Suchergebnisse

The article formulates the thesis about the insufficiency of approaches from the standpoint of the history of philosophy for understanding the systemic whole of Buddhist teachings and practices, in particular, due to their tendency to isolate Buddhist philosophy in its "pure form" from the polymorphic whole of the Buddha's Teachings in the likeness of Western philosophy, and also because of Eurocentric stereotypes. The illegitimacy of the philosophical opposition between the «gradual» Path of the Sūtras and the «swift» Path of the Tantras is affirmed. An approach to the gradual systematization of the Buddha's Dharma is proposed in the relationship of its theoretical and practical aspects, based on Indo-Tibetan texts and the oral commentary tradition, with the recognition of the fundamental importance of the classical Indian schemes for the gradual systematization of Dharma, contained in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, Madhyamaka texts (Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva, Chandrakirti), Maitreya/Asanga's «Abhisamayalamkara», Asanga's writings on the bhūmī, Śantideva's «Bodhicharyāvatāra», Atisha's «Lamp», as well as in the texts of Lamrim by Je Tsongkapa and other authors. It is concluded that the gradual systematization of the Buddha Dharma, revealed within the Indo-Tibetan Mahāyāna, has a universal character.

The article presents an experience an experience to research the origin of the ethnic name Tabunut, also known in the form Tabangut and a number of other forms that became widespread among Buryat and Mongolian people after the end of the 17th century. The question of the origin of this community and the interpretation of its name is one of the most controversial in the history of the Buryats and Buryatia. There is no general point of view on the origin and ethnic identity of the Tabanguts among scholars. The problem is not analysed in this article due to the lack of source data. It was established in the oral tradition and, then, in research literature, a point of view that the name Tabangut should to be compared with the Mongolic title tabunang 'son-in-law of a khan'. We reject this hypothesis and show that is a false etymology based on a popular reinterpretation of the word. The creation of this etymology by the bearers of the ethnonym and the legendary motif supporting it should have occurred at the end of the 17th century. Mention of various forms of the name of this community in written sources suggests that the correct and original form of its name that justified linguistically is tabunuγud > tabunūd derived from the numeral tabun 'five' with the plural affix +nUGUd. This name tabun is known in Chinese sources describing Mongolian tribes in the 15th century. It was also recorded the name tabïn of Mongolic in its origin in the registers of Turkic tribes in Central Asia in the late 16th century. Various forms of this ethnonym can be found widespread among Turkic peoples, such as the Kazakhs (tabïn), Bashkirs (tabïn), Khakassians (taban), Tuvans (tawu). As a result of a critical examination of this case in history, it can be argued that it clearly shows the process of rethinking the ethnonym among the people who bore it. It also demonstrates that the bearers of historical ethnonyms were often unaware of the true origin of the names of their own communities.

The article deals with the origin of the tribal name Coŋgōl or Tsongool, in other orthography. It also known as Soŋgōl or Songool in Buryat pronunciation, where the Written Mongolian [č] developed into [s] through the step [ts] in position before a vowel other than [i]. We argue the connection of the word with the ethnic name Čuŋul ~ Čumul, attested in different spelling forms in Chinese, Old Turkic, Khotanese Saka and Persian texts, in connection with the history of Eastern Turkestan and Gan-su Province of China, at least from the of the 7th to the 11th centuries A. D., and also preserved now among the ethnonyms of the Sarïg-Yogur people as Čoŋïl ~ Čuŋïl. In the latter case, the fact of historical continuity cannot raise any doubts. According to the results of this research, it is possible to argue that the community arrived to territory of modern South Buryatia to become subjects of the Russian Tsar at the end of the 17th century had already pronounced the name Tsongool (< WMong. Čongγol) in the variant Tsoŋgol, taking into account the fact that the designation of a vowel in the second syllable as a long one is a later orthographic phenomenon in Buryat. In other words, they were attested the resulted phonetic development [č] > [ts] and consistent vowel labialization in both syllables of the word, regardless of the peculiarity of the Tsongol dialect of Buryat language, where the development of WMong. [u] > [o] is observed. In this manner it can be interpreted the form of the tribal name known among the Barguzin Evenks čåŋgå̄lʹi̯r as reflected the first mentioned process. This point can also be confirmed by the data on onomastics of the persons associated with the Tsongols, attested in the later 17th century, where it can be found the development [č] > [ts] > [s]. It is discussed the problem of correlating two phonetic forms in connection with the chronology of the appearance of Tsongols in the territory of modern Buryatia. Despite the absence of any earlier information about the existence of a group with this name in the region, they are known the legends according to which the territory of origin of the Tsongols is localized in the valley of the Kuda River (in modern Irkutsk region), where a small group with the name Songool (Tsongool) was recorded back in the 19th century. Explaining the chronology of phonetic changes in a historical context requires future research.

