The Role of Sacrifice in the Development
of Mongolia's Religions

Holly Calhoun

Introduction

            Mongolia is predominantly a Buddhist country.  Prior to the spread of Buddhism, the religion of Mongolia could be classified as shamanism.  Buddhism did not completely overtake shamanism; there are groups of people in Mongolia today who exclusively practice shamanism.  But Shamanic people are a definite minority in Mongolia; ninety-six percent of the population of Mongolia is identified as Buddhist. [1]   In becoming a Buddhist state, Mongolia’s shamanic traditions did not simply vanish.  Aspects of shamanic religious tradition were instead incorporated into the Buddhism that became dominant in Mongolia.  Not all of Mongolian shamanic traditions survived the transition to Buddhism—and those aspects that did survive did not do so unchanged. 

             This paper will view the development of Mongolia’s religious rituals through the lens of sacrifice.  Analysis of sacrifice will rely upon Nancy Jay’s theory of “the logic of sacrifice” from Throughout Your Generations Forever: Sacrifice, Religion, and Paternity, and theories of Mircea Eliade asserted in The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion.  Jay’s and Eliade’s theories will be engaged in analyzing two specific examples of the Buddhistization of shamanic sacrifice: sacrificial rituals associated with ovos [2] (sacred cairns) and the Buddhist sacrificial burning of shamanic idols.  These two examples and theories will illustrate how and why rituals that predate Buddhism in Mongolia have been incorporated into Buddhism. 

There is no one reason why Buddhism became the dominant religion—or why Buddhism incorporated shamanic traditions—in Mongolia.  I propose one theory that was an element at work in the Buddhistization of Mongolia, within a larger social and historical context.  It is my assertion that Buddhism could not have become the dominant religion in Mongolia without incorporating aspects of shamanic sacrifice into Buddhist ideology.  Relying on Jay’s theory of communion sacrifice, sacrifice performs the social function of uniting people together. [3]   In uniting a Buddhist Mongolia, Buddhism therefore had to incorporate pre-existing communion sacrifice into its practice.  Because sacrifice has the power to unite individuals into community, sacrifice was advocated by the state (throughout its history) in attempts to unite the country.  State advocated burning of shamanic idols used shamanic fire offering imagery to unite a Buddhist Mongolia.  The shamanic ovo sacrifices served to unite the community.  This social function could not simply be ignored in Buddhism’s coming to Mongolia.  In order to establish itself, Buddhism had to maintain the social unification that shamanic sacrifice had performed.  In Mongolia, Buddhism adopted shamanic ritual in order to perpetuate the social function of unification, thereby establishing a new order through the old. 

Shamanism

In order to see the incorporation of shamanic sacrifice into Buddhism for the purpose of maintaining the social unification that those sacrifices fulfilled, shamanism in Mongolia must first be defined.  The term “shamanism” is problematic; I by no means intend to establish a general definition of shamanism.  The following definition serves only for the purposes of this paper.  

            The word “shamanism” is from the Tungus language of Siberia.  Mircea Eliade laid down the foundational text for the academic study of shamanism with, Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy.  In Shamanism, Eliade broadened the geographical scope of what was covered by the term shamanism.  Eliade defined shamanism as religions around the world (not just in Siberia) in which a spiritual leader traveled to an upper or lower world through a controlled state of ecstasy (trance) and conversed with spirits in those other worlds for the benefit of the community (or individuals within the community). [4]  

In The Religions of Mongolia, Walther Heissig distinguishes Mongolian folk religion from shamanism by the absence of a spiritual leader in the practice of folk religion. [5]   Heissig claims that the rituals of folk religion were performed by laymen rather than a shaman whom held the position of spiritual leader for the community.  However, this distinction is not as clear as Heissig suggests; when looked at in detail, it becomes quite blurred.

The job of the shaman is to be the spiritual leader of the community, but the shaman is by no means the exclusive executor of ritual.

Throughout the immense area comprising Central and North Asia, the magico-religious life of society centers on the shaman.  This, of course, does not mean that he is the one and only manipulator of the sacred, nor that religious activity is completely usurped by him.  In many tribes the sacrificing priest coexists with the shaman, not to mention the fact that every head of family is also the head of the domestic cult. [6]

There are rituals, such as the ovo ritual, that the shaman was never allowed lead. [7]   Every shaman works with a bagchi, or elder, who is the assistant to the shaman and is highly engaged in rituals. [8]   The job of the bagchi is to make sacrifices and perform rituals. [9]   Any elder male can become a bagchi, and the rituals performed by the bagchi can be performed by any elder male. [10]   The shaman is the spiritual leader, but does not control all aspects of spirituality and ritual.  A Buryat teacher stated: “we are all a little bit shamans.” [11]   Heissig’s distinction does not seem applicable given the fact that within shamanism, lay people often perform rituals. 

