试论藏传佛教活佛转世制度的产生与制定金瓶掣签的历史背景

藏传佛教源于西藏本土，公元7世纪，佛教最早从中国汉地和印度传人藏族地区。在佛教传人以前，藏地盛行原始本教信仰。佛教传人后与本教发生了激烈的冲突，传说修建大昭寺时，“昼日所筑，入夜悉为魔鬼摧毁，不见余痕”，其实则为被激怒了的本教巫师及其信徒们所毁。而两教在互相斗争中也     

历史与定制：雍和宫金瓶掣签初掣实践考

以金瓶掣签的形式进行达赖喇嘛、班禅额尔德尼、哲布尊丹巴和章嘉等重要呼图克图转世灵童的认定,是清中央政府管理藏传佛教事务的一项历史定制。为配合金瓶掣签制度的实施,乾隆皇帝特命造办处制作两只金奔巴瓶,分别存放于西藏大昭寺和北京雍和宫。清乾隆五十八年(1793),在寻访喀尔喀蒙古赛音诺颜部额尔德尼班第达呼图克图转世灵童的过程中,出现了人为舞弊事件,致使清中央政府以“国家意志”查证舞弊事件,并力促金瓶掣签制度在北京雍和宫完成初次实践。文章根据现有的文献资料,通过梳理乾隆皇帝对舞弊事件的回应,分析了初掣实践的历史背景、过程及其意义。     

神判与早期法的历史演进

神判是一种古老的人类学现象 ,也是一种古老的法文化现象。在原始法的产生和发展过程中 ,神判与原始“公法”、“私法”两个方面的许多形式都有密切的关系。本文从法人类学的角度出发 ,结合对原始宗教与习俗的理解 ,通过对神判与诸如原始献祭、放逐、杀戮、赔偿、仪式等早期习俗之间关系的研究 ,对神判中隐喻和凝聚着的早期法的原始含义进行了深入的解释 ,进一步从“公”与“私”两个方面揭示了早期原始法在历史演进中的某些特点     

试析清代湘西苗疆天王神判延续的因素

白帝天王神判在清初湘西苗疆改土归流后长期存在并延续到民国,成为该地区解决民间纠纷的重要形式之一。本文着重从民间根基深厚、国家司法体制缺位等五个方面讨论了天王神判在湘西苗疆为何能长期延续的原因。     

藏传佛教的活佛转世北大核心CSSCI

活佛转世是藏传佛教独有的传承制度。从公元13世纪至今的700多年里,活佛转世形成了一套系统、完整的制度。活佛是指藏传佛教中通过转世方式产生的特殊群体,部分活佛在蒙藏等地区享有较高的宗教威望,与藏传佛教流传地区的政治、经济、文化等方面联系密切,逐渐形成了若干政教合一的地方政权。历代中央和地方政府高度重视活佛转世,并对其进行管理,形成了整套历史定制。文章从活佛转世的产生、活佛转世制度的演变、活佛转世的历史定制、当代中国的活佛转世等多个方面阐述了藏传佛教的活佛转世。     

清代金瓶掣签立法新论

宗教行为是信仰者宗教观念、宗教体验的重要外部表现.宗教立法的调整范围应以宗教行为的社会公共性为依据.“活佛转世”是藏传佛教信仰活动中的重要宗教行为之一,对清代中国蒙藏地区政治稳定和民族团结具有极为重要的影响.清代金瓶掣签立法遵循因势利导、循序渐进的宗教立法规律,注重宗教立法的方式和技术,以及立法沟通和宣传工作,以护法降神问题为切入点,较为合理地确立了宗教立法的边界.     

再论甘丹赤巴建立的活佛转世系统

甘丹赤巴是甘丹寺创始人宗喀巴大师法座的继承者。从第一任甘丹赤巴宗喀巴大师算起,到1959年在任甘丹赤巴土登贡嘎为止,历史上先后出现过96位甘丹赤巴。之后,甘丹赤巴成为格鲁派部分活佛的转世源头,登上甘丹法座意味着显密两方面获得很高证悟,因而认为甘丹赤巴具备悲愿转世资格。但在政教发展过程当中,因受西藏政教特定历史背景方面的种种影响,部分甘丹赤巴建立了活佛转世系统,而另一部分没有建立活佛转世系统。借助大量藏文文献,又新发现了10位甘丹赤巴建立的活佛转世系统,本文就此进行简略介绍和探讨。     

祖先崇拜与四川客家神榜文化

作为祭祀祖先的象征物,四川的客家神榜几乎浓缩了客家祖先崇拜文化的全部内涵,是祖先崇拜重要的载体.对四川成都东山客家区的神榜考察表明,四川客家神榜从书写、张贴到祖堂的设置等各环节存在一套严格的禁忌体系,反映了四川客家祖先崇拜有一种宗教般的虔诚;客家神榜在祖先崇拜中体现出尊宗报本、宗族文化认同教育、祈福和预兆等各种功能.     

