source: https://doi.org/10.7892/boris.96647 | downloaded: 25.9.2021 This work is licensed under theCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0License. DOI 10.1515/9783110450934-013, iiu traditions ligious hyhadtha heard they us n oesadmgclaiiist con the to abilities magical and powers ing rules. Ke social and ated forme of creation In the in resulting concepts Of lite Neyi dhist Sometim 1I bög šasin, paper the Buryatia, century nineteenth late she to to aims Mongolia century sixteenth discursi its ing female and male the specialists, shamans religious Mongolian and Buddhist betan onl not did century sixteenth Abstract: Cr Knowledg Entangled Ka ihfliln jewels wish-fulfilling letter  Iu h lsia Mon classical The etepplrspellin popular the se ywo ra ab my ré ea G usp-omo iea udim i hagiograph His . Tibetan of pa-form lugs dGe te nt j u h ecino h nieosrlgosseilss h hmn,when shamans, the specialists, religious indigenous the of reaction the out Ye nin hc sgi is which da da rd paper ro inof tion crigto ccording s: ei ,b sb aK ll h pedo iea Buddhism Tibetan of spread The em duction nt dl ‘ tals ut oth ow teachin örg ollmar-Paulenz Iw gto h usinhwrlgostaiin r discursi are traditions religious how question the on ight efrtdcdso h eetet centur seventeenth the of decades first he ve tN ve ly ac čiT nw öl, go l hwhwthe how show ill ol eyi affirmed. omto n nage itrclconfi historical entangled and formation Te Wy netand oncept ini edrdaccordin rendered is lian totteha the ithout go , oyin (. dto ed č lie gs Re iT cigadBlack and aching ,t ,S ft ¹ ynwsapocigtheir approaching was oyin hus Č nki stasieae codn oteinternationall the to according transliterated is anskrit tr eshamans he ligious naaiynerike indamani-yin ar av aa Lama ‘Dalai yr eled iiainpoeso oa eiiu rcie and practices religious local of process eification č ap ek. sl notnvoetcnrnain ewe Ti- between confrontations violent often in esult gl Fo nnwdy atr ogla sn i heal- his using Mongolia, Eastern nowadays in ra oba © 2017Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz, Published by DeGruyter. rw tc nearl in ctice ‘ te Bereitgestellt von |UniversitätsbibliothekBern eC lh as ’ l-nw iea n Mon and Tibetan ell-known achi ve ,T ʼ Tr gt inste soyo eiin nage history entangled , of istory tteMnost the to Mongols the rt nl rdto ntedsorelevel. discourse the on tradition ingle btnBdhs,Mnos Buryats, Mongols, Buddhism, ibetan oR ng aditions ult to Heruntergeladen am |28.12.16 09:28 dof ad ,witnnearl written ), achewiltz fteshamans the of h ogla ein ntelate the in regions Mongolian the y- ure oenInrAi.B analyz- By Asia. Inner modern ‘ aa Blama Dalai re sa  gion: Fa y, ,w ya dthe nd y, ith: gu h ogla Bud- Mongolian the t h xeto fthe of exception the ith ʼ.T Tbtni trans- is Tibetan go entitled ‘ ra ’ etr late century Ye interms lian he a come has in,fo late from tions, llow Angemeldet aln of Garland Te ya ,h vely aching owever, cc r, to epted tells ,r cre- be e- ʼ, 232 Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz

[…]these shamans talked to each other: ‘From the western direction avery powerful lama is coming.Upon his arrivaltherewill be no placewhere he can stop and rest,so, when he calls on us,wewill not come’ (Prajñasagara 1739,fol. 53r-53v).

The text suggests that in their refusaltomeet the Buddhist monk the shamans acted as aunifiedsocial body. This information is contrary to all historical knowledge about shamans. In historicalMongolian communities male and fe- male shamans wereritual specialists who wereindividuallycalled by the spirits and who acted on their own. We do not have anyhistorical evidence of ‘shaman- ic associationsʼ or anykind of institutional shamanic organization in the Mongo- lian territories other than the short passageIjust quoted. Why, then, are the sha- mans treated in our sourceasacompact social body? Another case: In the late seventeenth centurythe Kangxi emperor of the newlyestablished Qing dynasty in had successfullyintegratedthe Mon- gols of Inner and Outer Mongolia into his empire. Subsequently, the Qing dynas- ty promoted ‘inner peaceʼ in the outer regions of the Empire by legal measures. The first lawcodetobecommissioned by the Qing was the so called ‘Mongol law code of the Kangxi Eraʼ (1662–1722), published sometime after1694(Heuschert 1998, 46–50). This lawcode, of all in all 152 articles, contains one article on the community of the Buddhist lamas and the community of the male and female shamans (Mo. lam-a-nar-yin ayimaγ.Bögeiduγan-u ayimaγ)(Heuschert 1998, 215–216[fol. 39v-41r]). The article lays down the punishments administered to lamas and shamans who do not follow the socio-religious injunctions (Mo. yosun)oftheir respective communities.The Qing administration thus dealt with the highlyindividual indigenous religious specialists of the Mongols in the sameway as they dealt with the Buddhist monks. They treated bothassocial groups and as juridicalbodies. Actually, it was this lawcode that acouple of years agomade me aware of the rigorous reification process the Mongolian male and female shamans were subjectedtoand which led to the discursive formation of areligious tradition called in translation ‘teaching of the shamansʼ (Mo. böge-ner-ün šasin)or‘vener- ation of the shamansʼ (Mo. bögemörgöl)inseventeenth centuryMongolia, long before the ‘shamanism paradigmʼ was formulated in Enlightenment Europe (Kollmar-Paulenz 2012). Shamanic practices and shamanic imagery have been and are, despite the stronginfluenceofglobal neo-shamanism, not acoherent system, but rather acollection of representations, which can appear at different places and be employed in various ways (Humphrey 1999,192). Their fluidityde- fies standardization. Even today, they are best studied in their particularsocial settingsincontexts of local power relations. Notwithstanding that,inlate six- teenth and earlyseventeenth century Mongolia we can observehow these

