Conference on the Mongolian Buddhist Revival

“Contemporary Mongolia: Transitions, Development, and Social Transformations” (November 14-17, 2008).

Special on-day focus: The Revival of Buddhism in Mongolia in the Context of Post-Socialist Society.

A one-day focus on contemporary Mongolian religiosity co-sponsored by the Buddhism and Contemporary Society Program, and The Tung Lin Kok Yuen Canada Foundation at the Contemporary Mongolia conference. Organized by Julian Dierkes and Tsering Shakya. Conference main page and abstract page.

“in the context of a marketplace of religions not only generated the largest number of submissions in response to the conference call for proposals, but also sparked much debate beyond the confines of academics who are explicitly interested in contemporary Mongolia. Dr. Tsering Shakya (IAR) joined Dierkes in the co-organization of the day focusing on contemporary religiosity in Mongolia. His prominence as well as his championing of research on contemporary Buddhism contributed to the large crowds that the conference drew on its opening day, Friday, November 14.”

Matthew King, University of Toronto, Canada, “Finding the Buddha Hidden Below the Sand: Dynamics and Complexity in the Revivalism of Mongolian Buddhism”

Zsuzsa Majer, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, “Present-day Mongolian Buddhist Temples: Continuation or Disjuncture with the Past and the Tibetan Buddhist Tradition”

Johan Elverskog, Southern Methodist University, USA, “Theorizing Christianity in Mongolia”

Mátyás Balogh, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, “Ways of Practicing Shamanism in Mongolia”

Krisztina Teleki, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, “Building on Ruins, Memories and Persistence: Revival and Survival of Buddhism in the Countryside”

Marie-Dominique Even, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France, “Religious Pluralism versus Cultural Identity in Mongolia”

Morris Rossabi, Columbia University, USA, “Modern Mongolian Buddhism: Spiritualism Without Monasticism?”

From the Conference report:

“The conference opened with a day devoted to presentation on contemporary religiosity and especially the revival of Tibetan Buddhism in post-state socialist Mongolia. While most people with even a cursory interest in contemporary Mongolia are aware of the seemingly massive revival of Tibetan Buddhism in the country, the presentations and discussions cast a much more differentiated light on this phenomenon. Krisztina Teleki (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary) and Zsuzsa Majer (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary) presented two papers on joint research they have been conducting to document the state of the Buddhist clergy and of Buddhist practice in Ulaanbaatar as well as in the countryside. While the more established monasteries in Ulaanbaatar  seem to be operating with some consistent practices and a steady stream of novice monks, new foundations in the cities as well as in the countryside seem to be struggling very much to establish themselves despite the apparent popular interest in Buddhism. Very interestingly, Majer and Teleki’s research team observed frequent instances of new temples being set up, but disappearing very quickly again. Even larger and more-established monasteries are struggling with the lack of facilities to house novices as well as with liturgical and educational gaps due to the absence of monks that were trained in Mongolia during the state-socialist period.  The team’s research in the countryside showed that the revival of Buddhism there is even more tenuous. The large majority of historical and contemporary religious sites that they found were no longer operational or in disrepair. Especially historical sites are severely imperiled by locals’ scavenging for materials and losses due to a lack of even rudimentary protection of historical sites. In their presentations as well as in the subsequent discussion, it was frequently mentioned that there are some tensions between Tibetan and other foreign monks who have been organizing the teaching of Buddhist liturgy since 1991, and nativist religious activists. More information on this project is available at www.mongoliantemples.net”

“Matthew King’s (University of Toronto) presentation focused on this nexus of religious revival in the countryside and the clash between nativist and other strands of Buddhism with Tibetan and other monks involved in the teaching of Mongolian novices. King reported on his fascinating ethnographic fieldwork in a Buddhist summer camp for Mongolian youth. This discussion coupled with the earlier Teleki and Majer discussion made the very contested nature of the revival of Tibetan Buddhism in Mongolia quite clear. What may have looked superficially to be a fascinating story of the sudden return to a previous religiosity despite an enforced break of 70 years, on closer inspection turns out to be a much more multi-faceted, contested and fascinating process.”

“The complexity of contemporary religiosity is a topic that Johan Elverskog (Southern Methodist University) addressed in his presentation. He opened his discussion by taking issue with Dierkes’ ‘rosy’ portrayal of the state of research on Mongolia focusing specifically on research on Mongolian Buddhism as an area where he saw particular challenges with advancing scholarship on Mongolia. Beyond his substantive criticism of research on Mongolia, Elverskog also noted the lack of institutionalization of research on Mongolia in North American universities. As an indicator of this he noted that there are six endowed chairs for research on Tibet in the United States, but none focused specifically on Mongolia. In the discussion later on, Tsering Shakya, the IAR’s co-organizer of the discussion of Buddhist revival who holds the CRC Chair in Religion and Contemporary Society of Asia, pointed out that while Tibet may boast six endowed chairs in North America, most Tibetans would gladly trade these for one seat at the United Nations! Elverskog noted that in his area of research, Asian religions and cultures, it was noticeable how sympathetic the entire field seemed to be toward Buddhism while scholars as well as other visitors to Mongolia generally expressed disdain for missionary activities. While the link with Tibet makes Buddhism inherently interesting in a country that borders on the People’s Republic of China, should scholars not also be equally interested in the rapid rise of charismatic Christian sects in Mongolia as elsewhere in Asia and, indeed, the world? In the context of her discussion of religious pluralism Marie-Dominique Even (Groupe Sociétés, Religions, Laïcités – Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique) emphasized the central role that Buddhism plays in Mongolians’ self-understanding. This centrality has had an important impact on interactions between religiosity and the state despite their strict separation as specified by Art. 9 of the Mongolian constitution.”

“For Morris Rossabi’s (Columbia University) keynote address, the range of audience members was further opened by extending an invitation to associates of the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, UBC’s senior research institute supporting basic research through collaborative, interdisciplinary initiatives. Associates of the Peter Wall Institute come from all disciplines – not just social science – across the university and Rossabi was the perfect speaker to address this audience not only due to his reputation, but also because his own research interest have been wide-ranging. After being introduced by Dianne Newell, the director of the Peter Wall Institute, Rossabi acknowledged UBC’s important historical role in providing refuge to the Institute of Pacific Relations, as well as to scholars associated with the IPR during the McCarthy era in the United States. Strong links to this era continue to thrive at UBC through the publication of Pacific Affairs at the IAR. In the tradition of scholars like Owen Lattimore who had been associated with the IPR, Rossabi addressed pressing contemporary concerns on the basis of his wide-ranging historical knowledge. In his discussion of Mongolia’s transition to a market-driven democracy, Rossabi emphasized the detrimental role abstract models of economic development and “shock therapy” have played in the 1990s. These models were mandated by international organizations and the economists who work for them without much if any attention to the particularities of the Mongolian case, among which a continued presence of mobile herding as a share of the economy and Mongolians’ identity was perhaps the most prominent.”