活佛传奇与活佛转世

活佛传奇：梦与神话交织的现实 活佛转世现象在藏传佛教中独具特色,透过这种现象,我们会获得有关生命的一种新的学说,这种学说给人类生命赋予永恒的意义,使生命有了宇宙一样无始无终的意境。如果说,生命是一条线段,这种学说则把这个线段挽成了一个圆环,并把线段的两头对接起来,     

试析闽西客家"神媒"现象及其文化源流

闽西客家地区的"神媒"现象十分盛行,这是一种替神灵说话或传达神的旨意的宗教活动.闽西客家地区的"神媒"有其独特的特点,其产生的原因和客家文化的形成密不可分.试图分析闽西客家"神媒"现象、特点,以及产生闽西"神媒"原始宗教特性文化源流,从而为客家的形成是中原汉人与其他少教民族融合形成的学说提出又一佐证.     

拱心石与神王——施鲁克人的nyikang神与神圣王权的研究

In his famous book The Golden Bough,James Frazer mentioned one special custom found along the shores of Lake Nemi in Italy. The forest king who lived beside Lake Nemi, was not only once a prisoner, but also the murderer of his predecessor. Why did the King have to be killed? How could he be killed? This was the very starting point of James Frazer’s divine kingship study. This was in contrast to the common idea held in many cultures, that kings, or even gods, would die. However, in the most primitive societies, kings and gods also had a symbolic duty. People be-lieved that their king took the responsibility to maintain the order of society and the natural world. In that case, it was obvious that if the king became old and weak, the society and order would be in danger. The way used by primitive people to solve this problem was to kill the king when he became weak, and to rebuild this symbol of order through the accession of a new king. This worry about the loss of order and fertility, Frazer explained, was the reason why they choose to kill their king, who was also a god to them. To prove his theory, Fra-zer used many examples. Among them, the exam-ple of the Shilluk of Nilotic Sudan was the only real case of a people killing their king. All the kings were possessed by the spirit of Nyikang, who was not only a hero and king in their history, but also the god who created the universe of the Shilluk people. In Shilluk, it was not the king who ruled the country, but the spirit who possessed him. For that reason, once the king showed his weakness and age, he had to be killed or commit a suicide so as to keep Nyikang in a healthy body. This case was mentioned by James Frazer, re-examined by Evans-Pritchard, and discussed by Henri Frank-fort and David Graeber. The Shilluk people lived in Sudan, in the Ni-lotic area alongside the Nile River. Their kingdom consisted of y many hamlets and occupied by linea-ges. But all these hamlets and lineages shared the same king, who was believed to be the descendant of their semi-divine hero and first king, Nyikang. Nyikang was believed to bring the fertility of men, of cattle, and of the crops. He lived among his people and blessed them. He was a mythological figure who represented a changeless moral order and the stable structure of the state. The Shilluk people believed that the king was the embodiment of Nyikang, and, thus, shared his divinity. All the Kings were believed to be descended from Nyi-kang. The king could be killed for two reasons:when he could no longer satisfy his wives, it was time for him to die and make room for a more vig-orous successor; or he would be killed by one of the prince who coveted the shrine at night. There were many graves of kings and of Nyikang all a-round the kingdom, but all the Shilluk people knew that Nyikang was not buried in any of them, he would never die. The king, however, was the container of the Nyikang’s spirit. Thus, after his death, he was no longer divine, so his funeral would be a clan affair rather than a national affair. In Frazer’s opinion, Shilluk kings confirmed their rule and power by maintaining their connec-tion with the god, Nyikang. And, he gained divin-ity from this connection. However, this divinity was not permanent. In the same way, the stability of the Shilluk social order was also not permanent, so the complete failure of that power would cause the danger to the entire society. When the new king ascended the throne, the social order would be re-established. So, to kill the old king when he could no longer take responsibility for the whole of society was the way for the Shilluk to release the tension and handle the danger which resulted from their king’s death and to keep the social order. Several decades after the publication of The Golden Bough, Evans - Pritchard gave a talk at The Frazer Lecture ( 1948 ) . He looked at the Shilluk custom of killing their king together with the social structure of the Shilluk kingdom, and pointed out some of the unreasonable explanations made by James Frazer. He believed that this cus-tom, which Frazer explained as the way the Shilluk maintained the divinity of kingship, had political reasons and social functions. Based on his field-work, Evans - Pritchard described the political structure of Shilluk as follows: Shilluk hamlets consisted of one to fifty different families. Each hamlet was occupied by members of an extended family or a small lineage. The headman of a hamlet was also the head of a lineage in the settlement. All the Shilluk settlements composed a common polity, i. e. the land belonging to the Kingdom of Shillukland. There were two chiefs in the hierarchy between the king and the settlements. These were the Ger, who represented northern Shillukland, and the Luak, who represented the southern shil-lukland. Those two chiefs each ritually represented half of the kingdom, and they played a very impor-tant role in the election of the new king. Evans-Prichard discovered that there were very close con-nections between the kings, the princes and their villages where they were born. The pregnant wives of the kings would be sent