The article deals with the specific features of the evolution of the Mongolian educa-tion system in 1920–1930s, in particular development of the secular education from scratch with the help and support of the USSR. We have considered the principles of the Soviet educational system, which formed the basis of the educational system of the Mongolian People's Republic. Based on archival materials we have revealed the main aspects of the Soviet-Mongolian cooperation in the field of education during the period under study, and analyzed the issues of training the national personnel in the leading educational institutions of the USSR.

In this paper they are analyzed the ethnonyms known among the Buryats in the form of Manǰiraγ [Manǯirag˱], Malǰiraγ [Malǯirag˱] etc. (those are Manžirak, Manžirak in Russian spelling, "Manzir" in Russian documents of the 17th century), and among the Yakuts to be attested as Maldˊaγar. The Buryat forms reflected the original *Manǰi Uraγ or *Malǰi Uraγ, where attested in both cases the first element characterized by the development of complex -nǰ- > -lǰ-. The secondary form may be found also in mentioned Yakut Maldˊaγar that to be metathesised version of *Maldˊǝraχ < *Malǰiraγ, due to development of Mong. -raγ > Yak. *-raχ > -γar. So, it is possible to view here another Mongolic borrowing in the register of Yakut ethnonyms. The etymology of the original ethnonym was also analysed in the paper. The word is not based on roots such nor as Manču ~ Manǰu, that is the ethnic name of Manchu people, nor the from Buddhist lexicon word Bandi 'novice, pupil of a lama' (> Kalm. Manži), because of problems in chronology for possibility of any of such versions. So, it is of the possible the most optimal version seems to prefer the word analysed to be compared with known in Written Mongolian manǰi 'an elk'. It may be to argue that the development -nǰ- > -lǰ- attested had made place already in the form of the word have not yet been a part of the ethnonym contracted. Among Tofalars it is known the tribal name Maldˊär < *Malǰi är 'Malǰi people, people of Malǰi',. It seems that among both Yakuts and Tofalars it is circulated the secondary form of the Mongolic name. The penetration of the word here had started before 17th century. And one can say also that not only the development -nǰ- > -lǰ- had its place to that time that supported by known among Yakuts personal name attested in Russian spelling as Malegar, i.e., *Maläγar [*Maljäγar], but it was also the Middle Mongolic /ǰ/ > Buryat */dz/ reflected in Russian spelling "Manzirskiy" found in documents of the 17th century.

