Chapter 3. Kalmyk Buddhism and the State from 1640 to 1917
3.3. Religious Polity of Kalmyk Buddhism
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
However, the interconnection between secular and religious spheres can also be seen in the double functions of Kalmyk pilgrimages to Tibet. From one hand, pilgrimage was an essential part of Buddhist culture, which influenced the spiritual life of the khanate; and from the other hand, it had a policy objectives, like learning about political situation in the region, looking for some alliance, and asking for the blessing for one or another political decision.126
The increased influence of the Russian Empire in the eighteenth century and followed incorporation of the Kalmyk Khanate in the Russian socio-political structure, lead to some changes in the political theology of Kalmyk Buddhism. Thus, under the pressure of the Russian Empire, the tradition of receiving the title of khan from Dalai Lama was first transferred to the Russian Tsar in 1757, and later on abandoned.127
If we compare the political theology of Kalmyk Buddhism with the ideal of the “democratic political theology” that was determined earlier, we can come to a conclusion, that Kalmyk Buddhism mostly does not fit the definition in regard of the period from 1640 to 1917. Although, there is there is indeed the positive attitude between religion and state relations, as these two are interconnected in the symbiotic relationships; the Kalmyk Buddhist theology, undoubtedly, does not support neither spiritual not political equality in the Kalmyk society. On the contrary, we believe, that the Kalmyk Buddhism seems to be an elite religion which benefits from the established social order.
3.3. Religious Polity of Kalmyk Buddhism
The polity of Kalmyk Buddhism had three types of internal hierarchy: depending on monk’s
126 Baira Ochirova, “Tradicii Kalmytskikh Palomnichestv v Tibet” (Traditions of the Kalmyk Pilgrimages to Tibet), in Nauchnye Problemy Gumanitarnyx Issledovanij, 2 (2010): 150.
127National Archive of the Kalmyk Republic.Ф. 36 Оп 1.Д. 316. Л. 74-74.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
specialization, monastic and administrative.
Depending on the specialization of his education, a monk could obtain a title of: bagshi (Kalmyk:
багши) – the teacher of Buddhist philosophy; emchi (Kalmyk: эмчи), who was specializing in medicine; zuragchi(Kalmyk: зурхачи) –astrologer, or zarachi (Kalmyk: зарачи) – a painter.128
The monastic hierarchy also consisted of four levels: (1) surhalin-kebun (Kalmyk: сургалин-кебyн) – a secular student who is preparing to join the monastic order (2) mandzhi (Kalmyk:
манджи) – a lowest level of ordination (3) getsul (Kalmyk: гецул) – a monk who is already 20 years old but keeps less than 200 vows and 53 rules (4) gelung (Kalmyk: гелюнг) – 25 years old, who keeps 200 and 53 rules.129
The third type of hierarchy, which is at our particular interests, is an internal administrative hierarchy in the Kalmyk khuruls (temple). Similarly to the other regions where Gelukpa was a dominants school, until the end of eighteenth–beginning of the nineteenth centuries, the head of the Kalmyk administrative hierarchy was the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama had an authority to appoint the Kalmyk head lamas, to authorize the building of new monasteries, and deciding the direction of the internal development of the Buddhist community. The direct head of the Kalmyk monastic order in Kalmykia, who was in charge of fulfilling the Dalai-Lama’s orders, was the Kalmyk head lama.130
One of the peculiarities of the Kalmyk Buddhist polity is its connection with the administrative division of the Kalmyk Khanate. Thus, by the eighteenth century, the Kalmyk Khanate was
128Zhitesky, Ocherki Byta Astrakhanskikh Kalmykov (Essays on Life Astrakhan Kalmyks), 51.
129Ibid., 50.
130VasiliyBakunin, Opisaniye Kalmytskikh Narodov (Description of the Kalmyk People) (Elista: Kalmytskoye knizhnoye izdatel'stvo, 1995), 32.