back to their natal villa-ges to bear their children, and the princes were brought up by the headmen of their natal villages. Except them, all of the princes had their royal cli-ents ( Ororo) in the villages. These were the com-panions of the prince, so they would live in the capital with the prince if he was chosen to be the king, and would return to their village to guard the king’s tomb. This information will help us to see and understand the social structure of Shilluk soci-ety. The dual balanced structure of Shilluk society was represented by the southern-northern opposi-tion. We find that the Shilluk kingdom had a double configuration—one that was politically re-flected in its territorial division, which was divided into northern and southern parts, and the other one was ritually reflected in the rituals related to the cult of Nyikang. The king and the capital specific-ally stayed in the center. As Evans - Pritchard said, Northern Shillukland and Southern Shil-lukland were the arches of the kingdom of Shilluk, and kingship was the keystone. This duality was clearly represented in the election system and in-vestiture. The investiture of the new king would take place about a year after his election. Since this ceremony was meant to rebuild the social or-der, all the hamlets would participate in it. After the old king’s death, the spirit of Nyikang would no longer stay in his body. Instead, it would move to an effigy of a hamlet which was in a far north dis-trict of Shillukland. The effigy would be sent by the army of north to the outskirts of the capital, where there would be a ceremonial war with the king’s army. Since Nyikang was in the northern army, it was obvious that the king would fail. Then, the ef-figy of Nyikang would be put on the king’s chair. Then, the king would sit on the chair, and, as a result, the spirit of Nyikang entered into the body of the new king. Now, there would be another war— because Nyikang had entered into the body of the new king, the northern army failed, and, they would then take the effigy back to the shrine. This ceremony not only illustrated the tension be-tween the north and the south of Shillukland, but also the tension between the god Nyikang and the human king. And all these tensions were resolved through a unified kingship. We find that Shilluk society, no matter whether within the vertical and horizontal structure of the southern -northern op-position, or among the different hamlets, they all had different objects to show their loyalty. Howev-er, all these differences would be reduced when they faced a unified national symbol— Nyikang or divine kingship. The king did not belong to any single tribe or hamlet after the ceremony. He be-came the symbol of the happiness and continuity of all the Shilluk people. From this ceremony, Evans -Pritchard re -explained the reason for the special custom of the Shilluk. He asserted that in Shilluk society, the king’s death would cause chaos and many dangers. The king had died in the way they described be-cause they were afraid of exposing the tensions hid-den within the social structure. So, this tradition was only a political myth hidden under the facts. The second kind of death of the king was that he was killed by a prince. Evans-Pritchard believed that all Shilluk princes received support from their natal villages. If all the tribes had their own king, the Shilluk kingdom would definitely be torn apart. So, they still needed a center from which to build the whole kingdom, i. e. the kingship. In a king-dom of this kind, if the king attached himself to one hamlet, other hamlets would fight for their own rights. So, because the kingship was permanent and ensured the unity of the whole kingdom, it should be emphasized. In contrast to Evans-Pritchard’ s structural-functionist explanation, the American archaeolo-gist, Henri Frankfort, made his analysis of the customs of the Shilluk based upon the methodology of mythology. He compared the divine kingship of Egypt and Shilluk in his book Kingship and the Gods. And, based upon the process of the combi-nation and separation of the king and the gods, he discussed the function of divine kingship. In E-gypt, the pharaoh was called “the Lord of Two Lands”. This title involved two gods who were en-emies:Horus and Seth. They were respectively the Kings of Upper and Lower Egypt. Even when Seth had been defeated by Horus, it did not mean that he totally disappeared. This is because he had his own function within the existing order. Horus was not only a mythological figure, but also was one which reflected on the pharaoh. The pharaoh was always regarded as Horus or his embodiment. This idea is quite similar to the connection of Nyikang with the Shilluk king. However, in Egypt, there was another god who had a close connection with the kingship, that is, Osiris. In Egypt, the dead king was believed to change into Osiris, and the king on the throne, just as Horus, was regarded as the son of Osiris. Beside this connection, in the myths, Osiris was said to be the “Ka ” of Horus, which was something like energy, and for the king, it was somewhat like a kind of ruling power. This kind of father-son relationship also ex-isted among the Shilluk people. When Evans -Pritchard described the ceremony, he mentioned that Dak, the son of Nyikang, was also honored. However, in Shilluk, Nyikang meant all the kings, no matter whether dead or alive. What was more important is that Shilluk kings themselves were not gods, they