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28 Of Yellow Teaching and Black 233 local practices that wereperformedbyparticularreligious specialists were graduallyturned into an abstract,homogeneous and ahistorical entity by sub- suming them under ageneric terminologythat discursively identifiedaspecific field of social interaction and was articulated mainlyinantagonistic categories (Kollmar-Paulenz 2013,167– 173). In the following,Iwill explore how this stand- ardized and stable religious tradition of ‘shamanismʼ was established and natu- ralizedinearly-modern Mongolia and shaped people’sperception of social real- ity.Ihope thatacloser look at the discursive formation of Mongolian ‘shamanismʼ will help to shedlight on the general question how religious tradi- tions emerge and are established. To this aim, after some shortremarks on my conceptual approach, Iwill first focus on the events that led to the Buddhist transformation of the Mongolian religious landscape in the late sixteenthcentu- ry.Secondly, Iwill examine the discourse that accompanied and shaped this transformation and led to the construction of areified system of ‘shamanismʼ. The third part of this chapter concentrates on the Buryat-Mongols and analyzes the changes the discourse on the ‘teaching of the shamansʼ underwent under Russian-European influenceinthe nineteenth century. The discursive creation of a ‘teaching of the shamansʼ touches on one partic- ular aspect in recent theoretical debates in , the relation be- tween Non-European and European knowledge systems.Ifone is familiar with the Mongolian configuration of the ‘teachingofthe shamansʼ and earlykey texts likeDorji Banzarov’shighlyinfluential TheBlack Faith or Shamanism amongthe Mongols,first published in 1846 and to this dayone of the classics in shamanism research (Banzarov 1846), it is impossibletoignore that the Euro- pean debate about shamans was influenced by the Mongolian discourse. Up to now,however,this goes mainlyunnoticed in scholarship. Although postcolonial theory explicitlyacknowledges, in the words of Robert Young, ‘thatthe intellec- tual and culturaltraditions developedoutside the west constituteabodyof knowledge that can be deployed to great effect against the political and cultural hegemonyofthe westʼ (Young 2010,65), the debate stillprivileges Western knowledge systems, often to the exclusion of their non-Western counterparts. In- deed, scholarlyopinion has shifted from the assertion of the completesilence of native voices to what Charles Hallisey has called the ‘intercultural mimesisʼ:that is, ‘aspectsofaculture of asubjectified people influenced the investigator to rep- resent thatcultureinacertain mannerʼ (Hallisey 1995,33). And yet, the history of those ‘aspects of acultureʼ in theirown contexts and networks of relations and interactions is still ignored. All too often, non-European knowledge cultures seem to emerge out of their obscurity and come into existenceonlyintheir rela- tion and response to the encounter with Europe, in the process losing theirown historical legacy. In this way, the stereotypes of an active,theory-producing West

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28 234 Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz and apassive,theory-consumingnon-West,are continued rather than aban- doned. We mayask ourselveswhether it is still promisingtofollow theoretical mod- els into which unquestioned dichotomies of the European ‘selfʼ and its ‘otherʼ are inscribed. With regard to aglobal (Kollmar-Paulenz 2010,265 – 268. 274–275; Bergunder2011, 50 –55;Kollmar-Paulenz 2013,185 – 187), it could be more fruitful to undertake aradicallynew positioning,todoanew surveyof the religious landscapes and to draw new maps thatnolonger privilegeEurope as the beginning and end of the history of , to explore new spaces and historical entanglements. To realize such an endeavor, Religious Studies could (and indeed has alreadystarted to do so) probe into approaches that are used in Global History Studies, particularlythe concept of history as an ‘ensemble of entanglementsʼ (Conrad, Randeria 2002). Writing history as entanglement en- tails taking the manyinteractions of different world regions as astarting point for atransnationalhistoriographythat concentrates on the de-centralizedchar- acter of globalentanglements. Intimatelyconnected to, or indeed aspecial focus of, aGlobal History perspective,anentangled history approach does not treat the subjects of historical examination as stable, givenentities, but as man- made constructions into which specific mechanisms of power are inscribed. This approach no longer allows for afixed, regional-geographic center or apriv- ileged subject,and opts for a ‘co-equalnessʼ with regard to epistemic cultures.² It stresses the fundamental role that the interactions between different regionsof the world have playedfor the formation of aglobalmodernity.³ Extendingthe entangled history approach to religious cultures,Iwill exam- ine the respective interactions and entanglements of the Tibeto-Mongolian Bud- dhist cultural regions. My main geographical focus will thus be on Tibet,Mon- golia, China and Russia. To counteract the still unsolvedproblems of this approach which Isee mainlyinthe terms and taxonomies we use for analysis and which are all taken from aEuropean intellectual context,⁴ Iwill combine the entangled history approach with amicro-historical analysis,inwhich special attention will be paid to local dynamics and concrete historicalspaces. Methodologically, this contribution is situated in historicaldiscourse analy- sis thatasks about the ways how in the historical process knowledge is produced (Landwehr 2008). Irelyonavariety of individual Mongolian and Tibetan sources

 CompareChakrabarty , .  One illuminating case-studyisprovided by vander Veer .  Forthe problem of the universal use of historicallyparticular analytical categories and theo- ries see Pernau .

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28 Of Yellow Teaching and Black Faith 235 that belong to different literary genres:historical chronicles⁵ and biographies;⁶ colophons of the Mongolian Buddhist canon (Mo. Ganjuur)(Ligeti 1942; Kas’ya- nenko 1993; Siluɣun budaɣun üye onoqui neretü sudur); ritual texts, both Bud- dhist and non-Buddhist (Heissig1992; Chiodo 2009); legal documents (Heu- schert 1998;Bajarsajchan2004), and bi-lingual terminological dictionaries (Dagyig mkhas pa’ibyung gnas;Yeshesrdo rje1959). This heterogeneous corpus of textsallows me to follow the dynamics of the discourse in different segments of the historical realities it produces.The sources span atime period of roughly three hundred years, the earliest having been written around the year 1600,the most recent in the lastdecade of the nineteenth century.Theyhavetheir origins mostlyinthe Inner and Outer Mongolian regions that duringthat period were part of the Manchu-Chinese Qing Empire, and nearlyall of them are written by Buddhist authors. Forthe nineteenth century,Ialso draw on Buryat-Mongo- lian historical chronicles (Toboyin 1863; Yum Čüng 1875). The Buryats weresub- jects of the Russian Empire, afactwhich did have asignificant impact on the formationoftheir knowledge systems, as we will latersee.

2The Mongols turn Buddhist

When in 1578the then most powerful ruler in the Mongolian steppes,Altan Qaɣan of the TümedMongols, and the Tibetan Buddhist monk bSod nams rgya mtsho,the later Third Dalai Lama, met at the temple of Čabčiyal at Kökenor lake, theirmeeting marked the beginning of the Buddhist domination of the Mongolian regions(Sagaster 2007). Soon after the meetingofthe ruler and the monk, Tibetan lamas began to spread the dharma, the Buddhist teaching, among the different Mongolian peoples, and within atime span of not much more than fifty years the Mongols had nearlycompletelytaken up Tibetan Bud- dhist concepts and practicesand wereeffectively Buddhicized. Onlyinthe adja- cent regions of nowadays Buryat-Mongolia this process slowed down and Bud- dhism took root in these regions as late as the eighteenth century.The historic meeting did not onlylead to the formation of anew social classinMongolian societies, the Buddhist sangha,that waspolitically put on apar with the Mongo- lian nobility,but also brought about the – at first glance – thorough Buddhist

 Vanchikova ;Anonymous ;Haenisch ;Anonymous th century;Anonymous ;Lubsandanjin ;Byamba Erke Dayičing ;Siregetü Guosi Dharma ;Rasi- pungsuɣ /;Jimbadorji –.  Prajñasagara ;Bawden ;Kämpfe a; Kämpfe b; Kämpfe ;Kämpfe a; Kämpfe b.