The distinction between shamanism and folk religion is further complicated by the problem of defining shamanism in general.  Because the word shamanism comes from the Tungus language, Piers Vitebsky states: “the term shamanism could strictly be used to mean only the religions of Siberia and Mongolia.” [12]   Eliade extended the term shamanism to refer to many people around the world whose traditional religious practices had characteristics in common with those of Siberia and Mongolia.  The people who Eliade defined shamanism to include were people who would not have called themselves shamans.  There have been spiritual practitioners in Mongolia who were not called shamans. [13]   This fact would seem to support Heissig’s distinction between shamanic and folk religious practices.  But these spiritual practitioners who would not have called themselves shamans did engage in trance, [14] and would therefore fit Eliade’s definition of shamans.  The term shaman is (unless used in Vitebsky’s strictest sense) one applied to people from the outside.  The definition of shamanism, like any other word, is arbitrary but required for communication.  Because the “folk” practitioners of Mongolia have characteristics in common with “shamans”—characteristics that concur with generally accepted scholarly definitions of shamanism [15] —I see no need (within the context of this paper) to distinguish between the two.

I make no distinction between shamanism and Mongolian folk religion.  In defining shamanism I rely on Vitebsky’s strict definition of the word, and on the definition asserted by Caroline Humphrey and David Sneath in The End of Nomadism?  Society, State and the Environment in Inner Asia.

We use the word shamanism for a variety of indigenous rituals and religious beliefs, dating largely from the pre-Buddhist period, and including the possibility of the mediation between human and spirit worlds, carried out by a specialist medium—the shaman. [16]

Shamanism when used in this paper refers to religion that is traditionally Mongolian. Generalization is inevitable in looking at a large region such as Mongolia.  Shamanism, even if confined to the geographic region that the word derives from, refers to people who are not all the same.  Shamanic practices can vary from clan to clan, from mile to mile.  But with these differences, there are also many characteristic similarities.  These similarities justify the label: shamanism.  It is only through the label (and generalization) that any study of shamanic practices can be pursued.

At this point it becomes necessary to state characteristics of Mongolian shamanism.  The shamanic cosmos involves three levels: the earth, the sky, and the underworld. [17]   Shamans have the ability to travel between these levels—and it is the responsibility of the shaman to do so for the benefit of the community.  A pole of some sort (tree or pillar, etc.) bridges these three levels, extending from the ground to the sky.  In traveling to these other levels of the world, the shaman communicates with ancestors.  Mongolian shamanic households would have an ongghot—cloth that contains small dolls/spirits of ancestors—in the most respected part of the household.  Shamans use drums in their rituals.  Fire plays a significant role in Mongolian shamanism, holding the position of a deity. [18]   Fire prayers are recited at sacrifices. [19]

Buddhism

            In order to discuss the Buddhist use of shamanic sacrifice in Mongolia, a background on the specific type of Buddhism that became prevalent in Mongolia is needed.

Tibetan Buddhism is the form of Buddhism that became the dominant religion in Mongolia.  Tibetan Buddhism belongs to the Mahayana (“Greater Vehicle”) school of Buddhism.  Mahayana Buddhism is characterized by its move away from the monastic emphasis of pre-Mahayana Buddhism. [20]   Mahayana stresses equality and the path of the bodhisattva [21] (one who seeks to liberate all sentient beings from suffering rather than focusing on the liberation of oneself). 

            Tibetan Buddhism is characterized as magical, and places a large emphasis on tantric practice. [22]   “Tantric practices…are seen in Tibetan Buddhism as in the broadest sense magical practices for transforming mundane reality into a form most suited to help others.” [23]   Tibetan lamas (monks/spiritual teachers) are known for their ability to act as healers.  The healing capability of lamas—being superior to shamans (at the time)—is what impressed and converted the Mongolian court nobility to Buddhism in the reign of Khublai Khan [24] (1260-1294). [25]   Tantra can be very dangerous if misunderstood and mispracticed.  The negative consequences of faulty tantric practices, and the prevalence of tantric practice in Tibetan Buddhism, created a significant position for teachers within Tibetan Buddhism. [26]  Tibetan Buddhism is often called “Lamaism.”  The term Lamaism refers to the emphasis of the teacher (lama in Tibetan, guru in Sanskrit) within Tibetan Buddhism. [27]   Mongolian Buddhism, as it is Tibetan Buddhism, is also called Lamaism.  Mongolian Buddhism is unique for its prevalence of “independent lamas” who are usually not associated with monasteries and do not take traditional monk vows, but perform rituals for laypeople. [28]   