were just processed by Nyikang, and it was Nyikang who was the real ruler. That was the reason why the accession ceremony of the king was so important. However, in the Egyptian view, the concept of kingship itself was more complicated than that of the Shilluk. All the Egyptian kings themselves were gods, and their orders, as god’s order, must be obeyed. So, although there was a stable kingship in the two societies, the roles played by the king were totally different. However, we can still find some basic elements of the divine kingship from these two cases. Because the king himself was a human being, he would definitely turn old and die. In order to resolve the social stress caused by the succession of the kingship, the kingship had to be stable. So, the king must have a relationship with the gods. It was the god and the kingship that maintained the unity of this structure. In 2011 , David Graeber published his paper titled The Divine Kingship of the Shilluk in which he used theories from political science to discuss the relationship between Nyikang and the Shilluk king . He tried to use this case to understand the e-mergence of the state and power. He compared the political status of Shilluk with their myth and cos-mology. He proposed three very important con-cepts:i) divine kingship which was absolutely dic-tatorial and had god-like authority—and was one in which this divine god went beyond the morality;ii) the sacred kingship which was ritualized and exemplary—this was a kind of prophetic and legis-lative king ; iii) violence and antagonism with no reason - the subject of the violence was the sover-eign and the people. All of these three concepts, David Graeber said, could be found in the Shilluk Kingdom. That was not because they were so -called primitive ethnic groups, but because this kingdom was a “Utopian State”. In other words, this kingdom, or the construction of its main cit-ies, was an imitation to the cosmic order, and, therefore, did not need a management institution to rule it. However, because this could never exist in the real world, violence appeared. David Graeber divided the kingship into two types: the divine and the sacred. In the former, the king was believed to be the god itself. And, in the latter, the kings were those who brought and created order. However, if order was set up by a king, it was asked whether or not the king himself still stayed within the order? So, the extreme type of sacred kingship would be the denial of the limi-tation of the king’s life. David Graeber suggested that the King of Shilluk did not have real power. The responsibility the Shilluk king undetook was the order of the whole cosmos. When he became weak, he could no longer judge and rule based on the cosmology. This is the reason why he had to be killed. We can see that the king who ruled the state according to the cosmology was more like a divine king, so his fate was that he must be killed by people. However, after he was killed, the for-mer “scapegoat” became the god and was wor-shiped by the people. The social order was rebuilt because of the king’s death, and in doing so he be-came the embodiment of the strength needed to re-build the social order. So, we can note that in Shilluk society, although people expect stability and order, they cannot allow the rule to become a central control and monopoly. The king should be in the center of order, but because the king would definitely become old, people tried to reduce the disorder through killing him. Due to the limitations of the king, he was trapped in the absolute authori-ty of the divine kingship, and the infinite order of the order. Hence, he was killed again and again. The appearance of the king was to resolve the dilemma within this society. He tried to build a U-topia, but was trapped in it because of his own limitations. Just like the kings were killed con-stantly, the conflict between sovereignty and the people would never stop. David Greaber pointed out that this constant opposition was the origin of state. This opinion totally refuted existing political theories, o matter whether they were that of Max Weber or of those who believe that it was through making law and rules to solve the conflict or the so-cial tensions in Africa, for their opinions were based on the perspective of nation state. However, in Africa, at least in Nilotic Sudan, they were u-sing this conflict to build their state. Graeber’s ar-ticle indicated that in the war between the sover-eign and the people, the sovereign is limited, and can never win truly. It reveals a new possibility for the construction of a nation state and political sys-tem. To sum up the discussions above, we have found that in those societies with divine kingship, the reason for the king’s divinity was because he undertook the people’s expectation of a stable soci-ety, and the fertility of crops, and livestock. Be-cause these expectations were not stable in them-selves, people either believed that their king him-self was a god, or tried to ensure that their king was in a healthy state. The similarity between them was that people had to keep the kingship stable and reduce the tension and chaos caused by the king’s death. From their fear of disorder and the fear of powerful order, we can even find a variety of ways of thinking about a perfect and eternal order, as well as on an imperfect and limited life. Thus the King always connected with a stone, for people al-ways expect a stable and changeless eternity.     

