Renaissance Man From Amdo:
The Life and Scholarship of the Eighteenth-Century Amdo Scholar
Sum pa Mkhan po Ye shes dpal ’byor (1704-1788)
A dissertation presented
by
Hanung Kim
to
The Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in the subject of
History and East Asian Languages
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
April, 2018
© 2018 – Hanung Kim
All rights reserved.
Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp
Hanung Kim
Renaissance Man From Amdo: The Life and Scholarship of the EighteenthCentury Amdo Scholar Sum pa Mkhan po Ye shes dpal ’byor (1704-1788)
Abstract
This dissertation examines the new cultural developments in eighteenth-century
northeastern Tibet, also known as Amdo, by looking into the life story of a preeminent monkscholar, Sum pa Mkhan po Ye shes dpal ’byor (1708-1788).
In the first part, this study corroborates what has only been sensed by previous
scholarship, that is, the rising importance of Amdo in Tibetan cultural history. This is done by
quantification of the cultural development using geostatistical data analysis regarding three main
cultural phenomena: reincarnations, monasteries, and literary production. In the second part, the
study sheds light on the qualitative aspects of each phenomenon with a case study on Sum pa
Mkhan po’s autobiographies. His accounts reveal that Amdo’s incarnation institution was not a
simple copy of the Tibetan convention, but a process of unique development from a clan-based
institution to an ideal form thanks to efforts of improvement by local agencies. For the scholarly
development, Sum pa Mkhan po’s frequent contacts with people in Amdo and Inner Mongolia
formed a new set of interests in knowledge that has practical functions for the people who invited
him, as he adapted his pre-obtained Buddhism-centered knowledge to a commoner’s aim on
practical uses. For the monastic connections, Sum pa Mkhan po’s abbacies demonstrate the ongoing competition between local powers and new religious authorities, and this led him to have a
deeper level of interactions with extra-Amdo regions such as Inner Mongolia. By forming
connections based on bestowals of tantric initiations, Sum pa Mkhan po contributed to a revival
iii
of Buddhist infrastructure among southern and central Inner Mongolian people, without losing
his identity of being an “Amdo” lama.
This study is the first investigation to clearly show that Sum pa Mkhan po’s
autobiographies uniquely manifest the detailed features of the late pre-modern development of
Tibetan culture in which the Amdo region played its important role. Sum pa Mkhan po was in
the larger stream of the cultural movement that can be called “Amdo Renaissance,” by inheriting
the traditional Tibetan culture, but developing and disseminating it with his own initiatives and
abilities.
iv
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1. From Eighteenth-century Amdo to Sum pa Mkhan po........................................................................1
2. Why study Sum pa Mkhan po?..................................................................................................................3
3. Previous Studies on Sum pa Mkhan po....................................................................................................5
a. General descriptions of his life and works ...........................................................................................................6
b. Thematic accounts of specific topics .....................................................................................................................9
4. Sources.......................................................................................................................................................... 10
a. The Longer Autobiography ....................................................................................................................................11
b. The Shorter Autobiography ...................................................................................................................................14
c. Other Sources..............................................................................................................................................................17
5. Outline of Dissertation .............................................................................................................................. 20
Chapter I. Amdo Renaissance...........................................................................................................22
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 22
2. Another Renaissance in Tibetan Civilization....................................................................................... 24
3. Quantitative Aspects of Amdo Renaissance and a Prosopographical Approach ........................ 29
3. 1. Incarnation Lineages ...........................................................................................................................................32
3. 2. Monasteries.............................................................................................................................................................36
3. 3. Production of Literature .....................................................................................................................................39
4. Background of the Development ............................................................................................................ 48
5. Conclusion: Toward qualitative aspects of Amdo Renaissance....................................................... 50
Chapter II. Outline of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Life...........................................................................52
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 52
2. Problems with Preexisting Biographical Sketches of Sum pa Mkhan po...................................... 54
3. Birth, Incarnation Identification, and Early Life at Dgon lung Monastery (1704-1723)........... 60
4. Studies and Activities in Central Tibet (1723-1731)........................................................................... 65
5. Teaching, Learning, Forming Monastic Connections in Amdo, and Two Journeys to Beijing
(1732-1743)....................................................................................................................................................... 72
6. The First Abbacy at Dgon lung, Journey to Mt. Wutai, and the Beginning of Contacts with
Mongolia (1744-1755) .................................................................................................................................... 83
7. The Second Abbacy at Dgon lung, Establishment of Bkra shis rtse, and Welcoming Lcang skya
(1756-1766)....................................................................................................................................................... 92
8. The Second Visit to Mt. Wutai and Full-scale Activities in Mongolia (1767-1774)..................... 98
9. The Third Visit to Mt. Wutai, Activities around Mongolia, and Meeting with the Paṇ chen bla
ma (1775-1780) ..............................................................................................................................................104
10. The Third Abbacy at Dgon lung and Death (1781-1788) ..............................................................110
Chapter III. Sum pa Mkhan po’s Incarnation Lineages.......................................................... 115
1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................115
2. Overview of Tibetan incarnation institution......................................................................................118
3. Sum pa before Sum pa Mkhan po ........................................................................................................120
4. The Sum pa Bifurcation..........................................................................................................................127
5. Identification of Ye shes dpal ’byor as a Sum pa incarnation........................................................133
6. Old and New Sum pa Coexistence........................................................................................................143
7. Conclusion: Sum pa Mkhan po’s discourse on incarnation ...........................................................149
Chapter IV. Sum pa Mkhan po’s Scholarship ........................................................................... 155
1. Introduction: from Sa skya Paṇḍita to Sum pa Mkhan po ............................................................155
2. Sum pa Mkhan po’s Education.............................................................................................................156
v
2.1. Early education at Amdo.................................................................................................................................. 157
2.2. Education in Central Tibet............................................................................................................................... 164
2.3. Ongoing learning after returning to Amdo................................................................................................. 173
2.4. Summary of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Learning ............................................................................................... 177
3. Sum pa Mkhan po’s activities of sharing and implementing his knowledge ..............................178
3.1. Teaching Activities ............................................................................................................................................ 178
3.2. Empowerments .................................................................................................................................................... 180
3.3. Medical Help ........................................................................................................................................................ 182
3.4. Rainmaking Rituals (char ’bebs)................................................................................................................... 182
3.5. Soul-redemption Rituals (’pho ba btab pa) ............................................................................................... 183
4. Collected Works.........................................................................................................................................184
4.1. The Mindset Behind Its Writings .................................................................................................................. 184
4.2. Arrangement of Collected Works .................................................................................................................. 187
5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................189
Chapter Appendix I: A List of Thirty-three Teachers of Sum pa Mkhan po.................................192
Chapter Appendix II: Topics and Authorship Information of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected
Works...............................................................................................................................................................194
Chapter Appendix III: Current Preservation Sites of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works.....217
Chapter V. Sum pa Mkhan po’s Connections to Monasteries and Buddhist Followers ... 219
1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................219
2. Sum pa Mkhan po and Dgon lung Monastery...................................................................................221
2.1. First Abbacy ......................................................................................................................................................... 224
2.2. Second Abbacy .................................................................................................................................................... 228
2.3. De facto Abbacy and its transition to Lcang skya ................................................................................... 230
2.4. Third Abbacy........................................................................................................................................................ 232
2.5. Conclusions drawn from Sum pa’s Dgon lung abbacies ....................................................................... 234
3. Monasteries in Amdo ..............................................................................................................................235
3.1. Sites that Sum pa Mkhan po established or served as abbot/sponsor................................................ 236
3.2. Sites where Sum pa Mkhan po visited but were less significant in forming connections.......... 253
3.3. Conclusion for Amdo Monasteries ............................................................................................................... 254
4. Sum pa Mkhan po’s extra-Amdo connections...................................................................................255
4.1. Inner Mongolia .................................................................................................................................................... 256
4.2. Yugur, Suzhou and Ganzhou .......................................................................................................................... 268
4.3. Beijing, Dolonor and Mt. Wutai .................................................................................................................... 270
4.4. Conclusion regarding extra-Amdo areas..................................................................................................... 273
5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................274
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 277
Appendices.......................................................................................................................................... 282
Appendix I: Comparative Table of Contents Between the Xylograph and the New Publication of
Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works.......................................................................................................282
Appendix II: Comparative Table of Years, Ages, and Corresponding Folio/Page Numbers
Between the Xylograph and the 2001 Edition of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Longer Autobiography .284
Bibliography....................................................................................................................................... 285
vi
Maps and Illustrations
Figure 1. Sum pa Mkhan po Ye shes dpal ’byor........................................................................... xii
Figure 2. Map of important sites for Sum pa Mkhan po’s activities ........................................... xiii
Figure 3. Charts of number of incarnations divided by location in different time periods........... 34
Figure 4. Chart of New Incarnations by Location ........................................................................ 35
Figure 5. Growth of Buddhist temples and monasteries in core regions, circa 600-1950............ 38
Figure 6. Production of Collected Works in the Dge lugs School over time................................ 46
Figure 7. Production of Collected Works in the Dge lugs School over time divided by locality. 47
Figure 8. Production of Collected Works in the Dge lugs School over time divided by locality
(combined). ........................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 9. Graph depicting the years in which existing biographical sketches of Sum pa Mkhan po
(1704-1788) end.................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 10. Lineage of Galdan Siregetü qutuγtus ........................................................................ 132
Figure 11. Lineage of Sum pa incarnation.................................................................................. 133
Figure 12. Scene of the main entrance to the assembly hall of Lā mo bde chen monastery ...... 141
Figure 13. Sum pa clan genealogy (1) ........................................................................................ 153
Figure 14. Sum pa clan genealogy (2) ........................................................................................ 154
Figure 15. The cover page of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Dpag bsam ljon bzang................................ 195
Figure 16. The first page of Dag yig rab gsal me long zhes bya ba mchan ’grel can................ 196
Figure 17. Parts of Skar nag rtsis kyi snying nor nyung ’dus kun gsal me long ......................... 210
Figure 18. Colorful first pages of Rtsis kyi bstan ’chos kun gsal me long gi bu gzhung zla bsil rtsi
sbyor dge ldan rtsis gsar..................................................................................................... 211
Figure 19. Scenic view of the monastic complex of Dgon lung byams pa gling, a.k.a. Youningsi
佑寧 ................................................................................................................................. 223
Figure 20. Amdo monastic sites Sum pa Mkhan po had connections with. ............................... 236
Figure 21. View of remains of Lung dkar hermitage inDatong County, Qinghai ...................... 238
Figure 22. View of the old site for Bshad sgrub gling in Datong County, Qinghai ................... 241
Figure 23. View of Srog mkhar monastery in Ledu County, Qinghai........................................ 243
Figure 24. View of newly built Se ra lung monastery in Tianzhu County, Gansu..................... 244
Figure 25. View of Dpa’ ris stong shag Bkra shis chos gling in Ledu County, Qinghai............ 246
Figure 26. View of Stag lung dgon Dga’ ldan dam chos gling in Tianzhu County, Gansu ....... 247
Figure 27. View of Zhwa dmar pra ti dgon Dga’ ldan chos ’khor gling in Tianzhu County, Gansu
............................................................................................................................................. 249
Figure 28. View of remains of Tha yan chi chung ba Dga’ ldan rin chen gling in Datong County,
Qinghai................................................................................................................................ 251
Figure 29. Main sites of Sum pa Mkhan po’s extra-Amdo travels............................................. 255
vii
Acknowledgement
This dissertation study might not have reached its conclusion without enormous support
and help from many people and institutions. First of all, my sincere and warmest thanks must go
to the committee members of my dissertation. I would like to express my foremost gratitude to
Professor Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp, who has been my primary advisor throughout my days at
Harvard. He is a true cornucopia of knowledge and insight, and has always been kind enough to
find his time for me despite his busy schedule. Without his continuous encouragement and
valuable comments, my dissertation would not have been completed in its current form.
Professor Mark C. Elliott has always been an inspiration and academic model for my studies, and
his continuous exhortation and prodding have kept me aiming for higher standards. Since my
Master’s degree studies at Columbia University, I have benefited from Professor Gray W. Tuttle,
who has paved the way in “Amdo studies” for many scholars to follow. It has been a great good
fortune for me to have such an expert as a reader of my dissertation.
I also extend my thanks to Professor Janet Gyatso at Harvard for being a member of my
general examination committee and her generous support throughout my studies. Professor
Robert Barnett also deserves special gratitude, since his active engagement with Tibetans has
been the inspiration for my pursuit of broader Tibetan studies.
I also would like to thank teachers and colleagues in my field during my Columbia time:
Lauren Hartley, Tenzin Norbu Nangsal, Geshe Jamspal, Becky Best, Kiat-sing Teo, Dominique
Townsend, Stacey van Vleet, and Chopathar; and during my Harvard time: Dorje Nyingcha,
Huang Chunyuan, Jo Sokhyo, Xin Wen, Mekata Shoko, Sun Penghao, Haschuluu, Rory Lindsay,
Elizabeth Angowski, Ian MacCormack, Lin Lei, Liu Cuilan, Jetsun Deleplanque, Erdene Ochir
Baatra, and Arya Moallem. They have supported and helped me in one way or another to further
viii
my journey in Tibetan studies. I also extend my deepest gratitude to Andy Francis for his
proofreading and editing of my dissertation.
Generous financial support from a number of institutions has made the research and
writing of this dissertation possible. The Fairbank Center’s Summer Research Grant in 2012
allowed me to establish the foundation of my study in its earlier phases. The Confucius China
Studies Program Joint Ph.D. Research Fellowship provided me an opportunity to conduct
extensive onsite research in China from 2015 to 2017. A number of conference travel grants
from the department of EALC have made my conference participation possible, especially those
for the International Seminar of Young Tibetologists in Kobe (2012) and Leipzig (2015) and for
the International Association for Tibetan Studies in Ulaanbaatar (2013) and Bergen (2016). The
Asia Center’s Summer Research Grant allowed me to conduct the last phase of my research in
Japan, Buryatia, and Mongolia in Summer 2017.
During my time in Beijing, a number of people made my research more productive and
my sojourn there more pleasant. I especially thank Prof. Borjigidai Oyunbilig at Renmin
Univerisity for hosting me and connecting me with a number of key figures. Prof. Zeng Guoqing,
Yangdron, Jamdpal, and Dukar Kyi of Minzu University of China were supportive of my
activities in Beijing. Three librarians, that is, Jampa of the Library of the Cultural Palace of
Nationalities, Wang Jianhai of the National Library of China, and Wuyun Gerile of the Library
of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences,
provided crucial help with my archival investigations in Beijing. Two Korean friends, Han
Sangjoon and Lee Dongwook, and some of my Confucius Institute Fellowship cohorts at Renmin
University, Zhang “Cathy” Jing, Xavier Roch, Johan Rols, Kim Jin, and Nguyen Quoc Sinh,
made my days in Beijing much more enjoyable. I really miss them. I also extend my thanks to
ix
Dr. Tsengel at the Institute of History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences for sharing
materials and information that were crucial to my studies. I also thank S. Sethenbilig of the Inner
Mongolia Library and Dr. Shulin of the Inner Mongolian Academy of Social Sciences for their
help during my research at Höhhot, Inner Mongolia.
Throughout my time in Xining, Dorje Tseten and Maho Uichi have always been
supportive and helpful friends, and Tsewang Dorje and Karcho Kyi received my family and me
warmly as we formed our relationship in Watertown. I also thank Drugjam at the Translation
Bureau of Qinghai Government and Tamdrin and Gyatso at Qinghai University of Nationalities
for their help for archival and onsite investigations in and around Xining. My appreciation also
goes to Ven. Lobzang at the Gönlung Monastery for his kindness during my visits to the
monastery, and to Mr. Penpa and Ven. Lungrig Gyatso, for their invitation to the book-launching
ceremony for Sumpa Khenpo’s Collected Works at Chabcha. Hannah Theaker, Max Oidtmann,
and Pete Faggen made my time in Xining more pleasant with their occasional presence in the
city. I also thank Jamo Tsering for his generosity during my research in Tianzhu county of
Gansu.
During my visit to Japan, Ōtani University Librarian Kato Atsushi and Tōyō Bunko’s
Shinozaki Yoko provided generous assistance. For my Buryatia visit, Rachel Griffiths, Vladimir
Uspenski, and Zha Luo were instrumental, and Andrey Bazarov, Darima Daribazaron, and
Damdin Badaraev of the Institute of Mongolian, Buddhist and Tibetan Studies at Ulan-Ude
warmly received and assisted me. In Ulaanbaatar, Gonchig Nyamochir of the National Library of
Mongolia and Ven. Amgalan of the Gandan Monastery kindly received me. I appreciate all their
support and help.
x
I would like to thank the staffs of the Buddhist Digital Resource Center, the HarvardYenching Library, the Widener Library, and the Center for Geographic Analysis at Harvard for
their assistance with various steps of my research. EALC’s graduate program coordinators,
formerly Jim Zigo and now Carolyn Choong, have been more than instrumental to every stage of
my graduate studies. I appreciate their support.
Friends not in my academic fields also have been a resort whenever I needed a break at
Harvard. I express my thanks to An Yelee, Lee Junhyun, Tak Hyungsuk, Im Sojeong, Park
Hyunsung, Jeong Sukeun, Kai Kang, Yi Jongsik, Kim Yusung, Prof. Park Sangsoo, and Diane
and Ed Baker for their friendship. Sue Greer deserves special thanks for her making my family’s
life in Watertown more wonderful and pleasant. We owe you so much.
Last but not least, my family has always been a source of what keeps me moving forward.
I express my sincere gratitude to my parents, Lee Eunro and Kim Kukjin, and my parents-in-law,
Kim Eunyoung and Kim Younghoon, for their everlasting love and care. I also thank my brother,
Kim Hanjoon, for his continuous support and encouragement these many years. More than
anyone else, I cannot thank enough my soulmate and life partner, Kim Soojin, who began this
journey with me, first as a partner, later as a wife, and now as a mother to our beautiful girl
Celine. As I often promise her, “the best has yet to come,” although, as we often agree, our
daughter Kim Celine seems to be the best product we ever created. To my darling who is still
waiting for “the best,” I dedicate this dissertation.
xi
Figure 1. Sum pa Mkhan po Ye shes dpal ’byor (1704-1788), enshrined in the Sum pa residence
(bla brang) of Dgon lung monastery. Photographed in 2015. Photo courtesy of Mr. Spen pa, the
director of the Office of Tibetan Language Working Committee of Gonghe County (Ch. Gonghe
xian Zangyuwen gongzuo weiyuanhui bangongshi 共和县藏语文工 委员会办公室).
xii
Figure 2. Map of important sites for Sum pa Mkhan po’s activities.
xiii
Introduction
1. From Eighteenth-century Amdo to Sum pa Mkhan po
The eighteenth century was a remarkable era in Sino-Tibeto-Mongolian tripartite
relations. The political events of this hundred-year period had repercussions that lasted for
centuries to come, and cultural exchanges that succeeded and expanded their former connections
had formed a new landscape of Inner Asian culture. As a bridge zone between these parties, the
Amdo region1 also witnessed a number of political and cultural events in the eighteenth century.
It was a transitional time for regional political hegemony from the Oirat Khoshuds to the Qing
empire, through a series of political and military events.2 It was also a new era for institutional
Buddhism of Amdo, with the burgeoning of foundations of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in and
around the area.3
1
Usually rendered as the northeastern part of the Tibetan plateau, Amdo (Tib. A mdo) is not a fixed
geographical concept, and it has existed as politically as well as culturally diverse entities throughout its
history. The term Mdo smad is also used for the same geographical notion, but their interchangeability is
open to discussion.
2
Major incidents can be enumerated as follows: After his defeat of the the de facto ruler of Tibet, Sangs
rgyas rgya mtsho, the Amdo-based Khoshud Lhazang Khan won a political dominance in Tibet (17051717); Zhungar threatened the Amdo frontline against Qing-Khoshud alliance after Zhungar occupation
of Tibet (1717-1720); the last page of the Qing-Khoshud alliance was closed with a Khoshud leader Blo
bzang bstan ’dzin’s rebellion and its repression by the Qing (1723-1724); Qinghai Mongols were
organized into a new League and Banner system upon a suggestion of Nian Gengyao (1726-); the seat of
Xining Amban was established to politically control the Amdo area under the Qing administration (1725).
3
For recent studies on the foundations of monastic institutions in pre-modern Amdo, see Paul Nietupski,
Labrang Monastery: A Tibetan Buddhist Community on the Inner Asian Borderlands, 1709-1958
(Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010); Gray Tuttle, “Building up the Dge lugs pa Base in A mdo: The
Roles of Lhasa, Beijing and Local Agency,” Zangxue xuekan 7 (2011): 126-140; Yangdon Dhondup et
al., Monastic and Lay Traditions in North-eastern Tibet, (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013); Brenton Sullivan,
1
These political events and new cultural foundations have attracted many scholars to the
field. However, understanding of eighteenth-century Amdo and its role in the tripartite relations
has been focused on the political events or institutional developments, and has left much room
for further studies as a result. For a historical study of this period of Amdo, there is another area
worthy of investigation: Amdo cultural development. Along with its historical significance, we
also have a great deal of sources for the subject. However well-studied the political and
institutional events that affected and decided the path of this cultural development in the SinoTibeto-Mongolian milieu may be, current scholarship has not attempted to investigate what
exactly happened in Amdo cultural spheres in this watershed period. Taking this into
consideration, my dissertation will focus on the cultural development of the time, with the aim of
more balanced and nuanced understanding of this important period of history of the Amdo area.
For this purpose, my study will use one person’s life with an expectation that it can epitomize a
macro history of cultural development around Sino-Tibeto-Mongolian crossroads of the time.
The person concerned is Sum pa Mkhan po Ye shes dpal ’byor4 (1704-1788), a Dge lugs
pa monk-scholar from one of the major reincarnation lineages of Dgon lung monastery in the
Dpa’ ris region of Amdo.5 His representativeness of Amdo history against a backdrop of Sino-
“The Mother of All Monasteries: Gonlung Jampa Ling and the Rise of Mega Monasteries in Northeastern
Tibet” (PhD diss., University of Virginia, 2013).
4
“Sum pa” is his reincarnation lineage title; “mkhan po” is usually taken as “abbot” of a monastery, and
he became to known as “mkhan po” since he was enthroned as ’Bras yul skyid tshal monastery’s abbot in
1729; “Ye shes dpal ’byor (Skt. Jñānaśrībhūti, which is given in the title of the catalogue (dkar chag) of
his Collected Works (gsung ’bum) vol. 8 (nya).)” is his personal and religious name bestowed by Paṇ
chen V Lama Blo bzang ye shes (1663-1737) in 1723 when Sum pa Mkhan po took a full ordination
(bsnyen rdzogs) in his presence.
5
The monastery is located in present-day Huzhu Tu Minority Autonomous County (Ch. Huzhu Tuzu
Zizhixian 互助⼟族⾃治县) in Qinghai province. For a useful introduction to this monastery, see Louis
M. J. Schram, The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Frontier, ed. Kevin Stuart (Xining: Plateau
Publications, 2006 [1954, 1957, and 1961]), 320-37 and, for a detailed study, see Sullivan, “The Mother
of All Monasteries.”
2
Tibeto-Mongolian relations can be summed up by a statement by a Mongolian scholar
Erdenibayar: “[Sum pa Mkhan po] was born in a Mongolian family but was recognized as the
reincarnation of a Tibetan lama and was operating with in the multi-ethnic network of the Qing
empire.”6 Along with this symbolism of the tripartite relations, Sum pa Mkhan po’s long life is
also filled with a series of scholarly productions that can encapsulate the wide spectrum of
Tibetan intellectual achievements developed and evolved up to that time. Delving mainly into his
autobiographical and historical writings, my study will shed light on the whole of Sum pa Mkhan
po’s life, and in so doing will position him in a larger context as a central figure for a new
cultural development in the Amdo area from the eighteenth century onwards.
2. Why study Sum pa Mkhan po?
It is necessary to elaborate on the above-mentioned Erdenibayar’s statement in order to
better situate the values of Sum pa Mkhan po within the studies of 18th-century Inner Asian
history.
First, Sum pa Mkhan po is an ideal case for studying how the Mongolian identity
functioned during this dynamic time of Inner Asian history. His ethnic background, that is, Oirat
Mongolian, needs to be understood in a broader context, because many of his life events took
place in connection with his ethnic background as a Mongolian. For example, his Mongolian
background played a significant role in his standing as an incarnate lama vis-à-vis local Monguor
powers at his main residence. It also might have an important connotation for his relationship
6
Erdenibayar, “Sumpa Khenpo Ishibaljur: A Great Figure in Mongolian and Tibetan Cultures,” in The
Mongolia-Tibet Interface, ed. U. Bulag et al. (Leiden; Boston: 2007), 304.
3
with Mongols in Inner Mongolia. Therefore, understanding the role of his ethnicity will elucidate
not only his individual experiences but will also illuminate one aspect of Inner Asian history of
the time.
Second, Sum pa Mkhan po’s being an incarnate lama also provides a good window into
the operation of this newly developing cultural phenomenon of incarnations in Amdo and its
spread to other Inner Asian regions such as Inner Mongolia. Along with some information about
his incarnate predecessors, he begins his autobiographies with details of his own identification
process for an incarnate lama. He also has his own critiques of the incarnation system and
participated in processes of finding other incarnations. All these elements can be part of a big
picture of how the incarnation system developed and was localized in this time of Inner Asian
history.
Third, Sum pa Mkhan po can be regarded as the epitome of pan-Inner Asian interactions
for his diverse activities were not confined in the Amdo area but reached to large parts of Inner
Mongolia, Shanxi (Mt. Wutai), and Beijing. These activities deserve special attentions, because
they can reveal the dynamics of religious and cultural development of late pre-modern Inner
Asian history. In addition, since these extra-Amdo activities were within the framework of the
Qing empire, examining his activities will also contribute to a better understanding of the history
of the Qing empire for these particular localities during this period.
Fourth, Sum pa Mkhan po’s detailed records of his learning and the process of creating
his scholarship allow us to trace the trajectory of his intellectual development and achievement.
In particular, his Collected Works, the final product of his intellectual journey, will show us one
example of the development of eighteenth-century Amdo scholarship, in which Sum pa Mkhan
po not only inherited the traditionally Indo-Tibetan academic culture but also represented locally
4
specialized topics such as astrology, medicine, and divinations. Thus, understanding Sum pa
Mkhan po’s scholarship can be a rare opportunity to look into the paṇḍita creation process at the
individual level and Amdo’s evolution of the eighteenth-century cultural scene at a regional level.
For these reasons, Sum pa Mkhan po can be an ideal subject for studying eighteenthcentury Inner Asian history. Although he has been the subject of a number of previous studies,
the above-mentioned topics mostly remained unexplored. Sum pa Mkhan po’s two detailed
autobiographies make these inquiries possible. Before delving into details of these sources, I
would like to go over the previous studies on Sum pa Mkhan po in general.
3. Previous Studies on Sum pa Mkhan po
Although many works in Tibetan studies have taken single historical figures as their
subjects, it is surprising that there have been so few that focus on eighteenth-century Amdo
figures. The only known example is the reincarnation lineage of Lcang skya khutugtus,
especially Lcang skya III Rol pa’i rdo rje (1717-1786).7 Rol pa’i rdo rje has been the subject of
attention from early scholarship, and he is now a well-known figure, not only in Tibetology, but
also in Qing and Inner Asian studies. However, although Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje was the
incarnate lama from one of the main Amdo monasteries, i.e., Dgon lung, it seems difficult to
7
Examples of studies on Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje are: Hans-Rainer Kämpfe, “Die soziale Rolle des
zweiten Pekinger Lčaṅ Skya-Qutuqtu Rol Pa’i Rdo Rǰe (1717-1786)” (PhD diss., Bonn University, 1974);
Kämpfe, Ñi Ma’i ’Od Zer: Die Biographie Des 2. Pekinger lČaṅ Skya - Qutuqtu Rol Pa”i Rdo rJ̌e (17171786) (Bonn: VGH Wiss.-Verl., 1976); Wang Xiangyun, “Tibetan Buddhism at the Court of Qing: The
Life and Work of lCang-Skya Rol- Pa’i-Rdo-Rje, 1717-86” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1995); Wang,
“The Qing Court's Tibet Connection: Lcang skya Rol pa'i rdo rje and the Qianlong Emperor,” Harvard
Journal of Asiatic Studies vol. 60, no. 1 (Jun., 2000): 125-163; Marina Illich, “Selections from the Life of
a Tibetan Buddhist Polymath: Chankya Rolpai Dorje (Lcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje), 1717-1786” (PhD
diss., Columbia University, 2006) and Qin Yongzhang, Qianlong huang di yu Zhangjia guo shi (Xining:
Qinghai renmin chubanshe, 2008).