Tibetan Buddhism obtains magical characteristics, not only through its practice of tantra, but also through Buddhism’s integration into Tibetan society.  Prior to Buddhism in Tibet, traditional shamanic religion (primarily Bon) was practiced; when Buddhism became the dominant religion in Tibet, it took on many shamanic aspects. [29]   The integration of shamanic religion into Tibetan Buddhism is a significant contributing factor in the success of Tibetan Buddhism overtaking shamanic religion in Mongolia.  Mongolian shamanism was very similar to Bon. [30]   The Buddhism that was imported into Mongolia was already suited to shamanic thought because it had already incorporated the shamanic mentality into its teachings in Tibet. [31]   Tibetan Buddhism has distinct characteristics (which stem from Tibetan culture and traditional religion); likewise Mongolian Buddhism has become a unique form of Buddhism due to its incorporation of aspects of shamanism and shamanic sacrifice.    

Ovos

            Ovo rituals are a clear example of the Buddhist incorporation of shamanic sacrifice into Buddhist practice.  Ovo rituals were traditionally practiced in Mongolia, as part of the shamanic religion, prior to the spread of Buddhism throughout the country.  Ovo rituals are still practiced in present day Mongolia, under the religious reign of Buddhism.  Currently, ovo rituals are the most common form of ritual practice throughout Inner Asia. [32]   Many ovo rituals are now officiated by lamas, rather than village elders—though in some regions elders still run the ceremonies.  Ovo rituals unite people together in communities, creating order.  Because ovo sacrifices unite people, for Buddhism to become the dominant religion in Mongolia it had to adopt the ovo ritual.  The ovo ritual had to continue being performed (to maintain order and social networks).  In making the ovo ritual a Buddhist ritual, Buddhism successfully integrated itself into Mongolian society—regenerating society through a Buddhist ritual.  

In appearance, an ovo is a pile of stones at the center of which a wooden pole, with numerous blue scarves tied to it, protrudes towards the sky.  Ovos are littered with vodka bottles, money, candy, dairy products, and bones, left in sacrifice.  Through ovos, Mongolians worship nature (including the sky), especially mountains and regional deities.  Deities are thought to reside in ovos.  Ovos are much more than just what they physically appear to be.

In The Sacred and the Profane, Eliade explains how religious people order chaos to create a cosmos (ordered world).  Eliade defines hierophany: “the act of manifestation of the sacred” into the world. [33]   Through hierophany, an object in the world—such as a stone—becomes something more than that object, more than the stone: it becomes sacred. [34]   Ovos are hierophanies.  The physically appearing images of ovos go “beyond the simple idea of…‘mountain’, and they were, rather, archetypal ideals, or symbolic constructs, which crystallized a certain perspective on these ordinary things.” [35]   Thus: “there was the idea that an oboo [ovo] was constructed over some other mysterious power.” [36]   Ovos are established where the sacred reveals itself to the world.  Physically, ovos are cairns.  In practice, ovos are sacred cairns.  The physical ovo is symbolic of the spirits that are accessed through and reside within it.

            Ovos can be found throughout Mongolia, but are located in specific places—where the spiritual has manifested into the material world.  Hierophanies cannot be located just anywhere: “men are not free to choose the sacred site…they only seek for it and find it by the help of mysterious signs.” [37]   “Thus the settings of ovoos [ovos] is not entrusted to chance, but are instead points of influence within the landscape, in both a physical and spiritual sense.” [38]   Ovos are located at spring and river roots, [39] crossroads and passes, [40] and especially on mountains.  Mountains comprise the majority of sacred sites within Mongolia; and every sacred mountain has an ovo on top. [41]  

Eliade asserts that hierophany breaks up space, “reveals an absolute fixed point at the center” and thus provides “orientation.” [42]   The orientation of the center of the world is the axis mundi, which connects the underworld, earth, and heaven. [43]   Ovos are axis mundis.  The vertical pole of the ovo—rooted in the stones and extending to the sky—connects the three layers of the cosmos.  Eliade equate the sacred with the real. [44]   Because the sacred is considered to be the real, hierophany creates the world, providing orientation for individuals who reside within that world.  “The sacred reveals absolute reality and at the same time makes orientation possible; hence it founds the world in the sense that it fixes the limits and establishes the order of the world.” [45]  

Ovos provide orientation.  There are ovos that can be used for worship by all Mongolians.  There are also ovos that are only worshipped by smaller, more intimate identity groups—such as a village, clan, or family.  Little ovos are located between villages to act as boundaries. [46]   The center of the world is then conceived simultaneously on a national level and on a familial level.  The nation is the family when worshiping together.  Members of the nation who do not belong to the same clan are differentiated from—specifically made not family—when excluded from worship.     