‧
divided into eleven uluses131: Erkhetenevsky, Harakhulovsky, Bagutovsky, Bol’shikh and Malykhzuyrganov, Khoben-noyonsky, Habuchinovsky, Barunovsky, Tsokhorovsky, Kereitsky, Caatanovsky and Derbetovsy. The khurul belonged to ulus (an administrative unit of Kalmyk tribes) and the ecclesiastics from other uluses could not get involved in its matters. The head of the all monasteries in the whole ulus was called an akh-bagshi (Kalmyk: ах-багши).132 The post of akh-bagshi was elected by all khuruls, and approved by the head Kalmyk lama.133 Henceforth, we can say that the local religious organizations were moderately independent from the centre, as they could elect their own leader.
Starting from 1800 due to the reform posed on the Kalmyk Buddhism by the Russian Emperor, the akh-bagshis started to be in charge of the head lama election, and was started to be called the Shadzhin Lama (the head lama of Kalmyk people). After the election, the candidate on the post of the Shadzhin Lama had to also be approved by the Russian emperor.134
The head of one monastery was called bagshi (Kalmyk: багши) or akhlachi (Kalmyk: ахлачи).
Bagshi or akhlachi had to be a fully ordinate monks level of gelung, and his responsibilities comprised supervision of prayers and ceremonies, and management of the sangha.135 Bagshi was also in charge of teaching the philosophy in the monastic schools. The post of bagshi was elected and lifelong.136
Another important member of the Kalmyk Buddhist polity was a gebko (Kalmyk: gebko). The
131A name for the administrative unit of Kalmyk people.
132GenadijO. Avlyaev, Proishozhdenie KalmyckogoNaroda(The Origins of the Kalmyk People), (Elista:
Kalmyckoeknizhnoeizdatel’stvo, 2002), 58.
133AndreyKurapov,BuddizmiVlast' v KalmytskomKhanstvev XVII – XVIIIvv.(Buddhism and the Power in the Kalmyk Khanate in XVII – XVIIICenturies)(Elista: Dzhangar,2007), 137.
134Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Rossiskoj Imperii” (Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire), accessed March 3, http://www.runivers.ru/lib/book3130.
135Zhitesky, OcherkiBytaAstrakhanskikhKalmykov, 50.
136Kurapov,Buddizmivlast' vkalmytskomkhanstveXVII – XVIIIvv,73.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
gebko was elected annually by all the monks living in khurul, and his responsibilities included the supervision of the monk’s obedience to Vinaya code and the general order of a monastery.137
There are even more positions in the administrative hierarchy of the Kalmyk Buddhist polity, however, they are not relevant for our research.
There is no age limit on what time a person can join monastic order138, but usually the education for future lamas started at the age of 8-10 and ends in 17. After finishing their education they could choice whether live the same life as lay people, with the only difference that they were signed up to local khuruls and had to go and conduct the prayers there. The lamas who live outside of the monastery had the same status as layman, and had to follow the same laws.
Moreover, lamas who lived outside the monasteries had to pay the same taxes as the laymen, with only difference that his work will be his monastic specialization. The sangha living in the monastery had a higher status than layman, and were free from tax payment.139
The khuruls’ property comes from donations and religious services of the Buddhist sangha. The received property is divided into three parts: the first one is given to a monk, who earned it; the second one is distributed between all the members of khurul, depending on one’s place in the hierarchy and administration; and the third one is left to khurul.140
Moving on to the internal governing of the Buddhist polity, Pozdneev argues that the Mongolian societies did not have a strict guideline on how to manage one monastery, and all the decisions
137Zhitesky, Ocherki byta Astrakhanskikh kalmykov, 50.
138Ibid., 50.
139Alexei Pozdneev, Ocherki byta buddiyskikh monastyrey i buddiyskogo dukhovenstva v Mongolii v svyazi s otnosheniyem sego poslednego k narodu(Sketches of life of Buddhist monasteries and Buddhist clergy in Mongolia in relation to the treatment of latter to the people)(St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences typography, 1887), 115.