5
regard him entirely as an “Amdo figure,” because he was raised and educated at the imperial
palace of Beijing, and his most important activities involved the politics of the Qing court, not
the affairs of his main seat, Dgon lung monastery.8
Conversely, Sum pa Mkhan po is more representative of the tripartite relations of SinoTibeto-Mongolian history. He was born to a family of Qinghai Mongols, educated in Tibetan
Buddhist monasteries in Amdo and Central Tibet, and active in Amdo and Inner Mongolia. He
also made several trips to Beijing and Mt. Wutai during his lifetime. In addition to this
geographical coverage, Sum pa Mkhan po’s intellectual accomplishments also cover a vast range
of traditional Tibetan scholarship, and have been influential among Tibeto-Mongolian
intellectual circles. Nevertheless, a comprehensive understanding of Sum pa Mkhan po’s life and
activities still remains to be written.
There have been a number of previous studies on Sum pa Mkhan po, and they can be
roughly categorized into two groups: general descriptions of his life and works, and thematic
accounts of specific topics.
a. General descriptions of his life and works
Sum pa Mkhan po began to attract the attention of Western scholars beginning in the
nineteenth century. The first English account of Sum pa Mkhan po’s life was Sarat Chandra Das’
8
If we take his birthplace as one of his identity as Amdo lama, it is not supportive either. Rol pa’i rdo rje
was born in a nomad place called “Brag dkar,” a territory of Padmo’i sde monastery (Ch. Lianhuasi 蓮花
寺) in the west of Liangzhou 涼州 (present-day Wuwei 武威 city), Gansu Province (for Rol pa’i rdo rje’s
birthplace, see Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma, Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje’i rnam thar
(Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1989), 49). This place as Rol pa’i rdo rje’s birthplace
weakens his “Amdo” character, since historically Liangzhou has not been a part of Amdo.
6
short biography of him, along with an English translation of his historical table (re’u mig).9
Despite a number of errors in both the biography and the translation, Das’ work has been widely
circulated and quoted, even in very recent scholarship.10
The next meaningful study was done by a Japanese scholar, Nagao Gajin ⾧尾雅⼈
(1907-2005). He provided a detailed introduction to Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works, based
on a copy of the Catalogue of Collected Works (gsung ’bum dkar chag) that he obtained during
an expedition to Inner Mongolia in 1939 and 1943.11 His meticulous efforts notwithstanding,
Nagao’s understanding had its limits due to his inability to access Sum pa Mkhan po’s works
themselves.12
9
Sarat Chandra Das, “Life of Sum-pa Khan-po, also styled Yeśes-Dpal-hbyor, the author of the Reḥmig
(Chronological Table),” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, No. II (1889): 37-84.
10
For more details of this issue, see the introduction of Chapter II of this dissertation.
11
Nagao Gajin. Mōko gakumondera [Mongolian Academic Monasteries] (Kyōto: Zenkoku Shobō, 1947),
314-41.
12
Nagao also begins his account of Sum pa Mkhan po with a short biography, but it was based on many
assumptions than historical facts from reliable sources. For example, he assumed that Sum pa Mkhan po
died at the site of Üsütü juu (Ch. Wusutuzhao 烏素圖召) located in the outskirts of Hohhot (Nagao, Mōko
gakumondera, 315), but this is not accurate. For the description of Collected Works, Nagao had high
fidelity to the description in the Catalogue. However, in actuality, the contents of Collected Works and
the Catalogue show discrepancies. It is odd that Gajin did not know Ōtani University at Kyōto already
had a copy of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works during his time of writing Mōko gakumondera.
Currently Ōtani University Library possesses one incomplete copy—only vol. 7 (ja) missing—of the
Collected Works, that, according to Prof. Miyake Shin’ichiro, must have been procured by Teramoto
Enga
婉 (1872-1940), a monk scholar who was the third Japanese monk who made his way to
Central Tibet. A large portion of non-canonical Tibetan works in the library was from Teramoto’s
collection, and most of them remained unattended in library’s warehouse after WWII. They were
catalogued only when Catalogue of Tibetan Works Kept in Otani University Library was compiled in
1973 (personal conversation with Prof. Miyake in June 9, 2017). For Sum pa Mkhan po’s works in Ōtani
University Library, see Otani University, Ōtani Daigaku Toshokan shozō Chibetto bunken mokuroku
sakuin [Catalogue of Tibetan Works Kept in Otani University Library] (Kyoto: Otani University Library,
1973), 161-66. For a biographical sketch of Nagao Gajin, see Jonathan Silk, ed., Wisdom, Compassion,
and the Search for Understanding: the Buddhist studies legacy of Gadjin M. Nagao (Honolulu:
University of Hawai'i Press, 2000), xi-xxiv.
7
Two later scholars, Lokesh Chandra and Bidia Dandaron, separately provided detailed
catalogues of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works, based on a complete xylograph of the
work.13 In 1967, Jan Willem de Jong ably summarized the chronology of Western writings on
Sum pa Mkhan po up to the late 1960s. 14 In his article, de Jong also provides detailed
comparisons of four different accounts of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works, suggesting that
all four should be consulted for further studies of Sum pa Mkhan po. Despite de Jong’s
meticulousness in summarizing what was available to him, his work is an account of works
about Sum pa mkhan po, not Sum pa mkhan po himself.
Between 1975 and 1979, Lokesh Chandra published a reproduction of a xylograph of
Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works as parts of the Śata-piṭaka series in 9 volumes (vol. 214222). Since then, there has been no serious attempt to catalogue Sum pa Mkhan po’s works in
Western scholarship.
Other noteworthy works that focus on general aspects of Sum pa Mkhan po’s works or
his life are those of Andrei Vostrikov (1970 [1962]), Shagdaryn Bira (1970 [1960]), De
Mengkebate’er (1991) and Erdenibayar (2007).15 Although these works are not comprehensive
13
Lokesh Chandra’s catalogue can be found in Sum pa Mkhan po, Dpag-bsam-ljon-bzaṅ of Sum-pamkhan-po Ye-śes-dpal-hbyor : part III, containing a history of Buddhism in China and Mongolia,
preceded by the reḥu-mig or chronological tables, ed. Lokesh Chandra (New Delhi: International
Academy of Indian Culture, 1959), xvi-xxxii, and in Chandra, Materials for a history of Tibetan
literature, Part II. (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1963), 477-81. For Dandaron’s
catalogue, see Dandaron, Bidija D. Opisanie tibetskich rukopisej i ksilografov Burjatskogo Kompleksnogo
Nauchno-Issledovatelʹskogo Instituta 2. 2 (Moskva: Izdat. Vostoch. Lit., 1965).
14
Jan Willem de Jong, “Sum-Pa Mkhan-Po (1704-1788) and His Works,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic
Studies 27, no. 3–4 (1967): 208–16.
15
Andrei Vostrikov, Tibetan Historical Literature (Calcutta: Past & Present, 1970), 17-18 (notes 31 and
32), 56-57 (notes 168-172), 151-153 (notes 440-445) and 229-230 (notes 668-670). N.B.: de Jong’s
endnote about Vostirikov’s remarks on Sum pa Mkhan po is not complete (de Jong, “Sum-Pa Mkhan-Po
and His Works,” 216, no.15.); Shagdaryn Bira, Mongolian historical literature of the XVII-XIX centuries
Written in Tibetan, trans. Stanley Frye (Bloomington, Ind.,: Mongolian Society [and] Tibet Society,
1970), 14-32; De Mengkebate’er, “Songbakanbu Yixibanjue’er ji qi zhuzuo,” Northwest Minorities
8
and include some conflicting information, they can be a good starting point to begin a more
detailed investigation of Sum pa Mkhan po.
b. Thematic accounts of specific topics
Sum pa Mkhan po’s historical works have received the most scholarly attentions. Parts of
his works on history have been translated into English and Russian, and there are more
translations in Mongolian and Chinese.16 It seems that interest in Sum pa Mkhan po’s historical
works has died down, especially among Western scholars,17 but there has been a revival of
interest among contemporary Tibetan and Chinese scholars. Along with the historical works,
Sum pa Mkhan po’s writing on geography has also become a subject of scholarly study.18
Erdenibayar has been pioneering a study of Sum pa Mkhan po’s writings on poetry, and
his doctoral dissertation contributed to understanding of a lesser-known aspect of Sum pa Mkhan
Research 2 (1991): 126-33; Erdenibayar, “Sumpa Khenpo Ishibaljur.”
16
For Sum pa mkhan po’s Dpag bsam ljon bzang, there exist a Chinese translation by Pu Wencheng and
Cai Rang (1994 and 2013), a Mongolian translation by Qinggele and Mo Baozhu (1993), and a very
recent Mongolian translation by Nyamochir (2017). For his Mtsho sngon gyi lo rgyus, there exist a partial
English translation by Ho-chin Yang (1969), a Russian translation by Dandaron (1972), two Chinese
translations, one by Huang Hao (1983, 1984(1) and 1984(2)), and another by Xie Jian and Xie Wei (1983
and 1984). Also, the chronological table (re’u mig) included in Dpag bsam ljon bzang has been translated
several times (besides the above-mentioned Sarat Chandra Das’, there are The Chronology of Tibet
according to the Reʾu-Mig of Sum-Pa Mkhan-Po (Patna: Bihar Research Society, 1991) and Tibetan
Chronological Tables of ʼJam-Dbyaṅs-Bźad-Pa and Sum-Pa Mkhan-Po. (Varanasi: Central Institute of
Higher Tibetan Studies, 1993).
17
Only study on Sum pa Mkhan po’s historical work, Dpag bsam ljon bzang, in 1980s is Rigbi Eshievich
Pubaev, "Pagsam-chzhonsan"--pami a tnik tibetskoĭ istoriografii XVIII veka (Novosibirsk: Izd-vo
"Nauka," Sibirskoe otd-nie, 1981).
18
Shagdaryn Bira, “Songbakanbu Yixibanjue zhuzuo zhong de lishi dili tongming” [Historical and
geographical common terms from works by Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ʾbyor], Mongolian Studies
Information 3 (1997): 5-8 and Matthew Kapstein, “Just where on Jambudvīpa are we?: New geographical
knowledge and old cosmological schemes in eighteenth-century Tibet,” in Forms of Knowledge in Early
Modern Asia: Explorations in the Intellectual History of India and Tibet, 1500-1800, ed. Sheldon Pollock
(Durham NC: Duke University Press, 2011), 336-64.
9
po’s role in the literary connection between Tibetans and Mongolians.19 Another line of scholarly
interest in Sum pa Mkhan po is his medical treatise, and some Mongolian scholars have shown a
strong interest in his medical works, because Sum pa Mkhan po was an important link between
traditional Indo-Tibetan medicine and Mongolian medical science, which developed from the
eighteenth century onwards.20
Last but not least, Sum pa mkhan po’s works on Buddhist orthodoxy21 and the Gesar
epic22 have been the topics of detailed studies, and his astrological works were extensively used
by Sokhyo Jo in his recent dissertation.23 However, large parts of his Collected Works have yet to
be explored by scholars.
4. Sources
19
Erdenibayar, “Yizhu ping Songba kanby shilun zhuzuo erzhong,” (PhD diss., Inner Mongolia
University, 2002).
20
Sum pa Mkhan po’s contribution to medicine has not been fully understood and worth further
investigations in the relation with the development of Mongolian medicine. For a useful overview of Sum
pa Mkhan po’s contributions to medical science, see Angqing Caidan, “Songba Yixibanjue shengqing ji
qi xueshu chengjiu kaozheng,” Journal of Medicine & Pharmacy of Chinese Minorities 6 (2008): 64-67;
and Hua Jainben, “Songba Yixibanjue ji qi yixue xueshu sixiang chutan,” Journal of Medicine and
Pharmacy of Chinese Minorities 7 (2013): 65-66.
21
Matthew Kapstein, “The Purificatory Gem and Its Cleansing: a late Tibetan polemical discussion of
apocryphal texts,” History of Religions 28/3 (1989): 217-44.
22
Solomon G. FitzHerbert, “On the Tibetan Ge-Sar Epic in the Late 18th Century: Sum-Pa Mkhan-Po’s
Letters to the 6th Paṇ-Chen Lama,” Études mongoles et sibériennes, centrasiatiques et tibétaines 46
(2015): 2-17.
23
Sokhyo Jo, “Topics on the History of Tibetan Astronomy with a Focus on Background Knowledge of
Eclipse Calculations in the 18th Century” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 2016).
10
The primary sources for this study are two autobiographies of Sum pa Mkhan po. Allow
me briefly to introduce the important features and characteristics of each work.
a. The Longer Autobiography
The longer autobiography is included in the eighth volume (nya) of his Collected Works.
Its full title is Mkhan po erteni paṇḍitar grags pa'i spyod tshul brjod pa sgra 'dzin bcud len,
meaning “The speaking of deeds of one who is known as mkhan po erteni paṇḍita: Extradting
the Auditory Essence.” The work is 294 folios long in dbu chen script. The autobiography is
composed of four parts: 1. Sum pa Mkhan po’s own account up to the 11th day of the first month
of the earth-monkey year (1788)24 (ff. 1a-240b); 2. Continuation by his two disciples25 up to his
death and completion of his funeral (ff. 240b-258b)26; Sum pa Mkhan po’s topical summary of
his life27 (ff. 259a-291b); and the colophon of the autobiography (ff. 291b-294a).28
24
It was 15 days before his death.
25
These are Sum pa biligtu chos rje Blo bzang dge legs and Darhan emchi Dge legs bsam ’grub.
26
The colophon of this part says two disciples composed this addendum in the wood-tiger year (1794),
although Sum pa Mkhan po’s death and his funenral occured in the earth-monkey year (1788).
27
Sum pa Mkhan po had seven topics for the summary of his life: 1. Acquiring the excellent body in this
life; 2. Meeting with and relying on teachers and spiritual friends; 3. Receiving vows from them and study
and reflection; 4. Praying for applying what he studied into practice; 5. Condensing those into ten dharma
activities and making devotions; 6. Having offered four donations in particular, benefitting Teachings and
beings 7. Accumulating and affixing all those, making [it] as habit (SKRL1 260a; SKRL2 671: tshe 'dir
rten bzang rnyed pa/ der bla ma dge ba'i gshes gnyen dang 'phrad de bsten pa/ de las sdom pa nod te
thos bsam bgyis pa/ thos don nyams len la sbyor bar smon lam gdab pa/ de dag sogs chos spyod bcur
bsdus te mos pa tsam byas tshul/ khyad par du sbyin pa bzhi btang nas bstan 'gro'i don sgrub
tshul/ de kun bsags sbyong du bsdus te bag chags bzhag tshul lo/)
28
The colophon says the autobiography was composed at Bkra shis rtse hermitage in Lung dkar in the
fire-monkey year (1776). Accounts in 1776 tell us that Sum pa Mkhan po once wrapped up the writing of
his autobiography in this year. However, it is obvious that Sum pa Mkhan po himself continued to write
the biography up to the year of his death. Vostrikov provided the correct information on the structure of
Sum pa Mkhan po’s autobiography except for the matter of from which part his disciples continued to
write it (Vostrikov, Tibetan historical literature, 17-18, note 32). Vostrikov asserts that the part of folios
180b-258b was written by Sum pa Mkhan po’s two disciples, but only the part of folios 240b-258b was so.
11
This autobiography follows the chronological order and the account of each year begins
with a year-marker of the author’s age. However, there are also some sections of a different
nature inserted in the middle of the chronological progression.29 The literary style of the work is
mostly plain prose, but when he begins laudatory or exhortative—or, in rare cases deprecating—
narrations, the autobiography takes on the highly ornamental Indian kāvya style and uses
hyperbole, similes, and metaphors freely. In the conclusions of many of the sections, Sum pa
Mkhan po uses highly ornamental verse-poems. In addition, he also employs quotations from a
number of Indo-Tibetan classics.
Among the printed editions of this work, the xylograph reproduction by Lokesh Chandra
is in fair condition to use. However, since some parts of it—especially some interlinear notes—
are not clear enough to read, I tried to procure a cleaner copy of the xylograph of the
autobiography during my fieldwork in China. Fortunately, I discovered a better copy during my
visit to the library of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences (Ch. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan minzuxue yu renleixue yanjiusuo 中
社会科学院民
族学与人类学研究所) in Beijing. With support and approval of the librarian Ms. Wuyun Gerile
云格日勒, I was able to make a photographic copy of the whole autobiography in January of
2016. I have used this copy as my main source.
Shagdaryn Bira provides more correct information, but he was mistaken with disciples’ writing
completion year as 1795 that should be 1794 (Bira, Mongolian historical literature, 15). De Jong presents
these Vostrikov’s and Bira’s accounts on the structure in his “Sum-Pa Mkhan-Po (1704-1788) and His
Works,” 209-10.
29
For example, in the place of 1719, Sum pa Mkhan po suddenly began the political history from the
early 17th century to the mid-1770s (SKRL1 24a-28b;SKRL2 61-72). Also, in the place of 1739, he had a
detailed and long discussion of the ten forms of knowledge (SKRL1 83a-94b; SKRL2 216-46).
12
The autobiography was published as an individual work in 2001.30 Editors of this typeset
version tried to make the corrections in the original, but they also altered the original without any
marking in many places. There are also many missing lines and words throughout the work in
this edition.31 Another problem with this 2001 edition is that it contains some parts that cannot be
found in the original xylograph.32 According to one of the editors, Ra kho Ye shes rdo rje, the
master copy they used in the 1990s was not the xylographic copy, but a handwritten copy whose
pages were much larger than the xylograph.33 Because of a possibility of being a discrete
version, I will use this 2001 version, together with the xylograph copy I procured in Beijing.
Another copy of the autobiography was published in 2015 as the first volume of Sum pa Mkhan
30
Sum pa Mkhan po, Paṇḍita Sum pa Ye shes dpal ’byor mchog gi spyod tshul brjod pa sgra ’dzin bcud
len. (Beijing: Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 2001).
31
The missing lines and other significant parts in the 2001 edition of Sum pa Mkhan po’s autobiography
are as follows:
page and line in 2001 ed.
where missing parts exist
folio and line in xylograph
that need to be added
page and line in 2001 ed.
where missing parts exist
folio and line in xylograph
that need to be added
p.24, line 20
p.193
p.212, line 1
p.213, line 6
p.273, line 2
p.302, line 6
f.10a, line 4
f.74a (table of time)
f.81b, line 5
f.82a, lines 4-5
f.104b, lines 4-5
f.115b, lines 5-6
p.339, line 17
p.441, line 5
p.557, line 16
p.561, line 7
p.564, line 10
p.700, line 1
f.130b, lines 4-5
f.170b, interlineal note
f.214a, line 5
f.215b, lines 3-4
f.216b, illustration
f.270b, line 5
32
For parts from the 2001 edition that cannot be found in the xylograph copy, see SKLR2 15 (from line
14)-16 (to line 17) and 534 (from line 15)-546 (to line 2). For the former part, see Figure 12 & 13 in
Chapter III.
33
Personal conversation in July 2017.
13
po’s Collected Works.34 It shows more fidelity to the original xylograph than the 2001 edition, so
I have used this edition, too, whenever necessary.35
This autobiography was recently translated into Mongolian.36 However, due to my lack of
fluency in the Mongolian language, I have not been able to fully evaluate this translation.
b. The Shorter Autobiography
The shorter autobiography is not part of the original of Sum pa Mhan po’s Collected
Works.37 Its full title is Sum pa ye shes dpal ’byor gyi rnam thar nyid kyis mdzad pa, meaning,
“Sum pa Ye shes dpal ’byor’s biography composed by himself.” This title is probably not
important, because it is obvious that the title was added to the manuscript by a separate hand.
The autobiography is not divided into sections, and provides no year-markers like those found in
the longer autobiography. However, this shorter version also follows chronological order in its
narration. The biggest deficiency of this short autobiography is its limited coverage of Sum pa
Mkhan po’s life. It ends suddenly in the water-horse year (1762), and that covers only two thirds
of Sum pa Mkhan po’s lifetime. Unlike the longer version, his activities after the age of 59 are
not recorded in this shorter autobiography. The literary style of this shorter work is more of plain
34
Sum pa Mkhan po, Sum pa paṇḍita Ye shes dpal ’byor gyi gsung ’bum [Collected Woks of Sum pa
paṇḍita Ye shes dpal ’byor] (Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 2015). For this publication, see Hanung
Kim, “Introduction to the New Publication of Sum pa Ye shes dpal ’byor’s Collected Works,” Zangxue
xuekan / The Journal of Tibetology, forthcoming.
35
I will use abbreviations SKRL1 for the xylograph, and SKRL2 for the 2001 typeset version of the
longer autobiography throughout this dissertation.
36
Sum pa Mkhan po, Sumba Khambu Isibaljor no namtar, trans. Yang Buren, Aotegen Bilige and Wang
Xiaoqin (Hohhot: Neimenggu renmin chubanshe, 2015).
37
The recent new publication of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works includes this shorter autobiography
as a part of the collection. For this, see Kim, “Introduction to the New Publication of Sum pa Ye shes dpal
’byor’s Collected Works,” forthcoming.
14
prose than the long autobiography. It rarely takes the kāvya style and shows almost no use of
verse in its progression.
Much of the contents in this shorter autobiography overlap with those from the longer
work. Sometimes it looks as if Sum pa Mkhan po might have used the shorter version as a
summary, which he expanded into his longer autobiography with ornamental rhetoric and versepoems. However, there is no direct mention of such a use of the work in his autobiographies.
Despite its brevity, sometimes the shorter autobiography provides more detailed information on a
given event, so it is quite useful as a supplement to the longer autobiography. In this sense, it
looks obvious that this short work is not condensation of the longer work, but a separate
document. It is very rare for sentences to be verbatim between the two, although the wording is
often very similar.
Another drawback of this short autobiography is its dubious provenance and penmanship.
The typeset version was published as an individual work in 1997,38 but the whereabouts of the
original manuscript are unknown.39 A photographic copy of the photocopy of the manuscript has
been circulating among a small number of scholars, but, because it is a double duplication, many
parts of this copy are difficult to read and we are unable to measure original’s material qualities.
I was able to obtain the copy from Dr. Qinggele
格乐 (Mo. Tsengel), a researcher at the
Institute of History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (Ch. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan lishi
38
Sum pa Mkhan po, Sum pa ye shes dpal ’byor gyi rnam thar nyid kyis mdzad pa, (Lanzhou: Kan su’u
mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1997).
39
The original manuscript was once preserved in the Translation Bureau at Qinghai Provincial
Government (Ch. Qinghai shengzhengfu fanyichu 海省政府翻译处), but now is lost according to the
clerk of the bureau Mr. ’Brug byams (personal conversation in January 2016).
15
yanjiusuo 中
社会科学院历史研究所) in Beijing.40 The manuscript has 25 folios (50 pages)
and is written in a cursive version of dbu med script ('khyug yig). The editor of the 1997’s
version, Mr. Chos dpal, claims in the preface (dpe skrun gsal bshad) to the edition, “it is true that
the manuscript was written in the author’s own hand.”41 However, no evidence to support this
claim can be found in the work itself, and no example of Sum pa Mkhan po’s handwriting is
extant for the purpose of comparison. Sum pa Mkhan po’s longer autobiography makes reference
to a draft copy of the work, but this can also be seen as a counterevidence for Chos dpal’s
assertion, since Sum pa Mkhan po indicates the draft copy’s length to be “over 30 folios.”42
In any case, unless its authorship is at some point disproven, otherwise, I acknowledge
this version as Sum pa Mkhan po’s work and use this shorter autobiography as the second main
source of my study on Sum pa Mkhan po’s life.43 The recent publication of Sum pa Mkhan po’s
Collected Works includes the shorter autobiography in its collection, but, since it was based on
the 1997 typeset edition, I exclude it from consideration.
40
Dr. Qinggele is one of translators of the Mongolian version of Dpag bsam ljon bzang published in
1993. According to Qinggele, a man called Mr. Gabi, who worked in the Tibeto-Mongolian hospital of
Haixi Prefecture of Qingahi (Ch. Qingahi haixizhou mengzang yiyuan 海海西州蒙藏 院), provided
the copy to him in around 1990. Qinggele also informed me that Gabi’s also was a photocopy and Gabi
wanted to keep it secret how he obtained the copy (personal conversation with Qinggele in March 2016).
41
SKRS2, 1 in preface: ma phyi rtsom pa po khong rang nyid kyi phyag bris dngos yin.
42
SKRL1 6b; SKRL2 13: shog ring sum cu brgal ba bris nas. At the requests of many, Sum pa Mkhan po
composed a brief biography and presented it to Bzang skor zhabs drung Dpal ldan ’od zer. However,
Bzang skor zhabs drung said it was too short, and a longer and more detailed one would be beneficial to
disciples. For this, see SKRL1 6a-6b; SKRL2 13-14. Bzang skor is one of minor incarnation lineage at
Dgon lung monastery, and was active especially in Ta yan chi chung ba monastery at Datong County,
Qinghai. For this, see Chapter V of this dissertation.
43
I will use abbreviations SKRS1 for the handwritten manuscript, and SKRS2 for the 1997 typeset
version of the shorter autobiography throughout this dissertation.
16
This shorter autobiography was also recently translated into Mongolian.44 However, due
to my lack of fluency in the Mongolian language, I have not been able to fully evaluate this
translation.
c. Other Sources
In addition to his autobiographies, Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works will be
extensively used for further consultation.
Histories of monasteries that were connected with Sum pa Mkhan po’s activities will be
the second most important type of source for the study. As for Sum pa Mkhan po’s main seat,
Dgon lung monastery, Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma’s History of Dgon lung
monastery (dgon lung dkar chag)45 is the most informative source for my work, but other
historical accounts of Dgon lung monastery will be consulted too.46 In addition to Dgon lung
monastery, histories of other large Amdo monasteries, such as Bla brang bkra shis ’khyil47 or
44
Sum pa Mkhan po, Su̇mbė Ishbalzhiryn ȯȯriĭn namtar orshvoĭ, trans. Urianhaj Tèrbish (Ulaanbaatar:
Soëmbo Printing KhKhK, 2011); and Yixibanjuezhuan, trans. Urianhaj Tèrbish (Beijing: Minzu
chubanshe, 2017). The latter is a traditional Mongolian script version transcribed from the former
translation in Cyrillic Mongolian.
45
This work is in the second volume of Thu’u bkwan Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma’s Collected Works, and
also separately published with a title, Bshad sgrub bstan paʼi ʼbyung gnas chos sde chen po Dgon lung
byams pa gling gi dkar chag dpyod ldan yid dbang ʼgugs paʼi pho nya (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe
skrun khang 1988).
46
Duo zang et al., Youningsi zhi: San zhong (Xining: Qinghai renmin chubanshe, 1990) has Chinese
translations of three different accounts of Dgon lung history, one of which is Thu’u bkwan’s work
mentioned above. During my visit to the monastery in 2012, I could obtain a Tibetan version of Wang rin
po che Ngag dbang mkhyen rab rgya mtsho’s Dgon lung history, which is the third in the Chinese
translation. In addition to these three, there are three more Dgon lung histories that are not officially
published, the most recent of which is Per nyi ma ‘dzin, Bshad sgrub bstan pa’i ‘byung gnas chos sde
chen po Dgon lung byams pa gling gi gdan rabs zur rgyan g.yas ‘khyil dung gi sgra dbyangs
(Unpublished manuscript, 2007).
47
Dpal mang Paṇḍita Dkon mchog rgyal mtshan, Bla brang bkra shis ’khyil gyi gdan rabs lha’i rnga
chen (Lanzhou: Kan su'u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1987).
17
Sku ’bum byams pa gling,48 will be consulted for information of Sum pa mkhan po’s widespread
activities.
For my specific concerns (Chapters I and V in particular), works listing Tibetan Buddhist
monasteries in Amdo and relevant regions will be extensively consulted. First of all, the recently
published six-volume set of the Compendium of Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries of China (Ch.