            The orientation provided by ovos can be understood in more depth with the use of Nancy Jay’s “logic of sacrifice.”  Jay defines the traditional sacrifice vocabulary of “expiation” and “communion.”  Expiation is defined by Jay as any aspects of sacrifice that separate (for example, removing evil—as defined by the worshiper); communion is defined in opposition to expiation, as any aspects of sacrifice that unify (bond worshipers together in a community). [47]   Jay’s logic of sacrifice sees expiation and communion as a spectrum on which all sacrifice lies.  No sacrifice is exclusively expiatory or exclusively communion—all sacrifices both unite and separate, but they do each to a different degree. [48]   Jay asserts that by uniting one group, an other is differentiated from; in differentiating from some evil those who are differentiating are united.  Familial ovos unite the family and differentiate the family from all other families while expiating evils.  National ovos unite the nation and differentiate the worshippers from all other nationalities while expiating evils.

            There are annual (and biannual) ovo rituals that are celebrated in groups (national and/or familial).  Women are usually excluded from these rituals.  In the ritual, men circle the ovo three times, dropping a rock in offering on the ovo with each circle. [49]   Silk scarves (khadahk) that are symbolic of divinity [50] are tied to the ovo. [51]   An animal is slaughtered; the meat is cooked on a fire. [52]   Diary products, [53] vodka, and blood [54] are given in offering to the ovo.  Incense is burnt.  Prayers are recited.  After the ovo ritual, traditional games are held.

            Ovo worship, while embodying much expiation, is primarily a communion sacrifice.  Through ovos, Mongolians connect to their social communities and achieve protection from evils.  A major function of ovo ritual is the expulsion of evils and the securing of blessings.  When people expel evils together, they are united. 

The permanence and solidity of the mountain was an analogy for the ‘eternal’ clan, and the ‘renewal’ of the mountain by adding stones to the cairn paralleled the renewal of the clan by new male births.  The circumambulation of the cairn not only enabled perception of its fixity but effected a symbolic binding-in of all the branches and flags brought to the mountain by the men and boys. [55]

The communion function of ovo rituals can even be seen in ovo worship that is practiced by individuals [56] —piacular sacrifice, to use Jay’s vocabulary. [57]   Mongolians are nomadic people; travel plays an important role in every day Mongolian life.  Travelers will commonly come across ovos.  When travelers come across an ovo, they will circle the ovo three times, dropping a stone on the ovo with each circle.  The individualized ovo worship utilizes a core aspect of the annual communal ovo ritual.  The traveler performs this individualized ritual in order to secure a safe journey, to differentiate him or herself from the evils that lie lurking in the steppe.  This ritual seeks to separate the individual from harm, and in this way is expiatory.  The individual performs this ritual entirely on his or her own for his or her own benefit.  But the ritual serves a communitive function just in the fact that most Mongolians practice this ritual, even though they practice it on an individual basis. 

Sight and movement are specific ways of entering into relationship with objects, which do not cancel out their diversity but link them to one another, guiding them towards the intersensory unit of a ‘world’...Certain rituals enjoin these (re)experiences.  For example, in the oboo [ovo] ritual one must pick up a hard, cold stone and throw it with a clink among the other stones on the cairn, and one must walk several times round the cairn on the mountain top, perceiving with one’s own faculties the idea of centrality from which the surrounding world is viewed. [58]

In that most Mongolians perform the act of this individual ritual—circling ovos three times while offering stones—they are bound together.  Individuals are united by the fact that they individually seek to differentiate themselves from evil through the action of the ovo ritual. 

            Ovo sacrifices are an essential way in which communities maintain themselves.  The importance of the communitive function of ovo sacrifice is underscored by the common conception that piacular ovo rituals done while traveling—though they are important—are not as powerful as rituals conducted at community ovos. [59]   People who are not at all religious participate in ovo sacrifices in order to unite with their community. “I don’t believe in religion, because I am a member of the Communist party.  According to our tradition, the people know each other in clan and sum [rural district [60] ].  For this reason, I go to oboo [ovo] worship.” [61]   Because the ovo rituals maintain social networks, Buddhism (in becoming the religion of Mongolia) could not banish or ignore them.  Ovo sacrifices were “something that had to done.” [62]   Whatever the dominant religious tradition, the Mongolian tradition of reaffirming community through ovo sacrifice needed to be maintained.    