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28 236 KaréninaKollmar-Paulenz transformation of the Mongolian religious landscape. Thislandscape was char- acterized by amultiplicity of local religious practices that weregrounded in and at the sametime constituted aspecific perspectivist ontology that has re- centlybeen coined as ‘transcendental perspectivismʼ (Holbraad, Willerslev 2007). Mongolian baiɣal, ‘natureʼ that is not separate from but includes human beings, is envisagedasvibrant with entities that have their own ‘majestyʼ (Mo. sür)oreffectiveness (Mo. čadal)which is simply there (Humphrey 2003, 136). Shamansreceive their power from these energies which are oftenvisualized as spirits (Humphrey 2003,151). Framedinanarrative of the clash of two oppos- ing world views, the Buddhist encounter with these local religious specialists was in manyaspects abattle for social and political authority.The Buddhist monks were quick to challengethe authority of the dominant Mongolian reli- gious specialists, the male and femaleshamans. They had on theirside the Mon- golian rulersand the nobility who actively soughttoimplement the new religion among their subjects. The local rulersinlate sixteenth century Mongolia issued laws that prohibited shamanizing and thosereligious practices related to it (Hae- nisch 1955,fol. 77r). Such practices included the of the Ongγod, the pow- erful ancestor spirits and spiritual helpers of the shamans,and blood . However,the and practices thatbelonged to every-day socio-religious life, like the worship and cult of the mountain, the fire cult or the veneration of the hearth ,aswellasthe various groups of , demonsand spirits believed to enliventhe world, were not forbidden, but graduallytransformed and incor- porated into Buddhist practices and beliefs.⁷ Local rulers prohibitedthe practice of shamanizing,and also actively perse- cuted the male and femaleshamans, as the Mongolian biographyofAltan Qaɣan, entitled ‘Sūtranamed “precious clearness”ʼ (Mo. Erdeni tunumalneretü sudur), suggests:

Afterthey had set on fire the outer Ongγod images, they weakened and eliminated the ec- static and ignorant male and female shamans(Anonymous 1607, fol. 29r).

The burning of the Ongγod,the spirit-helpers of the shamans and thus of highly symbolic value, is reported in our Mongolian and also some Tibetan sources (Ngagdbang blo bzangrgyamtsho 1984,148). The destruction of the Ongɣod and other shamanic paraphernalia, like the clothes or the drum,contributed to the growinginvisibility of shamanic representations in the social field.

 See the Collected Works of the Third MergenGegen (–)(MergenGegen )who amonghis manywritings composed Buddhist texts for local spirits (Humphrey,Ujeed , ).

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28 Of Yellow Teaching and Black Faith 237

The secular authorities did not onlytry to put an end to the activities of the shamans by purgesand by law, but alsobribed the people into performing Bud- dhist rituals. Accordingtothe Garland of wish-fulfilling jewels the ruler of the Qorčin Mongols in Eastern Mongolia publiclyproclaimed material rewards, for example acow or ahorse, if the local people learned to recite Buddhist formulas (Prajñasagara1739, fol. 46v). Moreover,the monks themselvesemployed this method to win people over,asthe same sourcereports (Prajñasagara 1739, fol. 74r-74v). While the central Qing government did not actively persecutethe shamans, the imperial policy of supportingthe Mongolian Buddhist institutions indirectly contributed to the social marginalization of the shamans in the Mongolian soci- eties. The success of this reconfiguration of Mongolian social reality is again transparent in the legislation: the article about the lamas and the shamans was annulled at alater date in favorofanew article which, however,onlyad- dressed the lamas (Bajarsajchan 2004,224– 229; Heuschert 1998, 136–137). From then on, the shamans wererendered invisible in the Qing lawcodes.

3Creating anew religious tradition: The ‘false view of the male andfemaleshamansʼ

The Buddhist advent in Mongolia was accompanied by anarrativethatestablish- ed Buddhism as the ‘true teachingʼ and the shamanic practicesasthe ‘false viewʼ (Mo. buruɣuüjel). In atext fragment about the ritual repelling of bad omens found in Xarbuxyn Balgas and dating around the year 1600 (Chiodo 2009, 182), Icame upon the first such statement that singled out shamans as adistinct social group and attributed to them aspecific world-view.The appellation buruγuüjel-tü bögeiduγan, ‘male and female shamans possessingafalse viewʼ,was often used in direct opposition to burqan-u šasin,the ‘teachingof the Buddhaʼ,asthe following example illustrates:

In this way, the false view [of the shamans] was brought to its end, and the teachingofthe Buddha emergedpureand clear (Prajñasagara 1739,fol. 54r).

The network of conceptsusedtoarticulate this narrative and the normative as- sumptions underlying it are part of the Indo-Tibetan knowledge systems. Mongo- lian buruγuüjel translates the Tibetan term lta log (‘aberrant viewʼ)which in a Tibetan Buddhist context usually denounces controversial doctrinal views and thus an alleged erroneous understanding of the dharma and its practice. This philosophical terminologybelongstoabroader inner-Buddhist discourse

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28 238 Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz about philosophicaldoctrines and their soteriological values (Lopez 1996). Thus, the Mongolian use of buruɣuüjel confirms an inner-Buddhistdiscourse about the religious ‘otherʼ.Its application illustrates the reifyingprocesses in the Buddhist discourse of the time with regardtothe shamans and shows that theirpractices werejudgedfrom anormative and exclusivist Buddhist viewpoint.The terms em- ployed, üjel, ‘[world]viewʼ,and nom, ‘teachingʼ (in the statement ɣadaɣadu nom, ‘outer teachingʼ), are associated with concepts and practices that are considered karmicallywrong, like blood sacrifices.⁸ However,inthe communicative process of translation, the Tibetan philosophical termand concept of lta log⁹ was subtly accommodated to the Mongolian context.The semantic field of Mongolian üjel, ‘the act of seeing,beholding,view, conceptionʼ stresses the notionofthe individ- ual as interdependent part of the community and the role visuality plays in the individual’srelationship with the group. In contrast to the Tibetan concept of lta ba which focuses on philosophicalexpositions, the discourse structuredbythe semanticfield of üjel emphasizes the role of the actors and their performance, as well as their emotional and intellectual responses to seeing and being seen. The attribute ‘male and female shamansʼ designates the actors of the ‘false viewʼ who in the narrativesare recurrentlyrepresented as ‘morallybadʼ (Mo. maɣu), as fake-healers and evil sorcerers.This personalization givesusanimpor- tant clue about the structural aspect that allowed the Tibetan monks to include the male and femaleshamans in the same social field of interaction as them- selvesand thus ascribe acommon generic taxonomytothem. Their activities are described in competition to the Buddhist monks: they performed publicly as healers and exorcists for the benefit of their communities.Such activities have not onlybeen the main field of interaction for shamanic practitioners, but also for manyBuddhist religious practitionersthat are subsumed under the Tibetan generic term chos pa, ‘people who are expert of religious practiceʼ, as aTibetan dictionary explains (Zhang Yisun 1985, 840). ManyTibetan monks are very apt at employing rituals and practices primarilyaimed at healing and divination, at exorcizingand conjuring up evil forces. The Mongolian Bud-

 See, for example, the extensive discussion about the ‘aberrant cuttingʼ (Tib. gcod log)practice in Khams smyon ‘Jigs bral chos kyi seng ge ,fol. v-r. An aberrant view necessarily leads to an aberrant practice: the author accuses the practitioners of the ‘aberrant cuttingʼ of cannibalism and the use of drugs (fol. v).  The dGe lugs pa-understandingof‘aberrant viewʼ which is also valid in the Mongolian Bud- dhist contextincludes ‘adenial of cause, effect,functionality,and existent phenomenaʼ (Hop- kins , –). The ‘aberrant viewʼ is one of the five ‘afflicted viewsʼ (Tib. lta ba nyon mongs can)which build one of the six root afflictionsaccording to the dGe lugs pa Prāsaṅgi- ka-Mādhyamika philosophy(Hopkins , ).