Zhongguo zangchuan fojiao siyuan daxi 中
藏传
教
院大系) is a useful source for
information on mid- and small-scale monastic sites. Among the six volumes, those of Qinghai,
Gansu, Neimenggu, Xizang, and Beijing have been significant sources for this study.49 For the
Tibetan monasteries in the Gansu area, Krung go’i bod brgyud nang dgon dkar chag las kan su’u
glegs bam [Gansu volume of the catalogue of Chinese Tibetan Buddhist monasteries]50 is useful,
and for the Dpa’ ris area, Tianzhu zangchuan fojiao siyuan gaikuang [General overview of
Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in Hwari]51 and Huarui diming wenhua tanyuan [Investigation of
origins of place names and culture in Hwari area]52 will be consulted.
48
Gser tog Blo bzang tshul khrims rgya mtsho, Sku ’bum gdan rabs (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe
skrun khang, 1982).
49
For the Qinghai and Gansu parts, many entries look similar to those in Pu Wencheng’s old work,
Ganqing zangchuan fojiao siyuan. However, there are also improvements in the recent publication for the
information provided in each entry. The new works also have photos for some entries. The biggest defect
of the new publication is that it does not provide the Tibetan name for the monastic site as did Pu’s old
work. For Qinghai monastic sites, there is another work in kind called Qinghai zangchuan fojiao siyuan
mingjian (Lanzhou: Gansu min zu chu ban she, 1993), which can be used as supplement for other work.
50
Rdor phrug et al., Krung go’i bod brgyud nang dgon dkar chag las kan su’u glegs bam (Lanzhou:
Gansu minzu chubanshe, 2009).
51
Tianzhu zangzu zizhixian weiyuanhui, ed., Tianzhu zangchuan fojiao siyuan gaikuang (Tianzhu xian:
Zhongguo renmin zhengzhi xieshang huiyi Tianzhu zangzu zizhixian weiyuanhui, 2000).
52
Gansu sheng Tianzhu zangzu zizhixian zang yuyan wenzi gongzuo bangongshi, ed., Huarui diming
wenhua tanyuan (Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 2016).
18
Along with works on monasteries, biographies of Sum pa Mkhan po’s important
contemporary figures will be of the same importance. The three main reincarnation lineages from
Dgon lung monastery, i.e., Lcang skya, Thu’u bkwan, and Sum pa, influenced each other greatly,
so their biographies need to be investigated to better understand any one figure among them.53
Later in the eighteenth century, Bla brang bkra shis ’khyil became prominent among Amdo
monasteries, and its head cleric, the ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa reincarnation lineage, played an
important role in Sum pa Mkhan po’s life.54 In addition to the aforementioned Amdo figures, two
contemporary Paṇ chen Lamas had close relations with Sum pa Mkhan po, and their biographies
also need to be examined, especially to shed light on Sum pa Mkhan po’s connection to Central
Tibet.55
We also have local histories, such as Dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas’ Mdo smad chos
ʼbyung [Buddhist History of Mdo smad], Dpal mang paṇḍita Dkon mchog rgyal mtshan’s Rgya
bod hor sog gi lo rgyus nyung ngur brjod pa byis pa ’bab stegs [Concise History of China, Tibet
and Mongols: A Child’s Horse-mounting Platform], and Hor gtsang ’jigs med’s Mdo smad lo
rgyus chen mo [The Comprehensive History of Mdo smad] for understanding the general
background of Sum pa Mkhan po’s activities in eighteenth-century Amdo.
Along with the aforementioned Tibetan primary sources, I will also use a number of
Chinese sources for either direct or indirect references to Sum pa Mkhan po’s life and activities.
53
Following figures’ biographies are available: Lcang skya II Ngag dbang blo bzang chos ldan (16421714); Lcang skya III Rol pa’i rdo rje (1717-1786); Thu’u bkwan II Blo bzang chos kyi rgya mtsho
(1680-1736); and Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma (1737-1802).
54
Following figures’ biographies need to be consulted: ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa I Ngag dbang brtson ’grus
(1648-1722); and ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa II Dkon mchog 'jigs med dbang po (1728-1791).
55
Paṇ chen Lamas in concern are: Paṇ chen V Blo bzang ye shes (1663-1737); and Paṇ chen VI Blo
bzang dpal ldan ye shes (1738-1780).
19
For his own family line and a series of patrons for religious services in which Sum pa Mkhan po
was involved, I will consult Qing period sources for genealogies of Tibetan and Mongolian
nobles, such as Menggu Hui bu wanggong biaozhuan [The Tabled and Textual Biographies of
Mongolian and Muslim Nobles] and Huangchao fanbu yaolüe [An Outline of the Frontier Clans
of the Imperial Dynasty]. Even though they will be secondary references, I will also attempt to
use a variety of local gazetteers with consideration of his activities in Inner Mongolia, Beijing,
Mt. Wutai, Dolon Nor and Höhhot.
5. Outline of Dissertation
The main body of my dissertation comprises five chapters.
The first chapter will introduce features of the cultural development of eighteenth-century
Amdo with a purpose that it will demonstrate the milieus where Sum pa Mkhan po was active.
Using the statistical analysis, this chapter will discuss Amdo as an area of growing importance in
Tibetan culture. The chapter also will argue that the eighteenth century can be called a time of
renaissance, in which Sum pa Mkhan po was one of leading figures.
The second chapter will be an outline of Sum pa Mkhan po’s life based on his two
autobiographies. This chapter will provide the first full description of Sum pa Mkhan po’s whole
life, accounts of which have been incomplete in previous biographical sketches of him. Along
with its informative function, this outline will also provide a background for further discussions
of Sum pa Mkhan po’s role in Amdo cultural development.
The third chapter begins the first of the three thematic analyses of cultural development
in Amdo, especially the development there of the incarnation system in the seventeenth and
20
eighteenth centuries. Taking the Sum pa incarnation lineage as a case study, the chapter will give
an insider’s perspective on how the system had evolved and how it should develop in generations
to come.
The fourth chapter is the second part of the thematic analyses of Amdo cultural
development. It will begin with basic learning that Sum pa Mkhan po received from his
childhood and elucidate detailed features of his monastic education in both Amdo and Central
Tibet. Then the chapter will discuss how he developed and implemented his learning throughout
his activities in later years. Looking into pedagogical methods and teacher-disciple lineages of a
number of different scholarly disciplines, this chapter will elucidate one example of the paṇḍitamaking process in the eighteenth century.
The fifth and the last chapter will be final part of the thematic analyses. The chapter will
be about Sum pa Mkhan po’s connections with monastic and lay communities around Amdo and
Inner Mongolia. Focusing especially on the connections among monastic communities, this
chapter will disucss Sum pa mkhan po’s importance in promoting Tibetan Buddhism in Amdo
and Mongolian domains.
21
Chapter I. Amdo Renaissance56
1. Introduction
/de lta’i bod gtogs la dbus gtsang chos kyi dang /
khams stod mi’i dang /
mdo khams rta’i chol kha gsum zer/
Included in present-day Tibet, it is said that there are three chol khas57:
Dbus gtsang is [a region of] religion,
Upper Khams58 is [a region of] people,
Mdo khams is [a region of] horses.
—Sum pa Mkhan po (1704-1788)59
Lha sa na mjal ba mang/
Khams na tshong pa mang/
A mdo na mkhas pa mang//
In Lha sa, there are many pilgrims,
in Khams, there are many merchants,
in Amdo, there are many scholars.
—contemporary Tibetan folkloric saying60
These two sayings aptly capture how the cultural landscapes of distinct regions of Tibet
have changed since the late pre-modern era. 61 It is clear that folk beliefs about local
56
Parts of this chapter are from Hanung Kim, “A mdo, Collected Works (gSung ’bum), and
Prosopography,” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, 37 (2016): 162–77.
57
On the Tibetan geographical term with Mongolian origin, chol kha (Mon. cölgä), see a recent study by
Eveline Yang, “Tracing the Chol kha gsum: Reexamining a Sa skya-Yuan Period Administrative
Geography,” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, 37 (2016): 551–68.
58
The term “Upper Khams (Khams stod)” is also found in Btsan po IV Bstan ‘dzin ‘phrin las, ’Dzam
gling rgyas bshad, (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2009), 196. According to Turrell
Wylie, “’Khams-stod’, or ‘Upper Khams’, is the name applied to the upland regions of western Khams.”
For this, see Turrell Wylie, The Geography of Tibet According to the ’Dzam-gling-rgyas-bshad (Roma:
Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1962), xxvii.
59
Sum pa Mkhan po, ’Dzam gling spyi bshad ngo mtshar gtam snyan, f. 9b, line 3-4.
60
My thanks to Dr. Dorje Tseden for providing this saying.
22
characteristics of these Tibetan regions have shifted. Of course, we might consider such a one-toone comparison of the two statements with some hesitation, not only because the categories of
evaluation are not the same—the former suggests diverse subjects, but the latter only suggests
types of people—but also because the geographical entities differ in both their spellings and
conception.62 Nevertheless, we can say that these sayings roughly represent a changing mood
when it comes to imagining places in Tibet.
Cultural change is also discernible in the current Tibetan intellectual scene, which is
dominated by people from Amdo. A large proportion of “brainworkers” in both Amdo and
Tibetan areas outside of Amdo are comprised of people from Amdo. The majority of students
and lecturers in the Department of Tibetan Studies at the Central University for Nationalities
(a.k.a. Minzu University of China) in Beijing, for example, come from Amdo. The regional
imbalance in advanced academic representation might be a direct result of a discrepancy in the
61
I use the term “late pre-modern era” regarding the history of Tibet with some reservations. First, there
is no agreement on what “modernity” means to Tibet and it is still an issue of on-going debate. For a
recent excellent discussion on the issue, see Janet Gyatso, “Moments of Tibetan Modernity: Methods and
Assumptions,” in Mapping the Modern in Tibet, ed. by Gray Tuttle (Andiast, Switzerland: International
Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH, 2011), 9-54. Second, there is still no agreement or
authoritative convention on the periodization of Tibetan history, as a result of which the dividing line
between “modern” and “pre-modern” is quite arbitrary. For a general discussion for the periodization of
Tibetan history, see Bryan Cuevas, “Some Reflections on the Periodization of Tibetan History,” Revue
d’Etudes Tibétaines, 10 (2006): 44–55. Reservations notwithstanding, I use the term “late pre-modern
era” to simply refer to the period from the 17th-19th centuries, following Alex McKay’s scheme in The
History of Tibet given in Cuevas, “Periodization,” 55.
62
The geographical term “Mdo khams” is usually regarded as a merger of “Amdo” and “Khams,” thus
meaning the eastern part of Tibet in general. For such an interpretation, see Chandra Das, A TibetanEnglish Dictionary with Sanskrit Synonyms (Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Book Depot, 1902), 675; and
Zhang Yisun et al. Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo (Beijing: Minzu chubanshe, 1985), 1381. However,
Andreas Gruschke asserts that, although the final meaning is the same, “Mdo khams” means “the lower
(=mdo) territory (=khams),” one of the tripartite geographical concepts of Tibet along with “the upper
(nga’ ris skor gusm)” and “the middle (dbus tshang).” For this and a discussion on the derivation of
toponym of Amdo, see Andreas Gruschke, The Cultural Monuments of Tibet's Outer Provinces: Amdo,
vol.1 (Bangkok: White Lotus Press, 2001), 11-12. In any case, as a part of “Mdo kahms,” Amdo
represents the land of horses in the eighteenth century.
23
education policies of the Central Chinese Government, which differs for different Tibetanpopulated regions. 63 While this circumstance might be one of many reasons behind this
phenomenon of late, I argue that the dominance of the Amdo population in Tibetan intellectual
culture has roots that reach deeper than contemporary education policy in the People’s Republic
of China. I believe that it has its foundation in cultural developments in Amdo during the late
pre-modern period, which began during the lifetime of Sum pa Mkhan po.
In an attempt to corroborate my argument, in this chapter I will examine cultural
developments in the history of Amdo, using the somewhat ambitious term “Amdo Renaissance”
to designate this period characterized by such cultural development. This chapter will also
provide a more detailed picture of the backdrop against which the life and activities of Sum pa
Mkhan po unfolded, allowing us to better understand him in the context of such a significant
period of Tibetan cultural history.
2. Another Renaissance in Tibetan Civilization
The proper noun “Renaissance” refers to “the revival of art and literature under the
influence of classical models in the fourteenth-sixteenth centuries.”64 It would be somewhat
problematic to use this term for our purposes because, in general, the Renaissance was
63
For the history of PRC’s education policy in Tibet, especially of language, see Janet Upton, “The
Development of Modern School-based Tibetan Language Education in the PRC,” in China’s National
Minority Education: Culture, Schooling, and Development, ed. Gerard A. Postiglione (New York: Falmer
Press, 1999), 281-323; and Ma Rong, ”Bilingual Education and Language Policy in Tibet,” in Minority
Education in China: Balancing Unity and Diversity in an Era of Critical Pluralism, ed. James Leibold
and Chen Yangbin (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2014), 83-106. I owe the latter reference to
Mr. Ling-wei Kung of Columbia University.
64
An entry from Angus Stevenson et al. ed., Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011), 1217.
24
dominated by European—more narrowly Italian—historical experiences from the fourteenth to
sixteenth centuries. However, if we use the term renaissance as a simple noun, it can be used
more widely and freely.65 Ronald Davidson once used the term “renaissance” to characterize a
part of Tibetan history from the tenth to fourteenth centuries in his book Tibetan Renaissance:
Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture. As he indicates, however, there are a
number of discrepancies between the Renaissance in European history and a renaissance in Tibet,
and their “facile comparisons must be eliminated.” 66 Despite potential association with a
European epoch, the term is useful nonetheless due to its practical value in helping readers grasp
a sense of great cultural development in Tibetan history. It is my contention that the term
“renaissance” can also be applied to describe another phase of Tibetan history, that is, the late
pre-modern period of the Amdo region.67 As Davidson pointed out when using the term, it must
be used with caution and clarification. For this reason, I will briefly compare the Italian
Renaissance, Davidson’s Tibetan Renaissance, and my proposed Amdo Renaissance to make
clear the way in which I use the term.
65
Even in European history the term renaissance or its corresponding term has been used for to describe
other periods. For this see Lewis Spitz, The Renaissance and Reformation Movements, vol. 1 (St. Louis:
Concordia Pub. House, 1980), 3-5.
66
Ronald Davidson, Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture (New
York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 18-21.
67
A note should be made for the problem of taking Amdo history as a part of Tibetan history. It is true
that confining diverse cultural entities to Sino-Tibetan dichotomy is too simplistic. As Gerald Roche
discussed recently (Roche, “The Tibetanization of Henan’s Mongols,” Asian Ethnicity 16.1: 128-149),
there are some academic and political intentions for this simplification and restraint. Nonetheless, I argue
that basic elements of cultural developments, that is, monasticism, incarnation institution and literary
activities, are basically Tibetan in their nature and it is helpful to see this period of Amdo as a part of
Tibetan history. My intention is not to erase the local agents in concern, but to emphasize their original
sources for their development. In so doing, it will be more helpful in seeing this period as another
renaissance of Tibetan civilization.
25
According to Lewis Spitz, there were several different renaissances in European
history.68 Among them, however, the Italian Renaissance was the most meaningful in terms of its
scope and influence on later times. Of course, we cannot even equate the cultural and historical
backgrounds of or resulting changes brought about by various regional renaissances in Europe,
much less so for Italian, Tibetan, and Amdo renaissances. But there are three key commonalities
that these historically and geographically distinct instances of renaissance share.
First, all three renaissances happened during periods of escape from darkness. The Italian
Renaissance represented an emergence from the so-called Dark Ages that followed the fall of the
Roman Empire, and the first Tibetan Renaissance represented an emergence from a “time of
fragmentation (sil bu’i dus)” that came after the demise of Tibetan Empire. The Amdo
renaissance was epitomized by Rong bo grub chen I Skal ldan rgya mtsho’s (1607–1677)
Religious Chronicle of Amdo (Rje skal ldan rgya mtsho’i gsung las mdo msad Amdo’i phyogs su
bstan pa dar tshul gyi lo rgyus mdor bsdus), in which he described that the awakening of Amdo
was initiated only by the third Dalai Lama III Bsod nams rgya mtsho’s (1543–1588) visit there in
the late sixteenth century and Amdo’s religious prosperity became to rise in the mid-seventeenth
century, when the chronicle was written.69 It was a beginning of enlightenment from the darkness
and a new era for the Amdo region.
Second, each region in these movements experienced profound cultural development
based on non-native influences. While the Italian Renaissance had its basis in the Greek tradition
68
See note 65 above.
69
Rong bo grub chen I Skal ldan rgya mtsho, Rje skal ldan rgya mtsho’i gsung las mdo msad Amdo’i
phyogs su bstan pa dar tshul gyi lo rgyus mdor bsdus, in Yab rjes bla ma skal ldan rgya mtsho’i gsung
’bum, vol.1 (Xining: Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1999), 341-355. Gray Tuttle translated the first
part of this chronicle with a brief introduction in Schaeffer et al., ed., Sources of Tibetan Tradition (New
York: Columbia University Press, 2013), 587-92.
26
and Tibetan Renaissance in the Indian tradition, the Amdo Renaissance had its basis in the
Tibetan tradition. It may sound strange to say that Tibetan tradition was foreign to Amdo, but a
large number of the constituents who participated in the Amdo Renaissance were not ethnically
Tibetan and the key phenomena of this renaissance, most importantly monasticism, incarnation,
and literature, were new to them. As we will see, Sum pa Mkhan po’s activities were largely
related to Mongols, who were either newcomers to Amdo (i.e., Khoshut Mongols), or outsiders
of Amdo (i.e., Alashan and Ordos Mongols). In addition, Sum pa Mkhan po’s main monastery,
Dgon lung, was also the center for Mounguor people’s religious activities. For these people, the
Tibetan culture was a foreign tradition.70 Therefore, the fact that the Tibetan tradition was also
unfamiliar and novel to the key players of the Amdo Renaissance parallels the backgrounds of
the other two renaissances.
Third, these three movements also shared a tendency in intellectual activities, that is, each
movement was more focused on practical issues rather than on otherworldly pursuits. The Italian
Renaissance was humanist and naturalistic as opposed to the ardently religious Dark Ages that
preceded it. According to Davidson, the Tibetan Renaissance served clans’ pragmatic purposes
rather than soteriological ideals.71 The Amdo Renaissance, during which Tibetan learning was
accepted and further built upon, led to a similar transformation of cultural priorities towards local
and timely demands. In Chapter IV of this dissertation, I will demonstrate that Sum pa Mkhan
po’s intellectual products are on a different spectrum from the scholarship of earlier generations,
and that Amdo intellectual activities were also inclined to practical purposes in their own way.
70
This is one of arguments I will put forward with discussion in the Chapter III, IV, and V of this
dissertation.
71
Davidson, Tibetan Renaissance, 159-60.
27
The term “renaissance,” therefore, will be used throughout this dissertation as a trope for
the Zeitgeist of Sum pa Mkhan po’s time. Furthermore, I will give Sum pa Mkhan po the
nickname “Renaissance Man”. This is not only because he was “a person with many talents or
areas of knowledge,” as common usage has it,72 but also because he was an exemplar of this
cultural phenomenon in the Amdo region. First of all, Sum pa Mkhan po was born in Amdo and
received his basic education in one of the centers of intellectual activity of his time, namely
Dgon lung monastery. Ethnically, he was a descendant of Khosuut-Zünghar Mongolians who
immigrated into the Amdo region just several decades before. Aside from these Amdo-centered
characteristics, Sum pa Mkhan po also had a not-too-long, but nevertheless extensive, learning
and political experience in Central Tibet, which qualified him as an inheritor of authentic Tibetan
culture. More than anything else, however, Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works, a record of his
intellectual journey that illustrates the wide range of his achievements, is an exemplar of the
Amdo Renaissance. So, it can be said that Sum pa Mkhan po was a bona fide renaissance man
who lived in a time of renaissance.
Before delving further into the range of Sum pa Mkhan po’s activities, I would like to
provide a framework within which we might better understand his life and times. In a Tibetan
mindset, “buddha, dharma, and saṃgha (sangs rgyas, chos, and dge ’dun)”, are regarded as
objects of worship and are conceived of as the life-saving “three jewels (dkon mchog gsum).”73
For my purposes here, I would like to appropriate these concepts to situate our understanding of
objects of veneration like incarnate lamas (as embodiment of buddhahood), works of literature
(as dharmic scripture), and the establishment of monasteries (as communities of saṃgha). These
72
An entry from Angus Stevenson et al. ed., Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 1217.
73
Zhang Yisun et al. Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo, 61-62.
28
three can act as gauges for both the Amdo Renaissance and Sum pa Mkhan po’s activities. For
the rest of this chapter, I will discuss the quantitative aspects of each category in the Amdo
Renaissance.
3. Quantitative Aspects of Amdo Renaissance and a Prosopographical Approach
Although they do not use the term “renaissance” itself for the description of the period, a
number of leading scholars have pointed out that eastern Tibet grew in importance in late premodern history. In his brief but profound general history of Tibet, Matthew Kapstein noted “a
remarkable shift in Tibet’s cultural geography” in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.74 In a
similar vein, Sam van Schaik also provided an account of the political and cultural importance of
the Khams region during the same period in his overview of Tibetan history.75 More recently,
several studies have looked more closely at Amdo’s role in Tibetan history. Among others, Paul
Nietupski’s extensive study of the Bla brang bkra shis ’khyil monastery revealed that the
monastery played a central role not only at the local level, but in the context of tripartite relations
between Amdo, Central Tibet, and Qing China as well. To support his observation, Nietupski
analyzed the scholarship of Gung thang III Dkon mchog bstan pa’i sgron me (1762-1823) to
illustrate the literary innovations that Bla brang contributed to Tibetan literary heritage.76 It is
true that the production of extensive literary collections was a new direction in scholarship at Bla
74
Matthew Kapstein, The Tibetans (Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 2006), 164-68.
75
Sam van Schaik, Tibet: A History (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2011), 160-69. Van
Schaik deals only with the Khams region, and in many aspects the importance of Khams should be
separately considered from that of Amdo.
76
Paul Nietupski, Labrang Monastery: A Tibetan Buddhist Community on the Inner Asian Borderlands,
1709-1958 (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2010), 25-31.
29
brang, but there is room for further examination in Nietupski’s assertions. We must place his
observation within a broader context in order to determine whether the new trend was just an
institution-specific cultural phenomenon or perhaps a cultural phenomenon unique to the region
of Amdo.
Despite their contributions, the abovementioned scholars have sensed the historical trend
but not fully investigated it. We can investigate the trend with a new approach to mapping
historical development that focuses more on long-term patterns rather than on a few historical
moments. In other words, to observe “the forest” rather than “the trees,” we must look at the
history of Tibet in a new way. Looking for long-term patterns requires a new research method
that can use large quantities of data taken from source materials. Chinese studies have recently
provided a model for doing just that. As Song Chen has recently described, the method involves
taking advantage of the potential of so-called “big data” in different ways.77 Peter Bol, for
instance, undertook a study using data from the Chinese Biographical Database project combined
with geostatistical analyses. His approach suggests much for other fields of study such as Tibetan
studies.78
The same potential use of “big data” that other fields of humanities have taken advantage
of exists within Tibetan Studies as well. We can see it in two ways: First, there exists a huge
amount of data relevant to Tibetan Studies. Biographies—including not only longer biographies
that are worthy of individual in-depth studies, but the smaller and fragmentary biographies still
77
Song Chen, “Why Humanists Should Fall in Love with ‘Big Data,’ and How?” Dissertation Reviews,
March 15, 2016. Accessed April 30, 2016. http://dissertationreviews.org/archives/13643.
78
The possibility of using the research approach of “prosopography” is mainly inspired by Peter Bol,
“GIS, Prosopography and History,” Annals of GIS 18 (1), (2012): 3–15. Accessed March 31, 2016.
doi:10.1080/19475683.2011.647077. Although prosopography appears prominently in the title of the
article, Bol does not go into detail regarding the techniques of prosopography in the article itself.
30
waiting to be processed and utilized—provide a good example for potential “big data.” 79
Second, data has become more and more available in digital formats and can thus be handled in a
more convenient way. The Buddhist Digital Resource Center (www.tbrc.org, formerly Tibetan
Buddhist Resource Center) is currently the largest source for this purpose. The body of its
database can be used not only for philological research, but for statistical analysis. Other
noteworthy sources are the Treasury of Lives (treasuryoflives.org) and Himalayan Art Resources
(www.himalayanart.org). We already have an extensive amount of data with which to do
research.
What can we do with such a large body of data? We can apply a new method called
“prosopography.” Prosopography originated as a new research method, as pointed out by
Koenraad Verboven and others, due to the problem of the representativeness. It is generally the
case that researchers focus only on a single or a very small number of unique historical figures.
A basic tenet of prosopographical research is that “by subjecting an ideally large number from a
pre-defined population to the same questionnaire, the particular characteristics of that population
as a whole become visible”; prosopography “is not interested in the unique but in the average,
the general and the ‘commonness’ in the life histories of more or less large numbers of
individuals.”80
79
Although extensive and longer biographies have been the principal subjects of study, it is worth
considering what we can do with short and fragmentary biographies and their collections as well.
80
Koenraad Verboven et al, “A Short Manual to the Art of Prosopography,” in Unit for Prosopographical
Research, 2007. Accessed March 31, 2016. https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/376535. As one of the
reviewers of my essay, “Amdo, Collected Works (gSung ’bum), and Prosopography,” indicated, it seems
dangerous to claim to present “characteristics of the population as a whole” especially in Tibetan Studies
that lack such data at present. However, Verboven’s suggestion is still worthy of consideration, because
we can take it as a methodological tool for studying each group of small population, not really for the
whole Tibetan population or the whole population of elite Tibetans at a given time.
31
In what follows, I will investigate the trend by making use of the prosopographical
approach based on recent scholarship of quantitative aspects of the aforementioned “three
jewels.” After concluding this chapter, the following chapters of the dissertation will be a
qualitative analysis of each category based on Sum pa Mkhan po’s autobiography and other
literary works. In this way, this part of quantitative investigations will establish a basis and a
backdrop for the examination of Sum pa Mkhan po’s cultural activities.
3. 1. Incarnation Lineages
The first category of investigation is the incarnation institution of Tibetan culture. In
Tibet, the incarnation of eminent lamas began to be institutionalized around the 13th century and
since then it has become a widespread tradition throughout culturally Tibetan regions. 81
Eventually, the number of incarnation lamas has become an important issue for the parties
involved, especially for those who attempt to control the institution. The Qing government tried
to maintain the designated number of incarnation lamas through a series of regulatory systems,82
but its survey seems to have been less than comprehensive and to have been carried out only
with an administrative purpose, rather than a religious one. The current People’s Republic of
China also tries to exert itself over Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhists by limiting the number of
incarnation lamas, as indicated by a recent attempt to control the number of incarnations through
81
A more detailed discussion of the history of the incarnation institution will be provided in the Chapter
III of this dissertation.
82
For a recent and comprehensive study of establishment and development of such measures, which had
ended up with the jasag lama system, see Yōko Ikejiri, Shinchō zenki no Chibetto Bukkyō seisaku: jasaku
rama seido no seiritsu to tenkai (Tōkyō: Kyūko Shoin, 2013).
32
a registration system.83 Since these systems have left behind easily accessible documentary
evidence of the institution, it is tempting to turn to these data to draw a larger picture of the
incarnation institution. However, politically charged acts of maintenance, such as those recorded
in these documents, often do not accurately reflect cultural and religious aspects of the
incarnation institution. By relying only on these lists, which were likely used primarily to
maintain political control, one cannot get a fuller picture of the incarnation institution. 84
Fortunately, Gray Tuttle’s very recent work on the incarnation institutions, based on firsthand
and extensive source materials, provides meaningful statistics and analysis of incarnation lamas
from which we can derive a fuller picture.85
In this work, Tuttle’s broad discussion of “the spread of incarnation lineages across time
and throughout Tibetan territory” was not intended to make a case for the historical importance
of Amdo. But it becomes obvious in the course of his piece that the Dge lugs pa, specifically in
the region of Amdo, became the leading players in the institution of incarnation lineages. Figure
3 is composed of four graphs provided in Tuttle’s work that show the number of new
incarnations in different time periods with local variables. It illustrates the pattern of incarnations
83
This recent attempt is represented by a website of “huofo chaxun xitong 活 查询系统” in which only
government-approved registered incarnations can be searched and identified, accessed January 28, 2017,
http://hf.tibet.cn/. Among many news reports about the system, see Olivia Geng and Josh Chin, “China
Launches Living-Buddha Authentication Site, Dalai Lama Not Included,” The Wall Street Journal,
January 19, 2016, accessed January 27, 2017, blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2016/01/19/china-launchesliving-buddha-authentication-site-dalai-lama-not-included/.
