov in 1893, Tsydenov was skeptical about scientific explanations of the Earth’s formation or of the role of chemical elements in it, but listened to them with great interest. See Zhukovskaia, “Buryatiia i Buryaty,” 78.

222 

Nikolay Tsyrempilov

Fig. 4 The Kremlin during 1896 coronation festivities. Koron. sb., 1899. From the author’s collection.

golden stirrups. Cannons stood in a row loaded with ammunition like lightning to shock the hearts of demons. Warriors flashed swords able to cut an elephant to pieces, ready to bring them down on the heads of a host of unclean spirits. Were they to strike a wild yak with their palms, it would instantly gasp out its life. In a golden carriage sparkling with precious metals and gems and drawn by six or eight horses, he appeared like a vision. He resembled Prince Rāma leading his armies with all their generals, striding into Lankā in all his shining magnif icence. The keen blades of indestructible weapons shone. Horses arrayed in glass blinders paced with victorious strides. Five-colored banners filled the space. Even in slow procession, musicians beckoned to the dance. The young cadets walked in lockstep in their strict rows. I thought then that such a mighty march might shatter the ground, and thus it seemed far better to moderate one’s stride!

As discussed above, Samdan Tsydenov was not allowed to be present in the Uspensky Cathedral for the ceremony itself and was on the other side of the Kremlin Wall at the time. Nonetheless, his description of the events in the cathedral feels incredibly vivid. Tsydenov seems to be holding his breath,

Russian Tsar as Cakravartin

223

moving deep into the religious significance of the moment and quietly admiring the culmination of the ritual: When our only father, the most mighty Viṣṇu among the gods, placed the precious crown upon his brow and grasped tsardom in his hand, as several universes bowed down to him, he was orbited by wise warrior heroes like planets, much like the Prince of Siam who came from the holy land of India, where the Tathāgatas of three eons revealed the twelve deeds, and by other shining monarchs from other lands. At the center of this noisy grandeur he sat, grasping an orb symbolizing the entire world in his left hand, and a scepter decorated with a vajra in his right.

Many people present at the coronation shared this perspective and experienced it as a religious moment. Tsydenov, as an artistically inclined person, may have caught on to this mood. He captured his state of mind in forms of self-expression that were accessible to him, via religious symbols and images he had in his repertoire. However, the extended culmination of all Tsydenov experienced in those days was the moment he met with the imperial entourage during the delegates’ reception in St. Andrew’s Hall.61 In sharp contrast to popular legend that portrays Tsydenov refusing to kneel before the emperor, his work paints a very different picture that conveys his reverence when meeting the tsar: In that moment, as the broad expanse of sea gets covered with the ripples of waves, my body was covered by the gilded garments of my hairs standing on end, accompanied by shivers. Having bowed down and prostrated myself three times, I offered objects symbolizing the wish for a long and healthy life—a scarf of welcome and a small statue of the god of longevity. […] That moment of exaltation was like receiving an eternal inheritance.

The moment of encountering the emperor, which Tsydenov imagined and described as an enlightened deity, the manifestation of Tārā Cintāmaṇicakra, marks the apex of Tsydenov’s sacred journey, just as reaching the iṣṭadevatā palace at the center of a maṇḍala marks the completion of the movement 61 From some unknown reason, Tsydenov places this event in the “Petersburg” section of his work, even though no receptions occurred in St. Petersburg in the context of the coronation. This is clear from Nicholas II’s diaries which documented every day after the imperial entourage left Moscow. The reception of people of various ranks in St. Andrew’s Hall of the Great Kremlin Palace on May 16–18 was the only opportunity the Buryat delegates had to congratulate the emperor and empress. See Mironenko, Dnevniki imperatora Nikolaia II, 271–276.

224 

Nikolay Tsyrempilov

through its labyrinth in tantric practice. This perspective transforms Tsydenov’s trip to the center of Russia and back into more than a religious pilgrimage to the sacred heart of the empire, into a spiritual practice transferring consciousness into the Pure Land, the center of the mandala of an enlightening deity. *** In 1801, one of the delighted witnesses of the majesty of Alexander I’s coronation ceremonies assumed that non-Christians impressed by the grand scale of the coronation ritual would feel pangs of conscience because they had yet to achieve the “perfections of heavenly faith.” To support this supposition, he recalled the tears flowing down a Kalmyk delegate’s face, who in catharsis during the coronation “involuntarily crossed himself.”62 The enthronement ceremony of the Russian emperors was a religious matter inextricably bound to the Byzantine view of the emperor’s authority as God’s viceroy on earth. Participants of other faiths in these ceremonies were given the role of passive witnesses who were supposed to feel the imposing weight of Orthodox Christian greatness. “These notables of the Oriental peoples will return to their homes with vivid and precise understanding of the might and greatness of their Emperor and Ruler,” wrote another historian of the coronation. This point of view was very widely held.63 We can only speculate what these non-Christians actually experienced. The work discussed in this paper, on the other hand, demonstrates that Russian coronations, had more complexity as political phenomena than we might have assumed. People of “alien faiths” did not merely share the ceremonial pathos and “ecstasy of devoted subjects” with Orthodox Christians when the emperor was crowned. Instead, they also found meaning in the proceedings according to their own religious worldviews. A Buryat delegate’s poetic narrative of the coronation of the last Russian emperor is more than an attempt to decode the event using the language of his culture: it transforms a trip defined by strict protocol into a pilgrimage or religious act. Deification of emperors, the norm in Buddhist tradition, opened a gateway to the creative religious interpretation of a sacred geography that allowed Orthodox Christian Moscow to become a Buddhist paradise on earth. Tsydenov’s artful visions were not the only example of the deification of the Romanovs and the sanctification of their physical location in the Buryat 62 Makarov, “Vospominaniia o koronatsii,” 64. 63 Krivenko, Koronatsionnyi sbornik, 152.

Russian Tsar as Cakravartin

225

Buddhist tradition. Tsydenov simply took an idea popular at the time and rendered it in a fine literary form. The rediscovery of this fascinating work of Buddhist literature enriches our understanding of the Buddhist theory of power and the metamorphosis of the cult of the white tsar. It also helps us understand the complexity of the Romanov coronation ritual as a cultural and religious phenomenon.

Bibliography Archives GARB—Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Respubliki Buryatiia [State Archive of Republic of Buryatia]. GAZK—Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Zabaikal’skogo kraia [State Archive of Zabaikal’skii Krai]. NMRB—Natsional’nyi muzei Respubliki Buryatiia [Archives of the National Museum of Republic of Buryatia]. RGIA—Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv [Russian State Historical Archive]. TsVRK IMB SO RAN—Tsentr vostochnykh rukopisei i ksilografov Instituta mongolovedeniia, buddologii i tibetologii Sibirskogo otdeleniia Rossiiskoi akademii nauk [Center of Oriental Manuscripts and Xylographs, the Institute for Mongolian, Buddhist and Tibetan Studies]. TBRC—Buddhist Digital Resource Center (www.tbrc.org).

Primary sources Damdinsurung, Ce. Mongol uran jokiyal degeji jaγun bilig orosibai [A Selection of the Best Samples of Mongolian Literature “One Hundred Wisdoms”]. Ulaanbaatar: no publisher indicated, 1959. Komarov, V., ed. V pamiat’ sviashchennogo koronovaniia gosudaria imperatora Aleksandra III i gosudaryni imperatritsy Marii Feodorovny [In commemoration of the sacred coronation of Emperor Alexander III and the Empress Maria Feodorovna]. St. Petersburg: Tipografiia V. V. Komarova, 1883. Krivenko, V. S., ed. Koronatsionnyi sbornik s soizvoleniia Ego Imperatorskogo Velichestva Gosudaria Imperatora izdan Ministerstvom Imperatorskogo Dvora [Coronation collection with the permission of His Imperial Majesty the Sovereign Emperor published by the Ministry of the Imperial Court], vol. 1. St. Peterburg: 1899.

226 

Nikolay Tsyrempilov

Makarov, M. N. “Vospominaniia o koronatsii imperatora Aleksandra I” [“Memories of the coronation of Emperor Alexander I”]. In Pamiatniki novoi russkoi istorii [Monuments of new Russian history], vol. 1, 47–94. Sankt-Peterburg: Tipografiia Maikova, 1871. Mironenko, S. V., ed. Dnevniki imperatora Nikolaia II. Tom I (1894–1918) [Diaries of Emperor Nicholas I. Vol 1 (1894–1918)]. Moscow: Rosspen, 2011. Montlevich, V. M., ed. Dandaron, B. D. Izbrannye stat ‘i. Chernaia tetrad’. Materialy k biografii. “Istoriia Kukunora” Sumpy Kenpo [Selected articles. Black notebook. Materials for the biography “The story of Kukunora Sumpa Kenpo”]. Moscow: Evraziia, 2006. Ochirzhapov, Ts. M. Teokraticheskoe balagadskoe dvizhenie i banditizm po Khorinskomu aimaku v 1917–1927 gg [Theocratic Balagad movement and banditry in the Khori district in 1917–1927]. Typescript, Personal Archive of D. Dugarov. Svin’in, Pavel. Istoricheskoe opisanie Sviashchennogo koronovaniia i Miropomazaniia ikh imperatorskikh velichestv gosudaria imperatora i gosudryni imperatritsy Aleksandry Fedorovny [Historical description of the sacred coronation and imperial confirmation of the sovereignty of the Emperor and the state of the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna.]. Otechestvennye zapiski [Domestic notes] 31 (1827): 369–396. Trubetskoi, Nikita, ed. Obstoiatel’noe opisanie torzhestvennykh poriadkov blagopoluchnogo vshestviia v tsarstvuiushchii grad Moskvu i Sviashchenneishego koronovaniia Eia Avgusteishego Imperatorskogo Velichestva Imperatritsy Elizavety Petrovny [A detailed description of the solemn procedures for a safe entry into the reigning city of Moscow and the Most Sacred coronation of Her August Imperial Majesty Empress Elizabeth Petrovna]. Saint-Peterburg: Tipografiia Imperat., Akad. Nauk, 1744. Informpolis. “Tsarskii tron dlia Dmitriia Medvedeva” [The royal throne for Dmitry Medvedev]. Accessed August 31, 2021 at https://www.infpol.ru/174313-tsarskiytron-dlya-dmitriya-medvedeva/ Date of publication August 24, 2009. Ukhtomsky, Esper Esperovich, (ed. Puteshestvie po Zabaikal’iu. Iz knigi “Puteshestvie na Vostok” (Gosudaria Imperatora Nikolaia II (1890–1891 gg.)). Ch. 5. Nasha Aziia. Ch. 6. Po Sibiri. V Zabaikal’e. V Irkutskom raione [Journey through Transbaikalia. From the book “Journey to the East” (Sovereign Emperor Nicholas I (1890–1891)). Part 5. Our Asia. Part 6. In Siberia. V Zabaikal’e In the Irkutsk region.]. Saint Petersburg-Leipzig: F. A. Brokgauz, 1897, reprinted Ulan-Ude: Buryatskoe knizhnoe izd-vo [Buriat book publishing house], 1992. Zhalsanova, B. Ts. and L. V. Kuras, eds. Istoriia Barguzinskoi Stepnoi dumy v dokumentakh Gosudarstvennogo arkhiva Respubliki Buriatiia (1824–1903 gg.) [History of the Barguzin Steppe Duma in the documents of the State Archives of the Republic Buryatia (1824–1903)]. Irkutsk: Ottisk, 2012.