140Zhitesky, Ocherki Byta Astrakhanskikh Kalmykov,54.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
were in the hands of the head lamas.141 Due to the lack of data on the code of rules of Kalmyk khuruls, we will examine some provisions of Mongolian Zuu Erdene monastery, as we believe it should be similar to the Kalmyk ones.
Thus, one of provisions states, “if gelung, getsul, or bagshi commits a crime, which is related to the four foundations of monastic live142, or if he is caught drinking alcohol, this will be considered as a violation of monastic vows. The monk who violated the vows will be stripped off his monastic clothes and attributes, and given eighty hits. If later he improves his behaviour, he can be returned his monastic clothes, his vows can be restored, but he will be given lower position in the worshipping ceremonies. However, if he keeps violating the rules, he will be kicked out of the monastery. At the same time, if a monk who already has violated the rules of the monastery committees a crime outside of it, he will be, without consideration, kicked out of the monastery and trialled according to the secular law. His personal property will turn into the property of monastery treasury.”143
The other provision which is at our particular interest declares: “if a monk only a little bit violated the four foundations of monastic laws, such as he drank vodka as a medicine, or if he drank a little of vodka under the pressure of others, as a punishment he will have to clean the monastery and monastery yard for three days. After that he will be ordered to do thousand bows, and donate one horse or amount of money of one horse to the monastery treasury. If a monk does not have any money or property, he has to work the demand period of time, and only after that he will be allowed to participate in the worshiping ceremonies.”
141Pozdneev, Ocherki Byta buddiiskikh Monastyrey i Buddiiskogo Dukhovenstva v Mongolii v Svyazi s Otnosheniyem sego Poslednego k Narodu, 182.
142Chastity, theft, murder, and lies.
143Pozdneev, Ocherki Byta Buddiiskikh Monastyrey I Buddiiskogo Dukhovenstva v Mongolii, 183.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Consequently, we can see that the punishment for the violation of the grand rules of monastic life is the same for all monks, and does not depend on the monk’s place in the hierarchy. Moreover, the fact that ecclesiastic does not possess an immunity from the secular laws when he commits a crime, both inside and outside of the monastery, demonstrates the respect of Kalmyk Buddhism towards the secular law and the secular authorities However, in the quarrel between two monks, the seniority means the less severe punishment. For instance, “if lama has a fight with an older lama, he should be given ten hits in front of that older lama. However, if an older lama is not right and hit a younger lama, older lama should be put on his knees in front of all clergy.”144
Although, the high ordination gives a monk some security, the high ordinate lamas are still accountable to the rest of the sangha. Thus, according to the rules, the high positioned lamas have a duty to serve as well as take a good care of their subordinates; otherwise, they have to face the consequences. “If one of the high lamas…is too cruel towards the rest of lamas, if they do not take care of the younger lamas, and do not teach with their bests, they should be striped of from their high status to the status of average lama. In their place should be put a person with a dignity, intelligence, and attentive towards the other lamas.145Although, this provision existed, it in is unclear, who the change of the head of the administration could be implemented, as there were not any specific check up mechanisms.
From the aforesaid, we can come to a conclusion that although, there are some roots of the democratic features in the religious polity of Kalmyk Buddhism, generally speaking, it reminds the strong centralized system where all the important decisions are made by the head lama146 and
144Ibid., 184-185.
145Ibid, 186.
146 Pozdneev, Ocherki Byta buddiiskikh Monastyrey i Buddiiskogo Dukhovenstva v Mongolii v Svyazi s Otnosheniyem sego Poslednego k Narodu, 182.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the actual legal status of the sangha is actually higher than the laymen.147 Furthermore, the laity did not have any influence over the religious polity of Kalmyk Buddhism, and their responsibilities were to fulfil the requests of the sangha and the nobility. The only entirely democratic feature of the religious polity of the Kalmyk Buddhism is the moderate independence of khuruls, as they belong to a particular ulus. And even this characteristics is more connected with the loose tribal organization of the Kalmyks, than the independent nature of its local Buddhist organizations,
Therefore, we will conclude that from the three characteristics of the “democratic ecclesiology”, namely: the rules and norms that impart institutional checks on religious leaders, moderately equal power between clergy and laity, and the autonomy of local religious organizations”, the only one which more or less fit is the autonomy of local religious organizations.