84
According to relevant data from Da qing huidian 大清會典 [Collected Statutes of the Qing Dynasty]
compiled in the era of the Jiaqing emperor (1796-1820), the total number of registered lamas of Amdo
and Khams regions (Ch. fan lama 番喇嘛) was 40. For this, see Zhao Yuntian ed. Qianlongchao neifu
chaoben ‘Lifanyan zeli’ (Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe, 2006), 369. As we will see below, the
number of newly established incarnation lineages in Amdo alone was as high as 39 from 1800 to 1900.
85
Gray Tuttle, “Pattern Recognition: Tracking the Spread of the Incarnation Institution through Time and
across History,” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 38 (2017): 29–64.
33
being produced in different locations.
Figure 3. Charts of number of incarnation divided by location in different time periods. From
Tuttle, “Pattern Recognition,” passim.
As seen in the four charts, in terms of numbers of new incarnation lineages, Amdo has
taken the lead along with Central Tibet in producing new incarnations. However, even though it
had greatest number from the early period onwards, Central Tibet shows an obvious decrease in
its number over time. Conversely, Amdo shows a burst in increase of the number around the
34
beginning of the eighteenth century and it retained its leading status even though it did not
maintain the explosive dynamism of the early eighteenth century. Amdo’s leading role in the
incarnation system looks obvious when these four graphs are combined, as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Chart of New Incarnations by Location. From Tuttle, “Pattern Recognition,” 31.
35
In sum, it can be said that the pattern of producing new incarnation lineages follows “a
remarkable shift in Tibet’s cultural geography” in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Of
course, this single pattern is simply one aspect of the Amdo Renaissance, and we need more
relevant pieces of puzzle to make a fuller picture of this cultural transition. As some recent
studies on monasticism and its cartographic renderings suggest, the development of monasticism
also shows a similar pattern of development. In the next part, I will deal with the development of
monasticism in connection with the Amdo Renaissance.
3. 2. Monasteries
The development of monasticism is a key element for locating Tibetan Buddhism’s role
in the history of Amdo. There have been a number of studies and sources on individual
monasteries in Amdo,86 but tracing the historical background behind the establishment of Amdo
monasteries in full swing was attempted only recently by Gray Tuttle. In his study Tuttle focuses
86
Notably, aforementioned Paul Nietupski’s study on Bla brang Monastery and Brenton Sullivan’s study
on Dgon lung Monastery (Brenton Sullivan, “The Mother of All Monasteries: Gonlung Jampa Ling and
the rise of mega monasteries in northeastern Tibet.” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Virginia, 2013)).
There are several useful compilations of history of monasteries around Amdo: Pu Wencheng’s Gan Qing
Zangchuan fojiao siyuan (Xining: Qinghai renmin chubanshe, 1990) is a very useful for its
comprehensiveness and Tibetan names of each monastic site in its table of contents. The almost same
work has been reproduced in two (Pu Wencheng, Qinghai zangchuan fojiao siyuan (Lanzhou: Gansu min
zu chu ban she, 2013) and Lang Jianlan and Wang Qian, Gansu zangchuan fojiao siyuan (Lanzhou:
Gansu minzu chubanshe, 2014)) of six-volume series of the Compendium of Tibetan Buddhist
Monasteries of China (Zhongguo zangchuan fojiao siyuan daxi 中 藏传 教 院大系). Gruschke’s
two volumes’ survey of the Amdo region (Gruschke, The Cultural Monets of Tibet’s Outer Provinces:
Amdo) is a good English source for the same subject. For a useful and comprehensive (however only for
Gansu Province) source of the kind in Tibetan, see Rdo rje rin chen et al. Krung goʼi Bod brgyud nang
dgon dkar chag las Kan suʼu glegs bam (Lanzhou: Kan suʼu mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2009). For a useful
compilation of maps of monasteries and places, see Smith, Stewart, The Monasteries of Amdo: a
comprehensive guide to the monaseries of the Amdo region of Tibet (United States: CreateSpace
Independent Publishing Platform, 2013).
36
on the history of the founding of monasteries in Amdo. By dividing the development of Amdo
monasteries into four diachronic stages, Tuttle makes it clear that Amdo began to take initiative
in the establishment of religious institutions during the latter of those stages.87 Notwithstanding
its contribution to understanding the development of Amdo monasticism, Tuttle’s analysis is
limited to the pattern of Dge lugs pa monasteries in the Amdo region, and is more akin to tracing
the background dynamics of monasticism rather than a true statistical investigation based on data
analysis. Tuttle’s investigation also lacks comparison of the same phenomenon within other
Tibetan Buddhist schools or other culturally Tibetan regions. Therefore, we must still put
monasticism in a broader context to see Amdo’s role in the longer history of Tibetan
monasticism.
Fortunately, Karl Ryavec’s recent work of Tibetan historical maps makes such an
examination possible. 88 The title of Ryavec’s work, A Historical Atlas of Tibet, gives the
impression that it is simply a compilation of maps of Tibet in different time periods. While it is
that, after a careful perusal of its introduction and explanatory texts, it is clear that it is much
more. All of Ryavec’s mapping has been based on charting data of establishment of Tibetan
Buddhist monasteries.89 Most of his maps show a distribution of monasteries fixed in time and
space, but in his introduction, Ryavec provides a very useful graph of data that he collected on
87
Gray Tuttle, “Building up the Dge lugs pa Base in Amdo: The Roles of Lhasa, Beijing and Local
Agency,” Zangxue xuekan 7 (2011): 126–140.
88
Karl Ryavec, A Historical Atlas of Tibet (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015).
89
Ryavec, A Historical Atlas of Tibet, 14: “The approximately three thousand Buddhist sites
georeferenced to make the map derive from twenty years of research by numerous scholars working from
many different source.”
37
approximately three thousand monasteries, which reveals a pattern of how monasticism has
developed in the different regions of Tibet over time.90
Figure 5. Growth of Buddhist temples and monasteries in core regions, circa 600-1950. From
Karl Ryavec, A Historical Atlas of Tibet, 16.
90
Ibid., 16. It is also noteworthy that Karl Ryavec’s data can be found in Buddhist Digital Resource
Center (www.tbrc.org), in many geographical sites’ information with the accession marker “G.”
Notwithstanding their usefulness, a mention should be made about inaccuracy of some data on Amdo
monasteries—their precise GPS coordinates in particular—compared to those in Central Tibet. According
to Merrick Lex Berman, who is a web service manager and GIS specialist of the Center for Geographic
Analysis at Harvard University, the problem has been caused by Ryavec’s sources that were mostly
Chinese field survey reports, rather than his own field research results. Due to this problem, researchers
should be careful to use geographical data found in BDRC.
38
This graph clearly indicates that the Amdo region began to take the lead in building
monasteries around the sixteenth century. Ryavec interprets this development by suggesting that
economic development in the region might have caused the cultural growth. He further suggests
that the arrival of New World crops, such as potatoes and maize, and the increased demand for
wool caused by an influx of New World silver, might have been a driving force behind the
growth.91 However, since it lacks any systematic demonstration, Ryavec’s argument for the
growth is still an assumption at best, and requires further investigation. Ryavec sees only an
economic dimension to possible explanations for this development. We should analyze the
phenomenon from other perspectives as well, considering political situations or environmental
circumstances, for example.
We find evidence for the emergence of Amdo as a dominant force on the cultural scene
not only in the form of the growing influence of social institutions like monasteries or
incarnation lineages, but also in literary innovations within Tibetan intellectual history. In what
follows I will further consider the impact that A mdo ba thinkers have had on Tibetan literary
culture.
3. 3. Production of Literature
3. 3. 1. “Collected Works” (gsung ’bum) as a Barometer of Tibetan Literary Culture
When it comes to traditional literary culture in Tibet, canonical works are likely the first
91
Ibid., 124, 148.
39
of its exemplars to leap to mind. The redaction and publication of the Buddhist canon is surely an
important part of Tibetan literary history. The compilation of the Tibetan Buddhist canon dates
back to the time of the Tibetan Empire (7-9th centuries), and its vitality has not dimmed even
today, with continuous efforts to publish Tibetan canonical literature and extensive studies on
it.92 Nonetheless, as the Tibetan terms for such literature (bka’ ’gyur and bstan ’gyur) indicate,
the publication of canons or “collections of translations (’gyur)” is considered, in essence, an act
of reproduction—either translations from Indian originals or redactions of old Tibetan
translations—rather than an act of creation.
The literary form of “collected works (gsung ’bum)” written by Tibetan intellectuals is
precisely the opposite. Although they follow specimens mainly from bstan ’gyur in topics,
collected works can provide broad aspects of what are called the “ten forms of knowledge (rig
gnas bcu)” in Tibetan intellectual circles, even covering subjects beyond the scope of Buddhist
studies.93 With its broad sphere of themes, this realm of Tibetan literature represents the bona
fide creativity of Tibetan intellectuals.
Although the body of this literature is huge, the conception of cataloging works under the
term “gsung ’bum” does not have a long history. The term itself is found in earlier literature, but
the first cataloging activity under which the term “gsung ’bum” began to be used the way we use
92
For more details of the history of Tibetan Canonical literature, see Helmut Eimer and David Germano,
The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2002).
93
For a useful bibliographic overview of these “ten forms of knowledge,” see David S. Ruegg, Ordre
spirituel et ordre temporel dans la pensée bouddhique de l'Inde et du Tibet (Paris : Collège de France,
1995), 101-32. When Lokesh Chandra discusses the significance of gsung ’bum in his Materials for a
History of Tibetan Literature, he situates the scope of such works only within the rubric of “the Five
Sciences” (Lokesh Chandra, Materials for a history of Tibetan literature, Part I (New Delhi: International
Academy of Indian Culture, 1963), 15-16). However, the contents of gsung ’bum—especially those of
later generations—go beyond the scope of “five greater forms of knowledge (rig gnas che ba lnga),” i.e.,
interior knowledge, logic, language, medicine, and artistic crafts. I hope to use prosopographical methods
in a future study to analyze the pattern and the trend of which subjects of knowledge are emphasized more
in different gsung ’bum collections throughout time and space.
40
it nowadays dates back only to eighteenth century’s Bka’ gdams pa dang dge lugs pa’i bla ma
rags rim gyi gsung ’bum dkar chag by Klong rdol bla ma Ngag dbang blo bzang (1719-1794).94
However, once the practice of cataloging gsung ’bums took root, catalogers began to use the
term to cover a diverse array of Tibetan literary works. As seen in Ngag dbang blo bzang’s case,
it started with collections from a small number of bKa’ gdams pa and Dge lugs pa masters, but in
one catalogue compiled in the 1980s, even works from the early times of the Tibetan Empire are
included under the category of gsung ’bum.95
“Collected works” are observed from a different perspective in a discussion of the desired
level of competency for “the learned (mkhas pa)” in Tibetan culture. What is at issue here is
whether it was necessary that the act of producing literature have a central—or at least not
marginal—role among the Tibetan learned. It is widely known that mastery of three scholarly
activities, i.e., explanation, debate, and composition (’chad rtsod rtsom gsum), is required among
Tibetan intellectuals. Although the emphasis on which of the three activities should be most
important varies over time and space, as José Cabezón has pointed out, it is a common notion
94
This work is included in Klong rdol bla ma Ngag dbang blo bzang, Klong rdol bla ma ngag dbang blo
bzang gi gsung ’bum, vol.2 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe snying spe skrun khang, 1991), 495-638. I
follow Ahua Awanghuadan’s opinion that it is the first activity of cataloging gsung ’bums. For this see
Ahua Awanghuadan, “Beijing diqu suocun zangzu lidai gaoseng xianzhe wenji jieti mulu,” Zhongguo
zangxue 102 (2012): 81. Of course, the activity of cataloging works of Tibetan intellectuals dates back to
even earlier periods, an example of which is fifteenth-century Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po’s catalogues
of Sa skya masters such as his Thob yig rgya mtsho in Nor chen Kun dga’ bzang po, The Works of
Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo (Kathmandu: Sachen International, 2005), 89-217. However, it seems that the
use of the term gsung ’bum as a heading and its resultant bibliographic conception in cataloging activities
had not existed in these earlier periods. I would like to thank Prof. Leonard van der Kuijp for bringing this
issue to my attention.
95
Bod kyi bstan bcos khag cig gi mtshan byang dri med shel dkar phreng ba (a.k.a. Bla brang dkar chag)
places Srong btsan sgam po’s works as its first entry for gsung ’bum. For this see Grags pa et al., Bod kyi
bstan bcos khag cig gi mtshan byang (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1985), 89-90. It
would be interesting to see how the extent of the concept of gsung ’bum has changed over time and from
region to region.
41
that for scholarly monks “scholarship was measured not by one’s ability as a writer.”96
We need to think more carefully about the relationship between “an act of writing” and “an act
of producing literature.” First, as Cabezón puts it, the act of “rtsom” is not “the act of writing,”
but “the act of com-pilation or con-junction.”97 Therefore, even though the act of writing itself
might be discouraged, the act of compiling what one has explained and what one has debated
might be encouraged. Second, it should be remembered that the exact Tibetan term for “collected
works” is “gsung ’bum,” a compound word comprising an honorific form of the gerund “saying
(gsung)” and what was generally a numeric term for “hundred-thousand (100,000),” but which
may also mean “multifarious (’bum).”98 So even though the “sayings” exist in written form, the
text represents the corpus of a teacher’s teaching itself, even in the absence of any manuscript.
As Kurtis Schaeffer suggested, sGam po pa Bsod nams rin chen’s (1079-1159) gsung ’bum
might have been created by spoken communication, whereas ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje I
Ngag dbang brtson grus’ (1648-1721) was surely based on written communication.99 Whether
spoken or written, both are called “gsung ’bum”—the significance is placed on the creativity of
its “sayings,” not on whether it was originally spoken or written.
Even though the act of writing is not equivalent to producing literature, we still need to
give a second thought to the writing culture itself, because the development of a writing culture
96
José Cabezón, “Authorship and Literary Production,” in Changing Minds: Contributions to the Study of
Buddhism and Tibet in Honor of Jeffrey Hopkins, ed. Guy Newland, (Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications.
2011), 236.
97
Cabezón, “Authorship and Literary Production,” 242. Tibetan has a specific verb for the meaning of “to
write,” i.e., “’bri ba.” For this see Cabezón, “Authorship and Literary Production,” 241, 257 n19.
98
It should be noted that sometimes “gsung ’bum” is translated as “collected writings.” But this
translation does not correctly capture the meaning of “gsung”, which does not mean “writing,” even
though gsung ’bums exist in a written or printed form. I have not heard of orally transmitted gsung ’bum.
99
Kurtis Schaeffer, “Printing the Words of the Master: Tibetan Editorial Practice in the Collected Works
of ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje I (1648–1721),” Acta Orientalia 60, (1999): 163.
42
has a direct correlation with the development of the written form of literature. Has writing really
continuously been discouraged in Tibetan culture? The three main Dge lugs pa monasteries,100
which originated in the vicinity of Lhasa, have traditionally discouraged the act of writing.
Georges Dreyfus discussed this fact in his detailed, first-hand account of the education of
Tibetan Buddhist monks. Although Dreyfus’ discussion is very informative, his explanation of
why writing was discouraged, especially in those three monasteries and not in others, is not so
plausible. According to Dreyfus, writing was discouraged in Lhasa’s monasteries “to counteract
the danger of scholars becoming involved in politics.” Therefore, “other important but more
remote Dge lugs centers, such as Bkra shis lhun po and Bla brang, encouraged literary skills.
Thus they (Bla brang in particular) are the source of most of the Dge lugs literature written in the
past two centuries. The Dge lugs attitude toward writing appears to vary with distance from the
political center.”101 Can we agree with this last statement? It is widely known that in the history
of the Dge lugs pa sect, religious figures—either assistants for Dalai Lamas or leading figures
such as regents—have been fully involved in politics at least since the time of the fifth Dalai
Lama. Thus, it is difficult to accept Dreyfus’ assertion unless more convincing evidence to the
contrary is found. Dreyfus’ conclusion would also leave us wondering why Bkra shis lhun po—a
monastery known for its political prominence—has not produced as much literature as Bla
brang.102 In addition, Bla brang itself has historically been involved in its own complex nexus of
politics. So, the “distance from the political center” seems not to be a feasible barometer for
100
These are Dga’ ldan, Se ra, and ’Bras spungs monasteries.
101
Georges Dreyfus, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: the education of a Tibetan Buddhist monk
(Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 2003), 120-21 (emphasis mine).
102
For evidence for this discrepancy, see 3.3.2 of this chapter. The Gtsang area has not produced much
literature in the Dge lugs pa tradition.
43
explaining differences in literary production. We should examine the divergent emphases on
producing literature in different regions in a broader context. In-depth analysis of how written
communication brought about gsung ’bum culture might yield a fuller picture of whether the act
of writing was encouraged or discouraged. To do so, we need to use a prosopographical
methodology appropriate to the available source materials.
This research method is well suited to the study of gsung ’bums and their authors.
Although some scholars have paid attention to the subject of gsung ’bum, rarely is more than a
single person’s gsung ’bum studied. Take Schaeffer’s study on ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’s gsung
’bum, for example. Although Schaeffer’s detailed analysis of each colophon and its historical
background provided new insights, a broader intellectual map in which ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa
and his works are duly located and evaluated would be more desirable. In what follows, I will
explore a basic level of such a mapping using prospographical research methods.103
3. 3. 2. Patterns of gsung ’bum productions
As Verboven’s manual warns, prosopographical research is labor intensive.104 What a
single individual can do for a short period time is very limited. Notwithstanding, in what follows,
I attempt to corroborate what I have suggested in the first part of this chapter—that specifically
103
Indeed Kurtis Schaeffer has pioneered the use of this kind of “big data” to illustrate patterns of literary
production. In his case, however, he goes for a specific genre, i.e., Tibetan auto/biographies, for the
analysis of Tibetan literary production. For this, see Kurtis Schaeffer, “Tibetan Biography: Growth and
Criticism,” in Edition, éditions: l'écrit au Tibet, évolution et devenir, ed. Anne Chayet et al. (München:
Indus Verlag. 2010), 263–306. Interestingly, Schaeffer’s study also reveals a pattern of emerging
importance for Amdo, which is very similar to those revealed by my analysis of gsung ’bum below. I owe
this reference to one of the reviewers of my essay, “Amdo, Collected Works (gSung ’bum), and
Prosopography.”
104
Verboven et al., “A Short Manual to the Art of Prosopography,” 53.
44
Amdo ba scholarship is a significant contributor to the history of Dge lugs pa gsung ’bum
production.
First I will provide a basic account of the criteria used to collect data and its limitations. I
limited my data set to works produced among the Dge lugs pa, because the Dge lugs pa has the
largest number of gsung ’bums among the major sects of Tibetan Buddhism. Of course, data sets
comprised of works produced by other sects will yield different patterns, but the patterns yielded
by the largest group of scholars working in Amdo should most represent the features of the
cultural activity in the region.
I began collecting data from the Buddhist Digital Resource Center, initially collecting
basic biographical data on 146 Dge lugs pa scholars for whom records of gsung ’bum exist in the
BDRC database. However, I soon realized that the BDRC database does not represent an
exhaustive collection of such sources, and that additional data could be gathered from other
sources. One such additional source is Shes bya’i gter mdzod, a three-volume catalogue of gsung
’bums preserved in the Library of Cultural Palace of Nationalities in Beijing.105 This catalogue
has 182 entries with a short biography for each entry, but among them only 126 entries are
related to Dge lugs pa scholars. A large portion of these 126 entries is duplicated in the BDRC
records, but among them there were 20 entries unique to this catalogue. Another important and
extensive catalogue is Po ta la’i gsung’bum dkar chag, which has 201 entries, each with a short
biography.106 This is the largest collection for Dge lugs pa gsung ’bum, but 45 entries from the
BDRC database do not appear in this catalogue. Comparison of the three catalogues yielded 265
105
Mi rigs dpe mdzod khang, Shes byaʼi gter mdzod (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1984–
1997). (3 volumes)
106
Mi rigs dpe mdzod khang, Po ta la'i gsung 'bum dkar chag (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2013).
45
gsung ’bums authored by Dge lugs pa scholars. Fig. 6 roughly illustrates the pattern of gsung
’bum authorship in chronological order by century.
Figure 6. Production of Collected Works in the Dge lugs School over time.
The graph indicates that the number of gsung ’bums produced by Dge lugs pa scholars
has increased over the centuries and that any supposed Dge lugs pa discouragement of producing
“new sayings” have not been successful, if such an attempt even really existed. To gain a more
complete picture of Dge lugs pa production of gsung ’bums I re-sorted the data used to create
Figure 7 by authors’ principal seats of activity. The result yielded further meaningful patterns
(Fig. 5).107
107
I follow mostly BDRC’s record of “main seat” for each individual, and in case it is not available from
BDRC, I consulted biographies in Po ta la’i gsung ’bum dkar chag and Shes bya’i gter mdzod for relevant
46
Figure 7. Production of Collected Works in the Dge lugs School over time divided by locality.
We can make several interesting observations based on these charts. First, the region of
Dbus led the movement of gsung ’bum production, driving the pattern that appeared in Fig. 7.
Dbus has never lost its position as the leader in production of new Dge lugs pa literature. Second,
the region of Gtsang has never been a front-runner of gsung ’bum production, despite its distance
from the political center. Although the Dge lugs pa victory over the Gtsang regime in the midinformation. I am aware that more analytic elaboration is needed to fully specify the principal seat of
activity, but I believe that many of the institutions specified as “main seats” are representative enough of
local intellectual activity. In the meantime, as one of reviewers of my essay, “A mdo, Collected Works
(gSung ’bum), and Prosopography,” points out, the regional origin of each gsung ’bum author deserves
the same attention as the other factors discussed here, because some gsung ’bum authors from Amdo or
Khams “finished their education in Lhasa and stayed on there” (in reviewer’s words). However, such
analysis would entail work beyond the limited scope of this chapter of my dissertation, which I spare for a
future study.
47
seventeenth century signaled its political dominance over the region, scholarly activities may
have proceeded in a different way. This is worth further study, particularly including an analysis
of literary activities of other sects in the region. Finally, our analysis clearly shows that Amdo
became a leader in the production of gsung ’bums beginning in the eighteenth century, even
surpassing the rate of production in the historical center of Dge lugs pa activity, Dbus. The
pattern becomes particularly obvious when the four charts are combined into a stacked bar chart
(Fig. 8).
Figure 8. Production of Collected Works in the Dge lugs School over time divided by locality
(combined).
4. Background of the Development
48
We should consider possible background reasons for this development. We have already
discussed Ryavec’s potential economic explanation: he takes the arrival of New World crops,
such as potatoes and maize, and the increased demand for wool caused by the influx of New
World silver to be the driving force behind this growth.108 As I argued above, this explanation is
only tentative at the moment and needs further investigation.
Along with Ryavec’s argument, I contend that there were two prominent factors behind
this cultural development: a Manchu factor and a Mongolian factor. The first factor is that the
Qing dynasty’s political dominion over diverse groups of Tibetans and Mongols paved the way
for more frequent interactions among these people than had existed in previous eras, when
conflicts among them were commonplace. Up to the late seventeenth century, the Qing
government was just a mediator or a bystander in conflicts in the Amdo region. However, this
passive attitude began to change with Zünghar’s advance into Central Tibet and Amdo in the
1710s. After Blo bzang bstan ’dzin’s failed rebellion (1723-1724) and Zünghar’s final defeat
(1758), the Qing succeeded in securing tight control over the Amdo region by organizing Amdo
Mongols into the Qinghai league-banner system. Consequently, as a hub of this type of
interaction, Amdo grew increasingly important to cultural development.109 The second factor
relates to the Mongols’ active participation in religious professional and patronage activities.
Because Amdo was the gateway to Tibetan “high” culture for the Mongolian people, the more
108
Karl Ryavec, A Historical Atlas of Tibet, 124, 148.
109
This stabilizing effect of Qing dominion over Inner Asia might be similar to “Pax Mongolica” after the
conquests of the Mongol Empire. But one key difference between the two is that the former was more
about cultural transmission and exchange, whereas the latter seemed to be more about trade relations
based on the “Silk Road.” Of course the Qing case is much more limited in terms of the extent of territory
involved. The preeminent Qing historian Mark Elliott once used the term “Pax Manjurica,” but his use
was more for its ethnic connotation as opposed to the term Pax Sinica, than for the stabilizing effect of
Qing dominion. For this, see Mark Elliott, The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in
Late Imperial China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001), 5.
49
the Mongols engaged in cultural activity, the more significant Amdo became.110 It is well known
that Tibetan Buddhism had affected Mongolian society in a tremendous way, and this
phenomenon brought them under the common umbrella of Tibetan Buddhism, which was
politically supported by the Qing dynasty.111 Amdo was a gateway to Central Tibet at the
beginning, but as Amdo bas built their own cultural bases in their own land, Amdo itself began to
play an important role for Mongols.
These two factors persisted throughout the Qing period, and have been resuscitated in
recent decades after a brief cessation. This may be why we see a similar trend even nowadays in
the Tibetan intellectual scene. These two important factors notwithstanding, the most significant
driving force of this phenomenon has been none other than the intrinsic dynamics of Tibetan
intellectual activity itself.
5. Conclusion: Toward qualitative aspects of Amdo Renaissance
Several scholars have already noted that there was a cultural movement in the Amdo
110
As shown in Fig.6, there are Mongolian data not included in locality charts in Fig. 2. My source
materials have some data on Mongolian scholars, but I excluded them in the main part of the discussion
because they do not affect my argument to a large extent. As a matter of fact, we have several Mongolian
catalogues of gsung ’bum and some of these show a large number of authors counted as Mongolian
scholars. For example Gombojab, “Mongγulčud-un Töbed Kele-ber Jokiyaγsan Jokiyal-un JüiI.”
Studia Mongolica Instituti Linguae et Litterarum Comiteti Scientiarum et Educationos Altae 28 (1959): 140 even has 208 entries for Mongolian gsung ’bum authors. Despite its importance, I did not go further
into this catalogue because data are very sketchy at best and do not provide enough information compared
to the Tibetan catalogues I have used for this chapter. Another good example is Lokesh Chandra, Eminent
Tibetan polymaths of Mongolia (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1961). It provides
biographies for each author, but lists only 19 scholars. However, these Mongolian catalogues surely
deserve detailed study, the result of which would provide further insight into the pattern of gsung ’bum
production in areas under the influence of Tibetan Buddhism.
111
For details of this process, see Johan Elverskog, Our Great Qing: the Mongols, Buddhism and the
State in Late Imperial China (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2006).
50
region from the late pre-modern period, the time when Sum pa Mkhan po lived and left his
legacy. In this chapter, I have named this movement the “Amdo Renaissance” and have tried to
make clear its form by examining the details of this cultural phenomenon. What I focused upon
first was the quantitative aspect of this phenomenon. Using the “three jewels” as a trope, I have
quantitatively examined incarnations, monasteries, and literary production during the period in
question. For the first two, I have mainly used relevant data from preexisting studies, in which
they were not applied to interpret Amdo cultural movements. For the third topic, that is, literary
productions, I have collected data on my own and have provided a little more elaboration. The
quantitative data uniformly shows movement towards greater cultural development in the Amdo
region. The economic, political, and cultural backgrounds must still be investigated in detail.
This chapter provided the background for understanding Sum pa Mkhan po’s life and
activities. In the following chapters I will investigate qualitative aspects of the Amdo
Renaissance, with a focus on Sum pa Mkhan po’s life and activities. Subsequent examinations
will also follow the “three jewels” trope—that is, I will examine Sum pa Mkhan po’s incarnation
lineages, his monastic connections, and his literary productions based on his education and the
dissemination of his works. Before delving into his incarnation lineage, however, I will provide
an outline of his life and activities based on his two autobiographies.
51
Chapter II. Outline of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Life
1. Introduction
/rmongs pa’i rnam thar brjod tshe mkhas rnams khrel/
/dam pa’i ngang tshul bdag la brjod rgyu med/
/de phyir bsams kyin skal bzang slob ma la/
/’doms rgyu’i dngos po bdag gis gang nas btsal/
“As the wise become ashamed when the life story of the deluded is narrated,
To me there is nothing to narrate such as the excellent being’s aspects.
Having thought that way, for the fortunate students,
How do I find things to advise them on?”
— Tāranātha (1575–1634)
/rang nyid mchog tu rlom pa’i nga ro yis/
/bdag bstod gzhan smod dam pa’i tshul min yang /
/sgro skur med par rang gi ngang tshul rnams/
/’khor du sgrogs pa sangs rgyas tshul lugs yin/
“With the roar of boasting about oneself,
Praising oneself and deprecating others is not the excellent being’s way.