Buddhism has fully incorporated the ovo sacrifice into its practice.  Many annual/biannual ovo rituals are now officiated by lamas.  Prayers said at ovo sacrifices are Buddhist sutras that were written by Mongolians with Buddhist influence, based on oral shamanic traditions. [63]   There are no surviving pre-Buddhist ovo prayers. [64]   “This circumstance shows…with what intensity Lamaism took on the transformation and fusion of precisely these most ancient characteristic ideas of Mongolian folk religion.” [65]   In the writing of Buddhist ovo sutras, the regional shamanic deities that reside in the ovos were made into Lamaist deities, while maintaining their shamanic functions. [66]   The ovo ritual essentially stayed the same (in terms of the practice and the function)—it was simply made Buddhist.

The ovo was the shamanic axis mundi; Buddhism appropriated this axis mundi.  In Jay’s logic of sacrifice, she explains:

What is integrated [through communion sacrifice] is one.  What is differentiated [expiated] is logically without limit and can be expressed in a single term only negatively, as not the integrated whole, as opposed to it as disorder is to order…as Not-A is to A…In contradictory dichotomy, only one term, A, has positive reality. [67]

In seizing the shamanic axis mundi, Buddhism managed to align itself with the positive real.  Buddhism did not disrupt order.  The orientation of cosmic order was maintained from shamanism to Buddhism.  Buddhism took the symbol of reality and order that existed in Mongolian society and made it its own.  “The only alternative to the one existing order is disorder.” [68]   Buddhism—in Mongolian ovo sacrifice—found a middle way between the existing order and disorder.  Buddhism took the existing order and made that into a new Buddhist order.   

Buddhism had to incorporate ovo sacrifice into its practice in order to become the dominant religion in Mongolia because ovos strongly fulfill a communion function.  Ovo sacrifices are a primary way in which social groups connect and reaffirm themselves.  For Buddhism to become the most commonly practiced religion in Mongolia, Buddhism had to be incorporated into the regeneration of social groups.  Buddhism could only successfully implant itself into Mongolian society if the way in which social groups (re)united themselves became Buddhist; this is precisely what Buddhism achieved through its incorporation of the ovo ritual.    

Brief Historical Background

The connection between the Lamaist church and the Mongolian state was initially formed under the reign of Khublai Khan (1260-1294) through his relationship with ‘Phags-pa Lama (1235-1380). [69]   ‘Phags-pa was the most trusted advisor of Khublai Khan.  ‘Phags-pa wrote many works while in the court of Khublai.  In “Shes bya rab gsal” (“The Explanation of the Subject of Cognition”) ‘Phags-pa rewrote the creation of the universe including Mongolia with the histories of India and Tibet, and legitimizing the line of Khans as kings through Buddhism. [70]   In “The Explanation of the Subject of Cognition” and other writings, ‘Phags-pa Lama established the concept of “The Two Orders.” [71]   “The Two Orders” was a spiritual-political theology that connected religion and the state. [72]   “Later on, every time when it was necessary to strengthen the national statehood and to defend the independence of the country, the Mongols repeatedly resorted to the theory and practice of the ‘Two Orders.’” [73]   Such a ruler was Altan Khan. [74]  

            When Altan Khan (who ruled from 1543 to 1583 [75] ) attempted to unite the many clans of Mongolia into one state as large and esteemed as that of Chinggis Khan, he used Buddhism. [76]   Altan Khan was converted to Buddhism by the third grand Lama of Tibet (a position that had been established by Mangu Khan, brother and preceding ruler of Khublai Khan [77] ) in 1578.  Altan Khan gave the Lama the title Dalai (Ocean), a Mongolian translation of the second half of the Lama’s name. [78]   Altan Khan and the Dalai Lama were soon considered reincarnations of Khublai Khan and ‘Phags-pa Lama. [79]

Fire

            The goal of conquest is to unite many people together under one identity.  Political and spiritual leaders sought to unite Mongolia under one Buddhist identity.  This was achieved through fire sacrifice of shamanic idols and the replacement of those idols with Buddhist deities.  Through fire sacrifice (as with ovo sacrifice) Buddhism adopted the old shamanic order in creating a new Buddhist order.

            Altan Khan, through the influence of the Dalai Lama, passed laws to promote Buddhism and suppress shamanism.  