文化持有者的"单音位"文化撰写模式——"村民日志"的民族志实验意义

还民族志的话语权予文化持有者,是当代实验民族志的重要目标之一.本文对"村民日志"这种新型民族志撰写实践进行了解读,认为这是以当代人类学关于文化撰写的学术实践和理论探索为基础的新型民族志实验,其核心是释放被遮蔽或压抑的文化持有者的话语权,让其拥有自主的文化叙述与解释权利,形成独特的文化持有者的"单音位"文化撰写模式.     

"乌日贡"大会与赫哲族民间文化遗产的抢救和保护

"乌日贡"大会是以赫哲族传统渔猎文化为背景,以表现古今赫哲人生产生活为主题,集民族民间文化体育项目为一体的综合性民族节日.在赫哲族传统渔猎文化逐渐成为濒危文化遗产之际,"乌日贡"大会无疑承载着抢救和保护文化遗产的重任.     

匈奴风俗文化在中原地区的传播和影响

代表匈奴文化特色的鄂尔多斯式青铜器,除集中出土于原匈奴驻牧的“河南地、新秦中”外,还广泛存在于今华北、西北、江苏、四川,甚至广东、广西地区。匈奴文化特色浓郁的饰牌、短剑亦被中原人使用和喜爱。游牧社会用人字形纹饰刻写动物身躯或装饰器物的表现手法,也被中原人借用。中原居民长襦博带的服装式样,因受胡人服饰文化影响改成上衣下裤。匈奴风俗文化强烈地影响了中原。中华文化多元一统。匈奴人民与中原人民共同创造了伟大祖国的光辉历史和灿烂文明。     

对“中国民俗文化学”须要再认识——有关学科建设的思考

本文认为 ,当代的中国民俗文化学有许多特点和不可取代的学科优势 ,但在本学科领域内有许多人都处于知之不清、似知非知或只知其昔而不知其今的状态 ,其他社会各界更是如此 ,再加上追求“大、洋、玄、奇”的社会心态 ,使这一学科受到有意无意的排斥。因而提出要从学界自身开始从实求知 ,对中国民俗文化学再认识。     

家屋的建构与人观的叠合--宜州"百姓人"家屋文化研究

宜州"百姓人"建造家屋的过程是一个完整而详细的过程.透过家屋文化以及婚礼、出生礼、贺新房等仪式,可以折射出人们建房的最大动力,在于既能获得又能延续家屋的孕育力.家屋的建构与人观是叠合在一起的.     

向东方吹笛的歌者——从《东西诗集》看歌德对伊斯兰文化的景仰

1 8、1 9世纪之交德国著名诗人歌德在阿拉伯文学和伊斯兰文学的影响下 ,特别是 1 3世纪伊朗著名诗人哈菲兹的作品中受到感悟 ,怀着一种异于穆斯林的感受和目光 ,对东方世界的演变有着深刻的认识 ,并采用东方的素材 ,以完美的艺术形式 ,通过《东西诗集》向人们展示了远离西方文明、绚丽多彩的阿拉伯世界。表达了对社会问题的态度和对伊斯兰思想的景仰 ,体现了东西方文化的交融     

金沙遗址出土文物太阳神鸟黄金面具青铜立人的藏文化解读

从藏族古代文化的视角来看,金器太阳神鸟图似乎与斯巴嘎巴和迥瓦风轮的观念有关,斯巴嘎巴和迥瓦风轮观涉及藏族本教的空间时间观和宇宙本体观。斯巴嘎巴是藏语的汉语对音,指空间和时间。迥瓦是藏语的汉语对音,指风火水土四元素。风轮是藏语的汉语意思表达,指“风”为元初原动力的宇宙形成观。在藏语言里,黄金面具实为金面。古藏人非常重视头发及其发型,即便是对死者补妆也是如此,在为死者补妆时,发辫被排在了补妆12点数的首选位置,且头发与绿松石相对应。     

东北地区的玉石文化与巫史文化

本文论述了中国东北地区的玉石文化与巫史文化。     

阿拉伯-伊斯兰丈化的形成及其对世界文化的影响

阿拉伯—伊斯兰文化是当今世界的重要文化系统之一,它是阿拉伯民族和其它信仰伊斯兰教的各民族人民共同创造的文化结晶。阿拉伯—伊斯兰文化对世界文化尤其是欧洲文化的形成和发展产生过重要作用,对于东方文化包括中国文化都产生过深远影响,在世界思想史和文化史上占有极为重要的地位。