Proclaiming to the surroundings one’s own states
Without exaggeration or denigration is the way of Buddha.”
— Stag tshang lo tsā ba Shes rab rin chen (1405-1477)112
Early in the fire-monkey year (1776), when Sum pa Mkhan po turned seventy-three years
old, the members of the Sum pa residence arranged a grand long-life prayer service for him. This
event motivated Sum pa Mkhan po to reflect on his life and evaluate the merits and demerits of
his past. His evaluation of his life took shape around two points: first, his regrets at not having
been able to achieve much due to the unfavorable conditions of his time and personal difficulties,
and, second, his happiness at having been able to accumulate some merit by means of upholding
vows and performing religious services, despite those unfavorable conditions. Sum pa Mkhan po
used these two opposing evaluations as reasons not to write and to write an autobiography. Based
112
Both quatrains are quoted in SKRL1, 180a; SKRL2, 464.
52
on the former evaluation, there was nothing to tell about his unworthy life. But, considering the
latter, there was likely to be some benefit in telling the story of his life plainly, adding nothing
and concealing nothing. Sum pa Mkhan po’s paradoxical mindset when it came to his
autobiography is captured in the above quoted quatrains, which he selected to close discussion of
his achievements and reasons for writing it.113
Sum pa Mkhan po may have been hesitant to write his autobiography due to this paradox,
but the exhortations of others helped guide him to his final decision. His disciples and the
Alashan qinwang had asked him to write an autobiography a few of years earlier.114 In the end,
he decided to follow “the way of the Buddha” by narrating his story to audiences “without
exaggeration or denigration,” and with the caveat that he himself was not fully eligible to write
an autobiography.
In outlining his life, this chapter follows the tenor of “adding nothing and concealing
nothing”, which Sum pa Mkhan po purportedly adopted in writing his biography. However, our
purposes in this chapter are somewhat different from Sum pa Mkhan po’s aim of creating an
edifying work. Instead, the detailed outline of Sum pa Mkhan po’s life that we will lay out in this
113
SKRL1, 175a-80b; SKRL2, 451-65. Sum pa Mkhan po’s long discussion includes: 1. Regret about the
current “dark age,” 2. Remorse for individual mistakes, 3. Exhortation to self-training, 4. Warning against
the fetters of material wealth, and 5. Eligibility criteria for being an incarnate lama and biography writer.
The paradox for being a biography writer resembles Sum pa Mkhan po’s attitude toward being an
incarnate lama, which will be fully discussed in Chapter III.
114
This happened in 1774, when Sum pa Mkhan po visited Alashan (SKRL1, 165b; SKRL2, 428). Sum
pa Mkhan po calls this Mongol chieftain cin wang (<Ch. qinwang 親王), but his official title was “heshuo
qinwang 和碩親王,” which means “an enfeoffed imperial prince.” For an English translation of this title,
I follow Charles Hucker, A Dictionary of Official Titles In Imperial China (Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 1985), 224 (no. 2184). The person in question is Blo bzang rdo rje (>Ch. Luobuzang duo’erji 羅卜
藏多爾濟) who was a sole heshuo qinwang in the Alashan Banner at that time. For him, see Bao Wenhan
et al., ed., Menggu Hui bu wanggong biaozhuan, diyiji (Höhhot: Neimenggu daxue chubanshe, 1998
[1795]), 102.
53
chapter will form the foundation for discussions of his life in the later chapters of this
dissertation.
2. Problems with Preexisting Biographical Sketches of Sum pa Mkhan po
Given that Sum pa Mkhan po has attracted the attention of several scholars across
generations, plenty of biographical sketches about him have already appeared thus far. We can
even go back to one of Sum pa Mkhan po’s direct disciples, Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi
nyi ma (1737-1802),115 for examples of interest in his life. Interestingly, though, none of the
sketches of his life have ever fully engaged with Sum pa Mkhan po’s own accounts of his life—
the two autobiographies discussed in the Introduction—and, as a result, all those biographical
sketches are far from complete and often of questionable accuracy. There are three issues I
would like to address regarding this circumstance.
The first issue is that several inaccuracies in early biographical sketches of Sum pa
Mkhan po have been consistently reproduced in later works without reassessment. Sum pa
Mkhan po’s abbacy at Sgo mang college of ’Bras spungs monastery is a case in point. We find
this bit of information first mentioned in Chandra Das’ short outline of Sum pa Mkhan po’s life,
which says, “In his 23rd year he was appointed Mkhan po (abbot) of Sgo man̂ in Hbras spun̂.”116
115
The earliest biographical sketch of Sum pa Mkhan po can be found in Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos
kyi nyi ma, Dgon lung byams pa gling gi dkar chag, in Collected Works vol.2 (Kha) (Lhasa: Zhol par
khang gsar pa, 2000 [1775]), 51b-59a.
116
Chandra Das, “Life of Sum-pa Khan-po, also styled Yeśes-Dpal-hbyor, the author of the Reḥmig
(Chronological Table),” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, No. II (1889): 38. It was the first
biographical sketch of Sum pa Mkhan po written in English. The same biological sketch can be found
verbatim in the introduction to Sum pa Mkhan po, Pag Sam Jon Zang: part I, history of the rise, progress
and downfall of Buddhism in India, ed. Chandra Das (Calcutta: the Presidency jail Press, 1908), i-iii.
54
However, as Brenton Sullivan recently pointed out,117 it is highly doubtful that a man as young
as Sum pa Mkhan po was at that time would have been appointed to the position of abbot of Sgo
mang. Neither of Sum pa Mkhan po’s own autobiographies make any mention of the
appointment. Furthermore, Bstan pa bstan ’dzin’s History of Sgo mang College provides
counterevidence to this claim: Sum pa Mkhan po is not included among the full list of Sgo mang
abbots in the work, and the 35th and 36th abbots recorded therein cover the time when he stayed
in Central Tibet.118 Das does not provide a source for his information. Das may have derived his
use of the term “MKhanpo [sic]” from Sum pa Mkhan po’s appointment as “Mkhan po” at ’Bras
yul skyid tshal monastery119 at the age of twenty-five (1728). He was appointed there, not at Sgo
mang college, by Pho lha nas Bsod nams stobs rgyas (1689-1747).120 In any case, Das’ mistake
117
Brenton Sullivan, “The Mother of All Monasteries” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Virginia, 2013),
29, note 84.
118
Bstan pa bstan ’dzin, Chos sde chen po dpal ldan ’bras spungs bkra shis sgo mang grwa tshang gi
chos ’byung dung g.yas su ’khyil ba’i sgra dbyangs, vol.1 (Mundgod, distt. North Kanara, Karnataka:
Dpal ldan ’bras spungs bkra shis sgo mang dpe mdzod khang, 2003), 80-90. In the account of the 35th Sgo
mang mkhan po, La mo Nga dbang nam mkha’, Sum pa Mkhan po is mentioned as a student of Nga
dbang nam mkha’, but no further statement is provided about Sum pa Mkhan po.
119
’Bras yul skyid tshal (also rendered as ’Bras yul skyed tshal) monastery is located on the south bank of
the Gtsang po river in eastern Gtsang, present-day Rin spungs county in TAR. It was established by a Sa
skya pa master Byams chen rab ’byams pa Sangs rgyas ’phel (1412-1485). See Alfonsa Ferrari, Mk’yen
brtse’s Guide to the Holy Places of Central Tibet (Roma: Istituto italiano per il medio ed estremo oriente,
1958), 70 and 163 (note 635); Matthew Akester, Jamyang Khyentsé Wangpo's Guide to Central Tibet
(Chicago: Serinda Publications, 2016), 526-27. It is noteworthy that the monastery remained as a Sa skya
pa affiliation in the early twentieth century according to David Jackson, “A Reviver of Sa-skya-pa
Scriptural Studies,” in Les Habitants du toit du monde: études recueillies en hommage à Alexander W.
Macdonald (Nanterre: Société d'ethnologie, 1997), 148-49. Questions of how a Dge lugs pa master such
as Sum pa Mkhan po came to be appointed as a “mkhan po” of this “Sa skya pa” monastery, and how the
monastery restored its affiliation to Sa skya pa, remain to be investigated. I owe the latter reference and
the questions to Rachael Griffiths of University of Oxford.
120
Sum pa Mkhan po’s preventing other monks from joining the battle during the 1728 Civil War resulted
in his inadvertent support of Pho lha nas, and that choice earned him the “mkhan po” position in ’Bras yul
skyid tshal as a reward. From then on, he was known as “Sum pa Mkhan po”. For the details of the
incident, see SKRL1, 54a-57a; SKRL2, 140-47. Also see Hanung Kim, “Sum-pa Ye-shes-dpal-’byor and
the Civil War of Eighteenth Century Tibet: A Preliminary Essay on Ye-shes-dpal-’byor’s Many Roles in
55
has been repeated in several later biographical sketches121 and has not lost its resilience even in
very recent scholarship, as Matthew Kapstein erroneously repeated Chandra Das’ incorrect
information when highlighting Sum pa Mkhan po’s high achievements in education.122
Another persistent inaccuracy is that Sum pa Mkhan po journeyed to Central Tibet at the
age of sixty-six (1769). It is not clear in which source this inaccuracy first appeared, but a
biographical sketch appended to an entry of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works in Shes bya’i
gter mdzod gives this information. That statement of Sum pa Mkhan po’s journey to Central
Tibet (Dbus in particular) is repeated verbatim in Mi nyag mgon po (1923-2008)’s Gangs can
mkhas dbang rim byon gyi rnam thar mdor bsdus.123 An entry by Samten Chhosphel in the
Treasury of Lives124 repeats Mi nyag mgon po’s mistake. We find no mention of travel to Dbus
in the parts of Sum pa Mkhan po’s autobiographies that cover the year that others claim he
Tibetan Civilization,” in Current Issues and Progress in Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Third
International Seminar of Young Tibetologists (Kobe: Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, 2013),
165-82.
121
Louis Schram, The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Border (Xining: Plateau Publications, 2006
[1957]), 329; “Translator’s introduction” in Sum pa Mkhan po, The Annals of Kokonor, trans. Ho-chin
Yang, (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1969), 4; and Luciano Petech, China and Tibet in the Early 18th
Century (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), 136. Yang repeated it in his “Songba kanbu ji qisuozhuzhi qinghaij,”
in Xizang fojiao jiaoyi lunji, vol. I, ed. Zhang Mantao (Taibei: Dasheng wenhua chubanshe, 1979), 324.
122
Matthew Kapstein, “Just where on Jambudvīpa are we?: New Geographical Knowledge and Old
Cosmological Schemes in Eighteenth-Century Tibet,” in Forms of Knowledge in Early Modern Asia:
Explorations in the Intellectual History of India and Tibet 1500-1800, ed. Sheldon Pollock (Durham:
Duke University Press, 2011), 336-37.
123
Mi rigs dpe mdzod khang, Shes bya’i gter mdzod, vol.3 (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang,
1984-1997), 483-87; and Mi nyag mgon po, Gangs can mkhas dbang rim byon gyi rnam thar mdor bsdus,
vol.1 (Beijing: Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1996-2000), 472. It is a high possibility that
Mi nyag mgon po was one who penned Sum pa Mkhan po’s biography for Shes bya’i gter mdzod, and he
used the same work for compiling his compendium of biographies, Gangs can mkhas dbang rim byon gyi
rnam thar mdor bsdus.
124
Samten Chhosphel, “Sumpa Khenpo Yeshe Peljor,” The Treasury of Lives, accessed December 2,
2017, https://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Sumpa-Khenpo-Yeshe-Peljor/5729.
56
traveled there. Instead, for the year in question we find his record of travels around present-day
Gansu and Qinghai provinces.125
The second issue is a more nuanced one, comprising cases in which the information
provided is roughly correct, but its details or context are off the mark. We find a case like this
again in Chandra Das’ work. There, Sum pa Mkhan po is said to have been well received by the
Qianlong emperor, who conferred upon him high titles and honors during his visit and audience
with the emperor. It is true that Sum pa Mkhan po was invited to Beijing on the emperor’s order,
but his meeting with the emperor was not so full of splendor. Sum pa Mkhan po’s uncooperative
attitude towards Prince Guo’s126 request to study Rnying ma pa texts together resulted in his
decline in the eyes of the court.127 Imprudent assumptions unguided by detailed reading are of no
help to properly understanding the context of Sum pa Mkhan po’s activities. Through errors like
these we might lose the opportunity to properly evaluate what happened in Sum pa Mkhan po’s
life, at least according to his own voice.
Another case in which the details have been confused is the account of Sum pa Mkhan
po’s travels away from his principal residences. According to Das, “[Sum pa Mkhan po] resided
in China for nine years,” and according to Samten Chhosphel, “[Sum pa Mkhan po] travelled to
125
For the details of this trip around Gansu and Qinghai, see below. Mi nyag mgon po might be mistaken
by taking Sum pa Mkhan po’s dispatching his protégé, Sum pa biligtu chos rje Blo bzang dge legs, to
Central Tibet to make a huge scale of donations, as Sum pa Mkhan po’s own trip. For this, see SKRL1,
124b-126a; SKRL2, 324-28. However, this donation trip happened in the earth-tiger year (1758) when
Sum pa Mkhan po was fifty-five years old.
126
Prince Guo (1697-1738) was the 17th son of the Kangxi emperor, and the paternal uncle of the
Qianlong emperor. He is also known as his personal name, Yunli 胤禮. For him, see Vladimir Uspensky,
Prince Yunli (1697-1738): Manchu Statesman and Tibetan Buddhist (Tokyo: Institute for the study of
languages and cultures of Asia and Africa, 1997); and Su Faxiang, “Yunli yu zangchuan fojiao,”
Zhongguo zangxue 85 (2009): 195-201.
127
SKRL1, 80b-81a; SKRL2, 208-10. For an English translation of relevant passages from Sum pa
Mkhan po’s autobiography and its meaning in the context of the power competition in the early Qianlong
period, see Uspensky, Prince Yunli (1697-1738), 17-18.
57
Mongolia around the year 1771 and spent eight years giving teachings, empowerments and
performing other activities, returning to Gonlung in about 1778.”128 As we will see below, Sum
pa Mkhan po did indeed spend a lot of time traveling around the areas of Mongolia and Dpa’ ris,
especially later in life. However, Sum pa Mkhan po rarely ever stayed in one location for more
than a year. In most cases, he returned to Dgon lung or his private hermitage, Bkra shis rtse, after
a couple of months of traveling. This pattern of travel reveals a significant aspect of Sum pa
Mkhan po’s activities, which we will discuss in detail in Chapter V, but the above accounts
missed the significance of this fact.
The third, and the most important, issue is that most of the available biographical
sketches on record cover only a partial scope of Sum pa Mkhan po’s life and are disproportionate
in their arrangement of his life events. More specifically, in those biographical sketches, whereas
Sum pa Mkhan po’s life before his forties has been described in detail, many parts of his later
life remain as lacunae (He was, after all, a man who lived to eighty-five). Because of this
lopsided focus on his early life, Sum pa Mkhan po’s role as a senior religious figure has not yet
been fully appreciated. Sum pa Mkhan po’s later life was as important as his earlier life. Given
the fact that much of his writing and edifying religious activity took place in his later years,
understanding what happened during his later years is important to my research. The following
chart graphically illustrates how major biographical sketches of Sum pa Mkhan po overlooked a
large part of his life.
128
Das, “Life of Sum-pa Khan-po”, 38; and Samten Chhosphel, “Sumpa Khenpo Yeshe Peljor.”
58
Thu'u bkwan III
1775
1746
Brag dgon pa
1865
1750
Chandra Das
1898
1746
Schram 1957
1745
Yang Ho-chin
1969
1748
Mi nyag mgon po
1998
1747
Erdenibayar
2007
1704
1742
1716
1728
1740
1752
1764
1776
1788
Figure 9. Graph depicting the years in which existing biographical sketches of Sum pa Mkhan po
(1704-1788) end. As this chart makes clear, the latter half of Sum pa Mkhan po’s life is not
covered by any of these works.129
In what follows, I will provide an accurate and balanced account of Sum pa Mkhan po’s
life. In terms of accuracy, I intend to be faithful to Sum pa Mkhan po’s autobiographies, not to
“historical facts” cross-checked and verified by other sources. So, the account I am interested in
presenting will be more in line with what Sum pa Mkhan po wanted others to know about his life,
rather than covering every aspect of “what really happened” during his lifetime. Similarly, even
though his autobiographies unfold in a strict chronological order and do not omit any yearly
entry, since Sum pa Mkhan po chose which parts of his life to emphasize over others, the
following account will focus on what Sum pa Mkhan po chose to include, rather than attempting
to create an evenly calendric record of his life. Despite being limited to Sum pa Mkhan po’s
chosen representation of his life and works, I believe that such an account will prove valuable
129
Yang’s sketch does cover two more years of events, but the events covered are not significant ones. Mi
nyag mgon po’s contains some information after 1747, but incorrectly relates the two events mentioned
during that period.
59
because it will be the first attempt to provide a biographical sketch based on first-hand details
and that covers the entirety of his life. This account will also provide a solid basis for a
discussion of Sum pa Mkhan po’s representativeness in the bigger picture of the cultural
development of Amdo.
3. Birth, Incarnation Identification, and Early Life at Dgon lung Monastery (1704-1723)
Sum pa Mkhan po was born on the fifteenth day of the eighth month of the wood-monkey
year at a place called Tholi on the riverbank of Rma chu.130 His father, Rdo rje bkra shis, was
Bātud of four tribes of Oirats,131 and his mother, Bkra shis mtsho, was Zünghar. Sum pa Mkhan
po had three elder brothers, one younger brother, and two younger sisters. Sum pa Mkhan po’s
father taught letters and parts of Paṇ chen’s prayer Dge legs yon tan ma at the age of two and
three (1705 and 1706).132 At the age of four (1707), Sum pa Mkhan po was sent to Gong ba
130
Sum pa Mkhan po described his birthplace Tholi as lying to the south of Lake Kokonor on the banks
of the Rma chu river where Gushri Khan’s descendants first settled in the mid-seventeenth century. For a
more detailed discussion on the birthplace, see Hanung Kim, “Introduction to the New publication of Sum
pa Ye shes dpal ’byor’s Collected Works,” Zangxue xuekan 17 (2017), forthcoming.
131
“Bātud” was one of four Oirats in the early history of Western Mongols. However, the term ‘four
Oirats’ is not a fixed designation and had comprised disparate members throughout history. See
Christopher Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire (New York: Facts on File, Inc.,
2004), 420.
132
SKRL1, 11a; SKRL2, 28: paṇ chen rin po che’i gsol ‘debs kyi mgo’i dge legs yon tan ma sho lo ka
gcig bslab skad/ It is not clear what this “Dge legs yon tan ma sho lo ka” is. It appears in Lcang skya III
Rol pa’i rdo rje’s biography along with Dmigs brtse ma and Blo bzang rgyla ba ma, three ślokas
suggested by a man in Lcang skya’s dream when he planned to visit Central Tibet in 1734. For this see
Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma, Lcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje’i rnam thar (Lanzhou: Kan su’u
mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1989), 151. More research is needed for the identification of this work and why
it was attributed to Paṇ chen bla ma.
60
Brag dkar me long gling,133 where in the following years he mastered recitations and dharma
practices under Sog po Cho hor dge slong.134
The process of finding the reincarnation of Sum pa zhabs drung Blo bzang bstan pa’i
rgyal mtshan began when he was seven (1710). As one of candidates, by the order of ’Jam
dbyangs bzhad pa I Ngag dbang brtson ’grus (1648-1722), Sum pa Mkhan po was sent to Thar
shul I Chos skyong rgya mtsho135 and began to study under him. Sum pa Mkhan po received the
vows of a “fully perfected householder”136 and the name “Blo bzang chos skyong” from Thar
shul I. Sum pa Mkhan po returned to his hometown for some time, and the following year (1711)
he visited Sku ’bum monastery, where he had an audience with Chu bzang II Blo bzang bstan
pa’i rgyal mtshan (1652-1723).137 Meanwhile, because Lā mo gser khri II Blo bzang bstan pa’i
nyi ma (1689-1762) informed Dgon lung monastery that Thar shul I had confirmed Sum pa
Mkhan po as the incarnation, Dgon lung dispatched an envoy to conduct the final confirmation.
133
It is not clear where this place is located, but it is probably Me long brag dkar mkha’ spyod dpal gyi
gur khang in Khri ka (Ch. Guide 貴德) County of Hainan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Qinghai. Me
long brag dkar mkha’ spyod dpal gyi gur khang is a branch-monastery of Gong ba grwa tshang Thos
bsam dar rgyas gling, one of the largest monasteries in Khri ka. For this, see Pu Wencheng, Qinghai
Zangchuan fojiao siyuan (Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe, 2014), 168.
134
This first teacher to Sum pa Mkhan po is not identified, but it is obvious that he was a dge slong with a
Sog po background. It is not clear what “Cho hor” means here.
135
Thar shul I Chos skyong rgya mtsho was born in Thar shul in present-day Mang ra (Ch. Guinan 貴南)
County of Qinghai. He studied in Sgo mang college of ’Bras spungs monastery, and was highly praised
by ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa I while both were in Sgo mang in the late seventeenth century. For him see
Brag dgon pa, Mdo smad chos ʼbyung (Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1982), 282-84. Also
see Blo bzang bstan pa rgya mtsho and Dge ’dun bstan pa dar rgyas, Rje thar shul dge ’dun chos skyong
rgya mtsho’i rnam thar, (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1994), 6-9.
136
Tib. yongs rdzogs dge bsnyen. For this vow, see Jan-Ulrich Sobisch, Three-vow Theories in Tibetan
Buddhism: A Comparative Study of Major Traditions from the Twelfth through Nineteenth Centuries
(Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2002), 276-77.
137
Chu bzang II served as the 19th (1680-1688) and 25th (1723-1723) abbot of Dgon lung monastery. He
was killed during the war caused by the Blo bzang bstan ’dzin’s rebellion (1723-1724). See Thu’u bkwan
III, Dgon lung byams pa gling gi dkar chag, 35b-38a and 44b-45a.
61
Dgon lung wanted to bring Sum pa Mkhan po to the monastery right away, but local chiefs
refused by reason that ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa I had ordered that it be done the following year.
In the water-dragon year (1712), when he was nine, Sum pa Mkhan po moved to Dgon
lung monastery. He arrived at Sum pa residence (bla brang) on the 8th day of the 3rd month to a
warm welcome from Dgon lung’s 3,000 member saṃgha. Sum pa Mkhan po immediately began
his course of studies with memorization. He joined the Prayer Festival (smon lam) at Dgon lung
the next year (1713), which was presided over by then abbot of the monastery, Chu bzang II,
thereafter continuing his study of diverse topics, such as Vinaya, Abhidharmakośa,
Prajñāpāramitā in 10,000 ślokas, and Abhisamayālaṅkāra. In the wood-horse year (1714), when
Sum pa Mkhan po was eleven, Lcang skya II Ngag dbang blo bzang chos ldan (1642-1714),138
who had visited Dgon lung the previous year and bestowed gifts on Sum pa Mkhan po, passed
away in Dolon Nor.139 His remains were brought back to Dgon lung, where a funeral presided
over by Chu bzang II and Thu’u bkwan II Ngag dbang chos kyi rgya mtsho (1680-1736) was
held.140 In the same year, Sum pa Mkhan po visited a ward (Mon. khoroo) of A khu bkra shis
138
For more about this Lcang skya II, see Klaus Sagaster, Subud Erike (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967);
and Sullivan, “The Mother of All Monasteries,” 116-53.
139
Located in present-day Duolun 多倫 County of Xiningol League, Inner Mongolia, Dolon Nor (>Ch.
Duolun nao’er 多倫淖爾) was a religious center for Mongolian Buddhists during the Qing dynasty. The
location had several monastic complexes, and, among them, Köke süme (Ch. Huizongsi 彙
,
established in 1691) and Sira süme (Ch. Shanyinsi 善因 , established in 1727) were two major
monasteries at the site. For more about the site and these monasteries, see Miaozhou, Mengzang fojiaosi,
(Yangzhou: Jiangsu gunagling guji keyinshe, 1993 [1935].), chapter 7, 52-53; and Ren Yuehai. Duolun
huizongsi (Beijing: Minzu chubanshe, 2005).
140
For more about this Thu’u bkwan II, see Xu Changju, Di ershi tugaun awang quji jiacuo zhuan yanjiu
(Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe, 2014).
62
baγatur,141 who praised Sum pa Mkhan po and donated a Chinese style gold-bronze roof to one
of the Dgon lung shrines.
When he was twelve (1715), Sum pa Mkhan po became sick at the startling scene of the
monk’s corpse, but recovered using recitation of mantra. This experience shaped his opinion on
the efficacy of applying mantric rituals. During that year, Sum pa Mkhan po circumambulated
Dgon lung monastery and memorized ritual texts, but he did not enjoy these practices much.
That year as well, at the request of Dgon lung’s tantric college, Thu’u bkwan II gave a secret
mantra empowerment to 1,000 monks, among whom Sum pa Mkhan po was one. In the
following year (1716), Sum pa Mkhan po received dge tshul vows from Chu bzang II. That same
year, Mtsho sngon’s chieftain, Dayan Hungtaiji,142 donated funds for the erection of a goldbronze Maitreya statue at Dgon lung. Sum pa Mkhan po sent Thu’u bkwan II off to Beijing with
tears. When he was fourteen (1717), Sum pa Mkhan po heard news of the birth of a new Lcang
skya. That year he visited Sku ’bum monastery, where he had an audience with Dalai Lama VII
Bskal bzang rgya mtsho (1708-1757),143 and also performed an exhibition debate before the
141
A khu bkra shis baγatur (Tib. A khu bkra shis pā thur) was the tenth son of Gushri khan and the father
of well-known Blo bzang bstan ’dzin, who revolted against Qing in 1723-1724. For his genealogy, see
Sum pa Mkhan po, Dpag bsam ljon bzang, 310b (the typeset edition of Dpag bsam ljon bzang omitted the
tenth son in its genealogy. See Sum pa Mkhan po, Dpag bsam ljon bzang, (Lanzhou: Gan su’u mu rigs
dpe skrun khang, 1992), 1001). See also Zahiruddin Ahmad, Sino-Tibetan Relations in the Seventeenth
Century (Roma, Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1970), appendix, Genealogical Table
III: The Khošot; and Satō Hisashi, “Kinsei seikai sho buraku no kigen” (part II) Tōyōshi kenkyū, 32.3
(1973): 70-71. Sum pa Mkhan po calls him “wang (or taiji wang)” but A khu bkra shis baγatur was given
the qinwang title by the Kangxi emperor in 1698. For this, see Uyunbilig Borjigidai, “The Hoshuud Polity
in Khökhnuur (Kokonor),” Inner Aisa vol. 4, No. 2, (2002): 190.
142
Dayan Hungtaiji (>Tib.Tā yan hung ta’i ji) is seen in the genealogy of Gushri Khan as one of
grandsons of Gushri Khan’s sixth son, Rdo rje da la’i hung the ji. See Sum pa Mkhan po, Dpag bsam ljon
bzang, 310b. The same person in the genealogy can be found in Satō Hisashi, “Kinsei seikai sho buraku
no kigen,” (part I) Tōyōshi kenkyū, 32.1 (1973): 62 and 64. Satō, however, calls the person in question
only Dayan, without Hung tai ji.
143
Dalai Lama VII was under protection of Khoshut Mongols at Sku ’bum at that time. For the process of
Dalai Lama VII’s identification at Li thang in Khams and bringing him to Sku ‘bum monastery, see
63
assembly of Prajñāpāramitā, with Ul shri Sangs rgyas bkra shis144 as his partner. From the ages
of fifteen to twenty (1718-1723), Sum pa Mkhan po devoted himself to the arts (bso rig pa),
producing many thangkas that he presented to lamas.