According to the Mongolian chronicles the most important points of the laws adopted at this time were more or less as follows: the killing of women, slaves and animals as funerary offerings, which was practised up to this time, was forbidden.  It was further prohibited to slaughter human beings or animals as sacrifices for the yearly, monthly or other regular offerings, and in general all bloody flesh offerings and all blood-offerings were forbidden.  The possession of Ongghot was also unlawful, and the order was given for these to be burned.  In their place images of the seven-armed Mahakala, the protective lord of Lamaism, were to be worshipped in every yurt. [80]

Altan Khan built monasteries in Koke Khota, which became a major center of Lamaism. [81]   When the Dalai Lama died—in 1587—his reincarnation was found in Altan Khan’s lineage and he was brought to Koke Khota for studies and upbringing. 

Altan Khan was in charge of the Tumet tribe of Mongolia. [82]   Dzasakhtu Khan passed the same (quoted above) laws for the Ordos tribe. [83]   Abidai Khan of the Khalkha also met with the Dalai Lama during his visit to Mongolia.  “In the middle of the mandala of Mahakala the (Dalai) Lama burnt all the idols of the Khan and arranged for the building of temples.” [84]   Lamaism then spread throughout Mongolia.

Neyici Toyin renounced his nobility to train spiritually in Koke Khota. [85]   In an address to the Khorchin nobility (around 1636), his biography reports that he urged them:

to cease the worship of idols, for this is a great hindrance for your eternal salvation…Ruler and nobility became strong believers on hearing this address and, following his words, each sent his own messengers, each accompanied by one of the monks from the lama’s following, on post-horses in every direction.  When these came across the dwellings of noblemen, dignitaries and ordinary people, without making any distinction, they said ‘Give us your idols!’, and many gave them to them; others, however, too frightened to seize them themselves simply said ‘There they are’.—Sent out over the whole banner [administrative region], the monks and messengers gathered the idols in and brought them together from all sides.  What they had gathered together they then piled as high as a tent of four folding frames [yurt/ger] and set fire to them.—Thus the false religion was brought to its end, and the Buddha’s doctrine became immaculate. [86]

Similar acts of conversion were carried out across Mongolia.

            The burning of shamanic idols was a communion sacrifice.  The holy significance of fire is one of the oldest spiritual notions of the Mongolians. [87]   Fire was regarded as a deity who resided over herds, riches, and fertility, and for whom offerings (into the fire) were made. [88]   In burning the idols, Buddhism appropriated shamanic fire imagery.  When people who are accustomed to seeing things burn in a fire as an offering watch their idols burn, that act becomes an offering, through their very eyes.  The same result can be true for people who hear narratives about the burning; the burning becomes sacrifice through their minds.  The burning of idols collectively then binds the population together as Buddhists offering the shamanic idols to Buddhist deities who performed the same functions as the shamanic deities.  As with the ovo sacrifice, Buddhism uses shamanic sacrifice to root itself into Mongolian society by overtaking the shamanic order (and shamanic sacrifice) rather than establishing an entirely new order. 

Shamanic idols were replaced with Buddhist deities.  The Buddhist practices that were emphasized in Mongolia were those magical Buddhist practices that most closely resembled shamanism—specifically Bon and Tantric practices. [89]   “There is now a pantheon of Lamaist deities who are again called on for the protection and provision of the same things [that shamanic deities were].  The gods have changed, but not the reasons for which one turns to them.” [90]   

Conclusion

Through sacrifice that was rooted in shamanism, specifically ovo and fire sacrifice, Buddhism maintained the old order while asserting a new one.  Buddhism Buddhisized old shamanic rituals—swapping out the shamanic deities for similar Buddhist deities.  This was a particularly skillful way for Buddhism to become the dominant religion in Mongolia.  The religion did not change at all while changing entirely.  In this way, Buddhism maintained social order while establishing a new religious order.  The communion function of Mongolian sacrifice then transcends religion.  In the case of the ovo worship, the way in which people connect to one another needed to be maintained.  In the fire sacrifice, Buddhism utilized the shamanic imagery of fire to create a communion sacrifice that bound people together to new deities who performed old functions.  In both cases, the old order needed to be incorporated into the new.  Buddhism successfully rooted itself into Mongolian social order through the existing order.  Mongolia has maintained its social order by maintaining its sacrificial rituals through its change in religious ideology.

Works Consulted

“Aspects of Mongolian Buddhism.”  Mongoluls.Net.  10 March 2002.  1 March 2004

<http://www.mongoluls.net/shashin/buddhmongol.htm>.

