Page 327 [327]
OCR
MAKING OF Monastic SEXUAL MorAaLIty IN MONGOLIA’S PASTORAL CULTURE the shavi unit (otog) to which she belongs with one set of the 9 heads of livestock. The Mongol Code of Law also prohibited women from entering monasteries and monks’ living quarters. If a monk brought a woman into his ger, he was to be fined with 5 heads of livestock, the head lama who allowed this to happen was to be fined with 2 sets of the 9 heads of livestock, and a demc¢ (a business manager of the monastery) with one set of the 9 heads of livestock. As for the husband of that woman, if he was a Mongolian government official (füsmel), he, together with his wife, was to be handed over to the subordinate Ministry of Affairs and punished.'’As ethnographic data from the Qing period suggest, the Qing’s mission to legislate Mongolian monks’ sexual abstinence through the Mongol Code of Law was more of an aspiration than achievement. As we will see, the same can be said ofthe Mongolian monarchial government’s attempts to regulate monks’ sexual conduct with the statutes enacted in Autonomous Mongolia. The record of the precedent court cases decided according to the Khalkha Regulations, which from 1789 were applied only to Bogd Jebtsundambas’ personal estate, or the Great Shavi, was compiled in the document called “The Red Cover” (Ulan Xacart) from 1821-1913. It contains the account of 488 court cases, from among which, only three deal with monks’ sexual misconduct: one involves a monk who at night secretly brought a woman into Ikh Khüree; the second case concerns a monk who accommodated his female relatives in Ikh Khüree; and the third case involves amonk who gave a wife in marriage to another monk. All three cases took place in the 1860s, and in all three cases the monks were penalized with fines in livestock.'* At first look, this negligible number of precedent court cases involving monks who violated the regulations may seem indicative of extremely rare cases of monks’ sexual offenses. However, the absence of other court cases and the availability of various historical and ethnographic sources from the latter part of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that inform us of monks’ widespread sexual misconduct, suggest that monks were rarely brought to court for their misbehavior. For its own security reasons, the Qing administration in Mongolia attempted to curb the mingling of monks living in Mongolia’s capital with laypeople. In response to the report from the concerned Qing governors (amban) in Urga, in 1763, an imperial '2 Mongyol Cayajin-u Bicig. Vol 1. Transcribed and indexed by Bayarsaixan Batsiixin. (Monumenta Mongolica, Vol. 4.) Centre for Mongol Studies, Mongolian National University, Ulanbatar 2004, pp. 43-44. Bayarsaixan, B. — Batbayar, B. — Lhagwajav, B.: Monglin Stin Cajlax Ajillagani Tiixen Survalj Bicigt xisen Sinjilgé (Ulan Xacart). Center for the Research of the History of the Mongolian State Laws of the Law School of the Mongolian National University, Ulänbätar 2010, p. 73, pp. 78-79. “Case # 91 (B section): On the fourth month of 1862, the lama Tserenkhüü (Ceringxü) who at night brought a female into Khüree has been penalized with 5 [heads of livestock].” “Case #151 (B section): On the twelfth month of 1864, the gatekeeper Luwsandash (Luwsandas) and the lama Damchogdorj who accommodated female relatives (förlın em oxid) in Khüree’s place were each fined with 5 [heads of livestock]. The proctor [of a temple] (gewxüi) Ariy-a, who did not bring [their misdemeanor] out by investigation was penalized with three [heads of] livestock.” “Case #159 (B Section): The gelen (dge slong) Sonomtseren (Sonuméerin) who gave a wife in marriage to the lama Tserendash (CerendaS) has been punished with 9 [heads of] livestock.” 13 325