In the iron-bird year (1720), Dgon lung monastery invited the new Lcang skya, Rol pa’i
rdo rje. That was the year that Sum pa Mkhan po began to practice Vajrabhairava meditation.145
Since his friends had urged him to go to Central Tibet, Sum pa Mkhan po developed the wish to
study in Central Tibet. The following year (1721), he asked Sum pa chos rje uncle and
nephews146 to include him in the envoy party that would invite Rgyal sras IV ’Jigs med ye shes
grags pa (1696-1740) from Central Tibet, but they did not approve it. Then Rgyal sras’ brother
and others arrived to Dgon lung from Central Tibet. Sum pa chos rje Phun tshogs rnam rgyal (?1740)147 did not want to send Sum pa Mkhan po to Tibet, so the chos rje asked Chu bzang II to
bestow Dgon lung’s gling bsre degree on Sum pa Mkhan po.148 Sum pa Mkhan po declined the
degree. Instead, Sum pa Mkhan po made inquiries of a dharma protector (chos skyong) and
Luciano Petech, China and Tibet in the Early 18th Century: History of the Establishment of Chinese
Protectorate in Tibet (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), 21-24.
144
“Ul shri” (also rendered as Ul shi) is one of minor incarnation lineages at Dgon lung monastery. For
this see Per Nyi ma ’dzin, Dgon lung byams pa gling gi gdan (Unpublished manuscript, 2007), 123.
However, Sangs rgyas bkra shis is not found in Per Nyi ma ’dzin’s list of Ul shi incarnation lineages.
145
For the Vajrabhairava meditation, see Pha bong kha pa Byams pa bstan ’dzin ’phrin las rgya mtsho,
Meditation on Vajrabhairava. (Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1990).
146
About the group of these nephew and uncle, see Chapter III.
147
More details about this Sum pa chos rje, see Chapter III.
148
For a general meaning of the gling bsres degree, see Tarab Tulku, A Brief History of Tibetan Academic
Degrees in Buddhist Philosophy (Copenhagen:NIAS Publishing, 2000), 17-18. Also see Georges Dreyfus,
The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: the education of a Tibetan Buddhist monk (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2003), 366, note 74. It is not clear what kind of degree Dgon lung’s gling bsres was at
the time when Sum pa Mkhan po was there. More research is needed.
64
performed a divination, both of which confirmed that it was inevitable that he would go to Tibet.
Eventually, the monastic authorities approved his trip.
During the winter session of the water-tiger year (1722), Sum pa Mkhan po performed an
exhibition debate on the dharma wheel149 with Bde dgu150 zhabs drung as a partner and held “the
feast to celebrate the conclusion of Prajñāpāramitā studies.”151 In the water-hare year (1723),
with 700 monks he received a tantra sermon from the vajra master Dpa’ rin po che Ngag dbang
bkra shis.152
4. Studies and Activities in Central Tibet (1723-1731)
In the morning on the fifteenth day of the 6th month of the water-hare year, Sum pa
Mkhan po began his journey to Central Tibet in the company of Rgyal sras’ brother and Sgom
zhi incarnation153 who were returning after their visit to Dgon lung. When the traveling party
149
Tib. chos ’khor tshog gleng. This refers to a particular debate on the first chapter of the
Abhisamayālaṁkāra. It makes sense, since this debate marks the end of Phar phyin studies for Sum pa
Mkhan po. For a relevant exam at the dharma session in the monastery’s regulation (bca’ yig), see
Sullivan, “Mother of All Monasteries,” 306-7 (notes 1446 and 1447).
150
Bde dgu (also rendered as Bde rgu) is one of minor incarnation lineages at Dgon lung monastery. Per
Nyi ma ’dzin, Dgon lung byams pa gling gi gdan rabs, 123.
151
Tib. phar phyin ston mo. This seems the last of four classes of the prajñāpāramitā proper after
completing preliminary studies of “the seventy topics” and “paths and states” for Abhisamayālaṃkāra.
For this see Eugéne Obermiller, Analysis of the Abhisamayālaṃkāra (London : Luzac & Co., 1933-1936),
v-vii.
152
The identity of this vajra master (rdo rje slob dpon) is not clear, but Sum pa Mkhan po takes this
person as one of three vajra masters of his lifetime when he concludes his biography. See SKRL1, 262b;
SKRL2, 679.
153
Sgom zhi (also rendered as Sgom gzhis) is one of minor incarnation lineages at Dgon lung monastery.
Per Nyi ma ’dzin, Dgon lung byams pa gling gi gdan rabs, 125.
65
reached Šalatu,154 Blo bzang bstan ’dzin155 dispatched a deputy to escort the travelers up to
Solomo.156 Thanks to this escort they safely arrived in Nag chu kha, and then traveled by way
of ’Bri gung gdan sa mtshil157 and Mkhar skya monastery158 to finally arrive at Dga’ ldan chos
sdings159 in the ninth month of the year. Sum pa Mkhan po had an audience with Rgyal sras IV
there.160 Then he traveled to Mnga’ ris grwa tshang,161 Rtshe thang,162 Rdo rje brag and Smin
grol gling,163 Chu bo ri,164 Gong dkar chos sde,165 Yar ’brog g.yu mtsho, Gam pa la, Rong byams
154
Šalatu is on the route from Central Tibet to Xining, close to present-day Daheba 大河坝 Township in
Xinghai 海 County of Hainan 海南 Prefecture, Qinghai. See Qianlong neifu yutu (Yangmingshan:
Guofang yanjiuyuan and Zhonghua dadian bianyinhui, 1966), folio of the ninth row & the 2nd west, the
lowest grid between west 17 and west 18. Also see Satō Hisashi, Chibetto rekishi chiri kenkyū (Tokyo:
Iwanami Shoten, 1978), 35, 54 and map 1.
155
This is the well-known Blo bzang bstan ’dzin, who revolted against Qing in 1723-1724. For his lineage,
see note 30 above.
156
Solomo seems to be Mtsho So lo ma (a.k.a. Solimal) in Satō Hisashi, Chibetto rekishi chiri kenkyū, 52
and map 1.
157
For this monastery, see Danqu et al. Xizang zangchuan fojiao siyuan (Lanzhou: Gansu minzu
chubanshe, 2013), 140-42. Also see Akester, Jamyang Khyentsé Wangpo's Guide to Central Tibet, 177-82.
158
Unidentified.
159
Located at the ’On valley on the north of the Tshang po river, currently in Sne’u gdong Country
southeast of Lhasa, Dga’ ldan chos sdings has been the residence of the ’On rgyal sras incarnations. For
this see Sde srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, Dga’ ldan chos ’byung baiḍūr ser po (Beijing: krung go bod kyi
shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1998), 227; Ferrari, Mk’yen brtse’s Guide, 47 and 119-20, notes 190 and 191;
Gyurme Dorje. Tibet Handbook. (Bath: Footprint, 2009), 226; and Akester, Jamyang Khyentsé Wangpo’s
Guide to Central Tibet, 369-70.
160
It is noteworthy that the first place and figure Sum pa Mkhan po visited in Central Tibet were Dga’
ldan chos sdings and Rgyal sras IV. Sum pa Mkhan po even did not stop by Lhasa during this journey.
However, it is understandable because what Sum pa Mkhan po joined was the traveling group of Rgyal
sras’ brother who returned from Dgon lung to Dga’ ldan chos sdings.
161
Established in 1541, Mnga’ ris grwa tshang was located at the mouth of the ’On valley. It was
destroyed during the 1960s. See Akester, Jamyang Khyentsé Wangpo's Guide to Central Tibet, 364-66.
162
Ibid., 405.
163
Ibid., 354-57 (for Rdo rje brag) and 288-94 (for Smin grol gling).
164
Ibid., 242.
66
chen dgon,166 and Zha lu dgon chen,167 finally arriving in Bkra shis lhun po168 on the eighth day
of the eleventh month. On the same day, Sum pa Mkhan po had an audience with Paṇ chen V
Blo bzang ye shes (1663-1737). After two days of circumambulation and making offerings, Sum
pa Mkhan po had another meeting with Paṇ chen V, who bestowed on him the vows of a “fully
ordained monk”169 and a new name, “Ye shes dpal ’byor.”
After that, Sum pa Mkhan po returned to Dga’ ldan chos sdings, and Rgyal sras IV
suggested that he go to Rwa ba stod.170 On the way to Rwa ba stod, Sum pa Mkhan po visited
Bsam yas,171 Mtshal gung thang,172 Skyid shod, and Lhasa, where he worshipped the Gtsug lag
khang, Jo bo Śākyamuni, Mi bskyod rdo rje,173 and the Potala, and had an audience with Dalai
Lama VII. After Sum pa Mkhan po arrived at Rwa ba stod, he spent five days studying ’Jam
dbyangs bzhad pa’s work on tshad ma. From there he entered Bsam blo khams tshan of Sgo
165
Ibid., 255-60.
166
Ibid., 529-30.
167
Ibid., 500-4.
168
Ibid., 510-15.
169
Tib. bsnyen rdzogs dge slong.
170
Rwa ba stod, also rendered as Ra stod dgon, is located on the Skyi chu valley, currently in Chu shur
County south of Lhasa. For this see Gyurme Dorje. Tibet handbook, 187; Qu dan et al., Xizang zang
chuan fo jiao si yuan (Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe, 2014), 139-40; Akester, Jamyang Khyentsé
Wangpo's Guide to Central Tibet, 223-25.
171
Ibid., 305-28.
172
Ibid., 142-47.
173
For a recent description of Lhasa’s Gtsug lag khang (a.k.a. Jokhang), Jo bo Śākyamuni and Mi bskyod
rdo rje (Skt. Akṣobhyavajra), see Gyurme Dorje et al., Jokhang: Tibet's Most Sacred Buddhist Temple
(London: Edition Hansjorg Mayer, 2010), passim.
67
mang grwa tshang in ’Bras spungs monastery.174 Because the residents of Bsam blo khams tshan
and Dgon lung mi tshan175 urged him not to go back to Rwa ba stod, Sum pa Mkhan po stayed
on at Bsam blo khams tshan and became a chos mdzad176 of Sgo mang grwa tshang. During his
stay there, he often visited and spent time with Dalai Lama VII. During the winter session at Sgo
mang grwa tshang, Sum pa Mkhan po studied the Prajñāpāramitā sutra and several scriptures
under Klu ’bum khams tshang’s Mog ca ’Jam dbyangs rgya mtsho (1688-1761).177
In the wood-dragon year (1724), a Mongol messenger who was visiting Lhasa brought
news of war in the Mtsho sngon region. Thinking that there was no hope for the Mtsho sngon
region, Sum pa Mkhan po grew ill. He was cured using guru yoga after being brought to Blo gsal
gling for diagnosis. In the following year (1725), when he was twenty-two, Sum pa Mkhan po
visited many places in Dbus, including Dga’ ldan and Se ra monasteries, and met with many
lamas. While visiting Rgyud smad,178 he met Bya khyung slob dpon nomunqan rinpoche,179 who
174
For a useful outline of the grwa tshang, khams tshan, mi tshan in ’Bras spungs monastery, see Georges
Dreyfus’ “An Introduction to Drepung’s Colleges,” the Tibetan & Himalayan Library, accessed Dec 4,
2017, http://www.thlib.org/places/monasteries/drepung/colleges.php#!essay=/dreyfus/drepung/colleges/
175
See note 174.
176
Dreyfus explains that the chos mdzad was a term for those monks who were rich enough to become a
monk-sponsor. Dreyfus, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping, 51.
177
Mog ca is probably a mistake of Mog kya. He was born in Mohejia of Amdo and studied in Lā mo bde
chen monastery when he was young. Later he entered Sgo mang grwa tshang for further studies. He was
appointed as an abbot of Dpal ’khor chos sde at Rgyal rtse in 1730. After coming back to his homeland,
he established Ngang rong bkra shis chos ’khor gling at Gcan tsha in Amdo. See Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan
fojiao siyuan, 248. Also see Hor gtsang ʼjigs med, Mdo smad lo rgyus chen mo, vol. 6 (Dharamsala: Bod
kyi dpe mdzod khang, 2009), 121.
178
Established by one of Tsong kha pa’s disciples, Shes rab seng ge (1383-1445) in 1433, Rgyud smad
grwa tshang was located in the city district of Lhasa in the 1720s. See Danqu et al. Xizang zangchuan
fojiao siyuan, 70-73; Akester, Jamyang Khyentsé Wangpo's Guide to Central Tibet, 88.
179
The identity of this person is not clear, but he is probably the nineteenth abbot of Bya khyung
monastery, Blo bzang rgyal mtshan, who had the title nomunqan. See Tshe tan zhabs drung, Bya khyung
gdan rabs (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1984), 126.
68
rebuked Sum pa Mkhan po’s arrogance, which he took as a welcome correction. In the next year
(1726), Sum pa Mkhan po attended “The Great Prayer Festival monastic rounds”180 to receive
the gling bsre degree, which was not bestowed at Sgo mang. He became a peerless debater. In
the following year (1727), he memorized many subjects at ’Bras spungs monastery. He
attempted to enter Rgyud smad, but was prevented by the illness and obstruction of his kitchen
servant Sum pa Phun tshogs don grub. After this incident, Sum pa Mkhan po gave Phun tshogs
don grub his remaining provisions and sent him away. Sum pa Mkhan po thus ended up living a
poor life during his time of study in Central Tibet. Nevertheless, he studied with teachers for
each topic: Dalai Lama VII for Lam rim bsdus don; Rgyal sras IV for the scriptural transmission
(ljags lung) of his own works; Rkong po slob dpon181 for the Kālacakra tantra; Ngag dbang
mchog ldan (1677-1751)182 for the Vairocana empowerment, etc.; and Nam mkha’ bzang po
(1690?-1750)183 for tantra and many other topics.
Meanwhile, the Civil War broke out in the fire-sheep year (1727) after Pho lha nas
responded to the assassination of Khang chen nas by the Dbus faction.184 Paṇ chen V tried to
ameliorate the situation with a mandala offering, but it was of no avail. On the third month of the
180
Tib. smon lam grwa skor.
181
Unidentified.
182
As a tutor (yongs ’dzin), Ngag dbang mchog ldan accompanied the Dalai Lama VII to Mgar thar when
the latter was sent into exile in Khams in 1728. Sum pa Mkhan po felt regret at Ngag dbang mchog ldan’s
departure for not having more teachings from this master. For this, see SKRL1, 46b; SKRL2, 120. Ngag
dbang mchog ldan later ascended to the fifty-fourth Dga’ ldan khri pa in 1739.
183
Born in a place called Zam tsha of Klu chu, Amdo, Nam mkha’ bzang po moved to Lhasa at the age of
15 after a basic education at his hometown. He achieved higher scholarship under many great teachers
including ‘Jam dbyangs bzhad pa I, and later ascended to the fifty-fifth Dga’ ldan khri pa in 1746. He also
received Pho lha nas’ sponsorship, but had to step down from Dga’ ldan khri pa by refusing ‘Gyur med
rnam rgyal’s request to perform a black magic.
184
For details of this incident, see Petech, China and Tibet in the Early 18th Century (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1972), 113-21.
69
following year, the earth-monkey year (1728), when Dbus and Gtsang became the battlefield of
the Civil War, Sum pa Mkhan po went on a pilgrimage to Mount Tsari.185 Bka’ blons of the Dbus
faction tried to mobilize monk army to fight Pho lha nas while Sum pa Mkhan po was in ’Bras
spungs, but Sum pa Mkhan po made a public speech to block the attempt. He was poisoned in
retribution for that public act, but was eventually cured.186 It was as compensation for his role in
that event that Pho lha nas and Dalai Lama VII appointed him abbot (mkhan po) of ’Bras yul
skyid tshal.187 Sum pa Mkhan po did not want the position and declined it, but ultimately had
little choice but to accept it. Thereafter, he taught and practiced at ’Bras yul skyid tshal.
In the earth-birth year (1729), Sum pa Mkhan po composed works on song188 at ’Bras yul
skyid tshal. In the same year, he expressed great joy at the news that Dgon lung monastery was
rebuilt under petitions from the Dalai Lama and Paṇ chen Lama to the Yongzheng emperor, as
had been predicted in his dream. That year a jasag lama189 from Amdo came to Lhasa as a
185
For so far the best description of Mount Tsari and the pilgrimage to it, see Toni Huber, The Cult of
Pure Crystal Mountain: popular pilgrimage and visionary landscape in southeast Tibet (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1999). Sum pa Mkhan po’s itinerary to the mountain was: Bsam yas, Zangs ri
mkhar dmar, Rdzing phyi, Chos lung, Chos ‘khor rgyal, Mu le ting lake (?), Dwags po bshad sgrub gling,
Dwags lha sgam po, and finally Tsa ri tsa gong. After circumambulation at Tsa ri, he went on a return
journey: Tsa ri, Mo la, E valley, Yar lha sham bu, Yar lung (of Lha tho tho ri), Khra ‘brug, Rtse thang,
Gtsang po riverbank, Mnga’ ris grwa tshang, Bsam yas, and finally ’Bras spungs monastery. For Sum pa
Mkhan po’s Tsa ri trip, see SKRL1, 52b-54a; SKRL2, 135-40.
186
For the details of this blocking attempt, see Hanung Kim, “Sum-pa Ye-shes-dpal-‘byor and the Civil
War of Eighteenth Century Tibet,” 173-79.
187
For this monastery, see note 119 above.
188
Mgur in Tibetan. Although parts from Mgur khu byug ngag snyan sogs (the 10th work of Sum pa
Mkhan po’s Collected Works vol. ga) are works on the subject, there is no work whose compiling year is
indicated as the earth-birth year among them.
189
Jasag lama was a title granted by the Qing government to incarnation lamas especially in Mongolia. It
was the second among four ranks, namely, jasag da lama, jasag lama, da lama and fu da lama. See David
Farquhar, “The Ch'ing Administration of Mongolia” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1960), 229-31. See
also Ikejiri Yōko. Shinchō zenki no Chibetto Bukkyō seisaku: jasaku rama seido no seiritsu to tenkai
(Tōkyō : Kyūko Shoin, 2013).
70
messenger of the Youngzheng emperor. One of his requests was that Sum pa Mkhan po be
brought back to Amdo. Sum pa Mkhan po tendered his resignation as mkhan po through this
jasag lama, and it was accepted. However, he decided not to return to Amdo right away, and
instead pursued his studies with teachers in Central Tibet for some years more.
In the iron-dog year (1730), the people of Dgon lung again demanded that Sum pa Mkhan
po return, this time enlisting the help of Rgyal sras IV to bring him back. At the same time, Pho
lha nas attempted to appoint Sum pa Mkhan po Rgya nag mkhan po.190 Sum pa Mkhan po
himself thought that this might be a big hindrance to both his religious and secular work, and
began to feel uneasy about staying in Central Tibet because of this sort of thing. He performed a
divination and the result showed that he should leave. Rgyal sras IV suggested that Sum pa
Mkhan po leave when Pho lha nas went to ’Ol khar to receive Rnying ma pa teachings, otherwise
he would not let him go. A further divination also indicated that Sum pa Mkhan po should leave,
so he prepared to leave and tendered his resignation to Sgo mang bla ma dam chos. Sgo mang
bla ma dam chos suggested that they would offer him the title of Smon lam grwa skor in the
earth-ox year191 if he would stay, but Sum pa Mkhan po declined.
In the third month in the iron-pig year (1731), when he was twenty-eight, Sum pa Mkhan
po bade a tearful farewell to his root lama Nam mkha’ bzang po and Rgyud pa slob dpon Shes
190
Rgya nag mkhan po refers to a deputy dispatched to the Qing Court by the Dga’ ldan pho brang (in this
case Pho lha nas’) government. When Sum pa Mkhan po evaluated his salary while his staying at Lha
khang ser po (Ch. Huangsi
) in Beijing, he indicated that the amount corresponds to what is paid to
“rgya nag mkhan po who is the messenger of Dalai and Paṇ chen of Tibet (bod kyi rgyal ba yab sras kyi
bang chen pa rgya nag mkhan po).” For this, see SKRL1, 81a; SKRL2, 210.
191
It is not clear what this Smon lam grwa skor’s title means here. According to SKRL1, 59a, Sgo mang
bla ma dam chos says: khyod ma ’gro/ sa glang lo’i smon lan grwa skor ster/; however, SKRS1, 10b has:
khyod rang la glang lo’i smon lam ming ster/ The question of why sa glang lo (1709 or 1769?) is attached
to Smon lam grwa skor needs to be answered too.
71
rab rgya mtsho,192 and started his journey home. After passing through Ra sgreng,193 Stag lung
thang,194 and the Bayan har mountains195 (whose deity protected Dgon lung’s monks), Sum pa
Mkhan po arrived in Dgon lung monastery on the eighth day of the eighth month, where he was
welcomed by the monastery’s community. Later he heard the news that Pho lha nas had inquired
as to the whereabouts of Sum pa Mkhan po when he visited Sgo mang grwa tshang and that he
had intended to appoint Sum pa Mkhan po mkhan po of another monastery in Gtsang. Sum pa
Mkhan po thought it was fortunate to have already left Central Tibet.
5. Teaching, Learning, Forming Monastic Connections in Amdo, and Two Journeys to
Beijing (1732-1743)
Although when he returned to Dgon lung Sum pa Mkhan po had great expectations about
the revitalization of the monastery, he soon found himself in an uncomfortable situation with
people at the Sum pa residence. So, early in the water-bird year (1732), he moved to a hermitage
called “the Stony Fortress of the Hidden White Land,”196 where he practiced with the help of a
192
Unidentified.
193
Akester, Jamyang Khyentsé Wangpo's Guide to Central Tibet, 27-34.
194
Ibid., 37-44.
195
Bayan har is a mountain range in the southeastern parts of present-day Qinghai province. See Satō
Hisashi, Chibetto rekishi chiri kenkyū, 28 and map 1.
196
Tib. Sbas yul dkar po brag rdzong. It is also called Byang chub gling or Dgon lung ri khrod (Ch.
Tianmensi 天門 ), and located on the mountain ridge two kilometers up the valley of Dgon lung
monastery. Established by Dgon lung’s founders Rgyal sras Don yod chos kyi rgya mtsho and Sum pa
Dam chos rgya mtsho in 1604, it is known that once the Dgon lung’s medical college existed on this
hermitage’s site. Its connection to Sum pa lineages is worthy of further investigation since now its main
hall enshrines stūpas of successive Sum pa incarnations. Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 75; and
Sullivan, “The Mother of All Monasteries,” 208. When I visited the main hall in August 2016, it also
72
disciple named Pā yan dge slong Chos ldan,who provided him with provisions.197 In the spring
of that year, at the hermitage, many practitioners asked Sum pa Mkhan po to teach Byang chub
lam gyi rim pa.198 He at first declined, but later acquiesced to the request. This teaching on Lam
rim became the first occasion for him to teach. After that, he set out to travel to Lā mo bde chen
monastery,199 arriving there via Bya khyung monastery,200 Mgur monastery on the Rma chu
riverbank,201 and An chung nam rdzong.202 There, Sum pa Mkhan po met with Lā mo gser khri II
Blo bzang bstan pa’i nyi ma, under whose strong exhortation he taught at the monastery for two
and a half months. During his stay, Sum pa Mkhan po also learned a great deal from Lā mo gser
khri and Smon lam Dpal ’byor bzang po.203 From Lā mo de chen he moved on to Gong ba
exhibits a portrait of Sum pa Mkhan po—of modern rendition—along with stūpas in the show window at
the main hall.
197
It is not entirely clear in Sum pa Mkhan po’s longer autobiography regarding why he left the Sum pa
residence and to which place he moved. His shorter biography provides an unambiguous account of the
event. See SKRS1 10b-11a; SKRS2 41-42.
198
Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa (1357-1419)’s three (i.e., great, medium, and small) treatises on the
stages of the path to enlightenment.
199
Located in present-day Nengke 能科 Township of Gcan tsha (>Ch. Jianzha 扎) County of Qinghai,
Lā mo bde chen was established by the third Zhabs drung dkar po Ngag dbang blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal
tsmahn in 1682. Led by two historically influential incarnation lineages—i.e., Zhabs drung dkar po and
Galdan Siretü qutugtu—this large-scale monastery was the head of dozens of sub-monasteries around
Gcan tsha, Khri ka, Mang ra, Mda’ bzhi, and Gad pa sum mdo. For more details of the monastery, see
Hanung Kim, “Lamo Dechen Monastery in Amdo History and Beyond,” (unpublished draft).
200
Located in present-day Hualong 隆 County of Qinghai and overlooking Rma chu from the mountain
top, Bya khyung monastery is one of the oldest Tibetan monasteries in Amdo (established in 1349) and is
famous as the site where Tsong kha pa stayed and practice before he left for Central Tibet. See Andreas
Gruschke, The Cultural Monuments of Tibet's Outer Provinces: Amdo, vol.1 (Bangkok: White Lotus
Press, 2001), 39-42.
201
Located in present-day Gcan tsha County, the monastery is also called Rma mgur rnam rgyal gling
(Ch. Gulusi 鲁 ). See Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 245-46.
202
Located in present-day Gcan tsha County. See Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 250-51.
203
Unidentified.
73
monastery at Chi ka204 by way of Lan ju and Stag rig.205 There he made offerings to lamas and
saṃgha and bestowed the Mitra brgya rtsa and other empowerments.206 With a huge offering in
repayment, over the course of eighteen days, Dge ’dun don grub (1668-?),207 who was then abbot
of Gong ba monastery, also bestowed on Sum pa Mkhan po and an audience of 800 clergy and
lay people an oral transmission of mandala rite. From there, Sum pa Mkhan po visited his
hometown to meet relatives and had a banquet and gift-exchange with them. After that, Sum pa
Mkhan po returned to Dgon lung and the Hidden White Land hermitage.
In the spring and summer of the water-ox year (1733), Sum pa Mkhan po practiced four
sections of tantra from the Mitra brgya rtsa and the Vajra Garland,208 and completed them with
a fire ritual accompanied by some signs of achievement. At that time, Dga’ ldan rin chen gling209
204
From the context, it is obvious that “Chi ka” refers to present-day Khri ka (Ch. Guide 貴德).
205
“Lan ju” is probably a different rendering of “Lan ’gro.” Both Lan ’gro and Stag rigs are located in the
southern part of present-day Khri ka County. See Stewart Smith, The Monasteries of Amdo: A
Comprehensive Guide to the Monasteries of the Amdo Region of Tibet (United States: CreateSpace
Independent Publishing Platform, 2013), 410 and 403.
206
Mitra brgya rtsa refers to a compendium of tantric initinations and practices composed by an 12thcentury Indian adept Mitrayogin. For more on Mitra brgya rtsa, see Janice Willis, Enlightened Beings:
Life Stories from the Ganden Oral Tradition (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995), 211-12; and Tanaka
Kimiaki, Mitrayogin’s 108 Maṇḍalas: An Image Database (Kathmandu: Vajra Publications, 2013), 5. For
the lineage of the initiation of this compilation, see ʼGos lo tsā ba gzhon nu dpal, The Blue Annals, trans.
George Roerich (Calcutta, Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1949-53), 1042-43.
207
Mtshan sgrogs I Dge ’dun don grub was born in Gong ba of Khri ka in 1664. While young he studied
in Sgo mang grwa tshang, and, upon returning home, he became an abbot of Gong ba grwa tshang thos
bsam dar rgyas gling. Later he became the 24th abbot of Sku ‘bum monastery from 1734 to 1741. See Ko
zhul grags pa ’byung gnas et al, Gangs can mkhas grub rim byon ming mdzod (Lanzhou: Gansu minzu
chubanshe, 1992), 1397-98; Brag dgon pa, Mdo smad chos ʼbyung, 298-99; and Gser tog Blo bzang tshul
khrims rgya mtsho, Sku ’bum gdan rabs (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1982), 63-64.
208
“The Vajramālā is one of the chief so-called ‘Explanatory Tantras’ that comments upon the
Guhyasamāja Tantra. The author of the Vajramālā is one Abhayakāragupta[pala].” For more on
Vajramālā, see Janice Willis, Enlightened Beings, 210-11; and Kimiaki, Mitrayogin’s 108 Maṇḍalas, 5.
209
This is Tha yan chi chung ba Dga’ ldan rin chen gling, located in present-day Baoku 库 Township
of Datong 大通 County, Qinghai. It is also called Zhangjia si 张家 in Chinese. When I visited the site
74
of ’Bo khog210 sent a messenger to ask that Sum pa Mkhan po perform the Mitra brgya rtsa
empowerment. Sum pa Mkhan po arrived at Dga’ ldan rin chen gling in the fourth month, and
bestowed the empowerment on 500 clergy and laity over eighteen days in the fifth month. In the
sixth month, Sum pa Mkhan po visited Zhwa khog211 at the invitation of its people, where, at
their request, he established a hermitage called Bshad sgrub gling212 near Mount Khra leb213 after
performing a geomancy ritual. That autumn, the people of Dpa’ ris stong shag Bkra shis chos
on May 2017, only some building ruins remained. Local people, who are mostly Mongours (Ch. Tuzu 土
族), are now using the site as farmland. See Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 8.