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28 Of Yellow Teaching and Black Faith 239 dhist sources are full of stories in which aBuddhist lama competes with asha- man in healing asick person. The Garland of wish-fulfilling jewels reports the par- ticularlyimpressingstory of an old blind femaleshaman who is healedbythe famousBuddhist NeyičiToyin and in the aftermath ‘the shamaness worshipped with true and sincerefaithʼ (Prajñasagara 1739,fol. 44r). The sha- mans occupied the samesocial role and function as manyaBuddhist monk, and werethus categorized according to theirsocial function. Yetother taxonomies, not all of them stressing differences, structured the emerging discourse about ‘the teachingofthe shamansʼ.InMongolian texts of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the terms šasin mörgöl for ‘Buddhismʼ and bögemörgöl for ‘Shamanismʼ wereused. Mongolian mörgöl literallydenotes ‘the act of bowingʼ,stressingthe bodily performance of venerating the dharma or,respectively, theshamans. Both terms emphasize the visibleand performative aspectsofthe Mongolian embodied construction of ‘religionʼ.Perhaps the most importantreason for the rapid Buddhist transformation of the Mongolian societ- ies lies exactlyinthe fact that the Mongols and the Tibetans shared avery similar socio-religious habitus. The habitus,asBourdieu has shown, cannot become subjecttoreflection without being distorted. Habitual knowledge remains inar- ticulate and unable to express itself. In afundamental wayitisanchored in our bodies and maybeaddressed as practical and enacted knowledge (Bourdieu 1993, 122–146). The shared Mongolian-Tibetan habitus is most obvious in the on- tological perception of the naturalenvironment which bothTibetans and Mon- gols imagine as enlivened space constituted of natural entities whose unpredict- able energies and powers call for intersubjective interactions. In earlymodern Mongolian societies the acting out of such embodied knowledge wasofcrucial importance.To‘spread the dharmaʼ first of all implied to carry into effect Bud- dhist rituals and practices and to inscribe them bodily,inloud recitations of Mantras and Dhāraṇīs, in acts of bowing and throwing one’sbodytothe earth etc. Further,incounteraction to the shamanic performance thatalways needs apublic, the dharma also had to be performed publicly. The bodyitself became avisiblemarker of aBuddhist religious identity,and thereforeboth bodily per- formance and spatial presencewereeffectivemeanstoappropriate socio-reli- gious power and prestige.The Buddhist monks provided additional and some- times alsonew meaningstobodilyengrainedpatterns of socio-religious knowledge,thereby slowlyand subtlytransforming existing practicesand rit- uals. It is important to note that these new meaningful conceptions did not re- place the older ones but weretransformations of them. The ‘teachingofthe shamansʼ was also addressed as (Mo.) qara šasin, ‘black teachingʼ,inbinary opposition to (Mo.) sira šasin, ‘yellow teachingʼ,which the dGe lugs pa, the dominant Tibetan-Buddhist school in Mongolia, usedasa

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28 240 KaréninaKollmar-Paulenz self-referential designation in the Mongolian regions.Mongolian qara, ‘blackʼ,is ahighlyinauspicious color among the Mongols. Therefore, normative assump- tions underlie the narrativesofthe ‘black teachingʼ,authorizing and naturalizing adefinitionofshamans as asocial group whose concepts and practicesprinci- pallyendanger their respective social communities,imaginingthem to apply negative forces to achievetheir sinister aims. We know from Buddhist chronicles and the few shamanic which have been written down that very soon sha- mans adopted and reconfigured this appellation, this time with apartlypositive self-ascription: they associated ‘blackʼ with spiritual potency. From then on, black shamans wereconsidered to be the most powerful ones, untouched by Buddhist conceptsand practices. Yetatthe same time they were believed to be potentiallyharmful to their communities.Thisambivalent imageofthe ‘black shamanʼ is still valid today(Heissig 1992, 205; Pedersen 2011, 76 and 88). On the one hand the Mongolian discourse, structured by the terms üjel, nom and šasin,has to be read against the Tibetan epistemic background. On the other hand the Tibetan concepts thatweretransportedbythese terms wereadjusted to their new communicative contexts. With regard to their respectivecontexts, the Tibetan terms have abroad semantic scope, but,asalreadyexplicated, most often they emphasize awell-ordered system of doctrines and teachings.There- fore, when the practices and rituals the shamans performedwereappropriated as ‘[world]-viewʼ or ‘teachingʼ on the discourse level, this appropriationbrought about achangeinthe Mongols’ perception of socio-religious reality.The sha- mans were now treated as adistinct group which adhered to afixed and stable corpus of rules, doctrines and practices,adevelopment thatisalso attested in the afore-mentioned legal codes of the Qing Empire. Discourse and social struc- ture are thus dialecticallyrelated, as discursive acts are simultaneouslydescrip- tive and constitutive of social reality.The degree of self-evidence the ‘teaching of the shamansʼ had reached in the eighteenth century is particularlyrevealing in a short chronicle entitled ‘History of the Ongɣod “Black Protector”ʼ (Mo. Ongɣod qar-a sakiɣus-un teüke sudur bičig). Composed by an unknown author who must have had insider knowledge about shamanic lineages and narratives, the chronicle provides in an epic narrative an origin hypothesis for the emergence of shamans and shamanizing, making use of the term surtaɣun, literally ‘that which is studied,science, rules,doctrineʼ (Lessing1960,740), to identify a ‘doc- trine of the femaleshamansʼ (Mo. udaɣun-u surtaɣun)(Anonymous 18th century, 4). The discursivelycreated religious tradition of the ‘black teachingʼ,or‘black faithʼ,asthe Buryat scholar Dorji Banzarov translated the term, is socially pres- ent in the religious specialists, the male and female shamans,but it excludes the laypeople thatinaChristian understanding build up areligious community.No

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28 Of Yellow Teaching and Black Faith 241

Mongolian sourcefrom the Mongolian territories within the Qing Empire ad- dresses laypeople as building part of the social organization of the ‘shamanicʼ tradition. The concept of lay-followers as opposed to religious specialists and the idea thatboth groups constitute areligious community of aspecific persuasion has been extremelyrare in early-modern Inner-Asian societies. The question of who belonged to which religious tradition was in most contexts not relevant out- side the circle of religious specialists.

4European influences on Tibetan and Mongolian knowledgecultures

Our Mongolian sources are curiously lacking in one important aspect.Wehave seen thatsince the late sixteenth century ashamanic view or teaching wassin- gled out in discourse, the male and female shamans being the agents of this teaching. But what do we learn about the configuration of this teaching, about its doctrines, its practices,its ethics?All our primary sources from the Inner and Outer Mongolian territories do not provide anydata about shamanic doc- trines and practices,apart from the alreadymentioned healing and exorcizing practices.Notext givesadetailed description of the concepts and practices that are evoked in the examined terms and statements.Eventhe article in the Kangxi lawcode of 1694 contains nothing concrete about the shamans.¹⁰ At a closer look, in the discourse of the Mongols of the Qing Empire, the ‘teaching of the shamansʼ remains curiously opaque. This changed onlyinthe nineteenth century,inadifferent geographical and culturalenvironment.SiberianBuryat-Mongolia, the colonial backyardofthe Russian Empire, provided afertile ground for the encounter and entanglement of Tibeto-Mongolian and European knowledge cultures. Therefore, in the last part of my contribution Iwill explore how in the nineteenth century this Inner-Asian discourse was shaped by the encounter of European concepts. More concretely, Iwill follow up the discursive construction of the ‘teachingof the shamansʼ in the text production of the Buryat-Mongolswho wereseparated from the other Mongols by apolitical divide. Since around 1700,the Buryats liv- ing along the Eastern shores of Lake Baikal, in the Transbaikal regions,were Buddhists. They belonged to the greater Tibeto-Mongolian Buddhist cultural sphere that had its center in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet.Atthe same time, they wereseparated from this Buddhist universe by apolitical divide. The treaty

 Contrary to its expressed focus,the article deals exclusively with the Buddhist community.