Russian Tsar as Cakravartin

227

Zhukovskaia, Natalia. “Buryatiia i Buryaty v zhizni Moiseia Krolia.” Gody ssylki. V gostiakh u Sviatogo Lamy” [“Buryatia and Buryats in the life of Moisei Krol’. Years of exile. A Visit to the Holy Lama”]. Vostochnaia kollektsiia 4, no. 19 (2004): 69–80.

Secondary Sources Baiartueva, D. L. “Tvorcheskoe i dukhovnoe nasledie buddiiskogo deiatelia LubsanSamdana Tsydenova” [“The creative and spiritual heritage of the Buddhist leader Lubsan-Samdan Tsydenov”]. Diss. kand. filos. Nauk [Unpublished dissertation], Institut mongolovedeniia, buddologii i tibetologii SO RAN [The Institute of Mongolian, Buddhist and Tibetan Studies], Ulan-Ude, 2007. Chimitdorzhin, D. G. Pandito Khambo Lamy, 1764–2010 [Pandito Khamdo Lamas, 1764–2010]. Ulan-Ude: IMBT, 2010. Halkias, Georgios T., and Richard K. Payne, eds. Pure Lands in Asian Texts and Contexts: An Anthology. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 2019. Dandaron, B. D. Izbrannye stat’i. Chernaia tetrad’. Materialy k biografii. Istoriia Kukunora Sumpy Kenpo. Moscow: Evrazia, 2006. Daribazaron, E. Ch. “Teokraticheskoe dvizhenie v Khorinskom vedomstve Buryatii” [“Theocratic movement in the Khori district of Buryatia”]. Diss. kand. ist. nauk [Unpublished dissertation], Institut mongolovedeniia, buddologii i tibetologii SO RAN [The Institute of Mongolian, Buddhist and Tibetan Studies], Ulan-Ude, 2008. Remnev, A., and O. Sukhikh. “Kazakhskie deputatsii v stsenariiakh vlasti: ot diplomaticheskikh missii k imperskim reprezentatsiiam” [“Kazakh deputations in power scenarios: from diplomatic missions to imperial representations”]. Ab Imperio 1 (2006): 119–154. Oye, David Schimmelpennink van der. Navstrechu voskhodiashchemu solntsu. Kak imperskoe mifotvorchestvo privelo Rossiiu k voine s Iaponiei [Towards the rising sun: How imperial myth-making led Russia to the war with Japan]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2009. Schorkowitz, Dittmar. “The Orthodox Church, Lamaism, and Shamanism among the Buryats and Kalmyks, 1825–1925.” In Of Religion and Empire. Missions, Conversion, and Tolerance in Tsarist Russia, edited by R. Geraci and M. Khodarkovsky, 201–226. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2001. Trepavlov, V. V. “Rossiiskoe poddanstvo kalmykov v ritualakh i simvolakh (iz istorii etnicheskoi politiki XVII–XIX vv)” [“Russian subjecthood of Kalmyks in rituals and symbols (a history of ethnic policy in the 17th-19th centuries)”]. Vestnik Kalmytskogo instituta gumanitarnykh issledovanii RAN [Bulletin of the Kalmyk Institute of Humanities] 4 (2004): 8–19.

228 

Nikolay Tsyrempilov

Tsyrempilov, Nikolay. Buddizm i imperiia. Buryatskaia buddiiskaia obshchina v Rossii (XVIII–nach. XIX v.) [Buddhism and Empire: the Buryat Buddhist Community in Russia]. Ulan-Ude: Izd-vo Buriaad Mongol Nom [Buriat Mongol Publishing House], 2013. ———. “The Constitutional Theocracy of Lubsan-Samdan Tsydenov: An Attempt to Establish a Buddhist State in Transbaikalia (1918–22).” State, Religion and Church 3, no. 2 (2016): 26–52. ———. “From the Faith of Lamas to Global Buddhism: The Construction of Buddhist Tradition in Russian Trans-Baikal from the Eighteenth to the Early Twentieth Century.” Entangled Religions. Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Religious Contact and Transfer 8 (2019). https://er.ceres.rub.de/index.php/ER/article/ view/8302. ———. “Samdan Tsydenov and his Buddhist Theocratic Project in Siberia.” In Biographies of eminent Mongol Buddhists. PIATS 2006: Tibetan studies: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan studies, Konigswinter 2006, edited by Johan Elverskog, 117–138. Halle: Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, 2008. Wortman, Richard. Scenarios of Power. Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy from Peter the Great to the Abdication of Nicholas II. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. ———. “Simvoly imperii: ekzoticheskie narody v tseremonii koronatsii rossiiskikh imperatorov” [“Symbols of Empire: exotic peoples at the coronation ceremony of Russian emperors”]. In Novaia imperskaia istoriia postsovetskogo prostranstva [New imperial history of the post-Soviet space], edited by I. Gerasimov, S. Glebov, A. Kaplunovskii, M. Mogilner, and A. Semionov, 409–426. Kazan: Tsentr issledovaniia natsionalizma i imperii [Center for the Study of Nationalism and Empire], 2004.

About the Author Nikolay Tsyrempilov is an Associate Professor at Nazarbayev University. His research is focused on the history of the Buryat Buddhist community in Russia and the early Soviet Union. Email: [email protected]

9

The Struggle between Tradition and Modernityin the Early Twentieth Century of the Tibetan Buddhist World A case study of the Seventh lCang-skya’s activities from 1912–1957 Hamugetu

Abstract Hamugetu’s paper discusses the relationships between tradition and modernity through an examination of the Seventh lCang-skya’s activities in China and Inner Mongolia in the late Qing period. Articulating a modern ideology of the separation of church and state, he sought to protect the interests of Tibetan Buddhist society from both the Chinese government and Inner Mongolian nationalists through accommodating both forces, while simultaneously seeking to reform Tibetan Buddhism in Inner Mongolia along modernist lines. Striving to protect the interests of the Buddhist community, the struggle of the Seventh lCang-skya between the system of jasak lamas and the separation of religion and state is typical of the issues facing the Tibetan Buddhist world in the early 20th century. Keywords: The Seventh lCang-skya, Qing, Tibetan Buddhism, Inner Mongolia, modernism

Introduction During the modern period of national or regional state formation in Asia, the relationship between religion and politics was thoroughly reconstructed. To understand the transformation of this relationship it is necessary to consider region-specific factors, such as the impact of nationalist forces,

Ishihama, Y. & McKay, A. (eds.), The Early 20th Century Resurgence of the Tibetan Buddhist World. Studies in Central Asian Buddhism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2022 doi: 10.5117/9789463728645_ch09

230 Hamugetu

various models of government, and individual activities. For example, it is well known that the Thirteenth Dalai Lama and the Eighth Jebtsundamba’s activities were vital to the movements for the independence of Tibet and Mongolia.1 The situation of Inner Mongolia was very complicated. By the end of World War II, the Communist Party of China had gained control over Manchukuo and the Mongol United Autonomous Government after the collapse of Japanese rule in Inner Mongolia.2 In 1947, China established the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region with decisive diplomatic and military support from the Soviet Union. For these reasons, the modern history of Inner Mongolia is generally understood in terms of the wider context of the history of the liberation of China.3 Recently the history of this period has also been reviewed from the perspective of the Inner Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party, a political party in Inner Mongolia active in the 1920s and resurrected after the surrender of Japan. 4 But it is difficult to agree with their conclusion that the emergence of the current Inner Mongolia region was the result of the late 1940s autonomy movements led by the Communist Party of China or the Inner Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party. Their role can be overemphasized because the People’s Revolutionary Party perspective was that of revolutionary forces whose purpose was to overthrow the government. There is a need to reconstruct the modern history of Inner Mongolia from a more holistic perspective. In fact, the Manchukuo and the Mongol United Autonomous Government both implemented reforms for Tibetan Buddhism.5 According to a Japanese scholar who visited Inner Mongolia in the early 1940s, Inner Mongolian society of the time was still maintained by the traditional powers, namely the Princes and the Tibetan Buddhist establishment.6 Japanese traveller Itō Shinichirō even described Inner Mongolia as a “land of lamas”—a land of Tibetan Buddhist monks.7 Thus despite the emergence of Enlightenment intellectuals, (including the leaders of the Inner Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party), Inner Mongolia was still a society centred on aristocrats and Buddhists. 1 For more details, see Ishihama et al., The Resurgence of “Buddhist Government.” 2 From 1932 to 1945, Inner Mongolia was under the control of Japan and was divided into two administrations, Manchukuo and the Mongol United Autonomous Government. 3 Cao, Neimenggu tongshi; Hao, Neimenggu gemingshi. 4 Liu, Reins of Liberation; Borujigin, Chūgoku kyōsantō kokumintō. 5 Li, Japanische Religionspolitik. 6 Isono, Fuyu no mongoru. 7 Itō, Rama no kuni.

The Struggle between Tradition and Modernity

231

According to the memoir of Jagchid Sechin, a politician who later became a famous scholar, he met an old woman while he was on the run after the collapse of Japanese rule in Inner Mongolia. He mentioned that the woman thought only two people could save the Mongols from the prevailing turmoil: Prince Demchugdongrub (1902–1966) and the Seventh lCangskya (1891–1957). 8 This was the common view among Mongols at that time, for Prince Demchugdongrub and the Seventh lCang-ska were the most authoritative and influential figures in Inner Mongolia. From 1933 Prince Demchugdongrub was the leader of the Inner Mongolian nationalist movement, but after its failure he collaborated with the Japanese and established the Mongol United Autonomous Government, of which he became chairman. On the other hand, the Seventh lCang-skya, the spiritual head of the Gelug lineage of Tibetan Buddhism in Inner Mongolia, refused Japanese intimidation and bribery and moved west with Chiang Kai-shek’s government in 1937. Although physically located far from Inner Mongolia, he still had a strong religious influence among the Mongols of the region. While there has been considerable research relating to the activities of Prince Demchugdongrub,9 the activities of the Seventh lCang-skya have received little attention from scholars. In Yang and Uradyn’s documentation of the Seventh lCang-skya’s activities, they argue that the separation of Buddhism from politics in Inner Mongolia was not the product of a rational discussion of modernist principles leading to the rearrangement of institutions. Instead, Buddhism was “rejected” by Inner Mongolian intellectuals-cum-nationalists because it was associated with the Republican Chinese government’s promotion of Buddhism and use of the Seventh lCang-skya to “pacify” the Mongols and make them identify with “China.”100 Conversely, Qin Yongzhang has claimed that the activities of the Seventh lCang-skya played a positive role in strengthening the national identity of the Mongolian peoples, resisting Japanese imperialist aggression, and safeguarding the unity of the Chinese nation.11 It is clear that each of these scholars considered his activities from a political perspective, not a religious one. However, it is undeniable that religious activities became the Seventh lCang-skya’s focus. This paper is an attempt to discuss the relationships between tradition and modernity in the early twentieth century of the Tibetan Buddhist world by focusing 8 Jagchid, Yige menggu laoren, 219. 9 Jagchid, Last Mongol Prince; Mori, Tokuō no kenkyū. 10 Yang and Bulag, Janga hotokto, 89. 11 Qin, “Minguo shiqi diqishi,” 83–91.

232 Hamugetu

on the Seventh lCang-skya’s activities in the Republic of China and Inner Mongolia from the religious perspective.