210
’Bo khog (also rendered as Bo khog) must be a region currently called Baoku Township 库乡 in the
northwest of Datong 大通 County, Qinghai. It was also called Boke 撥科 in earlier Chinese sources, and
Boke was used broadly for river or mountain names too, such as Bokeshan 撥科山 and Bokehe 撥科河.
’Bo khog is where Lung dkar is located and the main site for Sum pa Mkhan po’s later life activities
along with Zhwa khog. Qing dynasty’s imperially sponsored map, Neifu yutu (compiled in 1760, in the
middle of Sum pa Mkhan po’s life), has Bukuke bila 布庫克必拉 on the location. (“bila” is a Chinese
transliteration of a Manchu word “bira” which means “river”). See Qianlong neifu yutu (Yangmingshan:
Guofang yanjiuyuan and Zhonghua dadian bianyinhui, 1966), folio of the ninth row & the 2nd west, the 3rd
grid from the bottom between west 16 and west 17.
211
Zhwa khog is an elusive name. Although Stewart Smith gives a Tibetan name Zhwa khog to the river
that is a tributary to ’Bo khog river (Smith, The Monasteries of Amdo, 444-45), all other contemporary
sources call the river Heilinhe 黑林河. Only Neifu yutu gives Shakuke bila 沙庫克必拉 (Qianlong neifu
yutu, folio of the ninth row & the 2nd west, the 3rd grid from the bottom between west 16 and west 17).
According to Sum pa Mkhan po’s use of the toponym, Zhwa khog refers to the broad basin area of the
present-day Heilin river. According to Gazetteer of Tatong Hui and Tu Autonomous County, the current
center of the county, Qiaotou zhen 桥头镇, was once called Xiakou 峽口 Datong Huizu Tuzu Zizhixian
diming zhi, (Datong Huizu Tuzu Zizhixian: Datong Huizu Tuzu Zizhixian diming bangongshi, 1986), 27 .
It sounds similar to Zhwa khog, but the matters of where the old toponym Zhwa khog cover the presentday Datong, and why the seemingly widely used name disappeared still need further research. In any
case, this Zhwa khog was in the southwest of Datong county, and an important area for Sum pa Mkhan
po’s activities along with ’Bo khog.
212
This is Dgon gsar bshad sgrub gling, a.k.a. Ping’ansi 安 in Chinese. It is noteworthy that the
monastery was called Ping’ansi by local “Chinese” people already in Sum pa Mkhan po’s time (SKRL1,
69b; SKRL2, 179). For this hermitage, see Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 7.
213
Unidentified.
75
gling214 sent a messenger to request Sum pa Mkhan po to assume the abbacy there. He went there
and was enthroned in the eighth month. During his time at Bkra shis chos gling, Sum pa Mkhan
po gave teachings to the saṃgha, established some shrines (rten) and composed a ritual text for
them. After that, Mkhan po set out for his hometown. When he and his entourage passed through
Mount Kho khu khu thel215 they miraculously found drinking water with the help of guardian
deities. Sum pa Mkhan po arrived in his hometown, where he fulfilled the hopes of his father,
brothers, and relatives. Finally, Sum pa Mkhan po returned to Bkra shis chos gling.
In the wood-tiger year (1734), at the age of thirty-one, the people of Bkra shis chos gling
asked Sum pa Mkhan po to bestow the Mitra brgya rtsa empowerment. On the eighth day of the
third month, he bestowed the empowerment on 1,000 clergy and laity, including Gro tshang brag
rinpoche216 uncle and nephews. Then Sum pa Mkhan po learned the full aspect of 108 of the
Mitra brgya rtsa from Blo gros ’byung gnas, who in turn had studied it with ’Jam dbyangs bzhad
pa I. Sum pa Mkhan po studied mantras and Gcod practice with Gro tshang brag rinpoche,
composing a text on the Gcod practice on rinpoche’s order.217 Late in the third month of the
214
Also known as Yangguansi 羊
, this monastery is located in present-day Shoule 寿乐 Township in
the northern part of Ledu 乐都 County, Qinghai. As we will see, Sum pa Mkhan po maintained a close
relationship with this monastery throughout his life. See Gruschke, The Cultural Monuments of Tibet's
Outer Provinces: Amdo, vol.1, 46; and Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 41-42.
215
This must be Köke kötul (Ch. Qingshashan
and Hualong 隆 County in Qinghai.
沙山) located between nowadays Ping’an
安 County
216
This is Dpal ’byor bstan ’dzin, who was the first Gro tshan brag incarnation, one of three major
incarnation lineages at Gro tshang monastery. He once studied with ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa I and Lcang
skya II, and was given the title “Guangding jingjiue hongji daguoshi 灌頂淨覺弘濟大國師” by the
Kangxi emperor. See Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 34. Sum pa Mkhan po’s connection with this
figure is also mentioned in Brag dgon pa, Mdo smad chos ʼbyung, 169.
217
There is only one work on the Gcod practice, Gcod kyi sdom tshig mchan ’grel dang bcas pa kun
mkhyen lam bzang, in Sum pa Mkhan po’s Gsung ’bum (the 9th work in vol. ga), but its colophon says it
was compiled in the water-monkey year (1752).
76
year, ’Brug lung’s Dga’ ldan bshad sgrub gling218 sent a messenger to request the Vajra Garland
empowerment. Sum pa Mkhan po traveled there in the third month, and bestowed the
empowerment to 800 clergy and laity in the fourth month. After that, Gro tshang monastery219
sent an invitation, so he headed for Gro tshang. When Sum pa Mkhan po arrived at the Tsong
chu river, passage was blocked by water, but a bird appeared and miraculously showed the way.
Upon arrival at Gro tshang, Sum pa Mkhan po was welcomed by the saṃgha there. He learned a
lot during his stay from Gro tshang brag rinpoche. Sum pa Mkhan po also had some involvement
in Gro tshan brag rinpoche’s work on Tsong kha pa, after which he returned. In the tenth month,
Sum pa Mkhan po traveled to Liangzhou,220 where he visited four main temples of Liangzhou,221
and again met with Gro tshang brag rinpoche.222 He also visited Kamalaśila’s stūpa223 and other
218
Also known as Longgousi 龙沟 , it is a sub-monastery of Bkra shis chos gling and located in presentday Ledu County. See Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 42-43.
219
Also known as Qutansi 瞿昙 , this is Gro tshang lha khang Go tam sde Dge rgyas bde chen gling in
present-day southern Ledu County. For the history of this important monastery on the Sino-Tibetan
border, see Elliot Sperling, “Notes on the Early History of Gro-tshang Rdo-rje-’chang and Its Relations
with the Ming Court,” Lungta 14 (2000): 77-87; Gruschke, The Cultural Monuments of Tibet's Outer
Provinces: Amdo, vol.1, 27-31; and Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 33-36.
220
Liangzhou 涼州 is an old name for present-day Wuwei 武威 City of Gansu.
221
For these four temples at Liangzhou, see Wangqian duanzhi et al., “Sapan yu Liangzhou sida fosi,”
Xizang yanjiu huixun 15 (1993): 9-14; Rdor phrug et al., Krung go’i bod brgyud nang dgon dkar chag las
kan su’u glegs bam (Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe, 2009), 715-21.
222
The connection of the Gro tshang brag incarnation lineage with Liangzhou needs to be investigated.
The first Gro tshang brag Dpal ’byor bstan ’dzin’s later two incarnations had been successively born in
Liangzhou. See Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 34-35.
223
Sum pa Mkhan po believed that Kamalaśīila had passed away at Liangzhou and his remains were
enshrined in this stūpa. For this, see SKRL1, 72b-73a and 207a; SKRL2, 187-89 and 537.
77
temples in Liangzhou, after which he returned to Bkra shis chos gling. There he made a great
gtor ma and composed a text on the ritual of gtor ma224 at the request of the saṃgha.
In the wood-hare year (1735), at the age of thirty-two, Sum pa Mkhan po went to Dgon
lung monastery at their request, and bestowed the Mitra brgya rtsa empowerment on 1,000
clergy and laity. Hearing that there would be the Kālacakra tantra empowerment at Sku ’bum
monastery, he then shifted to Sku ’bum. There he first made offerings and then received a tantric
empowerment and instruction in mind training (blo sbyong) from several teachers there. On the
sixth day of the sixth month, the abbot of Sku ’bum monastery, Dge ’dun don grub,225 offered the
Kālacakra tantra empowerment with a colored sand mandala. Sum pa Mkhan po received the
empowerment and studied on the seventh and eighth days. While at Sku ’bum, a messenger from
Se ra lung Dga’ ldan dam chos gling226 of Te’i thung (<Ch. Datong 大通) arrived with the
request that Sum pa Mkhan po assume abbacy of their monastery, which he immediately agreed
to do. Then, when Sum pa Mkhan po moved to Bkra shis chos gling, the saṃgha and people of
the monastic estates asked him to perform a rainmaking ritual for them. Sum pa Mkhan po
224
There are two gtor ma-related works in Sum pa Mkhan po’s Gsung ’bum (the 15th and 17th in vol. nga),
but there is no mention of the wood-tiger year (1734) in colophons of these works. Probably this work
composed in the wood-tiger year had not been included in Gsung ’bum.
225
For this person, see note 207 above.
226
Now located in Sailalung 賽拉隆 Township in the southwestern part of Tianzhu 天祝 County, Gansu,
Se ra lung monastery (also rendered Ser lung or Te’i thung dgon chung ba; Ch. Xidasi 西大 )was one
of the main sites for Sum pa Mkhan po’s activities in his later life. The monastery’s site is on the west
bank of the lower reaches of the Datong 大通 river, and that is why Sum pa Mkhan po called it “Te’i
thung.” The present-day Chinese toponym “Sai la lung” originated from the monastery’s name “Se ra
lung.” For more about this monastery, see Tianzhu zangzu zizhixian weiyuanhui, Tianzhu zangchuan
fojiao siyuan gaikuang (Tianzhu xian: Zhongguo renmin zhengzhi xieshang huiyi Tianzhu zangzu
zizhixian weiyuanhui, 2000), 165-69; Rdor phrug et al., Krung go’i bod brgyud nang dgon dkar chag las
kan su’u glegs bam, 735-37; Lang Jianlan et al., Gansu zangchuan fojiao siyuan (Lanzhou: Gansu minzu
chubanshe, 2014), 246-47; and Gansu sheng Tianzhu zangzu zizhixian zang yuyan wenzi gongzuo
bangongshi, Huarui diming wenhua tanyuan (Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 2016), 217-20.
78
performed the ritual and it was successful. Late in the fifth month, Sum pa Mkhan po visited the
Te’i thung region, where he was enthroned as abbot Ser lung.
Then Te’i thung’s chieftains donated a wonderful place called Srog mkhar to Sum pa
Mkhan po. On the twenty-second day of the ninth month, Sum pa Mkhan po visited the site and,
after performing a ritual, named it Dga’ ldan chos rdzong.227 Sum pa Mkhan po wanted to remain
in Srog mkhar to practice, but his plan was undone when the Qianlong emperor invited him to
Beijing the following year. Then Sum pa Mkhan po visited a hot spring in Mtsho sngon. While
there he blessed some sick people with his touch. Later, all of the sick whom he had blessed died
of an epidemic. Sum pa Mkhan po felt that the fact that he was not harmed by the epidemic was
due to the protection of guardian deities. That winter, Sum pa Mkhan po welcomed Thu’u bkwan
II, who arrived at Dgon lung from Beijing on the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month.
On the fifth day of the second month in the fire-dragon year (1736), Thu’u bkwan II
passed away at Dgon lung. Sum pa Mkhan po was one of those who presided over his funeral.
Since the people of Se ra lung had requested the Vajra garland empowerment, Mkhan po went
there to offer the empowerment during the fourth month. Then he resigned the abbacies of Ser
lung and Bkra shis chos gling. That autumn, the Xining amban228 invited Sum pa Mkhan po to
Xining. When the amban inquired about his capacity, Sum pa Mkhan po gave a very humble
reply, and the amban asked him to return home and wait. Seeing this as a bad omen, Mkhan po
227
Located in present-day Luhua 芦花 Township in the northeastern part of Ledu County, Qinghai, Srog
mkhar monastery (Ch. Hongkasi 红卡 ) is another Sum pa Mkhan po’s main site for his activities.
Sgrog mkhar and Se ra lung are actually not far from each other (less than eight kilometers in lineal
distance), even though they are now in different provinces of the administrative districts. For more about
Sgrog mkhar, see Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 50.
228
According to Qingdai zhiguan nianbiao, the Qinghai amban in 1736 was Deling 德齡. However, Sum
pa Mkhan po calls this amban “Mang amban” or “Tā zhin amban.” in his autobiographies. For the
Qinghai amban appointment in 1736, see Qian Shifu ed. Qingdai zhiguan nianbiao, vol. 3 (Beijing:
Zhonghua shuju, 1980), 2273.
79
performed some rituals. Eventually, the Qianlong emperor invited him to Beijing. That year Sum
pa Mkhan po composed a work on Snyan dngags me long.229
On the twenty-third day of the first month in the fire-snake year (1737), at the age of
thirty-four, Sum pa Mkhan po set out from Dgon lung to begin his journey to Beijing. Passing
through Ningxia 寧夏 and Bā yan ho tho,230 on the fifteenth day of the third month he arrived at
the walls of the capital city. The next day, he entered Yellow Temple231 in northern Beijing. Two
days later, Sum pa Mkhan po entered the palace, where he had an audience with the Qianlong
emperor and Lcang skya III Rol pa’i rdo rje (1717-1786). Because the emperor was so young,
rather than attempt to engage him in conversation, Sum pa Mkhan po instead tried to have a
meaningful conversation with Prince Guo.232 But the Prince only asked questions about Rnying
ma pa, which Sum pa Mkhan po did not like. Sum pa Mkhan po met with Lā mo gser khri II and
visited the temple for the Sandalwood Buddha statue.233 Prince Guo asked for another meeting
with Sum pa Mkhan po, but Mkhan po repeatedly declined. As a result, the title and gifts that
229
The colophon of Snyan ngag me long las bshad pa’i rgyan rnams kyi dper brjod rgyu skar phreng
mdzes, the first part (ff. 1a-32a) of the 11th work in Sum pa Mkhan po’s Gsung ‘bum, vol. ja, says it was
composed in his age of thirty-three, which is 1736.
230
Bā yan ho tho (<Mo. Bayankhot), which means “the city of Bayan,” was the administrative center of
the Alashan Left Banner.
231
Tib. Lha khang ser po. It must be one of two Huangsi
temples in northern Beijing. When Sum pa
Mkhan po was there, there were two Yellow Temples—East and West—outside the northern outer wall of
the capital city. We do not know which one of these Sum Mkhan po referred to. For these temples, see
Chen Qingying et al., Beijing zangchuan fojiao siyuan (Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe, 2014), 116-26,
and 186-90.
232
For Prince Guo, see note 126 above.
233
Also known as Hongrensi 弘
or Zhantansi 旃檀 , this temple was located on the west part of
present-day Beihai 北海 park in central Beijing. See Susan Naquin, Peking: Temples and City Life, 14001900 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 343; and Chen Qingying et al., Beijing zangchuan
fojiao siyuan 190-95. It was a temple bestowed to Lā mo gser khri II by the Yongzheng emperor and
became Lā mo gser khri’s residence during the Qing dynasty. For this see Wakamatsu Hiroshi,
“Garudanshiretō Futokutō ko: Shindai no chūkyō futokutō kenkyū,” Tōyōshi Kenkyū 33(2) (1974): 190.
80
were bestowed on Sum pa Mkhan po were not high enough.234 Because the summer was too hot,
Sum pa Mkhan po asked the emperor if he could pass his time in Dolon Nor. The emperor’s
approval was given, so he moved to Dolon Nor, where he helped Lā mo gser khri II prepare his
sermons. Sum pa Mkhan po returned to Beijing for the emperor’s birthday in the eighth month.
At that time, he asked Blo bzang chos ’dzin235 for the blessing of the eighty-four siddhas.
On the first day of the earth-horse year (1738), Sum pa Mkhan po had an audience with
the Qianlong emperor and they exchanged kha btags. On the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the
first month, Sum pa Mkhan po attended a festival at Yuanmingyuan
236
明
where he watched
fireworks. Sum pa Mkhan po’s legs grew uncomfortable beginning early that year, so he
tendered his resignation and moved to Dolon Nor’s Shangduhe
都河 riverbank, where he met
with Rje btsun dam pa II Blo bzang bstan pa’i sgron me (1724-1757). Sum pa Mkhan po went to
a hot spring in Dolon Nor and inquired about his leg problem to a medium possessed by a deity.
In the tenth month, he went back to Beijing for meetings with the emperor and Prince Guo. The
emperor finally approved his resignation, and on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, Sum pa
Mkhan po departed Beijing.
On the third day of the second month of the earth-sheep year (1739), Sum pa Mkhan po
arrived to a huge welcome at Dgon lung monastery. Sum pa Mkhan po made offerings and
234
Uspensky provides an English translation of a relevant part with an explanation from the perspective
of power struggle inside the court in line with Tibetan Buddhist sects. See Uspensky, Prince Yunli (16971738), 17-18; about this treatment, Sum pa Mkhan po’s retinue complained, but Sum pa Mkhan po
himself regarded it as a blessing of a guardian deity because it made his resignation easier (SKRL1, 81a;
SKRL2, 210).
235
This is probably one of teachers of Lcang skya III, listed in the BDRC database with P1193
(https://www.tbrc.org/#!rid=P1193).
236
Also known as “Old Summer Palace,” this imperial garden was located in the northwest outskirt of the
capital city.
81
painted some mandalas there. In the sixth month, he entered summer retreat at Srog mkhar Dga’
ldan chos rdzong. That year, Sum pa Mkhan po began building and moving some stūpas at Dgon
lung.237 On the twenty-eighth day of the fifth month of the following year (1740), the great stūpa
at Dgon lung was completed. On the eighteenth day of the sixth month, Sum pa Mkhan po
consecrated it. Around that time, Sum pa Mkhan po also sponsored repairs to some of the
temples at Dgon lung. That year, Sum pa Mkhan po involuntarily accepted the abbacy of Ser
lung and Bkra shis chos gling again, where he specifically managed regulations for the saṃgha.
In that same year, Sum pa chos rje Phun tshogs rnam rgyal grew sick. Sum pa Mkhan po
sincerely took care of the ailing Sum pa chos rje, but the latter passed away before long. Sum pa
Mkhan po arranged Sum pa chos rje’s funeral. That year, Sum pa Mkhan po heard news of Rgyal
sras’ death and of the birth of the new Paṇ chen.
In the iron-bird year (1741), Sum pa Mkhan po corrected the Gtor ma practice at Dgon
lung as indicated by Lcang skya II a long time before.238 In the same year, Sum pa Mkhan po
sponsored the restoration of Dgon lung’s assembly hall and built the great Maitreya statue. He
also sponsored paintings in the assembly hall of the Hidden White Land hermitage. Then Sum pa
Mkhan po invited Chinese bka’ ’gyur to Bkra shis chos gling and was involved in the
construction of a new building there.
237
While Sum pa Mkhan po was still in Dbus, Rgyal sras IV instructed him about how to restore Dgon
lung’s stūpas. When Sum pa Mkhan po returned to Dgon lung, although Sum pa Mkhan po attempted to
accomplish what Rgyal sras IV instructed, nobody listened to him. Only in 1739, after providing offerings
and geomancy rituals, Sum pa Mkhan po was able to initiate the project. For this, see SKRL1, 94b;
SKRL2, 246-47.
238
The colophon of Gtor chog las bzhi lhun ’grub, the 15th work in Sum pa Mkhan po’s Gsung ’bum vol.
nga, says it was compiled in the “rnga chen” year, which corresponds to the water-dog year (1742). It
may have a connection with this previous year (1741)’s redaction of the Gtor ma ritual at Dgon lung.
82
In the water-dog year (1742), at the age of thirty-nine, another imperial edict to invite
Sum pa Mkhan po to the capital arrived. In the seventh month, the new Thu’u bkwan239 was
invited to Dgon lung and Sum pa Mkhan po offered him vows. On the twenty-ninth day of the
seventh month, Sum pa Mkhan po began his journey to Beijing from Ser lung monastery. On the
twentieth day of the ninth month he arrived in Beijing. On the fifth day of the tenth month Sum
pa Mkhan po had an audience with the Qianlong emperor. While he was in Beijing this time, he
stayed at “the temple known as five peak-shaped stūpas.”240 In the first month of the water-pig
year (1743), Sum pa Mkhan po became gravely ill, and Lcang skya III provided ritual texts for
his recovery. Sick leave was approved for Mkhan po and he departed on the twenty-fifth day of
the fourth month. Sum pa Mkhan po arrived in Bkra shis chos gling on the fifth day of the
second fifth month.241 Due to the compassion of lama and three jewels, Sum pa Mkhan po
recovered from his illness. He arrived in Dgon lung on the first day on the eighth month. There,
he bestowed on Thu’u bkwan III the Vajrabhairava empowerment and other instructions. Then
he sponsored the construction of Pho shog thu monastery242 at ’Bo khog.
6. The First Abbacy at Dgon lung, Journey to Mt. Wutai, and the Beginning of Contacts
with Mongolia (1744-1755)
239
Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma (1737-1802).
240
Tib. mchos rten rtse lngar grags pa’i lha khang. It must be Wutasi 五塔 (a.k.a. Zhenjuesi 真覺 ),
the monastery that still exists in the western district of the capital city. For this temple, see Chen Qingying
et al., Beijing zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 64-69.
241
There should have been two “fifth” months in this year, one of which is a leap month.
242
Unidentified.
83
In the wood-mouse year (1744), Sum pa Mkhan po made offerings of golden statues and
other religious items to Pho shog thu monastery. Since he wanted to practice quietly without
being disturbed by mundane affairs,243 he established a hermitage at the place called Lung
dkar244 in the right direction of Pho shog thu monastery, and practiced there. That year, at the
request of Ul shri zhabs drung, Sum pa Mkhan po composed Bla ma’i rnal ‘byor dngos grub
bang mdzod.245 Then he established offering sites at Dgon lung monastery and established some
small hermitages at the backside of Dgon lung monastery. In the wood-ox year (1745), at the age
of forty-two, at the request of Sum pa biligtu chos rje Blo bzang dge legs,246 Sum pa Mkhan po
composed a work Gsung rab mdzod kyi sgo brgya ’byed pa’i lde mig.247
In the fire-tiger year (1746), Sum pa Mkhan po bestowed empowerments and oral
transmissions on many sponsors at Zhwa khog hermitage.248 While he was staying at Zhwa khog,
Dgon lung monastery sent a messenger to ask Sum pa Mkhan po to assume abbacy there. Sum pa
243
Sum pa Mkhan po regards the summons by the emperor as the most obstructive to his religious
practice.
244
Lung dkar is present-day Qihangou 祁漢溝 in Baoku Township of Datong County, Qinghai. “Qihan”
is a Chinese phonetic rendering of caγan, which means ‘white (= dkar)’ in Mongolian. ‘Gou 溝’ means
ditch or valley, and can be “lung” in Tibetan. For the meaning of the toponym Qihangou, see Datong
Huizu Tuzu Zizhixian diming bangongshi, Datong Huizu Tuzu Zizhixian diming zhi, 160.
245
It is the 1st work in Gsung ’bum vol. ga, whose colophon gives its completion year as the mig dmar
year, i.e., the wood-mouse year (1744).
246
Sum pa biligtu chos rje Blo bzang dge legs was a close protégé of Sum pa Mkhan po. He was
dispatched to Central Tibet and Mt. Wutai on behalf of Sum pa Mkhan po several times, and was one of
two disciples who took up writing of Sum pa Mkhan po’s biography when the latter stopped his writing
two weeks before his passing. Sum pa biligtu chos rje was the 11th mkhan po of Dgon lung’s tantric
college.
247
It is the 4th work in Gsung ’bum vol. kha, whose colophon gives its completion year as the wood-ox
year (1745).
248
Sum pa Mkhan po did not mention where exactly this Zhwa khog hermitage was, but it was probably
Bshan sgrub gling he established in 1733. See note 212 above.
84
Mkhan po declined at first, but upon the strong insistence of the people at Dgon lung, he
eventually agreed to take the position. On the fifteenth day of the former third month,249 Sum pa
Mkhan po ascended the throne at Dgon lung. On the thirtieth day of the third month, a solar
eclipse was observed. In the latter third month, Sum pa Mkhan po and Sum pa biligtu chos rje
sponsored the painting of murals in Dgon lung’s assembly hall and constructed a balcony there.
Around that time, Sum pa chos rje Phun tshogs rnam rgyal’s incarnation was found and invited
to Dgon lung. In the fourth month, Sum pa Mkhan po visited Stag lung monastery,250 as he had
previously been invited, and was welcomed by 300 horsemen and 700 saṃgha. There, Sum pa
Mkhan po bestowed the Mitra bgya rtsa 108 empowerment and some teachings on 2,000 clergy
and laity, including Stag lung sprul sku Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan.251 Then he was
invited to Dga’ ldan chos ’khor gling at Pho rod Zhwa dmar, 252 where he bestowed
empowerments of the Vajrabhairava, Amitāyus, and the Eleven-Faced Avalokiteśvara on 700
249
There should have been two “third” months in this year, one of which is a leap month.
250
Located in the middle of a vast meadow in the eastern part of Tianzhu County of Gansu, Stag lung
monastery was once big enough to house as many as 1,000 saṃgha. When I visited there in May 2017,
currently it has less than five residential monks. It is noteworthy that the geographical and ecological
condition of this monastery is very different from other mountain-hermitage style sites Sum pa Mkhan po
usually had connections with. This may be why the group of horsemen is mentioned as a welcoming party
only in this case. For general history and aspects of the monastery, see Tianzhu zangzu zizhixian
weiyuanhui, Tianzhu zangchuan fojiao siyuan gaikuang, 103-13. Also see Rdor phrug et al., Krung go’i
bod brgyud nang dgon dkar chag las kan su’u glegs bam, 749-53; Lang Jianlan et al., Gansu zangchuan
fojiao siyuan, 244-46; and Gansu sheng Tianzhu zangzu zizhixian zang yuyan wenzi gongzuo bangongshi,
Huarui diming wenhua tanyuan, 166-68.
251
Unidentified.
252
Located in Tianzhu county of Gansu, Zhwa dmar monastery was once an influential monastery to local
people. It is now also known as Nanchongsi 南冲 . See Tianzhu zangzu zizhixian weiyuanhui, Tianzhu
zangchuan fojiao siyuan gaikuang, 143-60. Also see Rdor phrug et al., Krung go’i bod brgyud nang dgon
dkar chag las kan su’u glegs bam, 753-54; Lang Jianlan et al., Gansu zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 249-51;
and Gansu sheng Tianzhu zangzu zizhixian zang yuyan wenzi gongzuo bangongshi, Huarui diming
wenhua tanyuan, 248249. “Pho rod” seems a name of a Mongolian tribe who formerly dominated the area
(Dor zhi rin po che, personal communication).
85
clergy and laity. On the way back to Dgon lung, Sum pa Mkhan po performed rainmaking rituals.
That autumn at Dgon lung, Sum pa Mkhan po made an offering of cauldron. At the end of the
year, Sum pa Mkhan po sent an invitation to Lcang skya III, to which he received an affirmative
response and gifts.
At the Smon lam festival during the fire-hare year (1747), Sum pa Mkhan po gave
teachings on the Thirty-Four Jātaka Tales and received a large number of offerings. That year, in
keeping with Lcang skya III’s opinion that monks in the big monasteries need not only study
exoteric Buddhist studies (mtshan nyid), but also conventional sciences (tha snyad), Sum pa
Mkhan po composed works on astrology and medicine, and produced a xylograph of the
astrological work.253 He also taught other things to the people of Dgon lung. Then Sum pa
Mkhan po went to Matisi254 in Sunan, as invited, and bestowed the empowerment of the Vajra
garland and made offerings. Then he returned to Dgon lung and performed a consecration ritual
to Wanli bka’ ’gyur that was invited to Dgon lung’s Sum pa residence. That year, Sum pa Mkhan
po also revised a recitation text in accordance to the Dge lugs pa tradition.