An archaeological culture is one of the base terms of archaeology. The content of this term was discussed from the time of its introduction into scientific discourse. During the investigations in Transbaikalia, researchers asserted about Stone Age archaeological cultures for the first time at the beginning of the 1930s. Till the beginning of the 1890s, A. P. Okladnikov's opinion has prevailed. According to him, Transbaikalia Paleolithic represented a monocultural phenomenon. This point of view is developed by some archaeologists in the present day. Additionally beginning from the 1960s the idea about existing of several archaeological cultures in the Transbaikalia Paleolithic has been generated. In the 1930s the distinguishing archaeological cultures in Transbaikalia Stone Age was based on morphology and typology of stone artifacts. In this sense, the technology of stone tools production was considered to a lesser degree. At the end of the 20th century, the main emphasis has been given to the tools' production technology as the key component of the stone industry. Therefore, while a theoretical base of Transbaikalia Paleolithic developed stone industry was in the base of identifying archaeological cultures with the shift of some accents from morphology and typology to the technology of production. Gradually together with stone industry data of cultural horizons spatial organization becomes involved as supporting elements in distinguishing archaeological cultures in Transbaikalia. At the same time often the only stone industry is accessible for the investigations, and it demonstrates the main trend of Paleolithic material culture development. Using the complex of different criteria for distinguishing archaeological culture corresponds to the system approach which is recently developed intensively. As a result of the assessment of the synchronous stone industries of Transbaikalia, we concluded that the archaeological culture is the tool of the interpretational level and reflects phenomena that really existed in the past. It is proposed to use as criteria not only typology, morphology, and technology, reconstructed on the base of the stone industry but also life subsistent strategies reconstructed with the taking into consideration all available data. Such strategies could be conditioned by the environment, but also are the reflection of the development of the technological traditions inherent to the given culture.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the Yakut ethnonym *J̌emkon and *Yemkon, which can be identified in the personal onomastics (the name Zhemkon and surname Yemkonov) and derived names of various administrativeterritorial units (Yemkonskaya or Yamkonskaya volost', Zhemkonskiy nasleg) recorded in the Russian documents. For the first time, the ethnonym becomes known in the documents of 17th century related to the population of the Lena River valley, which later became part of the Kangalasskiy ulus. Later the name was recorded in Vilyuy region. The modern Yakut spelling cöppön, cökpön, cökkön, cömkön reflects a late adaptation in the Yakut environment. In this connection the authors of the article draw their attention to the ethnonym known among the Buryats. It is widespread in different versions over vast territories among several ethnic-territorial groups of the Buryats. It is form Zemχed (letter ǰimked) of the Khori (Qori) tribe Khudai (Qudai). The various forms of the ethnonym and the corresponding eponyms as Yenχen, Zenχen, Ženχen, Žinχen are widely represented both among the Khori (Qori) tribe Galzut (Γalzuud) settled not only among the Khori (Qori) and Aga Buryats, and among the Verkholensk, Ol'khon, and Barguzin ethno-territorial groups of Western Buryats. The analysis shows that the Russian spelling of the Yakut ethnonym could reflect an adaptation of the original variant to be close to the pronunciation of *ǰimken (~ *dʹimken?), which in turn makes it possible to characterize its phonetic appearance as tending to Western Buryat dialects. Therefore, there are reasons to associate the penetration of this ethnonym into the Yakut environment with native speakers of a Western Buryat type language. The etymology of the analyzed name is difficult. Formal analysis of morphology leads to the opinion that the possible reconstructed semantics would be more likely to a personal name or toponym. It is also noted that it is possible to consider the spelling *J̌imken ~ *Yimken as correspond in its Mongolic form to the name known from the sources of the 11th–14th centuries and related to the Turkic tribe Yemäk ~ Yimäk. However, the authors leave this remark only as a hypothesis to be possible for further discussions.

The formation of the Yakut people is associated with the several waves of migration from the southern direction, in which Mongol-speaking communities took part. The researchers of the Yakuts ethnic history noticed the ethnonym İgidäi, known as the name of a large tribal group in the interfluve of Aldan and Lena Rivers, in the 17th century, which was connected in Russian written sources with the particular unit are "Igideiskaya volost". In the late 19th century the descendants of this population were presented by four administrative units (nasleg) in the Bayagantai and Baturus ulus (as 1st and 2nd Igideysky in both cases). There is no association in the names of the smaller administrative units (Russian: rod) attested as parts of these nasleg with other ethnonyms. This suggests that those populations were quite homogeneous and did not subject to large external migrations in the historical period. By itself, the ethnonym İgidäi was repeatedly associated with the name of a large tribal grouping of Western Buryats, known as eχirid (rus. ekhirit), which in turn goes back to the Middle Mongolian ethnonym Ikires. Pprevious researchers had outlined right path of searching, however they limited only a statement of the formal consonance of the Yakut İgidäi and buryats eχirid. The present article is devoted to the argumentation of the comparison based on the analysis of phonetic data. The form İgidäi make it possible to reconstruct the primary appearance of the ethnonym as *ikir (plur.: ikid), which correlates with the dialectal version of the Western Buryat ethnonym attested as eχirši, also referring to the early form *ikir. The tribe Ikires mentioned above was known in the 13–14th centuries and was associated with the territory of Mongolia. Information about the Ekhirits, because of lack of written sources, attested only in the 17th century AD in the Western Baikal region. Despite the obvious kinship of their names, it is not possible to trace any intermediate stages that would allow us to talk about the unity of the history of the population known by these ethnonyms. At the same time, the identification among the Yakuts the ethnonym, which clearly goes back to the form that demonstrates the phonetic characteristics of Western Buryat dialects, allows us, based on the general historical context, to move the lower chronological border beginning the stay of the ethnonym Eχirid carriers in the Western Baikal region at least by a century.