The Seventh lCang-skya and Late Qing Reform Under the Qing, the Mongol areas were not placed within a single administration. Moreover, the internal integration of each area differed. The indirectly ruled territories preserved to a significant extent the authority of the Princes who had dominated Mongol Society before the imposition of Manchu hegemony, while the system of direct rule entirely bypassed the Princes although they retained influence within their own communities. Furthermore, the indirectly ruled territories varied according to whether they were directly supervised by the Lifanyuan (the Board for National Minority Affairs of Qing Dynasty). After insisting on the creation of permanent frontiers for each tribe, the Manchus further weakened the Mongols by dividing and re-dividing these territories among an increasing number of Princes. The tribe, in the new sense of a ruling chief (Mon. Jasak) and his following that were identified with a particular territory, was known as a “banner.” This invention of the Manchus was the vestige of the ruling prince system and was intended to both keep control of the distribution of power among the Mongols and ensure that each tribal subdivision remained within its appointed frontiers. A further device was adopted to subdivide the larger tribes among several ruling Princes: the combination of several tribes in a larger administrative unit was known as a “League.” This League-Banner system formed the secular administration in Qing Mongolia. There were forty-nine Banners in Inner Mongolia in the early twentieth century. These Banners were grouped into six Leagues: Jerim, Josotu, Juu Uda, Shilingol, Ulaanchab, and Yeke Juu. The League heads were appointed by the Lifanyuan, although in practice the succession of each Banner was determined locally and then confirmed by the Lifanyuan. During the Qing Dynasty, each banner of Inner Mongolia was a “Mongol autonomous state” in miniature, representative of Mongol ethnicity under an aristocratic, autonomous government (Yamen). From the late sixteenth to the eighteenth century, Tibetan Buddhist authorities from Tibet, Mongolia, and Manchuria supported the concept of “Buddhist Government” (chos srid) as the ideal relationship between religion and state. In theory, “Buddhist Government” implies that a Buddhist king will administer the affairs of the state, not for personal gain, but to propagate Buddhism and facilitate the spiritual liberation of all sentient

The Struggle between Tradition and Modernity

233

beings. By the second half of the seventeenth century, these teachings had spread among the Mongols due to the active proselytizing activities of the Gelug school. By the second half of the eighteenth century, they had spread as far as the nomadic Buryats and Torghuts who were under the rule of the Russian emperor. The Gelug school thus created a Tibetan Buddhist sphere in which shared values underpinned the development of personal, material, and spiritual exchange,122 with a significant part of the population engaged in religious activities. In the late Qing era, for example, each banner of Inner Mongolia had thirty to forty Tibetan Buddhist temples on average, and the lamas accounted for more than one-third of the male population. However, within the Tibetan Buddhist world the connection between authority and religion was not uniform, with Tibetan Buddhism manifesting according to each region’s unique character. In other words, “Buddhist Government” had its own regionally specific characteristics. Based on the Tibetan Buddhist world’s governing philosophy of “Buddhist Government,” it was understood in Mongolia that the secular good politics of the banners should reflect that. As in the case of Tibetan monasteries, the position of abbot of such a monastery was sometimes f illed by an outstanding scholar-monk, but in Mongolia it was often passed down through incarnate lamas.133 They were usually identif ied among the close relatives of the ruling Princes. Relatives of the ruling Princes seized control of both the sacred and secular worlds and formed a religious-secular power structure in which they ruled.144 Numerous temples were built in each banner with such a religious-secular power structure. The temple territory was expanded by the donations of Princes and their people and had vast land around the temple. The temples enjoyed autonomy regarding their property, and the Princes as practitioners of “Buddhist Government,” could not collect tax on the land and livestock of the temples. In addition, the temples also had their own dedicated people, called Shabinar, who supported the lamas’ lives and religious activities by delivering various products to the temples. Lamas and Shabinar were exempted from the burden of military service and from the tax demands of the Banners. In other words, the temple had its own economic system and remained in a special position within the banner under the Buddhist incentives.

12 Ishihama, Chibetto bukkyō sekai. 13 Ishihama et al., The Resurgence of “Buddhist Government,” 3. 14 Maeno, “Jūnana seiki kōhah,” 126–127; Huc, Travels in Tartary, 173–177.

234 Hamugetu

On the other hand, as part of the Tibetan Buddhist world, the emperors of the Qing dynasty gave high priority to supporting “Buddhist Government” themselves and constructed many Tibetan Buddhist temples in Beijing, Shenyang, Chengde, Xi’an, and Wutaishan. On behalf of the Qing emperor, the incarnate lamas traveling through the Tibetan Buddhist world were organized into a ruling system called the system of Jasak Lamas,155 and had secular administrative sovereignty over these temples. Recognizing the secular power of the lamas, the Qing Dynasty organized and strengthened the control of religious institutions through this system of jasak lamas. lCang-skya, who was the chief representative of Tibetan Buddhism at the Qing court, headed this system of jasak lamas. lCang-skya and other Tibetan Buddhist hierarchs were based in Dolon Nor in the Qahar region, which became the center of Tibetan Buddhism in Inner Mongolia. But, on the other hand, Dolon Nor had become a symbol of the Qing dynasty’s rule of Mongolia, specifically, its governing philosophy, “Buddhist Government.” The temples under the jasak lama system established their own governing framework according to the relationship between the emperor and their high lamas, as well as the relationships between the lamas and their apprentices. The temples in various parts of Inner Mongolia also belonged to their own integrated framework according to master-disciple relationships with Tibetan Buddhist hierarchs, and some temples were under the direct control of lCang-skya (Table 1). While Tibetan Buddhist temples were supposed to be under the supervision of the Lifanyuan for administrative purposes, the Lifanyuan did not in fact have the right to dominate the temples. In this way, the temples effectively formed the territories that were free from the intervention of the league and banner and despite the restraint of the religious-secular power structure. In the late Qing era, for example, each banner of Inner Mongolia had thirty to forty Tibetan Buddhist temples on average, and the lamas accounted for more than one-third of the male population. Over time the number of Shabinar increased, reducing the number of men available to carry out military duties for the banners, and the system led to disputes between the banners and temples, particularly over people, also land issues.166 The Seventh lCang-skya was a Qinghai Tibetan born on December 6, 1891. He was identified as an incarnation of the Sixth lCang-skya in 1893 and was received in Beijing in 1900. During this period the Buddhist policies of the 15 In Mongolian, jasak means administration or control, which is the same as the ruling chief in the banner. For more details, see Ikejiri, Shinchō zenki no chibetto bukkyō seisaku. 16 Oka, “Shindai mongoru ni okeru kiseki ridatsu to shinchō tōchi.”

The Struggle between Tradition and Modernity

235

Qing Dynasty were undergoing a drastic change. After China’s defeat in the Sino-Japanese War of 1895, many Chinese bureaucrats, intellectuals, and students traveled to Japan in search of the cause of China’s defeat, which they attributed to China’s slow intake of modern learning and technology from Western Europe. Seeking to stimulate the uptake of that new learning and technology, Han intellectuals drew on the model of the Japanese constitution and its educational system and tried to reshape China. The concept of a separation between religion and state was introduced to Han intellectuals in this period and became an important part of their understanding of what was needed to achieve the modernization of China. Their desire to secularize Chinese government reached its peak with their criticism of religion between 1902 and 1905. It was directly linked to the Qing dynasty’s departure from Tibetan Buddhism. Due to f inancial diff iculties, the educational reforms of the late Qing Dynasty sought to generate revenue by using the Chinese Buddhist temples’ property to promote modern school education, the so-called Miaochan Xingxue. The bureaucrats and intellectuals, with their deeply Confucian roots, held that Buddhist monks had not made a concrete contribution to either society or the state despite possessing huge assets.177 It was easy to imagine that the young Seventh lCang-skya witnessed the deprivation of Chinese Buddhist temples’ wealth and products as a result of this new educational initiative and became concerned that Tibetan Buddhist temples would also be made subject to Miaochan Xingxue. His fears were exacerbated when the Qing Dynasty collapsed in the Xinhai Revolution. The Seventh lCang-skya announced his intention to participate in the Republic of China in 1912. The Yuan Shi-kai government hoped to use his religious influence to counter the Mongolian independence movement, and the two leaders met on September 25. On October 19, the lCang-skya was granted a new title that acknowledged his status as a tutor to the Republic of China. But the Seventh lCang-skya was more concerned with religious matters than political ones. He clearly had a sense of mission to save Tibetan Buddhism from the threat of the Miaochan Xingxue.188 In April 1912, Chinese Buddhist monks had established the Chinese Buddhist General Assembly in Shanghai, claiming that Buddhists needed to unite to protect their temple property from the threat posed by Miaochan Xingxue. Tibetan and Chinese Buddhists joined forces, and the Seventh lCang-skya 17 Chen, Nanjing guomin zhengfu shiqi de zhengjiao guanxi, 78–79. 18 Korostovetz, Von Cinggis Khan, 347.

236 Hamugetu

became the president of the Chinese Buddhism General Assembly in May 1913.199 He aimed to maintain the system of jasak lamas and preside over affairs related to Tibetan Buddhist temples in both China proper and Inner Mongolia.

The Seventh lCang-skya, Republic of China and Inner Mongolian Nationalist Movement Like the rest of the empire, late Qing reforms targeted their Inner Mongolian colony for attempts at modernization. Inner Mongolians had rapidly fallen into impoverished minority status, a process accelerated by the market economy network of Han merchants. As Han Chinese merchants permeated and used the credit system, a large amount of Mongolian assets flowed out. The Princes were to pay off the debt by lending or selling the land to Han farmers. Therefore, Han Chinese merchants also cultivated land and developed agriculture, and developed into land merchants.200 In large areas of Inner Mongolia there were conflicts between Han immigrants and Mongolians, including the ruling Princes. In 1911, a movement for independence from the Qing dynasty was launched by the Princes of Outer Mongolia, who advocated the amalgamation of the system of ruling Princes in Inner Mongolia into a single political unit. It was the Eighth Jebtsundamba (commonly known as the Bogd Khan), who became the head of the new Mongolian central government. The Eighth Jebtsundamba was a Tibetan but had become a leader in the Mongolian Independence movement due to his charismatic authority.211 For the Bogd Khan government, the relationship with Inner Mongolia was the most important political issue. At least thirty-five Banners of Inner Mongolia gave allegiance to the Bogd Khan government. However, Mongolian independence was suppressed by Chinese-Russian negotiations that placed the “autonomy” of Outer Mongolia under Chinese sovereignty in 1915, and the Inner Mongolian Princes eventually accepted the promise of the Yuan Shi-kai government instead.22 19 Zhonghua fojiao zonghui ed., Lianhe mengzang shishiji. 20 Tetsuyama, “Shindai uchimongoru no chishō keizai.” 21 The Eighth Jebtsundamba inherited the “sacred” blood of Genghis Khan and reflected the religious-secular power structure of the Mongolian tradition. Tachibana, Bogodo hān seiken, 39. 22 For more details, see Tachibana, Bogodo hān seiken.