CIA—The World Factbook—Mongolia.  18 Dec. 2003.  25 April 2004

<http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/goes/mg.html>.

Bira, Sh.  “Qubilai Qa’an and ‘Phags-pa bLa-ma.”  The Mongol Empire and its Legacy. 

Ed. Reuven Amitai-Preiss and David O. Morgan.  Islamic History and Civilization: Studies and Texts 24. 
Boston: Brill, 1999.  240-249.

“Boogiin Urlag: Shamanistic Arts.”  Asia/Pacific Cultural Centre for Unesco.  2002.  1 March 2004. <http://www2.accu.or.jp/paap/data/A_MNG2.xml?mode=detail1>.

“Buddhism in Mongolia.”  Cultural Restoration Project.  2 March 2004.  2 March 2004

<http://www.crtp.net/buddhism.shtml>. 

“Buddhism in Mongolia: The Buddhism in Mongolia Programme.”  The Tibet Foundation.  2003.  2 March 2004 <http://www.tibet-foundation.org/aid/bim/>.

“Buddhist and Mongolian Persons and Terminology.”  Mongoluls.Net.  10 March 2002. 

4 March 2004 <http://www.mongoluls.net/buddhism/buddhgloss.htm>.

Eliade, Mircea.  The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion.  1957.  Trans. Willard R. Trask.  San Diego: Harcourt, 1959.

---.  Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy.  1951.  Trans. Willard R. Trask.  Rev. ed.  Princeton: Princeton UP, 1964.

Endicott-West, Elizabeth.  “Notes on Shamans, Fortune-Tellers and Yin-Yang Practitioners and Civil Administration in Yuan China.”  The Mongol Empire and its Legacy.  Ed. Reuven Amitai-Preiss and David O. Morgan.  Islamic History and Civilization: Studies and Texts 24.  Boston: Brill, 1999.  224-239.   

Forsyth, Jaime.  “03 July 2003.”  Mongolia and Jaime’s Peace Corps Journal and Photos. 14 Jan. 2004.  4 March 2004 <http://www.outermagnolia.com/journals/journals2003/2003july.htm>.  

Gardiner, David.  Buddhism Class Lectures.  Colorado College, Colorado Springs.  July 2003.

Guenther, Herbert.  “Buddhism in Tibet.”  The Encyclopedia of Religion.  Ed. Mircea Eliade.  Vol. 2.  New York: Macmillan, 1987.  406-414.

Heissig, Walther.  The Religions of Mongolia.  1970.  Trans. Geoffrey Samuel.  Los Angeles: U of California Press, 1980.

Humphrey, Caroline.  “Shamanic Practices and the State in Northern Asia: Views from the Center and Periphery.”  Shamanism, History, and the State.  Ed. Nicholas Thomas and Caroline Humphrey.  Ann Arbor: The U of Michigan Press, 1996.  191-228.

---.  The Unmaking of Soviet Life: Everyday Economies After Socialism.  Ed. Bruce Grant and Nancy Ries.  Culture and Society After Socialism.  Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2002.

Humphrey, Caroline, and Urgunge Onon.  Shamans and Elders: Experience, Knowledge, and Power among the Daur Mongols.  Oxford Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology.  Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

Humphrey, Caroline, and David Sneath.  The End of Nomadism?  Society, State and the Environment in Inner Asia.  Central Asia Book Ser.  Durham: Duke UP, 1999.

Jay, Nancy.  Throughout Your Generations Forever: Sacrifice, Religion, and Paternity.  Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 1992.

Kahn, Paul.  The Secret History of the Mongols: The Origin of Chingis Khan.  1984. 

Expanded Ed.  Boston: Cheng and Tsui, 1998.

Kehoe, Alice Beck.  Shamans and Religion: An Anthropological Exploration in Critical Thinking.  Prospect Heights: Waveland, 2000.   

Lamb, Harold.  The March of the Barbarians.  New York: Doubleday, Doran and Company, 1940. 

Miller, Robert J.  “A Selective Survey of Literature on Mongolia.”  The American Political Science Review.  46.3 (Sep. 1952): 849-866.  JSTOR.  Colorado College, Tutt Lib.  25 Feb. 2004 <http://www.jstor.org/>.

Miyawaki, Junko.  “The Legitimacy of Khanship Among the Oyirad (Kalmyk) Tribes in Relation to the Chinggisid Principle.”  The Mongol Empire and its Legacy.  Ed. Reuven Amitai-Preiss and David O. Morgan.  Islamic History and Civilization: Studies and Texts 24.  Boston: Brill, 1999.  319-331.

