Fascination of China
Legitimation of rule for Mongolian khans
Legitimation of power
The traditional concept of rulership concerning Mongolian tribes
Traditionally, the Mongolian nomadic society was based on the oboy
(clan)-system
and, according to the patrilineal principle, implied descent from a common ancestor. The ethnic-cultural heterogeneity of the population within the Mongolian Empire was united in the 13th century by the collective, identity-creating factor of the veneration of Chinggis Khan. The importance of the monopolized rule of Chinggis Khan is recorded in the Secret History of the Mongols. He succeeded in uniting his own people (ulus) with foreign people (qari). This explains the origin of the rule of the Chinggisids
over the Mongolian state, whose political concept is also known as mongghol
(Mongols). This fact resulted in the ruler's religious and sacred symbolism
being. In accordance the former social reference structure, which was primarily based on the oboy
system, lost it's importance.
The traditional Mongolian ruling system was also based on the concept of the "Eternal Heaven"
(mong. möngke tengri). The "Eternal Heaven" is a special feature of the Mongolian autochthonous religion. In the course of a quriltai
(council meeting) the concept of ancestry and the concept of the "Eternal Heaven" were combined. One of several candidates from the golden family of the Chinggisids was found to be worthy of the office of khagan (great khan). In addition, a ruler is characterized by his "charisma" - a power received from heaven (mong. gücün). Although this special power and charisma was not directly inheritable.
The Tibetan Buddhist social structure and its involvement by Khubilai Khan
The Tibetan Buddhist social structure was always based on the Buddhist belief that salvation is the ultimate goal of life. In order to achieve this state of salvation, a specific way of life is required - especially concerning to the service for other people. The structure traditionally refers to a Buddhist village community and its monastery community (sansk. sangha).
Within this relationship, a lay householder offers alms (sansk. dana) to a monk. The monk, in turn, teaches the eternal religious teaching of the Buddha (sansk. Dharma). In the relationship with the monk, the donor receives both salvation and spiritual merit (sansk. punya). This concept of almsgiving reflects the mutual socio-religious solidarity
between the monk and the donor.
This social concept was first used by Kubilai Khan and developed into a synergistic system
between Tibetan clergy and the Mongol rulers. In this way, Kubilai Khan forms the ideological ground of the yon mchod
relationship. The Mongolian-Tibetan yon mchod
relationship culmintaed in the partnership between Altan Khan and the Dalai Lama.
The legitimation of Kubilai Khan
The concept of the Tibetan-Mongolian partnership
The concept of the relationship between a monk (object of veneration) and a lay Buddhist (donor) was of particular importance in the time of the Mongol rulers. The relationship served both parties to gain power, status and legitimacy. It was necessary for the Tibetans and the Buddhist clergy to receive secular protection
in order to be able to spread their teachings free from outside influences. This was suggested to them in the form of military protection by the Mongols. For Kubilai Khan, the civilizing power
of Buddhist teaching was particularly important in order to be able to rule over Chinese society in the long term.
The further development of the Mongolian-Tibetan partnership under Kubilai Khan, from a personal to a religious-political one, forms the concept of yon mchod. The term "yon" is derived from the Tibetan "yon-bdag". In general, “yon” is associated with a person who “gives gifts to a sacred person”. In relation to a ruler, the term describes him as a secular, secular lay Buddhist who functions as a "lord of gifts" and offers ritual payment to a religious teacher. The spiritual teacher, who is called "beautiful" in Tibetan, receives these ritual payment from his lord of gifts (natural products, gold and military protection). Especially the protection represented a special function in this spiritual-worldly relationship by supporting the dissemination of the religious teaching. The ritual payment not only functioned as a gift to the spiritual teacher, but also implies a "gift to religion". Following the traditional concept of the traditional Tibetan society, the dual relationship should also represent a connection between two equal parties. In the term yon mchod, the spiritual, Buddhist teacher (chön) can be found in the term "mchod". This can be derived from the Tibetan »mchod-gnas« and means »someone who receives or deserves gifts«.
Since the relationship represents an "exchange of gifts", both partners need ritual payment. In the yon mchod
relationship, the spiritual teacher, who is embodied by a lama, gives the Mongol ruler the legitimation of his worldly power through religious teaching and spiritual power.
The doctrine of the "two orders" as a model of government
The previous designation of the "lord of the gift" and the "object of veneration" as the two parties of the yon mchod
relationship is reflected in the definition of the doctrine of the "two orders"
(mong. qoyar yosun, tib. lugs-gñis). The relationship was thus further developed into a political dual concept of religion and state, combining spiritual and secular aspects as two equivalent, complementary orders. In general, one speaks of chos srid zuṅ 'brel as a combination of "religious law" (Dharma) and "government".
Historically, the person who puts the law of religion into practice was the "state teacher" and reflects religious authority. The other person who puts this law into practice was the Cakravartin-king, making him a ruler of religious law. This led to an overarching spiritual legitimation
of the rule that went beyond the worldly power.
Kubilai Khan as Cakravartin world ruler
The idea of the Cakravartin-king can be found in ancient India, describing an ideal king who turns the wheel of life and rules over the entire world. To this extent, a Cakravartin-ruler implies worldly and spiritual authority.
The idea of personifying the Cakravartin-king was of particular importance to Kubilai Khan because the Mongolian ruling system traditionally represented a military aristocracy. This system was hardly compatible with the sedentary, civilized society of China. With the conquest of China, Kubilai Khan became emperor of an empire whose entire structure was based on the basic concept of the heavenly mandate. In order to be legitimized and accepted as the ruler of China, it was necessary to adapt and appreciate the Chinese ideological concept.
By incarnating a Cakravartin-ruler, the Mongolian conquerors occupied a position that differs significantly from the Chinese emperors. They thus embodied not only a secular ruler, but also one of universal, sacred character. As a Cakravartin-ruler, Kubilai Khan also implied harmony.