The Struggle between Tradition and Modernity

237

The Inner Mongolian elites (ruling Princes, bureaucrats, and intellectuals) were keenly aware of the backward nature of Mongolian society and worked to modernize their society in various fields including education, culture, sanitation, and industry. 233 This nationalist movement was also a political movement that sought a viable path to self-reliance in Mongolian society. 244 Since Tibetan Buddhism was the primary guide for Mongolian thought, its political model was directly adapted. The Princes sought to realize formal control over the temples and the secular administration in Inner Mongolia. On the other hand, this meant the beginning of the dismantling of the religious-secular power structure in Inner Mongolia. On October 25, 1912, the Mengzang Shiwuju (the Board for National Minority Affairs of the Republic of China, renamed Mengzangyua from 1914), which was led by Inner Mongolian Princes, appointed the Seventh lCang-skya to manage the temples on the western side of Qahar. This request was intended to greatly reduce the Seventh lCang-skya’s traditional rights and oversight of temples in Inner Mongolia while simultaneously making him only one of several Tibetan Buddhist hierarchs in the Qahar region. 255 This reform was intended to neutralize the system of jasak lamas, which had great influence in Inner Mongolia. But it was also a redefinition of the relationship between the lCang-skya and Inner Mongolia after the collapse of the Qing dynasty. From the point of view of the time, there were various future models, and the emphasis was on discussing them, so the situation did not develop into a f ierce conflict although the Inner Mongolian Princes and the Seventh lCang-skya had a series of disagreements. This disagreement expanded at the 1924 Mongolian Congress. The Congress aimed to unite the Leagues and Banners of Inner Mongolia in all spheres as a basis to counter the pressure of central and local governments of the Republic of China.266 It was the beginning of Inner Mongolia in the modern sense. The religious policy set out at the Congress also sought to curb the increasing population of lamas in Inner Mongolia and convert more temples into educational facilities, such as schools, to promote education. Citing the principle of the separation of religion and politics, the 1924 Congress was expected by the secular forces to redefine the relationship 23 Nahiya, “Shinmatsu ni okeru kyōyiku kōmō ni tsuyite, uchi mongoru tōbu wo chūshin ni.” 24 Hamugetu, Uchi mongoru minzoku shugi undō no kenkyū 1924~1937 nen. 25 Mengzangyuan ed., Mengzang shiwu, 24. 26 Hamugetu, Uchi mongoru minzoku shugi undō no kenkyū 1924~1937 nen, chapter 1.

238 Hamugetu

between leagues, banners, and Tibetan Buddhist temples, neutralizing the secular rights of temples, and removing their administrative power over Mongolian society.277 But from the perspective of the Seventh lCang-skya, this kind of religious policy was intended to spread the Miaochan Xingxue into Inner Mongolia. In the 1920s, the Inner Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party recognized the modernization of the Princes as an “upper class” liberalization, albeit one that only some privileged elements of society would benefit from. But as a revolutionary socialist party they preferred to construct an image of a “commoner” who denied the Princes’ political authority for radical social reforms. Under the leadership of the Soviet Union and Communist International, they tried to steer the nationalist movement towards a social revolution premised on class conflict. 288 On the other hand, to mobilize the people they adopted a policy of religious tolerance—even though Tibetan Buddhism was also the object of their revolution. Many lamas and temples participated in the activities of the Inner Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party on the premise of rebelling against the “oppression” of the Princes, who were cast as the common enemy. In 1926, the Seventh lCang-skya participated in the activities of the Inner Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party while repeatedly submitting petitions to the Republic of China to criticize the religious policies of the Princes and Mengzangyuan. At that time, by actively interpreting the concept of freedom of religion and the principle of the separation of religion and politics he sought to apply it to guarantee the interests of lamas and temples.299 In 1928, the Kuomintang succeeded in establishing a new central government. In opposition to the Kuomintang government’s “reform,” (implementing a provincial system in Inner Mongolia to eliminate the autonomy of the leagues and banners), the nationalists launched a movement to maintain Inner Mongolia’s autonomy. This movement advocated for both the protection of the Princes’ rights and the reform of the Leagues and Banners System and created a cooperative relationship between the Princes and former members of the Inner Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party. In this period of internal harmony, the secular powers of Inner Mongolia gained the support of some Buddhist powers in their efforts to 27 Mengzangyuan ed., Mengzangyuan zhaoji mengshihuiyi yishilu. 28 Hamugetu, Uchi mongoru minzoku shugi undō no kenkyū 1924~1937 nen, chapter 2. 29 Tianchun, Neimeng huangjiao diaochaji, 46–80.

The Struggle between Tradition and Modernity

239

resist the pressure to integrate coming from the Republic of China and were able to maintain control of Tibetan Buddhist temples under the Leagues and Banners. The conflicts about the administrative jurisdiction of the leagues and banners over the temples between Inner Mongolia secular administration and the Seventh lCang-skya re-emerged, becoming heated at the 1930 Mongolian Conference held by the Mengzang Weiyuanhui (the Board for National Minority Affairs of the Kuomintang government). At the Mongolian Conference, the Seventh lCang-skya strived to maintain a dialogue with Inner Mongolian nationalists and proposed several plans to reform Tibetan Buddhism in Inner Mongolia to protect Tibetan Buddhist interests.300 But his efforts to seize all temples in Inner Mongolia were seen as an interference with Inner Mongolia politics, and his proposal was effectively denied by the representatives of the 1930 Mongolian Conference. The Seventh lCan-skya sought to maintain the system of jasak lamas in a sustainable form (Table 2), which was a self-managed internal reform.311 Despite the Seventh lCan-skya’s opposition, however, the nationalists supported the separation of Inner Mongolian Buddhist society from the system of jasak lamas. There was competition over who would direct religious reform. This was because the the lCan-skya, unlike the Dalai Lama with his direct connection with Tibet and the Jebtsundamba’s direct connection with Outer Mongolia, was more a synonym for the Qing dynasty. Although generally considered to be the highest-ranking reincarnated lama in Inner Mongolia, it must be said that lCan-skya was an outsider in Inner Mongolia during the Qing Dynasty. As already mentioned, after the fall of the Qing dynasty, the Princes attempted to connect him directly to Inner Mongolia. However, with the confrontational structure between the leagues and banners and the system of jasak lamas, it was difficult to form a peaceful relationship between the two sides. Even if the lCan-skya wanted to establish a direct relationship with Inner Mongolia, he could not ignore the temples in China, and there were fierce ethnic conflicts between the Han people in power and Inner Mongolia at that time. And, in response to the question on the Inner Mongolian side as to whether nationalism or religion would predominate, those who choose religion must be the subject of criticism. The Chinese subsequently encouraged the Seventh lCang-skya to work with the Kuomintang Government, especially Yan Xishan, an opponent of the Inner Mongolian Nationalist Movement, at the 1932 National 30 Mengzang Weiyuanhui ed., Menggu Huiyi Huibian, 131–134. 31 Tianchun, Neimeng huangjiao diaochaji, 101–104.

240 Hamugetu

Congress of the Republic of China.322 The Seventh lCan-skya was in a very complicated situation. And since he was a tutor to the Republic of China, he tended to prioritize the thoughts of the Republic of China. In addition, he took steps to protect Tibetan Buddhism in his interactions with the Republic of China, which meant a crisis for Inner Mongolia and even for the temples suffering from Han Chinese immigration and settlement. From 1933, under the leadership of Prince Demchugdongrub the Inner Mongolian nationalists recognized the importance of religion. They attempted to reconnect with the Seventh lCang-skya, but they failed. In Inner Mongolia the Princes were always at the center of the nationalist movement, which favored secular nationalism from the very beginning, starting with the idea of modernization /secularization as the cornerstone of social change while promoting the protection of Mongolian rights and the gaining of autonomy or independence.33 However, when they also stood on the side of the Republic of China and took action to restrain the nationalist movement, the Inner Mongolian nationalists used the principle of the separation of politics and religion to eliminate religious interference in politics.344 The lCang-skya never visited Inner Mongolia after the end of 1934, even after the collapse of Japanese rule in Inner Mongolia, and he moved to Taiwan around 1949. On the other hand, his relationship with Chinese Buddhist society continued until his death on March 4, 1957 in Taiwan. Unfortunately, there was a tense relationship between him and the Republic of China because of his aim to protect (both Chinese and Tibetan) Buddhist interests in Taiwan,355 and the Kuomintang government did not look for his next incarnation.

Conclusion In the late Qing reform era, Chinese intellectuals adopted the enlightenment ideal of the separation of religion and politics, which they considered necessary for the modernization of China. During the same period the 32 Guonanhuiyi mishuchu ed., Guonan huiyi jilu. 33 Hamugetu, “Kindai uchi mongoru minzoku shugi undō ni okeru shisō to undo.” 34 Hamugetu, Uchi mongoru minzoku shugi undō no kenkyū 1924~1937 nen, 101. It was at the Mongol United Autonomous Government that the System of jasak lamas was nullified and the temple system was certainly under the jurisdiction of the leagues and banners. 35 Shi, Dongchu laoren Quanji, 191–196.

The Struggle between Tradition and Modernity

241

nationalist movement in Inner Mongolia was founded by the Princes, with the objective of resisting oppression by Han frontiersmen and achieving independence or self-government. Inner Mongolian nationalists were also influenced by the idea of separating religion and politics and planned to take over the administration of monastic holdings and Shabinar. Neither the Chinese nor the Inner Mongolian nationalists could entirely ignore the significant religious influence of the Seventh lCang-skya in both China and Inner Mongolia. The Seventh lCang-skya sought to protect Tibetan Buddhist interests from the actions of both the Chinese government and the Inner Mongolian nationalists. His activities can be summarized as follows. First, he tried to maintain the system of jasak lamas in a sustainable form. Second, he maintained that cooperation with Chinese Buddhist society was necessary for Tibetan Buddhist interests and thus promoted the accommodation of Chinese Buddhist society into the Tibetan Buddhist World. Third, he maintained a dialogue with the Inner Mongolian nationalists and proposed several plans to reform Tibetan Buddhism in Inner Mongolia. Finally, he tried to reject the political involvement of the Chinese government and the Inner Mongolian nationalists in Tibetan Buddhist religious affairs by espousing the modernist principles of the separation of religion and state along with freedom of religion. Ultimately, all his efforts to protect Tibetan Buddhist interests failed, first because of the rejection of the system of jasak lamas and of the separation of religion and politics and second because of the strength of opposition to his efforts from the Chinese government and the Inner Mongolian nationalists. In conclusion, we can state that in the process of modernization, the reorganization or division of the entanglements between politics and religion—that is to say, the traditional relationship between religion and state—was not just a political campaign, but also a religious movement. The Seventh lCang-skya’s struggle to protect the interests of Tibetan Buddhist society while reconciling the system of jasak lamas and the separation of religion and politics was typical. In this sense, his religious movement was also a typical result of the revival of the Tibetan Buddhist World in the early twentieth century, and may be compared to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama and the Eighth Jebtsundamba’s activities in the resurgence of Buddhist Government. ***

242 Hamugetu Table 1 List of temples under the direct control of lCang-skya (Source: Tianchun, Neimeng huangjiao dianchaji, 10–20) Location

Temple name

Beijing

Yonghegong 雍和宮 Hongrensi 弘仁寺 Chongzhuji 嵩祝寺

Chengde

Hebei

Alias

Temple name

Alias

Longfusi 隆福寺 Jingzhusi 浄住寺 Xinsi 新寺 Sanbaosi 三 宝寺 Fuyousi 福佑寺 Yongmusi 永慕寺 Miaoyingsi 妙応寺 Sanfosi 三佛寺 Fanxiangsi 梵香寺 Shenghuasi 聖 化寺 Huguosi 護国寺 Dalongshanhu- Ciyousi 慈佑寺 guosi 大隆善護 国寺 Mahagalasi 嘛哈噶喇寺 Zhengjuesi 正 Dazhengjuesi 覚寺 大正覚寺 Changtaisi 長泰寺 Chanfusi 闡福寺 Cidusi 慈度寺 Tongfusi 同福寺 Chahanlamamiao 察罕 Daqinggusha大 Baodisi 宝諦寺 喇嘛廟 清古刹 Zifuyuan 資福院 Shishengsi 実勝寺 Changlingsi 長 Xihuangsi 西黄寺 霊寺 Dalailamamiao 達頼喇 Huizongfanyu Baoxiangsi 宝相寺 嘛廟 彙宗梵宇 Donghuangsi 東黄寺 Pujingchanlin Gongdesi 功徳寺 普静禅林 Pudusi 普度寺 Xinzhengjuesi 新 正覚寺 Pushengsi 普勝寺 Zhizhusi 智珠寺 Huizhaosi 慧照寺 Fayuansi 法淵寺 Huachengsi 化成寺 Fahaisi 法海寺 Puningsi 普寧寺 Shuxiangsi 殊 像寺 Purensi 浦仁寺 Anyuanmiao 安遠廟 Pushansi 普善寺 Zhashilunbumiao 扎什 Xumifush倫布廟 oumiao 須弥福 寿廟 Guangyuansi廣 Budalamiao 布達拉廟 Putuozongchengmiao 縁寺 普陀宗乗廟 Donglinglongfusi 東陵 Xilingyongfusi 西 隆福寺 陵永福寺