“Mongolia: Promotion of Traditional Festivals.”  Library of Congress Country Studies.  June 1989.  21 April 2004 <http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query2/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+mn0072)>.

“Mongolia: Religion—Buddhism.”  Library of Congress Country Studies.  June 1989.  4 March 2004 <http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+mn0073)>.

“Mongolia: Religious Survivals.”  Library of Congress Country Studies.  June 1989.  4 March 2004 <http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+mn0076)>.

 “Mongolia: The Suppression of Buddhism.”  Library of Congress Country Studies.  June 1989.  4 March 2004 <http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+mn0074)>.

“Mongolia: Uses of Buddhism.”  Library of Congress Country Studies.  June 1989.  4 March 2004 <http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+mn0075)>.

Morgan, David.  The Mongols.  The Peoples of Europe.  Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, 1986.

Nalanda Translation Committee.  “A Smoke Purification Song.”  Religions of Tibet in Practice.  Ed. Donald S. Lopez, Jr.  Princeton Readings in Religions.  Princeton: Princeton UP, 1997.  401-405.

Prawdin, Michael.  The Mongol Empire: Its Rise and Legacy.  1940.  Trans. Eden and Cedar Paul.  3^rd ed.  London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1953. 

“The Revival.”  Mongolia Today: Online Magazine.  Ed. L. Badamkhand and B. Lutaa.  6.  2002.  Online LLC, Mongolia.  2 March 2004 <http://www.mongoliatoday.com/issue/6/revival.html>.

Samuel, Geoffrey.  Civilized Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Societies.  Washington: Smithsonian, 1993.

Sanders, Alan J. K., and Jantsangiin Bat-Ireedui.  Colloquial Mongolia: The Complete Course for Beginners.   The Colloquial Ser.  New York: Routledge, 1999.

Snellgrove, David L.  “Tibetan Buddhism Today.”  Buddhism in the Modern World.  Ed. Heinrich Dumoulin.  Assoc. ed. John C. Maraldo.  New York: Macmillan, 1976.  277-293.

Serruys, Henry.  Rev. of Religion and Ritual in Society: Lamaist Buddhism in Late 19^th-Century Mongolia, by A. M. Pozdneyev.  Journal of the American Oriental Society.  100.3 (Jul.-Oct. 1980): 392-394.  JSTOR.  Colorado College, Tutt Lib.  26 Feb. 2004 <http://www.jstor.org/>.

Tseten, Dorjee.  “Tibetan Art of Divination.”  Tibetan Bullentin March-April 1995.  The Government of Tibet in Exile.  10 Nov. 1997.  The Office of Tibet.  29 April 2002 <http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/divination.html>.

Urtnasan, Norov.  “Mongolian Sacred Sites and Biodiversity Conservation.”  The Importance of Sacred Natural Sites for Biodiversity Conservation.  Ed. Cathy Lee, Thomas Schaaf, and Samantha Wauchope.  Proc. of the International Workshop, 17-20 Feb. 2003, Kunming and Xishuangbanna Biosphere Reserve.  Paris: UNESCO, 2003.  91-100.  The MAB Programme.  12.  23 April 2004.  UNESCO.  4 March 2004 <http://www.unesco.org/mab/publications/sacredSites81_175.pdf>.

Verboom, Guido.  “A History of Religion in Mongolia.”  Mongoluls.Net.  10 March 2002.  1 March 2004 <http://www.mongoluls.net/shashin/monrelihys.htm>.

Vitebsky, Piers.  Shamanism.  1995.  Oklahoma Paperbacks ed.  Norman: U of Oklahoma Press, 2001.

Volk, Sylvia.  “Shamanism in Mongolia and Tibet.”  Page of Myths.  7 Feb. 1999.  1 March 2004 <http://www.iras.ucalgary.ca/~volk/sylvia/Magic.htm>.

Williams, Paul.  Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations.  The Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices.  New York: Routledge, 1989. 

Title Page Image

Mahakala emanation of Avalokiteshvara, Shangpa Kagyu Mahakala, main protector of the Gelugpa School of Tibetan Buddhism:

“Mahakala (protector)—Shadbhuja (six-hands).”  Himalayan Art.  2004.  Shelley and Donald Rubin Foundation.  2 May 2004 <http://www.himalayanart.org/image.cfm/794.html>.  Accessed through:

“Deity Menu.”  Khandro.Net.  27 Feb. 2004.  2 May 2004 <http://www.khandro.net/deity_Mahakala.htm#6-armed>.

Ovo overlay taken by Holly Calhoun, Fall 2002.