3.4. Political Interaction of Kalmyk Buddhism with the Russian state
Since their arrival to the Caspian steppes, the Russian state sought to include the Kalmyks in its sphere of political influence. As the political contacts between Russia and Kalmyks became more frequent, Kalmyk Buddhism, mainly represented by the Buddhist sangha, started to be involved in the interactions with the Russian state.
The seventeenth century’s Russian historical records show that the Kalmyk Buddhist sangha was not only participating but sometimes even leading the Kalmyk diplomatic envoys. For instance,
147 Alexei Pozdneev, Ocherki byta buddiiskikh monastyrey i buddiiskogo dukhovenstva v Mongolii v svyazi s otnosheniyem sego poslednego k narodu (Sketches of life of Buddhist monasteries and Buddhist clergy in Mongolia in relation to the treatment of latter to the people)(St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences typography, 1887), 115.
‧
in June 1644, the Kalmyk envoy from Daichin tayishi was headed by bagshi Soving148; in 1650 the head lama of Kalmyk people participated in the Russo-Kalmyk negotiations.149
Starting from 1645, the Russian envoy to Kalmyk uluses Alexander Kudryavtsev received an order from the Russian authorities: “Make them give the oaths according to their belief”150, and the Kalmyk Buddhism became an integral part of the Russo-Kalmyk political relations.
Henceforth, following the religious aspect of Kalmyk tradition of political legitimization of all treaties between Kalmyks and Russia were signed with the presence of Buddha statuette151 (Kalmyk: бурхн).
One of the first attempts of the direct involvement of the Russian authorities in the Kalmyk Buddhist affairs was an order given to Kazan’s governor P. S.Saltykov, though whose territories Kalmyks have to pass to reach Tibet, “do not let Ayuki’s envoys to China without the priorconsent of the Russian government”.152 As the Kalmyk pilgrimages to Tibet encompassed not only religious but also political implications, the Russian state authorities wanted to restrict the influence of Dalai Lama among the Kalmyks, and prevent the Kalmyks from finding the new alliance.153
The political interactions between the Kalmyk Buddhism and the Russian state reached its peak during the time when Shakur Lama was the head lama of the Kalmyk Buddhism. A.A. Kurapov argues that Shakur Lama was sent from Tibet in 1718, with one political goal – to persuade the
148MergenKichikov, ObrazovaniyeKalmytskogoKhanstva (TheFormationofKalmykKhanate) (Elista:
Kalmitskoeknizhnoeizdatelstvo, 1995), 75.
149Russian State Archieve of Ancient Acts.F. 119. Op. 1 1650. D.1 L. 136-136 ob.
150Russian State Archieve of Ancient Acts. F. 119. Op. 1.1645. D. 2. L. 327.
151Russian State Archieve of Ancient Acts.F. 119. Op. 1.1655. D. 2. L. 65.
152Russo-kitajskie Otnosheniya v XVII veke: Materialy i Document (Russo-Chinese relations in XVII century:
materials and documents), (Moscow: Nauka, 1978), 159.
