Mahayana Buddhism and the Regional Political Order of Northeast Asia

Abstract

In this article the author examines the process of formation of a regional political order during the 17th–20th centuries in the territories whose population adhered (and adheres) to the traditions of Mahayana Buddhism. Analyzing the process of statehood formation in Bhutan, Tibet and Khalkha-Mongolia, the article traces the infl uence of Buddhism on the formation of state institutions and the determination of the head of state — the monarch. A provisional conclusion is advanced to the eff ect that, unlike the Theravada tradition, the monarch could fulfi ll both the role of head of state and the functions of a spiritual leader. This appeared particularly rational in Tibet, which since the middle of the 17th century was ruled by the Dalai Lamas. The institution pf the Dalai Lamas, which arose in the Gelug School of Buddhism, envisioned in the Lamas the embodiment of the Bodhisattva of compassion, Avalokiteshvara, which organically fi t into the concept of theocratic power. At the same time, a civil administration was created in both Bhutan and Tibet, with powers corresponding to its status. The transfer of supreme power was associated with reincarnation, which subsequently caused serious problems and created political crises. The stabilization and achievement of the peak of power of Tibetan statehood is associated with the name of the Dalai Lama XIII, who, fl eeing the invasion by British troops, hid for two years in Khalkha-Mongolia and thereby ensured the legitimacy of the supreme power of Bogd Gegeen VIII, who became the last Great Khan of Mongolia after the fall of the Qing Empire. In 1912 an agreement was concluded between the two monarchs, and the tendency toward the rule of Buddhism in the region, not only in the spiritual but also in the secular sphere, was dubbed pan-Buddhism. The author also cites data on polities that did not receive full development: the Kudun state within one of the Buryat aimaks in 1919 and the theocratic movement in the Khorchin lands of Inner Mongolia in the 1930s. The article concludes that despite its significant encompassment of the population, Buddhism did not become a driving force that would compete with the two leading powers of the region — Soviet Russia and the Japanese Empire — which maintained more radical views on the political order in the region and more eff ective tools for its construction.

References

1. Andreev, A. I. Tibet v politike tsarskoi, sovetskoi i postsovetskoi Rossii. St. Petersburg: Izdatel‘stvo Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta; Nartang, 2006. 
2. Barkmann, U. B. Geschichte der Mongolei, oder Die “Mongolische Frage.” Die Mongolen auf ihrem Weg zum eigenen Nationalstaat. Bonn: Bouvier, 1999. 
3. Batsaihan, O. The Last Emperor of Mongolia Bogdo Jebtsundamba Khutukhtu. The Life and Legend. Ulaanbaatar: Admon, 2011. 
4. Belov, E. A. (ed.) Rossiia i Tibet: Sbornik russkikh arkhivnykh dokumentov, 1900–1914. Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura, 2005. 
5. Bogaturov, A. D. (ed.) Sistemnaia istoriia mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii, 1918–2000: Sobytiia i dokumenty: In 4 vol., Vol. 1: Sobytiia 1918–1945. Moscow: Moskovskii rabochii, 2000. 
6. Byrne, F. J. Koroli i verkhovnye praviteli Irlandii. St. Petersburg: Evraziia, 2006.
7.  Commission Internationale de Juristes. The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law. Geneve: International Commission of Jurists, 1959. 
8. Croner, D. Guide to Locales Connected with the Life of Zanabazar: The First Bogd Gegeen of Mongolia. Ulaan Baatar: Polar Star Press, 2006. 
9. Damdinov, A. V. Agvan Dorzhiev: politicheskii, obshchestvennyi i religioznyi deiatel’: Thesis. Irkutsk, 1996. 
10. Dorji, L. The Wangchuck Dynasty: 100 Years of Enlightened Monarchy. Thimphu: The Centre for Bhutan Studies, 2008. 
11. Dulaney, A. G., Cusack, D. M., and Van Walt van Praag, M. The Case Concerning Tibet: Tibet’s Sovereignty and the Tibetan People’s Right to Self-determination. New Delhi: Tibetan Parliamentary & Policy Research Centre, 1998. 
12. Ferrero, M. “The Rise and Demise of Theocracy: Theory and Some Evidence,” Public Choice, Vol. 156, No. 3–4, 2013, pp. 723–750. 
13. Givel, M., and Figueroa, L. “Early Happiness Policy as a Government Mission of Bhutan: A Survey of the Bhutanese Unwritten Constitution from 1619 to 1729,” Journal of Bhutan Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2014, pp. 1–21. 
14. Kellam, A. Foreign Devils: Law’s Imperial Discourse and the Status of Tibet: PhD Thesis. London: SOAS University of London, 2013. 
15. Kuz’min, S. L. “Kontseptsiia velikokhanskoi vlasti i teokraticheskaia gosudarstvennost’ Mongolii v 20 veke,” Nauchnyi dialog, No. 9, 2016, pp. 136–148. 
16. Kychanov, E. I., and Mel’nichenko, B. N. Istoriia Tibeta s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei. Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura, 2005. 
17. Mathou, T. “Bhutan: Political Reform in a Buddhist Monarchy,” Journal of Bhutan Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1999, pp. 114–144. 
18. Pozdneev, A. M. Urginskie khutukhty. Istoricheskii ocherk ikh proshlogo i sovremennogo byta. St. Petersburg: Tip. brat’ev Panteleevykh, 1880. 
19. Rupen, R. How Mongolia Is Really Ruled: A Political History of the Mongolian People’s Republic, 1900–1978. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1979. 
20. Schonthal, B. “Formations of Buddhist Constitutionalism in South and Southeast Asia,” International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2017, pp. 705–733. 
21. Tsyrempilov, N. V. “Konstitutsionnaia buddiiskaia teokratiia Lubsan-Samdan Tsydenova (1918-1922): osnovnoi zakon i struktura gosudarstva,” Eurasia: Statum et Legem (Evraziia: gosudarstvo i pravo), No. 1, 2015, pp. 61–70. 
22. Ujeed, U. B. Indigenous Eff orts and Dimensions of Mongolian Buddhism. Exemplifi ed by the Mergen Tradition: PhD Thesis. London: SOAS University of London, 2009. 
23. Zlatkin, I. Ia. Ocherki novoi i noveishei istorii Mongolii. Moscow: Nauka. 1957.