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28 242 KaréninaKollmar-Paulenz of Kiakhta in 1727 had finallyfixed the boundary lines between the Russianand the Qing Empire and had drawnanartificial border between the Mongolson each side (Perdue 2005,161– 173). Whereas in the Qing Empire Buddhism en- joyed state patronage from the emperors, who towardstheir Buddhist subjects acted as ‘protectors of the dharmaʼ¹¹ and actively used Buddhism as ameans to consolidate and legitimize their power (Berger2003;Schwieger 2015),the Rus- sian Empire favoredthe Christian Orthodox Church, and the Buddhists of the empire wereconfined to amarginalposition (Tsyrempilov 2012). The simultane- ous belongingtothe RussianEmpire and the greater Tibeto-Mongolian Buddhist world helped shape the Transbaikal regionsinto acomplex amalgam of diverg- ing cultural influences thatcontributed to the formation of the Buryat-Mongolian knowledge cultures.The Transbaikal Buryats constantlynegotiated theirself-per- ceptions and participation in these often conflictingworlds in visual and per- formative practices and in texts.Thus, the RussianTsar was venerated by his Buddhist subjects as an emanation of the female bodhisattva White Tārā¹² that traditionallyhas aclose relationship to Avalokiteśvara, Tibet’smost revered bodhisattva. In this way, on avisual and symbolic level, Tibet and Russia were inextricablylinked together. Like their Mongolian brethren across the borders, the Buryats put great ef- forts into writing down their history.Historical chronicles werewide-spread and popularespeciallyinthe nineteenth century.Their authors weremost often people who worked in politicallypowerful, yetsubaltern, positions in the Siberiancolonial administration, the steppe duma, and, due to their social and educational background, participated both in the Tibeto-Mongolian and the Russianculturalspheres.Ihave analyzedtwo of these chronicles in regard to their literary relations and epistemic structures.The chronicle ‘What hap- pened in the past of the Qori- and Aga-Buriyadsʼ (Mo. Qori kiged aγuyin buri- yad-nar-un urida-daγan boluγsan anu)dates from 1863and was composed by the ruling chief (taisha) of the AgaBuryats,Tügülder Toboyin (Toboyin1863). The second chronicle, entitled ‘Tale of the origin of the lineageofthe people of the eleven fathersofthe Qoriʼ (Mo. Qori-yin arban nigen ečige-yin jun-u uγ ija- γur-un tuγuji), was written in 1875 by Vangdan Yum Čüng,anofficial of the Qori steppe duma (Yum Čüng 1875). Both chronicles contain chapters about the ‘teachingofthe shamansʼ.While the discourse on shamans in Inner and Outer Mongolia wasshaped by the Indo-Tibetan and the indigenous Mongolian knowl-

 The Qing commitment to tended to include onlythe dGe lugs pa, defining all other Tibetan-Buddhist schools as heterodox(Petech , –). The Tibetan dGe lugs pa government actively supported this politics (Schwieger , –).  This veneration is nowadays extended to the Russian president (Bernstein , ).

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28 Of Yellow Teaching and Black Faith 243 edge cultures thatmutuallyinfluenced each other,these chronicles also show distinct Russian influence. They are informed by three different epistemic mod- els: In the tradition of Mongolian history writing they are genealogical accounts. By drawing on important Mongolian historical works,bothauthors place them- selvesfirmlyinthe Mongolian historiographical tradition (Kollmar-Paulenz 2014b). Secondly, in separate chapters Toboyin and Yum Čüng provide systemat- ic overviewsofthe religious traditions extant among the Buryats:thatisBud- dhism and the ‘teaching of the shamansʼ.The chapters on the ‘teachingofthe shamansʼ follow,instructure and topic, Indo-Tibetan doxography,the so-called ‘presentation of tenetsʼ (Tib. Grub mtha’irnam bzhag). In texts of this genre re- ligio-philosophical schools, both non-Buddhist and Buddhist,are presented in asystematical way(includingtheir historicaldevelopment) that allows the Bud- dhist scholar to comparethem with respect to theirsoteriological quality (Hop- kins 1996). The genre had been alreadypopularinIndia and was further devel- oped in Tibet since at least the eleventh century.One doxography, bearing the title ‘Crystal Mirror of good explanations, showing the sources and assertions of all systems of tenetsʼ (Tib. Grub mtha‘ thams cad kyi khungs dang ‘dod tshul ston pa legs bshad shel gyi me long)and writtenin1802bythe Mongolian scholar Thu’ubkvan Blo bzang chos kyi nyima(1737– 1802),aresident of dGon lungs monastery in Northeastern Tibet (Amdo), was particularlypopular in the Buriyad regions (Thu’ubkvan Blo bzangchos kyi nyima1802; Thuken LosangChökyi Nyima 2009). Acomparison of the two chronicles with this doxographybrought to light thatboth Buryat authorscloselyfollow this doxographical model to pres- ent knowledge (Kollmar-Paulenz 2014a). But there is, thirdly, one striking differ- ence, and here Russian influencecomes in: while Grub mtha‘ rnam bzhag texts focus almost exclusivelyonworldviews, both chronicles give much more atten- tion to the shamanic actor,includinghis initiation, attire and practices.This focus on the agents of religious doctrines bears marked resemblancetoeight- eenth and nineteenth century Russianand German ethnographic accounts about North Asian ‘shamanismʼ (Georgi 1776 – 1780;Pallas1980) includingBan- zarov’sfamous work on the ‘Black Faithʼ. Furthermore, in Yum Čüng’schronicle the ‘teaching¹³ of the shamansʼ no longer refers exclusively to the religious specialists who constituteits semi-insti- tutional social body, but also includes lay-followers.For the first time, the author speaksof(in literal translation) ‘the people of the teaching of the shamansʼ (Mo. böge-nerün šasin-un ulus-nar)(Yum Čüng1875, 92), or,asone Russian translator

 Instead of šasin, he uses the term mörgöl comparatively,thus šasin mörgöl, ‘Buddhismʼ (Yum Čüng , ), and böge-ner-ün mörgöl, ‘Shamanismʼ (Yum Čüng , ).

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28 244 KaréninaKollmar-Paulenz more smoothlyrenders the phrase, ‘the people of the shamanic faithʼ (Poppe 2011, 46). Thus, the semantic scope of the Mongolian šasin is once again trans- formed, this time includingaChristian understanding of what constitutes a ‘re- ligious traditionʼ.