243

The Struggle between Tradition and Modernity

Location

Temple name

Wutaishan

Pusading 菩薩頂 Shantailusi 山台麓寺 Luohousi 囉睺寺 SHouningsi 寿寧寺 Yongquansi 涌泉寺 Qifosi 七佛寺 Shantaidong 善財洞

Shenyang

Jingangku 金剛窟 Shishengsi 実勝寺 Yongansi永安寺

Xi’an Gansu (including Xining)

Mahagalamiao 嘛哈噶 拉廟 Guangrensi 廣仁寺 Guangjisi 廣済寺 Guolongsi 果隆寺 Xinasi 西那寺 Taersi 塔爾寺 Zhazangsi 扎蔵寺 Yuanjuesi 元覚寺 Shachongsi 沙沖寺 Xianmisi 仙密寺 Youningsi 佑寧寺 Pugangsi 普綱寺 Lingsi 霊寺

Tibet Inner Mongolia (Qahar)

Inner Mongolia (Yeke Juu) Inner Mongolia (Hohhot)

Honghuasi 宏化寺 Guanglongsi 廣隆寺 Huizongsi 彙宗寺 Shanyinsi 善因寺 Sangjielamamiao 桑斎 喇嘛廟 Guangningsi 廣寧寺 Wulejiitmiao 烏勒吉廟 Guangfusi 廣福寺

Alias

Temple name

Alias

Yuhuachi 玉花池 Sanquansi 三泉寺 Puansi普安寺 Zhenhaisi鎮海寺 Puleyuan 普楽院 Jifusi 集福寺 Yanguangsi 延 廣寺 Guangansi 廣安寺 Dongtasi 東塔寺 Yongguangsi 永光寺 Nantasi南塔寺 Guangcisi 廣 慈寺 Beitasi 北塔寺 Falunsi 法輪寺

Quyunsi 瞿曇寺 Hongtongsi 宏 通寺 Yangerguansi 羊 爾貫寺 Puhuasi 普化寺 Guanghuasi 廣 化寺 Erdiechansi 二叠 闡寺 Chuibasi 垂巴寺 Manisi 瑪呢寺 Yanjiasi 閻家寺 Longyuansi 龍 元寺 Yuanchengsi 圓 成寺 Galunsi 噶綸寺 Falunsi 法輪寺 Wulantugaimiao 烏蘭圖噶改廟

Wudangzhao 五 当召

244 Hamugetu Location

Temple name

Inner Mongolia (Tumed Banner) Inner Mongolia (Ulaanchab) Inner Mongolia (Shilingol) Inner Mongolia (Juu Uda) Inner Mongolia (Alashan Banner) Inner Mongolia (Hulunbuir) Unknown location

Guangfasi 廣法寺

Xietaimiao 協台廟

Alias

Temple name

Alias

Ahuyekeunurtmiao 阿呼伊和烏 奴勒圖廟

Gabuchumiao 噶布楚廟

Bayasgulengchogolagqimiao 巴雅斯古楞奇古 魯奇廟 Honglunsi 弘綸寺

Ganjursi 甘珠爾寺

Xishandingheabuhaimiao 西善定河阿布 海庙

Table 2 Organizational chart of Beijing Chongzhusi lamas’ management office (Source: Tianchun, Neimeng huangjiao dianchaji, 34–36) 北平嵩祝寺管理喇嘛事務處 Beijing Chongzhusi lamas’ management office chancellor 章嘉呼圖克圖 lCang-skya 察汗達爾汗呼圖克圖 Chagan-darhan Vice-chancellor 噶勒丹錫埓圖呼圖克圖 濟嚨圖呼圖克圖 Members of the Galdan-shiret Kundeling Office 阿嘉呼圖克圖 那木喀呼圖克圖 Agya Namuk 印務總分處 General Affairs Department 喇嘛官衆 Lama bureaucrats

敏珠爾圖呼圖克圖 Mindröl 喇果呼圖克圖 Rago

The Struggle between Tradition and Modernity

245

Bibliography Borujigin, Husure ボルジギン ∙ フスレ. Chūgoku kyōsantō kokumintō no tai uchi mongoru seisaku 1945~49 nen: Minzoku shugi undō to kokka kensetsu to no sōkoku 中国共産党 ∙ 国民党の対内モンゴル政策1945～49年,民族主義運動と国家建 設との相克 [CPC and KMT’s Policy towards Inner Mongolia, 1945–1949: Conflict between nationalist movement and national construction]. Tokyo: Fūkyōsha 風響社, 2011. Cao, Yongnian 曹永年, ed. Neimenggu tongshi内蒙古通史 [Inner Mongolia General History]. Vol.4. Huhehaote: Neimenggu daxue chubanshe, 2007. Chen, Jinlong 陈金龙. Nanjing guomin zhengfu shiqi de zhengjiao guanxi: Yi fojiao wei zhongxin de kaocha南京国民政府时期的政教关系,以佛教为中心的考察 [The relationship between politics and religion in the period of the Nanjing National Government]. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 2011. Guonanhuiyi mishuchu国難会議秘書処[The Secretariat of the National Crisis Conference], ed., Guonan huiyi jilu 国難会議紀録 [Records of the National Crisis Conference]. Taipei: Wenhai Chubanshe, 1984. Hamugetu ハムゴト. Uchi mongoru minzoku shugi undō no kenkyū 1924~1937 nen内 モンゴル民族主義運動の研究1924～1937年 [A Study of the Inner Mongolian Nationalist Movement between 1924–1937]. Ph.D. thesis, Hiroshima University, 2017. ———. “Kindai uchi mongoru minzoku shugi undō ni okeru shisō to undo: minzoku shugi undō soshikika no shisōtekiwakugumi 1924–1933”近代内モンゴル民族主 義運動における思想と運動, 民族主義運動組織化の思想的枠組み[Thoughts and Movements in Inner Mongolian Nationalist Movement in Modern Time, The Philosophical Framework of Nationalist Movement Organization 1924–1933]. ———. Sōgō kagaku kenkyū総合科学研究 [Studies in Cultural Sciences] 14(2019):1–24 Hao, Weimin 郝维民, ed. Neimenggu gemingshi 内蒙古革命史 [The history of the Inner Mongolian Revolution]. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2009. Huc, M. Travels in Tartary, Thibet, and China, During the Years 1844–5–6, Vol. 1(Second Edition). Translated by W. Hazlitt. London: Office of the National Illustrated Library, 1851. Ikejiri, Yoko 池尻陽子. Shinchō zenki no chibetto bukkyō seisaku 清朝前期のチベ ット仏教政策 [The Buddhist Policies During the Early Qing Era]. Tokyo: Kyūko Publisher, 2013. Ishihama, Yumiko 石濱裕美子. Chibetto bukkyō sekai no rekishiteki kenkyū チベ ット仏教世界の歴史的研究 [A Study of the History of the Tibetan Buddhist World]. Tokyo: Tōhō Publisher, 2001. ———. Shinchō to chibetto bukkyō 清朝とチベット仏教 [The Qing Dynasty and Tibetan Buddhism]. Tokyo: Waseda University Press, 2011.

246 Hamugetu

Ishihama, Yumiko, Makoto Tachibana, Ryosuke Kobayashi, and Takehiko Inoue, eds. The Resurgence of “Buddhist Government:” Tibetan-Mongolian Relations in the Modern World. Osaka: Union Press, 2019. Isono, Fujiko磯野富士子. Fuyu no mongoru 冬のモンゴル [Mongolia in the Winter], Tokyo: Chūōkōronsha 1986. Itō, Shinichirō 伊藤進一郎. Rama no kuni喇嘛の國 [The Land of Lamas]. Tokyo: Meguro Shosho, 1943. Jagchid, Sechi 札奇斯欽. The Last Mongol Prince: The Life and Times of Demchugdongrob, 1902–1966. Bellingham, WA: Western Washington University, 1999. ———. Yige menggu laoren de huiyi, zhaqisiqin koushu lishi 一個蒙古老人的回憶： 札奇斯欽口述歴史 [The Memory of an Old Mongol, The Oral History of Jagchid Sechin]. Huhehaote: Neimenggu daxue chubanshe, 2015. Korostovetz, Iwan Jakowlewitsch. Von Cinggis Khan zur Sowjetrepublik, eine kurze Geschichte der Mongolei unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der neuesten Zeit [From Cinggis Khan to the Soviet republic, a short History of Mongolia with a special focus on the most recent past]. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1926. Li, Narangoa. Japanische Religionspolitik in der Mongolei 1932–1945, Reformbestrebungen und Dialog zwischen japanischem und mongolischem Buddhismus [Japanese Religious Policy in Mongolia 1932–1945, Reform Efforts and dialogue between Japanese and Mongolian Buddhism]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998. Liu, Xiaoyuan. Reins of Liberation: An Entangled History of Mongolian Independence, Chinese Territoriality, and Great Power Hegemony, 1911–1950. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006. Maeno, Rie 前野利衣. “17 seiki kōhan haruha mongoru no kenryoku kōzō to sono engen:uyoku no Chibetto bukkyōsō ni chakumoku shite” 十七世紀後半ハル ハ=モンゴルの権力構造とその淵源,右翼のチベット仏教僧に着目して [The power structure of the Qalq-a Mongols during the 17th century and its origins, The influence of Tibetan Buddhism on the Qalq-a Right Wing]. Shigaku zasshi 史学雑誌 [Miscellaneous History] 126, no. 7 (2017): 1–33. Mengzang Weiyuanhui 蒙藏委員会, ed. Menggu Huiyi Huibian 蒙古會議彙編 [Mongolia Conference Proceedings]. Nanjing: Mengzang Weiyuanhui 蒙藏委員会, 1930. Mengzangyuan 蒙藏院, ed. Mengzangyuan zhaoji mengshihuiyi yishilu 蒙藏院召 集蒙事会議議事録 [Proceedings of the Mongolian and Tibetan Institute Mongol Congress]. Publication details unknown, 1924. ———, ed. Mengzang shiwu 蒙藏事務 [Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs]. Publication details unknown, 1914. Mori, Hisao 森久男. Tokuō no kenkyū 徳王の研究 [A Study of De Wang]. Aichi: Sōtosha, 2000. Nahiya 娜荷芽. “Shinmatsu ni okeru kyōiku kōmō ni tsuite, uchi mongoru tōbu wo chūshin ni” 清 末における「敎育興蒙」について [A Study on the Jiaoyu