One of the reflections of the anthropomorphic model is the understanding of kinship in the context of the anatomical organs of the human body. The anthropomorphic model was of great importance in understanding the world order, the structure of society and its functioning in the culture of the Turkic and Mongolian peoples of Inner Asia. This paper aims to study the meaning and functions, mainly of the internal organs and biological fluids of the human body in the system of the social structure of a nomadic society and in the interaction of its members. The sources of the research were historical and ethnographic data published in the works of ethnographers, historians, linguists, as well as folklore and original field research materials. The social structure of the nomadic society was represented, first of all, through the "bone" version of the anthropomorphic model. Also, of importance in understanding the social structure of a nomadic community are blood, breast milk, liver. In the traditional worldview of the Turkic and Mongolic peoples, the liver was given the status of the main internal organ of the human body. Its size and color led the nomads to believe that the liver was a hematopoietic organ. In this regard, the liver was seen as the receptacle of the vital substance (kut) or soul. The liver was associated with manifestations of mental states (anger, grief, joy) and moral qualities (kindness and anger). Symbolic images of the liver and blood perform important functions of a marker of a related group on the maternal side, including mythical relatives in the form of animals. In the situation of ritual meals, which are part of the wedding ritual, the liver acted as a symbol of the twinning of the spouses. It should also be noted that the animal skeleton model was taken as a basis in the organization of the social hierarchy of the nomad society. In legends about the origins of individual communities (clans, tribes), the carcass of a sacrificial animal is often mentioned. This research made it possible to establish the functions and significance of symbolic images of the skeleton, internal organs and biological fluids of the human body as markers that determine the place of members of society in the structure of the social hierarchy. In addition, these images are an important tool in the social communication of nomads.

The study of the causes of a wide range of diseases in the traditional worldview of the Turko-Mongolian peoples revealed a wide range of "culprits" that cause diseases, the nature of which people could not explain. First, these are infectious diseases, mental illnesses, diseases of internal organs and many others. The images of supernatural forces that cause diseases are well known – these are deities and spirits of all spheres of the mythological universe, heavenly bodies, winds, fogs. But, if the images of the "owners" of diseases are well known, then the question of what kind of diseases themselves could have remains unresolved. Information about how people in traditional society representes each specific disease is very scarce. Nevertheless, they exist, and their study is of great interest, since these ideas contribute to the understanding of folk methods of healing, measures that protect against diseases. Thus, the article aims to identify popular ideas about the appearance of diseases, their causes, methods of their treatment and prevention in the traditional culture of the Turko- Mongolian peoples of Siberia. Known information regarding the images of some common diseases shows that they were mainly images of a worm, snake, hairspring. These images arose under the influence of ideas about reptiles and amphibians, as well as parasites, which the population of Siberia suffered everywhere in the 19th century. Attention is drawn to the image of diseases affecting the joints and bones. These diseases were represented by the spirit of a dog killed by a man who took revenge on his killer by gnawing his bones and causing him excruciating pain. This image is most likely inspired by the nature of the painful sensations caused by rheumatism, arthrosis, and other diseases of the musculoskeletal system. In some situations, specific images of diseases justified the methods of healing, for example, the use of ointments prepared from worms. Part of the healing techniques was aimed at expelling the disease from the patient's body, and in this case, they used to mean that frightened the spirit of the disease, or harmed him - fire, poisonous mixtures. At the same time, rational methods of treatment were also used in folk medicine. The use of hot medicinal baths, poultices from medicinal plants in the treatment of diseases of the musculoskeletal system, certainly reflects the positive experience of the population of Siberia, accumulated over many centuries. Rational also seems to be the classification of household products and clothing made from natural materials according to useful and harmful properties.