5Conclusion

Ihaveprovided ashort and rather sketchyinsight into one particularaspect of Mongolian epistemic cultures in which reality is assessed by second-order cate- gories that are socially constructed. The Indo-Tibetan taxonomies thathad aspe- cific emphasis on philosophyand epistemology, in the processoftheir integra- tion into Mongolian epistemic cultures and their implicit ontologies,were renegotiated and came to include the inter-relational, visual and performative as- pects thatare addressed in the terms and the concepts of mörgöl, üjel and šasin that structure the Mongolian discourse. The narrative of ‘shamanismʼ that gained dominance in the Mongolian societies since the late sixteenth century wasthe resultofand simultaneouslyformed the politics of the local rulersand the newlyemerging,powerful social class of the Buddhist sangha. The continuous reiteration of discursive and non-discursive, especiallybodily, practicesshaped the Mongols’ perceptions of shamanic practices and Buddhist teachings alike. On the one hand, the interplayofTibetan and Mongolian knowledge formations led to areconfiguration of aBuddhism that was deeplyshaped by Mongolian on- tological perspectives. On the other hand,the shamans and their teachings emergedasadistinct social group with afixed and stable set of practices and concepts, and ‘shamanismʼ as adistinct religious tradition took shape in late six- teenth, earlyseventeenth century Mongolia. Thus, this casestudyshows reli- gious traditions to be established as discursive formations, fields of statements and practices.Furthermore, and here Ifollow Gavin Flood, religious traditions are made up of collective representations, of fluid ensemblesofcultural resour- ces that in encounter situations are discursivelycondensed into distinct and sta- ble entities (Flood 1999,50–51). This reification is initiated when culturalboun- daries are crossed and rival religious actors compete, among other things, for material resourcesand social prestige.The emergenceofreligious traditions is also constitutive in relation to otherforms of power,inour case the centralized polity of the Qing state and its alliance with the Buddhist sangha. Religious tra- ditionsare thus simultaneouslythe resultofcomplex social,culturaland polit- ical processes and discursive constructions thatshape them. My casestudyhas further theoretical implications. It has brought to light that the Mongolian taxonomic field of üjel, nom and ultimately šasin, the last

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28 Of Yellow Teaching and Black Faith 245 term employed since the later eighteenth century in comparativecontexts, sin- glingout Buddhism and ‘shamanismʼ as well as and later as distinct and comparable fieldsofsocial interaction, can be meaningfullyre- lated to the European discourse field of ‘religionʼ.This taxonomic field did not emerge in the encounter with Europe and aEuropean concept of ‘religionʼ. The historicallegacyofthe normative and theoretical concepts that shaped Mon- golian perceptions of social reality lies in the complex entanglement of Mongo- lian ontological conceptsand the rich epistemic cultures of Tibet.European no- tions of ‘religionʼ started to inform the Tibeto-Mongolian conceptualizations only when Buddhism spread further north to the shores of Lake Baikal. It is important to note thatthis complex interplayofTibetan, Mongolian and Russianepistemic cultures critically influenced our own scholarlydiscourse about ‘shamanismʼ which took its distinct shape in the twentieth century.The Mongolian conceptu- alizationsof‘shamanismʼ found their wayinto European academic scholarship¹⁴ through the mediation of Buryat scholars like Dorji Banzarov,Tsyben Zhamtsar- ano (Tolz 2015) and others. But alreadyinearlier times, German and Russian eth- nographers had reported about Mongolian and Buryat-Mongolian shamans, and partlythey had done so using Mongolian taxonomies that had been formedin the confrontationalencounters between Tibetan-Buddhist monks and Mongolian shamans since the late sixteenth century.Ascientific study of religion thatig- nores non-European knowledge cultures in their historical dimensions is prone to overlook these multiple interactions and entanglements that took place long before the ‘globalʼ twentieth century.Indeed, in recent years the ge- nealogyofeighteenth and nineteenth centuryEuropean shamanism-discourse has been reconstructed by acouple of scholars,¹⁵ but these reconstructions have not included the non-Western discourses on the term and the concept, thus once more producing an ‘intellectual map of the worldʼ (Coronil 2002, 179) thatexcludes non-Western cultures. Following the project of aglobalhistory of religion, Isuggest to explore the discursive configurations of the religious field in different cultural settingsbypaying due attention to the legacyofnon-Western epistemic cultures,astoday’smultiple modernities are rooted in and shaped by a multitude of different historical knowledge cultures.

 My use of the term ‘European scholarshipʼ includes,ofcourse, Russian scholarship.  Flaherty ;Hutton ;Stuckrad ;Znamenski .

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28 246 KaréninaKollmar-Paulenz

Bibliography

Anonymous 1607. Erdenitunumal neretü sudur. Xeroxcopyofthe manuscript preserved in the libraryofthe Academy of Social Sciences. Hohot (PRC). th Anonymous 18 century. Ongγod qarasakiγusun teüke sudur bičig orosiba, Mong. 41. Royal Library Copenhagen. Anonymous 1980. Qad-un ündüsün quriyangɣui altan tobči. Kökeqota. Bajarsajchan,B.2004. Mongɣol čaɣajin-u bičig. (Ėkh bičgüün sudalgaa). Tėrgüün dėvtėr. Ulaanbaatar. Banzarov,Dorji 1846. Chernajaveraili shamanstvo umongolov. Vtipografii Imperatorskago Kazanskago Universiteta. Kazan. Bawden, CharlesR.1961. The Jebtsundamba Khutukhtus of Urga. Text, Translation and Notes. Wiesbaden. Berger,Patricia 2003. Empire of Emptiness. Buddhist Art and Political Authority. Honolulu. Bergunder,Michael 2011. ‘Wasist Religion? Kulturwissenschaftliche Überlegungen zum Gegenstand der Religionswissenschaftʼ, Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft19. 3–55. Bernstein, Anya2013. Religious Bodies Politic. Rituals of Sovereignty in Buryat Buddhism. Chicagoand London. Bourdieu, Pierre1993. Sozialer Sinn. Kritik der theoretischen Vernunft. Frankfurt am Main. ByambaErke Dayičing 1667.Pringlai (ed.): Byamba. Asaraγčineretü-yin teüke. Ulaanbaatar 1960. Chakrabarty,Dipesh 2000. Provincializing Europe. Postcolonial Thoughtand Historical Difference. With anew prefacebythe author.Princeton. Chiodo, Elisabetta2009. The Mongolian ManuscriptsonBirch Bark from Xarbuxyn Balgas in the Collection of the Mongolian AcademyofSciences. Part II. Wiesbaden. Conrad, Sebastian; Randeria,Shalini (eds.) 2002. Jenseitsdes Eurozentrismus. Postkoloniale Perspektiven in den Geschichts-und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt. Coronil, Fernando 2002. ‘Jenseits des Okzidentalismus. Unterwegs zu nichtimperialen geohistorischen Kategorien.ʼ In Jenseitsdes Eurozentrismus. Postkoloniale Perspektiven in den Geschichts-und Kulturwissenschaften,eds. Sebastian Conrad, Shalini Randeria. Frankfurt. 177–218. Dag yig mkhas pa’ibyung gnas. Dag yig mkhas pa’ibyung gnas zhes bya ba bzhugs so. Merged ɣarqu-yin oronneretü toɣtaɣaɣsan dayiɣ orosiba. Xylograph, Beijing. Private collection Prof.Dr. Richard Ernst (Winterthur). Flaherty,Gloria 1992. Shamanismand the Eighteenth Century. Princeton. Flood, Gavin 1999. Beyond Phenomenology.Rethinking the StudyofReligion. London. Georgi, Johann Gottlieb 1776–1780. Beschreibung allerNationen des russischen Reichs, ihrer Lebensart, Religion, Gebräuche, Wohnungen, Kleidungen und übrigen Merkwürdigkeiten.4th edition: Mongolische Völker,Russen unddie noch übrigen Nationen.St. Petersburg. Haenisch, Erich 1955. Eine Urga-Handschrift des mongolischenGeschichtswerksvon Secen Sagang (alias Sanang Secen). Berlin. Hallisey,Charles 1995. ‘Roads Taken and Not Takeninthe Study of Theravāda Buddhism.ʼ In Curators of the Buddha,ed. Donald S. Lopez, Jr.The Study of Buddhismunder Colonialism. Chicago. 31–61.