The Struggle between Tradition and Modernity

247

Xingmeng in the Period of Late Qing Dynasty]. Ajia chiiki bunka kenkyū アジ ア地域文化研究 [Komaba Journal of Asian Studies, the University of Tokyo] 7 (2011): 61–81. Oka, Hiroki 岡洋樹. “Shindai mongoru ni okeru kiseki ridatsu to shinchō tōchi” 清代モンゴルにおける旗籍離脱と清朝統治[Withdrawal of banners and Qing dynasty rule in Mongolia]. In Chūgoku kokkyō chiiki no idō to kōryū, kingendai Chūgoku no minami to kita 中国国境地域の移動と交流,近現代中国の南と 北 [China Border Region Movement and Exchange, South and North of Modern China], edited by Tsukada Masayuki 塚田誠之, 305–341. Tokyo: Yushisha, 2010. Qin, Yongzhang 秦永章. “Minguo shiqi diqishi zhangjia hutuketu zai neimenggu de xuanhua huodong shulue” 民国时期第七世章嘉呼图克图在内蒙古的宣 化活动述略 [A Brief Account of the Promotional Activities of the Seventh Zhangjia hutuktu in Inner Mongolia during the Republic of China]. Minzu yanjiu民族研究 [Ethnic studies] 6 (2010): 83–91. Shi, Dongchu 釋東初. Dongchu laoren Quanji 東初老人全集 [Dongchu Laore’s Complete Works], Vol. 5. Taipei: Dongchu chubanshe, 1991. Tachibana, Makoto 橘誠. Bogodo hān seiken no kenkyū, Mongoru kenkokushi josetsu ボグド ∙ ハーン政権の研究:モンゴル建国序説 [A Study on the Bogd Khan Government, History of state-building in Monogolia, 1911–1921]. Tokyo: Kazama shobō, 2011. Tetsuyama, Hiroshi鉄山博. “Shindai uchimongoru no chishō　keizai” [The Commercial Landholder Economy in Inner Mongolia during the Qing Period].Tōyōshi kenkyū東洋史研究[The Journal of Oriental Researches]53, no. 3(1994):413–442 Tianchun 天純, ed. Neimeng huangjiao diaochaji 内蒙黄教調査記 [A study of the Yellow Sect in Inner Mongolia]. Nanjing: Dechang yinshuguan, 1930. Yang, Haiying, and Bulag Uradyn, 楊海英,ウラディン ∙ ブラク. Janga hotokuto, Chūgoku no tame ni honsō shita mongoru no kōsō ジャンガ ∙ ホトクト,中国のため に奔走したモンゴルの高僧 [Janggiy-a Qutughtu, A Mongolian Missionary for Chinese National Identification]. Cologne: International Society for the Study of the Culture and Economy of the Ordos Mongols (OMS e.V.), 2003. Zhonghua fojiao zonghui 中華佛教総会 [Chinese Buddhist General Assembly], ed. Lianhe mengzang shishiji 聯合蒙藏事實記 [United Mongolian-Tibetan facts]. Publication information unknown, 1914.

About the Author Hamugetu is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences, Hiroshima University. He specializes in the modern history of Inner Mongolia. His most recent publication is “Thoughts and Movements in

248 Hamugetu

Inner Mongolian Nationalist Movement in Modern Time: The Philosophical Framework of Nationalist Movement Organization 1924–1933,” in Studies in Cultural Sciences 14 (In Press) [in Japanese]. Email: [email protected]

Index Names and places are as given in the text. Variant transcriptions used (i.e., Khutughtu/Qutugtu) are indicated by square brackets. Common titles are italicised. Abolga [Abaga] Wang 109 Achitu Nomun Khan 106 Aga Steppe Duma 206, 208, 210 Aga taisha see Zhian Bodiiev Agvan Darja 217 Agvanchoijin Dronyer 87 Akasaka Tsuneaki 140 Akya Khutughtu 39 Alekseyev, (Admiral) E.I. 67n4, 70 Alexander I, Tsar 153n58, 224 Alexander II, Tsar 191, 205, 209 Alexander III, Tsar 206, 208-09 Alexey Godanov 172 Altai (region) 14, 168, 181 Aman Noyon 50 Amban(s) 13, 44-45, 48, 69, 105-07, 113, 121, 177 Amban Gui-bin 177 Amban Yanzhi 45, 69, 107, 113 Amdo 10, 37, 41, 124 Amta-Burgusta 180 Amursana 172 Andreev, Alexander see Andreyev, Alexander Andreyev, Alexander 41, 72 Andzhatan (Lama) 175 Anglo-Russian Convention/Entente (1907) 66, 75, 77, 79 Anxi (now, Gansu) 43, 243 Appointed (Nakaznoi) Ataman 171-72, 177, 191n11, 192-97; see also Vlasov, Lt-General M.G. Archives, various 24, 27 Arkad Chubanov (Lama) 191 Arkhangai (Aimag: province) 128 Arseniev, B.K. 111 Astrakhan 14-15, 141n14, 170-72, 174-75, 177-78, 181-82, 189, 199-200 Astrakhan Archival Commission 171 Astrakhan Governor 177 Astrakhan Theological Seminary 170 Atiśa 20 Avlyaev, G. 176 Badma Bovayev 182 Badmayev, Pyotr 17n35, 209n28 Bagsha Dambo Ulyanov 172 Bagsha Purdash Dzhungruev 172, 176 Baidak, Lt-Colonel N.N. 120 Baikal 11, 16-17, 69, 110, 120, 122, 136, 171, 175, 205n9, 208-10, 218

Baksada (Peter Tayshin) 140 Bandido Khambo Lama 17, 45, 69-70, 205, 207-08, 210-11, 213, 216; see also [Choinzin] Iroltuyev/Iroltuev Bank of Tibet (Urga) 86 Baradin, Bazar Baradievich 139 Bara-Shara Mandzhiiev (Lama) 207 Bargut Mongols 119-20, 122 Barguzin Steppe Duma 208 Barguzin taisha see Rinchino Sotiiev Bashkirs 206 bca’ yig (Monastic codes) 25, 36-38 Beijing 35, 48-49, 57, 62, 65, 67, 88, 91-96, 107-09, 111-13, 115, 125, 128, 170-71, 178, 234, 242, 244 Benkendorf, A. 75 Berlin 148 Berzin, Alexander 174 Bodisu (Minister) 73 Bogd(o) Gegen/Khaan 51, 90, 97-99, 114-15, 119-20, 124, 168, 170, 177-78; see also Jebtsundamba Khutug[h]tu Bogd Uul Mountain 122 Bolshederbetovsky (ulu) 181 Bormanshinov, Arash 191 British India(n) (Government of, etc,) 9, 13-15, 18, 22, 35, 51, 65, 121, 136, 138, 145-46, 149 Bronevskii, Vladimir B. 198 Buchanan, George (Minister) 146-47 Buddha (The) 199, 219 Buddhakṣetra 218 Buddhism, Mahayana 19-20, 218 Buddhism, Pan-Asian 22 Buddhism, Tantra/ic 19-20, 27, 39, 41, 115, 167, 170, 174-77, 182, 184, 218, 224 Buddhism, Theravadin 21 Bühler, Fyodor A. 199 Bulgan 130 Bureau of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs 93 Burkhan (deities) 176 Burkhanism 181 Burnouf, Eugene 19 Buryat(s) 16-18, and passim Buryat Steppe Duma 212 Buryat–Mongol Autonomous Soviet Socialist republic 24 Buryatia 16-17, 23-24, 45, 76, 78n36, 137n5, 217, 220n58

250 

THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY RESURGENCE OF THE TIBE TAN BUDDHIST WORLD

Buyan Cokhutu (Jurigtu Khan) 37 Buyandalai see Yi He Cheng Buzava (Kalmyks) 174, 181, 190; see also Don Kalmyks Byuler (Buhler), Fyodor Andreevich 141 C[h]akravartin 28, 217, 221 Caspian Sea 14, 168, 189n1, 207 Catherine II, Tsarina 152, 168, 210 Caucasus 140, 151, 168, 171, 189n1, 206-07 Ceren Čžab Tumen 141 Chahar (clan) 10 Chakdor Kyap (Chagdarjav?) 37 Charter on the Lamaist Clergy (1853) 209 Chen Lu (Minister/Amban?) 93, 95 Chengde 234 Cherevansky, V.P. 179 Chernomor 205 Chernyshyov, Alexander I (Minister) 193-95 Chiang Kai-shek 231 Chicherin, G.V. (Commissar) 126 Chimeddelek Beise 45 Chimeddorj 52 Chinese Buddhism General Assembly 235-36 Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs 86 Chinese (Sichuan) army 51 Chinggis Khaan (Genghis Khan) 11n10, 14n22, 114, 122, 140, 236n21 Choikhursenge (Zasag) 49 Chokhorgyel 37 Chongon Mongolov (Bagsha) 180 Chonil (Khenpo) 86 Chos srid 114-15, 232 Chuchey Tayiji 152-53 Chunaka 50 Communist International (Comintern) 127, 238 Communist Party of China 230 Cossacks 15, 28, 72, 122n70, 171-72, 177, 179, 181, 185, 189-95, 197-200, 212n40; see also Don Cossacks Da Lama 106 Dagestan 14 Daichin Van (Khuree) 14, 71-72 Russian military training at 72 Ḍākinīs 220 Dalai Lama 1st 177 Dalai Lama, 5th 49, 115, 139, 168, 175 Dalai Lama, 13th passim Dalai Lama, 14th 99, 127 Damba Darzha Zaiaev 16, 17n34 Dambo Ulyanov (Khurul Bagsha) 172 Dampil Gomboev (Khambo Lama) 206 Damuding 73-74 Darjeeling 35, 51, 65 Dashdelger 94 Dava-Zhanson Zhigzhitov (Lama) 211n36

Declaration of Independence Mongolia 91 Tibet 90 Dedzhit Zambo Tundutov 153n58 Demchugdongrub, Prince 231, 240 Deniker, George 148 Derbet (Kalymk tribe of) 173 Derbet Zaisang Lejin Arluyev 173 Dharmapāla (deity) 22, 175 Diluv Khutuktu Jamsranjav (Lama) 127 Dokshadyn (“Big Temple”) 176 Doldon Chepeikov 172 Dolon Nor 234 Don Cossacks 189, 193, 195, 198-200; see also Cossacks Don Kalmyks 189-93, 195, 199-200; see also Buzava Dondogdulam (don ’grub lha mo) 44 Donduk Ombo Khan 140 Wife of (Dzhan/Vera) 140 Dondukov family 140 Dondukov-Korsakov family 140-41 Donskoy Kalmyk regiment (3rd) 176 Dorbet(s)/Dörböd (Kalymks) 14, 57, 137, 139, 142, 150-53, 189-90 Dordzhieva, Galina 190 Dorzhiev, Agvan 13-18, 21-22, 27, 41, 46-47, 52, 89-90, 107, 115-18, 135-39, 141, 143-49, 153, 155, 180 Drepung 13, 18n13, 136, 175 Duinkhor Khutuktu 106 Dungan uprising 169 Dunjin Chin Choijor 126 Dylykov (Namdak Noyon) 42, 46, 48, 52, 60-63 Dzayan dgon monastery 37 Dzhampa (Tundutov) Tayiji (Captain) 153 Dzhungruev see Bagsha Purdash Dzhungruev Dzungar(s) 10, 14, 15n25, 140n13, 152n50 Dzungaria 14-15, 184 Elizabeth, Empress 16, 205, 210 Emperor (of China) (or Guangxu Emperor) 9-11, 38, 40, 46-49, 62, 66, 73, 107, 109-10, 112-13, 118, 147, 234 Emperor of Russia see Tsar of Russia Empress Dowager 48-49, 62, 107 Engels, Frederick 23 Erdene Shanzav 106 Erdene Zuu monastery 47, 113 Erdeni Tundutov 153n58 Erdeni Vambotsyrenov (taisha) 214 Eregdelburelgu Gegeen 128 Erketenovsky (ulu) 176 Erkhij Balgasan (ulu) 215 Flying Through Heaven 217 Frinovskii, M.P. 129-30

