The second revival of Buddhism in Mongol regions during the Qing period, particularly the expansion of the Geluk tradition, established a monastic network deeply intertwined with Tibetan religious authority. While Lhasa served as the institutional center of the Geluk school, Mongol monasteries were not merely extensions of Tibetan religious administration. Instead, they operated within a complex political landscape shaped by Qing imperial policies. Recognizing the strategic importance of Mongol Buddhist institutions, the Qing court sought to regulate their development, control their leadership, and integrate them into the broader framework of Qing governance.
This dual structure of authority meant that Mongol monks and monasteries were situated at the intersection of two powerful forces: the Tibetan Buddhist hierarchy, centered in Lhasa, and the Qing imperial administration in Beijing. While Tibetan hierarchs dictated matters of doctrine, education, and religious practice, the Qing imposed policies that shaped monastic administration, restricted monastic mobility, and ensured imperial oversight of reincarnations and monastic populations. However, Mongol monasteries were not passive recipients of external authority. They actively navigated, negotiated, and sometimes resisted the competing demands of Lhasa and Beijing, demonstrating their agency in shaping religious and political landscapes.
From the early Qing period, the imperial court gradually expanded its control over Mongol territories. Initially, this governance was concentrated in what is now Inner Mongolia, under the administration of the jasagh system. However, following the Qing-Zunghar War (1688–1757), Qing authority extended over Khalkha and Xinjiang, integrating these regions directly into the imperial administrative structure. A crucial institution in managing Mongol affairs was the lifanyuan, which oversaw policies regarding Mongol Buddhist institutions, including financial support, monastic population regulations, and mobilities.
The lifanyuan directly financed key monasteries and high-ranking lamas, reinforcing Qing oversight by ensuring that recipients of imperial patronage remained politically aligned with Beijing. It maintained detailed records of monastic populations and appointed head lamas, asserting Qing authority over religious leadership. A crucial mechanism of control was the seal-holding lama system, where the Qing court appointed influential lamas and granted them official seals, regulating religious authority in Mongol regions and securing their allegiance to imperial interests.
Despite Qing oversight, Lhasa remained a central force in shaping Mongol monastic life. The Geluk tradition, centered around the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, maintained significant religious and institutional authority over Mongol Buddhist institutions. Many Mongol monks traveled to Tibet for religious education, aligning their monastic practices with the teachings and disciplines established in Central Tibet. Tibetan hierarchs also played a decisive role in the recognition of important reincarnate lamas in Mongolia, reinforcing a network of religious authority that extended beyond Qing imperial control.
However, the relationship between Mongol monasteries and Tibetan hierarchs was not always one of complete submission. While Mongol monks largely followed Geluk teachings, they also adapted them to local circumstances and interests. In some cases, Mongol monastic leaders resisted Tibetan dominance, seeking to establish independent religious identities that balanced Tibetan traditions with Mongol cultural and political concerns. For example, the 3rd Mergen Gegen translated Tibetan texts into Mongolian and composed distinctly "Mongolian texts"—written in Tibetan language but reflecting Mongolian content—including ritual texts for Chinggis Khan, sulde (Mongolian spiritual flag), and oboo (stone cairn). This dynamic illustrates the agency of Mongol monks in shaping their own religious institutions despite Geluk oversight.
Mongol monks and monasteries were not simply caught between Lhasa and Beijing; rather, they actively engaged with and navigated these competing influences to maintain institutional stability and autonomy. One of the primary strategies employed by Mongol monastic leaders was the selective alignment with either Tibetan or Qing authorities depending on the political context.
Mongol monasteries leveraged Qing policies to resist Tibetan influence. When disputes arose over monastic leadership, Mongol monks sometimes turned to Qing policies to resist unwanted Tibetan influence, particularly in disputes over reincarnation lineages. For instance, in the eighth year of Shunzhi, six monks passed away in shiret khuree banner, and the head lama attempted to select six replacements on his own without reporting to the lifanyuan. However, another monk, dissatisfied with the selection, reported the matter to the lifanyuan. The lifanyuan's response was swift and strict, questioning the head lama: “Why didn’t you report to us?” While no further punishment was recorded, this incident highlights that even head lamas lacked authority to manage the allocation of lower-ranking monastic positions without Qing approval and could be used as a way of resisting the hierarchical influences.
Conversely, Mongol monks also used their ties to Lhasa as a means of resisting excessive Qing control. In several letters sent from Mongolian monasteries to Lhasa, local monasteries requested information and confirmation regarding the recognition of reincarnation lamas. Seeking guidance from the religious authority of Lhasa can itself be seen as a form of resistance. This strategy highlights the agency of Mongol religious actors, who actively shaped the political and religious landscape rather than being mere subjects of external governance.
By examining specific cases of monastic responses to Qing and Tibetan policies, this paper underscores the agency of Mongol religious actors in shaping their own institutional landscapes. Their ability to navigate overlapping authorities reflects a sophisticated understanding of political and religious power, demonstrating that Mongol monasteries were not merely sites of religious practice but also active participants in the broader imperial and transregional networks of Buddhism.
Ultimately, this analysis highlights the complexity of religious governance in Qing Mongolia, showing that the interplay between Lhasa and Beijing was not a one-way imposition of authority but a dynamic field of negotiation in which Mongol monks played a central role. Understanding this historical interplay enriches our broader understanding of Buddhist governance, imperial administration, and the role of religious actors in shaping political landscapes.
Main primary sources:
Selected Archives in Tibetan, Mongolian and Manchu at the Archives of the Tibet Autonomous Region (VOL1-VOL12), Sichuan Ethnic publishing house, 2019.
西藏自治区档案馆馆藏蒙满文档案精选
Early Qing Manchu and Mongolian Routine Memorials of Lifanyuan. Inner Mongolia People’s publishing house, 2009.
清朝前期理藩院满蒙文题本
Imperial Decree of Regulations of the Lifanyuan. Hainan publishing house, 2000.
钦定理藩院则例
The second revival of Buddhism in Mongol regions, particularly the Geluk tradition, established a monastic network tied to central Tibet. However, religious authority in these regions was not solely dictated by Lhasa. The Qing court, as the dominant power in late imperial China, actively regulated Mongol Buddhism, overseeing reincarnation confirmations, restricting monastic mobility, and imposing administrative policies.
This dual-layered governance placed Mongol monasteries at the intersection of Tibetan religious leadership and Qing imperial control. While Tibetan hierarchs dictated doctrinal matters, Qing officials shaped monastic administration. Mongol monks and monasteries navigated these overlapping authorities, balancing religious tradition with political constraints.
This paper examines how Mongol religious institutions operated under—and at times negotiated—the competing influences of Lhasa and Beijing, highlighting specific cases to explore the impact of Qing policies and Tibetan authority on monastic governance in Mongol regions.