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28 Of Yellow Teaching and Black Faith 247

Heissig, Walther 1992. Schamanen und Geisterbeschwörer in der östlichen Mongolei. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Wiesbaden. Heuschert, Dorothea1998. Die Gesetzgebung der Qing für die Mongolen im 17. Jahrhundert anhand des Mongolischen Gesetzbuches aus der Kangxi-Zeit (1662–1722). Wiesbaden. Holbraad, Martin; Willerslev,Rane 2007. ‘Transcendental Perspectivism: Anonymous Viewpoints from Inner Asiaʼ, Inner Asia 9.2. Special issue Perspectivism.329–345. Hopkins, Jeffrey 1983. on Emptiness. London. Hopkins, Jeffrey 1996. ‘The Tibetan GenreofDoxography: Structuring aWorldview.ʼ In Tibetan Literature. Studies in Genre,eds. José I. Cabezón, Roger R. Jackson. Ithaca, NY.170–186. Humphrey, Caroline 1999. ‘Shamanic Practices and the StateinNorthern Asia: Views from the Center and Periphery.ʼ In Shamanism, History,&the State,eds. NicholasThomas, Caroline Humphrey.Ann Arbor,MI. 191–228. Humphrey, Caroline 2003. ‘Chiefly and Shamanist Landscapes in Mongolia.ʼ In The Anthropology of Landscape. Perspectives on Placeand Space,eds. Eric Hirsch, Michael O’Hanlon. Oxford. 135–162. Humphrey, Caroline; Ujeed, Hurelbaatar2013. Amonasteryintime. The making of Mongolian Buddhism. Chicago. Hutton, Ronald 2001. Shamans. Siberian and the Western Imagination. London. Jimbadorji 1834–37. ‘Bolor toli,Spiegel aus Bergkristall, vonJimbadorji (1834–37).‘ In Geschichte der Mongolen, Buch III,ed. Walther Heissig. Kopenhagen 1962. Kämpfe, Hans Rainer 1976a. Ñi ma’i ‘od zer/Naran-u gerel. Die Biographie des 2. Pekinger lČaṅ skya-Qutuqtu Rol pa’irdo rje (1717–1786). St. Augustin. Kämpfe, Hans Rainer 1976b. ‘Die Biographie des 3. Pekinger Čaṅ skya-QutuqtuYešes bstan pa’irgyalmc’an (1787–1846) – Aus der Biographiensammlung Čindamani-yin erikes in Faksimile herausgegeben, 1. Folgeʼ, Zentralasiatische Studien 10. 225–285. Kämpfe, Hans Rainer 1977. ‘Die Biographie des 3. Pekinger Čaṅ skya-QutuqtuYešes bstan pa’irgyalmc’an (1787–1846) – Aus der Biographiensammlung Čindamani-yin erikes in Faksimile herausgegeben, 2. Folgeʼ, Zentralasiatische Studien 11. 121–131, textfacsimile 132–175. Kämpfe, Hans Rainer 1979a. ‘Sayinqubitan-u süsüg-ünterge. Biographie des 1. rJe bcundam pa-QutuqtuÖndürgegen (1635–1723), verfasst vonNag gi dbaṅ po 1839, 1. Folgeʼ, Zentralasiatische Studien13. 93–136. Kämpfe, Hans Rainer 1979b. ‘Sayinqubitan-u süsüg-ünterge. Biographie des 1. rJe bcundam pa-QutuqtuÖndürgegen (1635–1723), verfasst vonNag gi dbaṅ po 1839, 2. Folgeʼ, Zentralasiatische Studien15. 331–382. Kämpfe, Hans Rainer 1983. Das Asaragčineretü-yin teükedes Byamba erke daičing alias Šamba jasaɣ. Eine mongolische Chronik des 17.Jahrhunderts. Wiesbaden. Kas’yanenko, Zoya K. 1993. Katalog peterburgskogo rukopisnogo “Γanzhura”. Sostavlenie, vvedenie, transliteraciya iukazateli. Moskva. Khams smyon ‘Jigs bral chos kyiseng ge 1974. Zhibyeddang gcod yul gyi chos ‘byungrin po che’iphreng ba thar pa’irgyan. In gCod kyi chos skor.ThreeTextsonthe History and Practiceofthe Źi-byed and Gcod Precepts. Reproduced from rare blockprintsfrom the LibraryofTibet House. Śer phyin tshigsbcad chen mo of Āryadeva, Phuṅ po gzan skyur gyi rnam bśad, ŹibyeddaṅGcod yul gyichos ‘byuṅ of ‘Jigs-bral-chos-kyi-seṅge. New Delhi.

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28 248 KaréninaKollmar-Paulenz