251

Index

Gachin 128 Gaham 207, 211; see also Crimean Karaites Galdan Boshogtu-khan 169n7 Gandan 124 Ganden Tekchen Ling 37; see also Trashi Tekchen Ling and Trashi Chöpel Ling Gansu see Anxi Gao Luding 94-95 Gegan Khaan see Bogdo Khaan Gelik (Lama) 205 Gelug/k(pa) 9, 14, 21, 25, 28, 36, 40-41, 89, 114, 126, 231-33 Gendengalsan 87 Genghis Khan see Chinggis Khan Geographical Society (various) 13, 18-19, 46, 69, 139n10 George V, King 145 Geshe Chimba 182 Geshe Wangyal 182 Golubchik, M.I. 129-30 Gomang college 13, 17 Gombo Idshin 126 Gönpo Tseten 43, 50 Goremykin (Interior Minister) 216 Grey, Sir Edward 146 Grigoriev, Alexander Vasili’evich 144 Guangxu Emperor see Emperor Guhyasamāja (deity) 176 Güshi Khan 42-43, 58-59 Gusinoozerskii datsan 214-15 Hague Peace Conference (1899) 143 Hailar 120 Hamamoto 140 Harbin 78n36, 115, 120 Hatano Yōsaku 76 Henan, Prince of 51 Higashi Honganji 39 Homi Bhabha 182 Hongtaji (Khan) 114 Hu Weide 73 Ikh[e] Khuree 9n1, 15, 37-38, 40, 43-48, 52, 56, 60, 67-72, 73n27, 74, 76, 78, 104-09, 113, 117, 122, 136, 138, 143, 146, 150, 177, 191; see also Urga, Ulaan Baatar Iki-Tsokhurovsky (khurul) 180 Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region 230 International Peace Conference 45 Irkutsk 210, 217 Irkutsk (Governor-General) 175, 209 Irkutsk (province) 209 Iroltuyev/Iroltuev (also Ureltuiev), Bandido Khambo (Lama) Choindzin 22, 45, 208, 210, 213, 216 Isaev, Lieutenant Colonel 194 Iseyev 173 Ishdorj (ye shes rdo rje) 127-28 Ishidorzhi Akhaliiev (Lama) 211n35

Ishihama Yumiko 90-91, 138 Ishjamts (Dronyer) 87-88 Itigelov, Khambo Lama D.D. 215n45 Itō Shinichirō 230 Ivan IV (Tsar) 14 Ivan Kitanov (Gelyung) 172 Izvolsky, A.I. (Minister) 75, 77, 81, 181 Ja-Lama (Damba Dzhaltsan) 172 Jagchid Sechin 231 Jambal 124 Jambaldorj (Dronyer) 91-93, 95-96, 99 Jamchoi (Dronyer) 92, 95 Jampa Tayishi 142 Jampel Choinjor 121 Jamyandanzan see Saj Lama Janza Khanchung Lozava (Khenpo) 126 Japan 69, 76-77, 110, 120, 129, 147, 178, 218, 230-31, 235, 240 Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs 76 Jasak lama (system) 232, 234, 238-39, 240n34, 241 Jassag Lama 48 Jastu [Jasagt] Wang 109 Jaya Pandita (Noyon Qutugtu) 37, 44-45, 47 Jebtsundamba Khutughtu, 7th 169-70 Jebtsundamba/Jetsun Dampa Khutuktu/ Khutug[h]tu 9-10, 15, 25-27, 29, 37n4, 38-40, 43-46, 49, 51, 85-86, 89-91, 97-99, 103-08, 111, 113-116, 118-20, 122-25, 127, 129-31, 167-70, 184, 236; see also Bogd(o) Khaan) Jerim (League) 108-111, 232 Josot(u) (League) 109, 232 Jungharia see Dzungharia Jurchen 10 Jurigtu Khan see Buyan Cokhutu Juuud/Juu Uda (League) 109, 232 Kalachakra (tantra) 174, 182 Kalimpong 138 Kalmyk Parish school 189, 191-98 Kalmyks 14-16 and passim Kangyur Lama 40-41, 48, 61 Kangyur Soma 40 Karaites (Crimean) 207 Kazan (Khanate) 14, 149 Khalkha 25, 37-39, 42-47, 50-52, 65-67, 70-71, 75, 106, 108-09, 111, 113, 117, 122, 130, 136, 169, 182 Khalkha (Mongols) 9, 16, 25, 43, 59, 111 Khambo Nomun (Khan) 106 Khanates (Islamic) 12, 22 Khanddorj, Prince Qing Wang 38, 42, 44, 46-49, 51-52, 56, 60-63, 88, 91-97, 99, 108-09, 113 Kharmandzhiev 178 Khasvandan 88 Khionin, A.P. 121 Khir ge su (Kazakhs) 152

252 

THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY RESURGENCE OF THE TIBE TAN BUDDHIST WORLD

Khitrovo, A.D., Lt-Colonel 108-110 Kho-Orlog (“King”) 151-52 Khodynka Field 212 Khori Steppe Duma 208, 212, 214, 216 Khori taisha see Tsyden Aiusheiev Khoshut(s)/Khoshūds 10, 14, 141-42, 151, 152n54, 189, 199 Khuluk Beise Namdanchoikhur: (rnam ’dren chos skor) 42-44, 47, 49-52 Khuree monastery 124 Kiakhta, Treaty of 11, 16 Klements, D.A. 144 Kokonor/Kökenuur 25, 35, 60; see also Qinghai Kokovtsov, (Prime Minister), V.N. 147, 149 Kornirov, A. 169-70, 182 Korostovets, I.Ya. 90, 117 Kostritskii 109 Kozlov, Pyotr 25, 46, 60, 69, 72, 91, 106, 139, 144 Kremlin 130, 211-12 Krol, Moisei 215 Kudun Datsan 212, 215 Kumbum 37, 39, 46-47, 49, 56-57, 60-62, 75-77, 113, 136 Kuomintang 238-40 Kuzminskii/oy, M.N. 104, 182 Kyakhta 69, 108-09, 118 Kyakhta Agreement (1915) 93, 118, 122, 131 Lama Gegen (Erdeni Pandita Qutugtu) 43, 45 Lamaiskoye duhovnoye pravleniye (“The Lamaist spiritual Board”) 179 Lamen Kempo 77 Lamsdorf, Count V.N. 67, 72, 74, 179 lCang-skya/Lcangskya Khutuktu (7th) 28, 111, 229-42, 244 lCang-skya (6th) 234 League/Banner system 232 Lessar, P.M. 67, 71 Lessar, T.S. 178 Lharampa Lozang Yonten 40 Lhasa passim Lhawangregjin 49 Li Jiao (Daotai) 115 Li Tingyu 73-75 Lianshun (Governor) 70 Lifan bu (Department) 93 Lifanyuan (Board for National Minority Afffairs) 10, 232, 234 Lobsang Choindon 125 London 75, 144-45, 147-49 Lubsan Samdan Tsydenov (Lama) 212-25 [His] Description of Coronation 217-25 Lungshar 144-45, 147-49 Luvsan 122 Luvsandambiydonmi (2nd Jebtsundamba Khutugtu) 9 Luvsandanzan 128 Lyuba, V.F. 69-70, 72, 73n27, 110-11, 143, 177

Ma Qi 43 MacIntyre, Alisdair 20 Magsarjav, N. 89 Mahabodhi Society 22 Mahasammata 114 Maloderbetovsky (ulu) 176, 180-81 Manchu(s) 9-10, 44, 48, 106, 108, 114, 116, 152, 178, 232 Manchukuo 230 Manchuria 111, 120, 122, 129, 232 Mangghud tribe (Nogai Horde) 140 Manjushri Khutuktu monastery 122 Mannerheim, C.G. 49 Martynov, General E.I. 119-20 Marx, Karl 23 Mengzang Shiwuju/Mengzangyua 237-38 Mengzang Weiyuanhui 239 Menkedzhuyev Baaza-Bagchi (Lama) 15, 138, 172, 180 Menko Bakirov (Gelyung) 171 Menko Batyrev (Gelyung) 172 Menko Boromanzhinov 172 Miaochan Xingxue (system) 235, 238 Miller, A.Ya. 119, 121 Mironov, S.N. 130 Missionaries, Orthodox 15, 192 Mongkut, Prince (Rama IV) 20n40 Mongol–Tibet Treaty (1913) 23, 36, 47, 49-50, 52, 66, 87, 90, 92, 97, 116, 119, 130-31, 146, 148 Mongol United Autonomous Government 230-31 Mongolia passim Mongolian Conference (1930) 239 Congress (1924) 237 Ministry of Foreign Affairs 92-95 Ministry of Internal Affairs 129 People’s Republic (MPR) 104, 124-131 People’s Revolutionary Party 26, 97-98, 123-25, 127-29, 131, 230, 238 revolution (1921) 97 Monko-Ochir 153n59 Moscow 17, 28, 116, 129, 203-05, 208-12, 214, 217-19, 221, 223-24 Moscow Imperial Lycee 138 Mukden 115 Nakaznoi Ataman see Appointed Ataman Nakchu 42, 51 Namchuvangdan 115 Namsrai (Duke) (gung rnam sras) 45 Napoleon 12, 15, 142 Naran Ulanov see Ulanov, Naran National Congress of the Republic of China (1932) 239-40 National Museum of the Republic of Buryatia 217 Neichi Toyin 169n7, 175 Nemchinov (or Nechaev) 123

Index

Neva embankments 220 Nerchinsk, Treaty of 11 Nga-wang Trakpa 86 Ngawang Chodzin (Monk official: rtse drung) 47 Nikolaevich, Grand Duke Nicholas 191 Nikolai I, Tsar 28, 191, 193, 197, 199, 205 Nikolai II, Tsar 27-28, 41, 46, 67, 136-38, 143-45, 147-48, 150, 177, 182, 199, 203-04, 206-07, 209n27, 210, 213, 216-17, 223n60 Niislel Khuree see Ikhe Khuree Nolde, Baron B.E. 118 Novonikolaevsk (now Novosibirsk) 215 Noyon Tundutov 178 Ochirzhapov, Ts. 216 Ochurov 172 Odessa 171 Odzhanaev 173 Oirad/t(s) 10, 14-15, 140, 151, 152n50, 168, 169n7 Oldenberg, Hermann 19 Ordos (League) 108 Orenburg (Governor of) 181 Orenburg (Mufti of) 207 Orlai-bakshi (Lama) 205 Orlovka 197 Ovshe Norzunoff (Lama) 18, 21, 172 Palace of Facets (Granovitaia Palata) 207, 212 Palden Lhamo (deity) 176-77, 184 Panchen Lama(s) 13, 115, 128-29 Pandits 13 Paris 142, 148 Paul I, Tsar 153n55 Peking, Treaty of 12 Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague 68 Petrovsky Palace 211-12 Phari 145 Plymouth 148 Pokotilov, Dmitry D. 108, 111 Potala 13, 51-52, 113, 172 Pozdneev, A. 176 Przhevalsky, Nikolay 25, 42 Puntsagtseren (Wang) 95-96 Pure Lands 203, 218-19, 224 Pusading monastery 48 Qahar (region) 234, 237 Qasim Khanate 140 Qin Yongzhang 231 Qing (Empire) passim Qing, Prince 72 Qinghai 25, 35, 65-66, 72, 75, 78n36, 91, 136, 234; see also Kokonor Red Square 211 Regulations on the management of the Kalmyk people (1847) 179