153Kurapov ,Buddizm i Vlast' v Kalmytskom Khanstve v XVII – XVIII vv., 101-102.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Kalmyks to return to Dzungaria. However, the changed political situation in Dzungaria and the Kalmyk Khanate prevented him from fulfilling it.154
In 1724 at the meeting between Russian authorities represented by the Governor of Astrakhan Volynsky, Shakur lama suggested the Russian government to sign a treaty of an alliance of “two powers”: the power of Buddhist leader and the power of the secular ruler.155 The treaty was signed, but did not bring any effect on the relations between Kalmyk Buddhism and the Russian state.156
As we know, the Mongol-Oirat tradition of an alliance of two powers means that a secular ruler adopts Buddhism and becomes its protector. Shakur lama had changed the Mongol-Oirat traditional scheme in order to fit it to the reality of the Russian Empire. A.A. Kurapov viewed this willingness of closer cooperation and integration of Kalmyk Buddhism with the Russian state in the political disintegration of the Kalmyk Khanate, which was caused by the succession crisis after the death of Ayuki Khan in 1724.157 He argues that one of the main characteristics of Kalmyk Buddhism was the predisposition to have close relation with the political centre, and with the political conflict in the Kalmyk Khanate, the Russian state became that centre.158 Notwithstanding, whether Kurapov’s views are correct or not, the fact that the traditional scheme of the alliance of the “two powers” was changed so easily in order to fit the new political reality, indicates the high level of adaptability of Kalmyk Buddhism.
This nominal alliance between the Russian state and Shakur lama resulted in the increasing
154Ibid.,110.
155Ibid, 117.
156National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia.F. 36. Оp. 1 D.15. L. 61.
157Khodarkovsky, Where Two Worlds Met, 174.
158Kurapov,Buddizm i Vlast' v Kalmytskom Khanstve XVII – XVIII vv,116.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
authority of the Kalmyk Buddhist leader in Russo-Kalmyk political interactions. Thus, Shakur lama participated in the all most important negotiations between Kalmyks and Russia in 1720-1730s. Moreover, Russian representatives always consulted with Shakur lama during their visit, as they viewed Shakur lama as a spiritual leader, who can stabilize the political situation in the Kalmyk Khanate.159
The policies of Shakur Lama as a head of the Kalmyk Buddhism made the Kalmyk Buddhism in an ally of the Russian state. And Shakur Lama nearly became a Russian official: he was receiving salary; receiving a letters of awards; sending representatives for the coronation of Anna Ioannovna.160 Although, some might argues that the single behaviour of one lama does not represent the complete picture, we should not forget that we are talking about the head Kalmyk lama, who was officially appointed by Tibet, and who has the highest spiritual authority in the Kalmyk lands. Therefore, we argue that the policies of Shakur Lama lead to the change in the political interactions between Kalmyk Buddhism and the Russian state. If before, in its interactions with the Russian state the Kalmyk Buddhist sangha merely represented the interests of Kalmyk secular authorities, the policies of Shakur Lama made the Kalmyk Buddhist sangha in a separate actor with its own goals.
Even after the death of Shakur lama in1736161 the relations between Kalmyk Buddhism and the Russian state remained rather close. Thus, in 1756 Kalmyk Buddhist sangha went to Siberia to represent the interests of the Russian state and persuade Altay people to join the Empire.162 The fact that Kalmyk Buddhist sangha took a role of the diplomatic envoys of the Russian state
159Ibid.,129.
160Ibid,117-149.
161Ibid, 160.
162Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts.248. Op. 113. D. 1551. L. 663.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
demonstrates that the alliance of “two laws” initiated by Shakur Lama still existed.
After the large part of the Kalmyks left to Dzungaria, Russia annexed the Kalmyk Khanate’s lands, and the Kalmyk people were incorporated in the large governmental organization of the Russian authorities. Subsequently, Kalmyk Buddhism also practically became a part of Russian state government scheme.
Austine Waddell, in his book “Buddhism and Lamaism of Tibet” provides the following description of relations between Kalmyk Buddhism and Russia after 1771: “the intercourse with the priest-god at Lhasa was strictly forbidden. Nor are they allowed to accept from Dalai Lama
Austine Waddell, in his book “Buddhism and Lamaism of Tibet” provides the following description of relations between Kalmyk Buddhism and Russia after 1771: “the intercourse with the priest-god at Lhasa was strictly forbidden. Nor are they allowed to accept from Dalai Lama