Kollmar-Paulenz, Karénina2010. ‘Mongolische Geschichtsschreibung im Kontextder Globalgeschichte.ʼ In Geschichten und Geschichte,eds. Peter Schalketal. Uppsala. 247–279. Kollmar-Paulenz, Karénina2012. ‘Amethod thathelps living beings: How the Mongols created “Shamanism”ʼ, Mongolo-Tibetica Pragensia 12, 5/2. 7–19. Kollmar-Paulenz, Karénina2013. ‘Lamas und Schamanen: Mongolische Wissensordnungen vomfrühen 17.bis zum21. Jahrhundert. Ein Beitragzur Debatteumaussereuropäische Religionsbegriffe.ʼ In Religion in Asien? Studien zur Anwendbarkeit des Religionsbegriffs, eds. Peter Schalk et al. Uppsala. 151–200. Kollmar-Paulenz, Karénina2014a. ‘Systematically Ordering the World: The Encounter of Buriyad-Mongolian, Tibetan and RussianKnowledgeCultures in the 19th Century.ʼ In L’orientalisme des marges: éclairages àpartir de l’Inde et de la Russe,eds. Philippe Bornet, SvetlanaGorshenina. Etudes de Lettres 2–3. 123–146. Kollmar-Paulenz, Karénina2014b. ‘Vstrecha burjat-mongol’skoj, tibetskoj irusskojkul’tur znanija.ʼ In Buddizm vistorii ikul’ture burjat,ed. I.R. Garri. Ulan-Ude. 304–325. Landwehr,Achim 2008. Historische Diskursanalyse. Frankfurt. Lessing, Ferdinand D. 1960. Mongolian-EnglishDictionary. Compiled by Mattai Haltod, John Gombojab Hangin, SergeKassatkin, Ferdinand D. Lessing. Berkeley. Ligeti, Louis 1942. Catalogue du Kanjur Mongol Imprimé. Vol. I. Budapest. Lopez, Donald S. 1996. ‘Polemical Literature (dGag len).ʼ In Tibetan Literature. Studies in Genre,eds. José I. Cabezón, Roger R. Jackson. Ithaca, NY.217–228. Lubsandanjin 1655. Altan Tobči. ABrief History of the MongolsbybLo-bzan bstan-‘jin with A Critical Introduction by the Reverend A. Mostaert and An Editor’sForeword by F.W. Cleaves. Cambridge, MA, 1952. Mergen Gegen 2006. Včir dharamergen diyančiblam-a-yin gegen-ügbum jarliɣ kemegdekü orosiba,vol.5.Kökeqota. Ngagdbang blobzangrgya mtsho 1984. rJe btsunthams cad mkhyen pa bsod nams rgya mtsho’irnamthar dngos grub rgya mtsho’ishing rta. In ‘Phags pa ‘jig rten dbang phyuggirnamsprul rim byon gyi ‘khrungs rabs deb ther nor bu’i ‘phreng ba. Dharamsala. Vol. 2. 1–171. Pallas, Peter Simon 1980. Sammlungen historischer Nachrichten über die mongolischen Völkerschaften, 2Theile. Um eine Einführung vermehrter Nachdruck der 1776 und 1801 bei der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in St. Petersburgerschienenen Ausgabe. Mit einer Einführung vonS.Hummel. Graz. Pedersen, Morten Axel 2011. Not Quite Shamans. Spirit Worlds and Political Lives in Northern Mongolia. Ithaca. Perdue, Peter C. 2005. China marches West. The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia. Cambridge. Pernau, Margrit 2007. ‘Transkulturelle Geschichte unddas Problem der universalen Begriffe. Muslimische Bürger im Delhi des 19. Jahrhunderts.ʼ In Area Studies und die Welt. Weltregionen und neue Globalgeschichte,ed. BirgitSchäbler.Wien. 117–149. Petech, Luciano 1972. China and Tibet in the earlyXVIIIth Century. History of the establishmentofChinese protectorate in Tibet. Leiden. Poppe, Nikolaj. 2011. ‘Vandan Jumsunov. Istorijaproiskhozhdenijaodinadtsati khorinskikh rodov.ʼ In Burjatskie letopisi,ed. Tsymzhit P. Vanchikova. Ulan-Ude. 32–81.

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28 Of Yellow Teaching and Black Faith 249

Prajñasagara1739. Boɣda neyičitoyin dalai mañjusryi-yin domoɣ-i todorqai-a geyigülügči čindamani erike kemegdeküorosiba. Xylograph, Beijing. Rachewiltz, Igor de 1996. The Mongolian Tanjur Version of the Bodhicaryāvatāra. Edited and Transcribed, with aWord-Index and aPhoto-Reproduction of the Original Text (1748). Wiesbaden. Rasipungsuɣ 1774/75. Bolor Erike.Mongolian Chronicle by Rasipungsuɣ with aCritical Introduction by the Reverend Antoine Mostaert,C.I.C.M., Arlington, Virginia and An Editor’sForeword by Francis Woodman Cleaves, Professor of Far Eastern Languages, Harvard University. 5vols. Cambridge, MA, 1959. Sagaster,Klaus 2007. ‘The History of Buddhism among the Mongols.ʼ In The Spread of Buddhism,eds. Ann Heirman, Stephan Peter Bumbacher.Leiden. 379–432. Schwieger, Peter 2015. The Dalai Lama and the Emperor of China.APolitical History of the Tibetan Institution of . New York. Siluɣun budaɣun üyeonoqui neretü sudur. Translated by Toyin Guosi. Manuscript, Ulaanbaatar,private collection. Siregetü GuosiDharma 1739. Altan kürdün mingɣan gegesütü bičig. Eine mongolische Chronik von Siregetü Guosi Dharma (1739). Hg. undmit Einleitungund Namensverzeichnisversehen vonWalther Heissig. Kopenhagen 1958. Stuckrad, Kockuvon 2003. Schamanismus und Esoterik: Kultur-und wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Betrachtungen. Leuven. ThukenLosang ChökyiNyima 2009. The Crystal MirrorofPhilosophical Systems. ATibetan Study of Asian Religious Thought. Translated by Geshé Lhundub Sopa. Edited by Roger R. Jackson. Boston. Thu’ubkvan Blo bzang chos kyinyi ma 1802. Grub mtha’ thams cad kyi khungs dang ‘dod tshul ston pa legs bshad shel gyimelong. Indian reprint in pothi-format. Toboyin 1863. ‘KhronikaTugultur Toboeva1863 g. Qori kiged aγuyin buriyad-nar-un urida-daγan boluγsan anu.ʼ In Letopisi khorinskikh buriat,vyp.I.KhronikiTuγultur ToboevaiVandanaIumsunova, ed. Nikolaj N. Poppe. Moskva 1935.1–47. Tolz, Vera 2015. ‘Reconciling Ethnic Nationalismand ImperialCosmopolitanism: The Lifeworlds of Tsyben Zhamtsarano (1880–1942)’, Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques 69/3. 723–746. Tsyrempilov,Nikolay 2012. ‘“Alien” Lamas: RussianPolicy towards ForeignBuddhistClergy in the Eighteenth to Early Twentieth Centuriesʼ, Inner Asia 14. 245–255. Vander Veer,Peter 2001. Imperial Encounters. Religion and ModernityinIndia and Britain. Princeton. Vanchikova, Ts.P.2001. Čaɣan teüke –“Belaja istorija” mongol’skij istoriko-pravovoj pamjatnik XIII-XVIvv. Sostavlenie kriticheskogo tekstaiperevod “Beloj istorii” P.B. Baldanzhapova, issledovanie, redaktirovannie perevoda, sostavlenie kommentariev, podgotovkateksta “Beloj istorii” kpublikatsii,perevod ikommentarij k “Shastre khana-chakravartina” i “Shastre Orunga” Ts.P.Vanchikovoj. Ulan-Ude. Ye shes rdo rje 1959. Bod skad kyi brda‘ gsar rnying dka‘ ba sog skad du kā li sumcu’irim pas gtan la pheb pa’ibrda‘ yig mkhas pa rgya mtshoblo gsal mgul rgyan cesbya ba bzhugs so. Ulaanbaatar. Young, Robert J.C. 2010. Postcolonialism. An historical introduction. Blackwell.

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28 250 Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz

Yum Čüng1875. ‘KhronikaVandanaIumsunova1875 g. Qori-yin arban nigen ečige-yin jun-u uγ ijaγur-un tuγuji.ʼ In Letopisi khorinskikh buriat,vyp.I.KhronikiTuγultur Toboevai VandanaIumsunova, ed. Nikolaj N. Poppe. Moskva,Leningrad 1935. 48–172. Zhang Yisun1985. Bod rgya tshig mdzodchen mo.Zang han da cidian, 3vols. Beijing. Znamenski, AndreiA.2007. The Beauty of the Primitive.Shamanismand the Western Imagination. Oxford.

KaréninaKollmar-Paulenz Institutefor the Science of Religion, Faculty of Humanities Bern University Lerchenweg 36, Postfach 3000 Bern 9 Switzerland [email protected]

Bereitgestellt von | Universitätsbibliothek Bern Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 28.12.16 09:28