253 Reuters 116 Rhys-Davids, Thomas 19, 20n40 Rimé (ris med) 20n41 Rinchino Sotiiev (taisha) 210 Romanovs 206, 210, 215 Rome 148 Roosevelt, Theodore 143 Rugby school, Tibetan students at 27, 135, 137, 145 Ruslan and Liudmila 205 Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 135 Consul General (Harbin) 115, 120 Consul General (Urga) 67, 69-70, 72-73, 78, 104, 113, 143, 150, 175, 177, 182 Diplomatic Mission in Beijing 112, 115 Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Foreign Ministry) 12, 41, 67, 73, 75, 107, 111, 118-20, 144, 169, 171-72, 178, 181, 199 Ministry of the Imperial Court 209n28, 210-12 Coronation, Commission of 211 Revolution 23-24, 137 Russian-Turkish war 168 Russo-Japanese war 46n33, 67, 110, 178 Russo-Mongolian Agreement 27, 90, 96, 117-18 Sain Noyon (Aimag) 37, 44-45, 47, 73 Saint (St) Andrew’s Hall 211-12, 223 Saint (St) Petersburg 17-18, 21-22, 27, 41, 46, 51, 68, 71, 73, 91, 135-39, 141-42, 144-46, 149, 155, 177-81, 193, 203, 209-11, 214, 216-18, 220-21, 223 Buddhist temple at 41, 138 Saj Lama (Jamyang Tenzin) 97-98, 122, 124 Šajin Lama 15 Sakharov, V.V. 180 Sakya (sect) 115 Sakya Panchen 127 Śambhala 219 Samdan ‘Sigenov’ [act. Tsydenov] (Lama) 211n35 saṃsāra 218 Sanzhe Susinov (Manzhik) 171-72 Śāriputra 219 Sazonov, S.D. (Minister) 90, 117, 121, 146-49 Selenga Steppe Duma 208, 210 Selenga taisha see Vandan Zhambaltarov Selenginsk 70 Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky, Pyotr 144 Serebčžab Tumen/Tyumenev 141 Setenov (Khurul Bagsha) 172 Setsen Khan (Aimag) 45, 56 Shabins/Shabinar (system) 169, 233-34, 241 Shaholibi 43 Shakur (Lama) 175 Shambhala war 128 Shandong 122 Shanghai 235 Shanzav (Erdene of Khuree) 121

254 

THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY RESURGENCE OF THE TIBE TAN BUDDHIST WORLD

Sharap Tepkin (Lama) 173 Sharchi Yeshe Gyamtso (rtse drung) 50 Shaumian, Tatiana 67, 69 Shazhini-Lama (“Teaching Lama”) 179 Shcherbatskoy/Stcherbatsky, Fyodor 19, 27, 135, 137-39, 143-44, 175 Sheikh-ul-Islam 207, 211 Shenyang 234 Shilingol/Silingol (League) 109, 111, 232 Shishmar[y]ev, General Ya/Jakov P. 113, 177-78 Shorgo (gshor sgo) 50 Siberia 11, 15-16, 69, 123, 139, 141n16, 144, 205-07, 210, 212n38, 215-16 Sibir Khanate 140 Sidkeong Tulku 20 Sikkim 13 Simla Conference 66 Sinel’nikov, Nikolai Governor-General 209; see also Irkutsk Sino-Japanese war (1894) 235 Smirnov, Parmen 170, 176 Somers, Jeffrey 148 Song Guang Yang Khan 115 soyombo (Skt: Svayambhu) 115 Special Skull Session 178, 181-82 Sri Lanka 17, 21 Stalin 129, 137 Stavropol 15, 172, 174, 178, 182, 189-90n1 Stolypin, Pyotr 41, 182 Stremoukhov, Pyotr N. 169-70 Sukhāvati 219 Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra 219 Šükür Dayičing 14, 139, 152, 175 Summer Garden 220 Sunud (banner) 109 Susinov (Gelyung) 172 Suzerain(ty) 10n9, 13, 75, 77, 118-19, 131, 136

Trans-Siberian Railway 210-11 Transbaikalia see Baikal Transcaucasia (Mufti of) 207 Trashi Chöpel Ling 36 Trashi Dorje (Zasag) 44 Trashi/Puntsok Tekchen Ling 40, 41n12; see also Ganden Tekchen Ling) Trepavlov, Vadim 205 Tsagan-Aman (Khurul) 175 Tsaidam Basin 43 Tsaidam, five banners of 42-43 Tsandzhin Ubushi Tundutov 153n60 Tsannit Hambo-Lharambo Agvan 178-79 Tsar (of Russia) 147, 153n55, 191, 194-95, 203, 205-11, 218, 221, 223-24, 233-34; see also under individual names Tsendiin Damdinsuren 216 Tserenbaabai (banner) 88 Tserendondov (tshe ring don grub) 49-50 Tsetserleg 130 Tshe ring zla ’od (taisha) 27, 135, 137, 150-51, 153-54 Elzyata (wife of) 139 Tsongkhapa 20 Tsybak-Danzan Dorzhiiev-Irdyniev (Lama) 211n35 Tsybikov, Gombozhab 18, 21 Tsyden Aiusheiev (taisha) 210, 216 Tsyden Sodoev (Lama) 211n35 Tsyngunzhap Baniiev (Lama) 211n35 Tsyrempilov, Nikolay 16n33, 22, 23n53 Tubanov, Ts.J. 122 Tubanov, Zhigzhit 211n36 Tumen (Tumenev) family 141, 199 Turkey 152 Tüsheet Khan (Aimag) 44-45, 88 Tuvians 168-69

Taiji Nor (banner) 42-43, 47n36, 61 Taiji Nor Zasag 42-43 Taiwan 240 Takehiko, Inoue 138 Tanguts 122, 175 Tāranātha 9 Tariatyn Khuree monastery 128 Tatars 206 Taurida (Mufti of) 207 Tayshin, Peter see Baksada Teramoto Enga 39, 76 Tholamche Janggin 44 Tibet passim Tibet-Mongolia Treaty see Mongolia-Tibet Treaty Tibetan Ministry of Foreign Affairs 126 Tien-dzin (Tianjin) 171 Togtokh 116 Torghut(s)/Torghūds 14, 37, 56, 58-59, 139-41, 150-52, 189-90, 233 Lineage of 140n13

Ubashi (Khan) 15, 141n16, 152 Ukhtomsky, Prince E.E. 144, 171, 210, 217 Ulaan Baatar 37; see also Ikhe Khuree, Urga Ulaan Khad/Ulaanchab (League) 123, 232 Ulanov, Naran 172 Uliastai 70, 113 Ungern-Sternberg, Baron von 26, 97, 122 Ural Kalmyks 174 Urga 9-10, 15, 17, 25, 37n4, 67, 69, 86-88, 91-93, 96-97, 104-05, 107, 110, 115-17, 122-23, 125, 127, 167, 169-72, 175, 177-78, 181-82; see also Ikhe Khuree, Ulaan Baatar Usatyi, P.K. 110 Uselrimbuchi Gegeen 120 Ushüdrak (U shud brag) Tulku 39 Uspensky Cathedral 207, 212, 222 Uvarov, Count Sergei S. 193, 197-98 Uzemchin (banner) 109 Vaiśravaṇa 220 Vandan Zhambaltarov (taisha) 210

Index

Verkhneudinsk Anti-Religious Museum 216 Vlasov, Lt-General Maksim G. 192-93, 196-99 Volga river 15, 139, 141n17, 151, 152n47 & n54, 174, 207 Vorontsov, A.I. 171 Wangiin Khuree monastery 106 Wangun 120 White Faith see Burkhanism White Tārā 210 World War (WW) I 24 World War (WW) II 230 Wortman, Richard 203 Wu t’ai shan/Wutaishan 17, 35, 39-41, 47-49, 61, 65, 78n36, 136 Xi’an 234 Xinhai Revolution 66, 90, 235 Xining 72-73, 91, 107, 125, 243 Xinjiang 10, 12, 37, 76, 122, 167-69 Xuanhua-fu 73 Yabshi Bonkhon Gung Ping Khan 126 Yamāntaka (deity) 176 Yan Xishan 239 Yanzhi see Amban Yanzhi

255 Yekejuu/Yeke Juu (League) 111, 232 Yi He Cheng (Buyandalai) 92-96, 99 Yongzin Khenpo Dorjzeveg Tulku 128 Yongzin Khenpo Lobsang Khaimchog 127-29 Yonzon Khamba Luvsankhaimchig see Yongzin Khenpo Lobsang Khaimchog Younghusband, Colonel Francis 14, 25, 65, 86, 89 Yuan dynasty 10 Yuan Shikai (President) 115, 235-36 Yum Beise 125 Yungdrung Beise 43, 45 Zagd 95 Zaisang Mikhailov 178 Zanabazar (1st Jebtsundamba Khutugtu) 9 Zasagtu Khan (Aimag) 43 Zaya Bandida monastery 73-74 Zaya Pandita Khutuktu 91, 107-08, 113, 169n7 Zhangjiakou 73 Zhao Erxyun 115 Zhian Bodiiev (taisha) 210 Zhigzhit Tubanov 211n35 Zolotarev, Lieutenant Colonel 195 Zoological Garden (Moscow) 217

Publications / Global Asia Matthias Maass (ed.): Foreign Policies and Diplomacies in Asia. Changes in Practice, Concepts, and Thinking in a Rising Region 2014, isbn 978 90 8964 540 1 Volker Gottowik (ed.): Dynamics of Religion in Southeast Asia. Magic and Modernity 2014, isbn 978 90 8964 424 4 Frédéric Bourdier, Maxime Boutry, Jacques Ivanoff, and Olivier Ferrari: From Padi States to Commercial States. Reflections on Identity and the Social Construction of Space in the Borderlands of Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand and Myanmar 2015, isbn 978 90 8964 659 0 Michiel Baas (ed.): Transnational Migration and Asia. The Question of Return 2015, isbn 978 90 8964 658 3 Kees van Dijk: Pacific Strife. The Great Powers and Their Political and Economic Rivalries in Asia and the Western Pacific 1870-1914 2015, isbn 978 90 8964 420 6 Juliet Pietsch and Marshall Clark (eds): Migration and Integration in Europe, Southeast Asia, and Australia. A Comparative Perspective 2015, isbn 978 90 8964 538 8 Arndt Graf and Azirah Hashim (eds): African-Asian Encounters. New Cooperations and New Dependencies 2017, isbn 978 94 6298 428 8 Wendy Smith, Hirochika Nakamaki, Louella Matsunaga, and Tamasin Ramsay (eds): Globalizing Asian Religions. Management and Marketing 2018, isbn 978 94 6298 144 7 Ngok Ma and Edmund W. Cheng (eds): The Umbrella Movement. Civil Resistance and Contentious Space in Hong Kong 2019, isbn 978 94 6298 456 1

Emilia Roza Sulek: Trading Caterpillar Fungus in Tibet. When Economic Boom Hits Rural Area 2019, isbn 978 94 6298 526 1 Eva P.W. Hung and Tak-Wing Ngo (eds): Shadow Exchanges along the New Silk Roads 2020, isbn 978 94 6298 893 4 Tamas Wells: Narrating Democracy in Myanmar. The Struggle Between Activists, Democratic Leaders and Aid Workers 2021, isbn 978 94 6372 615 3