During the Smon lam festival of the earth-dragon year (1748), Sum pa Mkhan po brought
the Wanli bka’ ’gyur and displayed it to Dgon lung’s saṃgha. During the Smon lam festival,
Sum pa Mkhan po signaled that he would resign the abbacy, but postponed the resignation due to
sincere opposition from the people of Dgon lung. That spring, Sum pa Mkhan po composed a
253
Among the three astrological works in Gsung ‘bum, vol. ja, no work is identified as being produced in
1747 as a xylograph. More research is needed for identification of this work completed in 1747.
254
Matisi 马蹄 is located in the southeastern part of Sunan 肃南 Yugur Autonomous County which is
south of present-day Zhangye 张掖 City in Gansu. It is famous for the series of grottos among which the
earliest one dates back to the 5th century. See Rdor phrug et al., Krung go’i bod brgyud nang dgon dkar
chag las kan su’u glegs bam, 749-53; and Lang Jianlan et al., Gansu zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 211-18.
86
text about secret mantra.255 That year, Chu bzang III Ngag dbang thub bstan dbang phyug (17251796)256 arrived from Dbus. Sum pa Mkhan po went to Te’i thung’s Nyu su me temple,257 which
was built when the Sa skya pa were popular in the region, to attend its consecration. While he
was there, a Sa skya pa guardian deity258 appeared to him in a dream. Sum pa Mkhan po then
traveled to Mount Chu dmar and visited temples there.259 Sum pa Mkhan po composed his
History of Buddhism260 that year.
In the earth-snake year (1749), Sum pa Mkhan po again tendered his resignation of the
abbacy of Dgon lung following the Smon lam festival. The people of Dgon lung agreed, but
wanted him to stay at least until Lcang skya III visited Dgon lung later in the year, arguing that
work would not be completed without Sum pa Mkhan po. So, Sum pa Mkhan po agreed to
remain as abbot until Lcang skya’s visit. That summer, Sum pa Mkhan po went to Nom chi Dga’
ldan bde chen gling261 in Zhwa khog to perform a completion ceremony for paintings and murals
there. While in Nom chi monastery, Sum pa Mkhan po met a fierce storm, but managed, he said,
to remain safe thanks to guardian deities’ protection. When the ceremony was completed, Sum
255
Ul shri tantric master (rgyud pa bla ma) asked Sum pa Mkhan po to compose a text of secret mantra
(gsang sngags) that was necessary for “’dzin chos (memorization)” in the tantric college. This is not
included in his Gsung ’bum.
256
Chu bzang III was a younger brother of Lcang skya III Rol pa’i rdo rje.
257
Unidentified.
258
According to Sum pa mkhan po’s short autobiography, the deity was Mgon po gur. For this, see
SKRS1, 19a; SKRS2, 73.
259
“Chu dmar” is not identified, but there is an interlinear note saying “’Ju lag” beneath Chu dmar. It
should have been somewhere on the Datong (’Ju lag) river. See SKRL1, 109a; SKRL2, 285.
260
This is ’Phags yul rgya nag chen po bod dang sog yul du dam pa’i chos byung tshul dpag bsam ljon
bzang, the work of Gsung ’bum vol. ka.
261
Located in the southwestern part of present-day Datong County, it is also called Longqusi 龍曲
Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 7.
87
. See
pa Mkhan po returned to Dgon lung. In the sixth month, Lcang skya III arrived in Dgon lung
monastery, where he was welcomed by 2,000 saṃgha. Lcang skya made offereings, gave
teachings, and had a good personal friendship with Sum pa Mkhan po at Dgon lung. Lcang skya
gave Sum pa Mkhan po the title “Erdeni Paṇḍita,” and continued to praise him, even after
returning to Beijing. Lcang skya asked Sum pa Mkhan po to remain as an abbot of Dgon lung,
but Sum pa Mkhan po insisted on resigning, an insistence that was eventually accepted. As
Lcang skya departed for Beijing, Sum pa Mkhan po sent him off with tears, and then stepped
down from the abbacy.
On the fourth day of the fourth month of the iron-horse year (1750), Sum pa Mkhan po
departed Srog mkhar for Mt. Wutai. Passing through Alashan and Ordos, he arrived at Mt. Wutai
on the twenty-seventh day of the seventh month. Although Sum pa Mkhan po loved the place, he
had to return home after only a week’s stay because some of his retinue were sickened by the
water, which was “too pure”. On the third day of the eighth month, Sum pa Mkhan po left Mt.
Wutai. When he passed through Ordos, chieftains there asked Sum pa Mkhan po to bestow the
Kālacakra tantra empowerment, which he obligingly gave to 500 clergy and laity with a colored
sand mandala. Alashan also welcomed Sum pa Mkhan po. On this trip, Sum pa Mkhan po
brought some monks from Ordos to Dgon lung. This was the first group of monks from “Lower
Mongolia” (smad sog) to settle down at Dgon lung monastery.
In the iron-sheep year (1751), Sum pa Mkhan po sponsored the establishment of a new
assembly hall at Zhwa khog’s Bshad sgrub gling. He concentrated on recitation practice that year.
In the water-monkey year (1752), ’Dul ba Bshad sgrub dar rgyas gling262 of Upper Zhwa khog
262
This monastery is seen in Brag dgon pa, Mdo smad chos ’byung, 106. It seems that this is the
monastery currently known as “Chi kya dgon pa” (Ch. Qijiasi 祁家 ) in Datong County, Qinghai. Brag
dgon pa mentined “chi kya erkhe u ‘dur chos rje” as one of contributors to development of the monastery.
Also, the main incarnation lineage of current Chi kya monastery is known as the “’Dul ba” incarnation.
88
asked Sum pa Mkhan po to assume abbacy of the monastery throughout the period of its
refurbishment, and he went there to accepting the position. Then Sum pa Mkhan po sponsored
the construction of a roof to cover a hermitage close to Tha yan chi monastery263 in ’Bo khog. To
clear obstacles for the monkey year, Sum pa Mkhan po set out on a journey to the mountain of
the Prophecy of Gośṛṅga.264 On the way, Sum pa Mkhan po visited Stag lung of Lower Jag
rung,265 where he met with a disciple of Dalai Lama V’s doctor, Nyi ma rgyal mtshan,266 with
whom he studied Rgyud bzhi. Then Sum pa Mkhan po moved to Zhwa dmar pra ti monastery in
Pho rod267 and assumed its abbacy for a period of three years as he had been previously invited
to do. From there Sum pa Mkhan po went along the banks of the Rma chu near Mount Gośṛṅga,
crossed Rma chu by boat, and visited Gomasalaganda stūpa.268 Then beise Rnam rgyal rdo rje, a
263
According to Mdo smad chos ‘byung there were two Tha yan chi—large (che ba) and small (chung
ba)—monasteries in ’Bo khog area (Brag dgon pa, Mdo smad chos ʼbyung, 107). It seems that only the
“chung ba” survived and is later known as Zhangjiasi 張家 (Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 8).
It is not clear which Tha yan chi monastery Sum pa Mkhan po refers to here.
264
The Prophecy of Gośṛṅga (Skt. Gośṛṅgavyākaraṇa; Tib. Ri glang ru lung bstan pa) is a sūtra text
contained in Bka’ ’gyur. For this, see Bka’ ’gyur dpe bsdur ma, vol.76 (Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa’i
dpe skrun khang, 2006-2009), 634-61. For an introduction to and a translation of this sūtra text, see
Frederick Thomas, Tibetan literary texts and documents concerning Chinese Turkestan, Part I: Literary
Texts, (London : Royal Asiatic Society, 1935), 3-38. Sum pa Mkhan po’s mountain of Gośṛṅga must
have been located in an entirely different site, somewhere on the Rma chu (Yellow river) riverbank in
present-day Inner Mongolia.
265
For this monastery, see note 138 above. Jag rung is a river in the eastern part of Tianzhu County,
Gansu. See Smith, The Monasteries of Amdo, 437.
266
Unidentified.
267
For this monastery, see note 252 above.
268
This stūpa appears in the Prophecy of Gośṛṅga as “the mansion of the Holy One” in the west of
Gośṛṅga (“Mount Ox horn”). For this, see Thomas, Tibetan literary texts and documents concerning
Chinese Turkestan, Part I,” 14. Sum pa Mkhan po calls it “mchod rten Go ma sā la” (SKRL1, 115b;
SKRL2, 302). Same as Gośṛṅga, Sum pa Mkhan po’s Gamasalaganda exited not in “Li yul” as the sūtra
explains, but somewhere in Inner Mongolia.
89
descendant of Chinggis khan, of Dalad Banner269 invited Sum pa Mkhan po. He arrived in Dalad
on the twenty-second day of the twelfth month and was welcomed by a big feast.
On the first month of the water-bird year (1753), Sum pa Mkhan po taught not only
exoteric Buddhist topics (mtshan nyid) but also conventional sciences (tha snyad) to many
monks of Dalad. On the seventh day of the second month, Sum pa Mkhan po bestowed the Mitra
bgya rtsa empowerment on 5,000 clergy and laity at Dalad. On the fourteenth day of the third
month Sum pa Mkhan po witnessed an astrological sign, which later turned out to be an omen of
Amursana’s escaping. After that, a spirit possessed one of the descendants of Chinggis khan, so
Sum pa Mkhan po healed the person. That year Sum pa Mkhan po dispatched Sum pa biligtu
chos rje Blo bzang dge legs to Beijing’s Lcang skya and Lā mo gser khri to perform long-life
rituals and present Lcang skya with a new seal. As a reward, Blo bzang dge legs was given the
title “biligtu”. On the fifth month, Sum pa Mkhan po recited the Compendium of Four
Commentaries on Guhyasamāja tantra270 with 500 people at Bkra shis chos gling271 for one
269
“Tā lad” in Tibetan and “Dalate 達拉特” in Chinese. The area of this banner covered the northeastern
part of Yeke juu (a.k.a. Ordos) League of Inner Mongolia. Beise Rnam rgyal rdo rje can be found in the
table of Ordos princes from Menggu Hui bu wanggong biaozhuan. According to this table, he was
entitled beise from 1740 to 1777. As Sum pa Mkhan po indicated, the table also shows that princes in
Ordos were all the descendants of Chinggis khan. See Menggu Hui bu wanggong biaozhuan, diyiji, vol.1,
49-53.
270
Tib. Dpal gsang ba ’dus pa’i ’grel ba bzhi sbrags pa. A similarly titled work, Gsang ’dus bzhi sbrags
ma (“Guhyasamāja Tantra with four annotations according to Geluk authors”), is found in BDRC
database (accession number W23690).
271
This is not Dpa’ ris stong shag Bkra shis chos gling in present-day Ledu County (see note 102 above),
but Rasi Coiling (<Tib. bkra shis chos gling) süme in Dalad Banner founded in 1587. Rasi Coiling süme
(>Ch. Rexiquelingsi 热西却
or Rexiquanlingmiao 热希 岭庙) is listed as one of Dalad’s Tibetan
Buddhist monasteries in Dalate Qi shizhi zhengbian bangongshi, Dalate Qi zhi (Höhhot: Yuanfang
chubanshe, 2006), 205; and Isabelle Charleux, Temples et monastères de Mongolie-Intérieure (Paris:
Institut national d’histoire de l’art, 2006), 273. “Rasi” is interchangeable with “dasi” in Mongolian with a
meaning of “good luck” and its etymology from Tibetan “bkra shis.” For this, see Ferdinand Lessing,
Mongolian-English Dictionary (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 236. When Sum pa
Mkhan po visited Dalad in the fire-pig year (1767), the same monastery is mentioned as “Dalad’s Bkra
shis chos gling.”
90
week. On the eleventh day of the seventh month Sum pa Mkhan po departed Dalad, taking many
monks with him to Dgon lung, where he arrived on the fifteenth day of the eighth month.
In the wood-dog year (1754), Sum pa Mkhan po bestowed empowerments and other
teachings on 100 religious figures such as Thu’u bkwan III at Zhwa khog hermitage. When Sum
pa Mkhan po prepared the Guhyasamāja empowerment, the butter lamp he lighted lasted one day.
All who were present said it was a sign that Sum pa Mkhan po would have a long life. Tha yan
chi Dga’ ldan rin chen gling272 in ’Bo khog asked Sum pa Mkhan po to bestow the Kālacakra
tantra empowerment, he went there and gave the empowerment to 500 people including Thu’u
bkwan III, following the Pad dkar zhal lung tradition.273 That year, Dgon lung’s Kun gda’ ra
ba274 was established, and Sum pa Mkhan po sponsored the construction. In the wood-pig year
(1755), Sum pa Mkhan po bestowed the dge slong vows on Thu’u bkwan III and sent off him to
Dbus. Sum pa Mkhan po heard that Lcang skya III had come down with an eye disease, and
decided to travel to Beijing despite the turmoil along the road that had been caused by Amursana.
In the ninth month, he departed from Dgon lung and arrived in Beijing in the twelfth month. He
met with Lcang skya and Lā mo gser khri. Sum pa Mkhan po cured Lcang skya by performing a
ritual. After receiving gifts and instruction, Sum pa Mkhan po departed Beijing on the twentyfirst day.
272
This is Tha yan ci chung ba dga’ ldan rin chen gling, a.k.a. Zhangjiasi 張家
county, Qinghia. See note 263 above.
273
, in ’Bo khog, Datong
Pad dkar zhal lung is an astrological work composed by Phug pa lhun grub rgya mtsho in 1447.
274
Although “kun dga’ ra ba” refers to a temple that enshrines receptacles of body, speech, and mind
(Zhang, Tshig mdzod chen mo, 16) with its literal meaning “pleasure grove,” it is not clear exactly which
temple of Dgon lung Sum pa Mkhan po refers to here.
91
7. The Second Abbacy at Dgon lung, Establishment of Bkra shis rtse, and Welcoming
Lcang skya (1756-1766)
On the first month of the fire-bird year (1756), as he passed through Ordos on the return
journey, Sum pa Mkhan po got sick. By the fourth month, his condition deteriorated and he
nearly died, but he was eventually able to recover with the help of guardian deities. Sum pa
Mkhan po arrived in Dgon lung in the sixth month and made offerings. At that time, the people
of Dgon lung again insisted that Sum pa Mkhan po should assume the abbacy of the monastery.
He declined at first, but in the end accepted the position. On the sixth day of the eighth month,
Sum pa Mkhan po was enthroned as Dgon lung’s abbot for the second time.
In the fire-ox year (1757), Sum pa Mkhan po presided over the Smon lam festival with
teachings on Jātaka stories. Sum pa Mkhan po also established Bkra shis rtse275 in Lung dkar that
year. That year, Sum pa Mkhan po brought the Yongzheng bstan ’gyur to Sum pa residence and
interred it in a stūpa. In the earth-tiger year (1758), at the age of fifty-five, Sum pa Mkhan po
asked Sumpa biligtu chos rje Blo bzang dge legs to prepare to carry some of his wealth to
Central Tibet (dbus gtsang) in order to donate it. On the sixteenth day of the sixth month, the
company headed by Sumpa biligtu chos rje departed Lung dkar. As they traveled around, they
offered donations in many places, after which they returned to Dgon lung with news and gifts
from Central Tibet, including Paṇ chen’s robe and the Collected Works of Tsong kha pa. On the
fifth month of the earth-hare year (1759), Sum pa Mkhan po bestowed the Kālacakra tantra
275
Located in what is now Qihangou in Baoku Township of Datong County, Qinghai, Bkra shis rtse was
Sum pa Mkhan po’s main residence in his later life. According to local old men, the monastery was in use
up to 1958, but only the remains of the foundations of several buildings can currently be seen. Local
people still call it “Xunbu 布”(<Tib. Sum pa) monastery. As seen in Figure 4, it was a large-scale
monastery complex with 5 or 6 building foundations. For more about this hermitage, see Pu, Qinghai
Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 7-8.
92
empowerment with a colored sand mandala to 1,000 people of various positions at Dgon lung
monastery.
Following the Smon lam festival of the iron-dragon year (1760), Sum pa Mkhan po
indicated his intention to resign the Dgon lung abbacy, but the saṃgha tearfully opposed his
decision. Sum pa Mkhan po decided to remain in the post. That year, Sum pa Mkhan po
composed a prayer for Dam can rdo rje pa,276 whom he had seen in his dream. In the fourth
month, Sum pa Mkhan po offered the empowerments of Avalokiteśvara and Mitra bgya rtsa to
people of Dgon lung at Sum pa residence, and taught Paṇ chen’s Bla ma chos pa’i cho ga in the
dharma courtyard. On the thirteenth day of the fourth month, Sum pa Mkhan po set out from
Lung dkar hermitage for the land of Yugur 277 at the invitation of Mdung nag chung ba
chos ’khor gling of Suzhou.278 On the road he visited several monasteries, finally arriving at
Mdung nag monastery, where, on the fourth day of the sixth month, he offered the Vajra garland
empowerment to 500 clergy and laity. Then Sum pa Mkhan po moved to Mdung nag ’jam
dbyangs dgon chen tshogs bsags gling279 and made offerings there. In the seventh month, he
bestowed the Kālacakra tantra empowerment on 500 people at ’Jam dbyangs dgon chen. In the
276
This work is not included in Sum pa Mkhan po’s Gsung ’bum. For Dam can rdo rje legs pa, see René
de Nebesky-Wojkowitz, Oracles and demons of Tibet: The Cult and Iconography of the Tibetan
Protective Deities. (The Hague: Mouton, 1956), 154-59.
277
Yugur (Ch. Yugu 裕固) is an ethnic group who live mainly in Sunan Yugur Autonomous County in
Zhangye City, Gansu Province. They are also called “Yellow Uyghurs” because they descended from part
of the Uyghur Confederation (745-840 CE). Their major religion is Tibetan Buddhism. See Justin
Rudelson, Oasis Identities: Uyghur Nationalism Along China's Silk Road (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1997), 178.
278
It seems a monastery now called Rgyud pa sgar chos ’khor gling. See Rdor phrug et al., Krung go’i
bod brgyud nang dgon dkar chag las kan su’u glegs bam, 703-5.
279
Located in Sunan Yugur Autonomous County in Zhangye City, Gansu Province, this is one of major
Tibetan Buddhist monasteries for Yugur people along with Matisi 马蹄 . It is also called Wenshusi 文
殊 . See Rdor phrug et al., Krung go’i bod brgyud nang dgon dkar chag las kan su’u glegs bam, 693698; also see Lang et al., Gansu zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 218-20.
93
town of Suzhou (肃州城), Sum pa Mkhan po visited Sa skya pandita’s remains and provided
medical attention to the chief of the town. Sum pa Mkhan po returned to Lung dkar in the eighth
month.
At the Smon lam festival in the iron-snake year (1761), Sum pa Mkhan po’s uncle and
nephew280 provided the financial assistance of 1,000 silver taels. On the seventeenth day of the
first month, Sum pa Mkhan po went to Chu bzang monastery to consecrate their primary temple
(gtsug lag khang). Ta la’i pho shog thu Phyag rdor beise,281 who was Gushri khan’s descendant,
invited Sum pa Mkhan po. Late in the third month, Sum pa Mkhan po arrived at Po shog thu’s
Ur ge,282 where he offered the Vajra garland and Kālacakra empowerments to 1,000 clergy and
laity. A solar eclipse was observed in Amdo, Alashan, and Höhhot, a fact that is noted only in the
drawings of Dge ldan rtsis gsar. After that Sum pa Mkhan po returned to his residence. In the
sixth month, Sum pa Mkhan po went to Gser thog monastery283 at their invitation. There he made
offerings to recently deceased Gser thog zhabs drung Ngag dbang blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal
280
From the context, this “uncle and nephew” refers to Sum pa Mkhan po and Sum pa biligtu chos rje Blo
bzang dge legs.
281
Phyag rdor (>Ch. Shakedu’er 沙克都爾) was a descendant of the 4th son of Gushri khan, Dalantai. For
him, see Satō Hisashi, “Kinsei seikai sho buraku no kigen” (part I) Tōyōshi kenkyū, 32.1 (1973): 97.
According to Menggu Hui bu wanggong biaozhuan, Phyag rdor was entitled “yideng taiji 一等臺 ” in
1778, but there is no mention of his “beise” title (Menggu Hui bu wanggong biaozhuan, 114).
282
Ur ge seems a toponym, but not identified. According to Satō Hisashi, the pastoral estate of Phyag rdor
‘s family was located in the southwest part of Kokonor. For this, see Satō Hisashi, “Kinsei seikai sho
buraku no kigen,” 98. In the short autobiography, the place is called “Na red” (SKRS1, 23b; SKRS2, 90).
More research is needed to identify the location.
283
Located in present-day Huangzhong 湟中 County of Qinghai, Gser thog monastery (Ch. Xiakousi 峡
) is the main seat for the Gser thog incarnation lineage. For more, see Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao
siyuan, 15.
94
mtshan (1684-1761).284 From there he returned to Bkra shis rtse. During that time, Thu’u bkwan
III returned from Dbus Gtsang upon completion of his studies; Sum pa Mkhan po welcomed him
at Zhwa khog. In the ninth month, the town of Sum pa at the edge of Thang ring285 dispatched a
messenger to invite Sum pa Mkhan po. On the way to the town, Sum pa Mkhan po dropped by
Len hwa tha’i monastery.286 In the tenth month, Sum pa Mkhan po strongly requested that he be
allowed to resign Dgon lung’s abbacy. In the twelfth month, he stepped down as abbot and
Thu’u bkwan III assumed the position in his place. Sum pa Mkhan po then returned to Bkra shis
rtse hermitage in Lung dkar to devote himself to practice.
For the first two months of the water-horse year (1762), Sum pa Mkhan po concentrated
on recitation practices. Then Sum pa chos rje’s incarnation, Sum pa zhabs drung Blo bzang
dbang rgyal, passed away due to sickness. Sum pa Mkhan po heard the news that Lā mo gser
khri II would come to Amdo from Beijing, so he set out to meet him at Ta’i thung,287 where he
would greet him with a welcoming party. They met on the banks of the Tsong chu river. Just
after they arrived at Lā mob bde chen, Lā mo gser khri passed away. Sum pa Mkhan po felt great
remorse on account of this, and composed a memorial verse for Lā mo gser khri. Then Sum pa
Mkhan po traveled to the home region of Mtsho sngon’s Phyag rdor beise pos hog thu, and
visited Gser thog monastery again. After that, he again visited the town of Suzhou, where the
284
He was the 26th abbot of Sku ’bum monastery. See Gser tog Blo bzang tshul khrims rgya mtsho, Sku
’bum gdan rabs, 65-66.
285
This Sum pa town may have something to do with Thang ring dgon 龙
Qinghai. For this monastery, see Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 56-57.
286
in Minhe 民和 County,
It is located in present-day Minhe County, Qinghai. “Len hwa tha’i" is a Tibetan transcription of
Chinese “Lianhuatai 蓮花臺 (lotus platform).”
287
It is probably somewhere on the riverbank of the Datong (Tib. ’Ju lag) river.
95
Yugur people welcomed him. Upon his return, he traveled to Ta’i tung Mo’u tha ra288 and had
some repairs made at Ser ra lung monastery. That winter, the party that would escort Rje btsun
dam pa <from Li thang to Urga>289 came to Dgon lung and performed a long-life ritual for Sum
pa Mkhan po and made offerings to him.
In the water-sheep year (1763), ’Jam dbyangs bshad pa II Dkon mchog ’jigs med dbang
po (1728-1796) was appointed abbot of Dgon lung monastery. He entrusted Dgon lung’s public
affairs to two monastic disciplinarians,290 retuned to Bla brang bkra shis ’khyil, and never came
back. Given the circumstances, Sum pa Mkhan po assumed the abbot’s duties for some time.
Early that year, Sum pa Mkhan po greeted the party escorting Rje btsun dam pa with a
welcoming feast on the banks of the Tsong chu river. That year, Lcang skya III came to Amdo to
attend his father’s funeral at Chu bzang monastery, during which time he stayed at his residence
at Dgon lung. Sum pa Mkhan po offered Lcang skya a banquet and received some teachings
from him.
In the wood-monkey year (1764), while Sum pa Mkhan po was practicing recitation to
overcome the obstacles of the monkey year at Lung dkar, Lcang skya III called him to join his
bestowal of the Cakrasaṃvara empowerment. Sum pa Mkhan po went to Lcang skya’s place and
received the empowerment with seventeen other monks on the first day of the second month.
Lcang skya also gave more teachings and bestowed the name “Rol pa’i rdo rje” on Sum pa
288
Unidentified.
289
This is Rje brtsun dam pa III Ye shes bstan pa'i nyi ma (1758-1773). It is well known that the Rje
brtsun dam pa incarnations should be found in Tibet, not in Mongolia, by the order of the Qianlong
emperor, as a result of Chingünjav’s rebellion (1756-1757). Rje brtsun dam pa III was born in Li thang of
Khams and this escorting group was taking him from Khams to Urga. For more details, see Wang
Xiangyun, “Tibetan Buddhism at the Court of Qing: The Life and Work of lCang-Skya Rol- Pa’i-RdoRje, 1717-86” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1995), 267-85.
290
Tib. dge skos.
96
Mkhan po. Then Sum pa Mkhan po escorted Lcang skya to Gser khog monastery.291 Due to the
issues with the abbacy of Dgon lung mentioned above, Sum pa Mkhan po compelled ’Jam
dbyangs bzhad pa II to resign Dgon lung’s abbacy, and asked Lcang skya to assume the position
in his place, to which Lcang skya agreed. On the sixteenth day of the fourth month, Lcang skya
was enthroned as the abbot of Dgon lung. Lcang skya then provided a new explanation of Tshad
ma rnam ’grel.292 On the eleventh day of the fifth month, Lcang skya departed for Beijing. On
the banks of the U lan chu ren,293 Sum pa Mkhan po tearfully sent Lcang skya off. At Lcang
skya’s bidding, Sum pa Mkhan po composed a text on the Gdugs dkar ’khor lo ritual.294 Sum pa
Mkhan po saw Lcang skya exhorting Sum pa Mkhan po even in his dream.
In the wood-bird year (1765), when he was sixty-two, Stag lung monastery sent Sum pa
mkhan po an invitation. So in the fifth month he set out for Stag lung monastery. On the way,
bad omens of storms appeared at the place called Dpa’ lung,295 but guardian deities protected
Sum pa Mkhan po. Sum pa Mkhan po was welcomed by 500 people when he arrived at Stag
lung. There he gave teachings and empowerment to 1,000 people. Then Sum pa Mkhan po
291
Located in the northeastern part of present-day Datong County, it is also known as Sgo mang or Btsan
po monastery (Ch. Guanghuisi 廣惠 ). Currently it is the most well-known and largest Tibetan Buddhist
monastery in Datong County. For the information of the monastery, see Liu Jishun ed., Guanghuisi zhi
(Xining : Qinghai renmin chubanshe, 2008); and Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 4-6.
292
For more detailed situation for this teaching, see Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma, Lcang
skya Rol pa’i rdo rje’i rnam thar (Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1989), 472-76.
293
Unidentified.
294
It is ’Phags ma gdungs dkar po can gyi bsten bsgrub las tshogs bya tshul phun tshogs ‘dod ‘jo, the 6th
work in Gsung ‘bum vol. nga, which is a work on rites of Sitātapatrā. For Sitātapatrā see Miranda Shaw,
Buddhist goddesses of India (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 278-90.
295
Unidentified.
97
returned to Dgon lung, and invited the incarnation of Sum pa Rgya kho296 from Phyag rdor beise
pos hog thu’s place in Mtsho sngon.
In the fire-dog year (1766), as a sandalwood Amitābha had been donated to Sha bar nang
so and its principal temple (gan dho la) completed, Sum pa Mkhan po joined its consecration.297
That year Sum pa Mkhan po rearranged Dgon lung’s assembly hall. Sum pa Mkhan po took
Zhwa khog’s Bshad sgrub dar rgyas gling298 and Dgon lung’s Byang chub gling as bases for
funds for Buddhist activities on behalf of his parents and relatives.
8. The Second Visit to Mt. Wutai and Full-scale Activities in Mongolia (1767-1774)
On the fourth day of the fifth month of the fire-pig year (1767), Sum pa Mkhan po set out
from Dgon lung to visit Mt. Wutai. He arrived at Mt. Wutai on the fifth day of the first seventh
month299 according to the Chinese calendar. There, Sum pa Mkhan po met with Lcang skya III
and learned many things from him. On the seventh day of the second seventh month, Sum pa
Mkhan po departed Mt. Wutai. On the way back home, he visited Tumed’s land and bestowed
empowerments on some people there. At Bkra shis chos gling in Dalad,300 Sum pa Mkhan po
bestowed a variety of empowerments. While there, he heard news that many people had fallen ill
296
According to the first clan genealogy in SKRL1, 15-16, Rgya kho che ba and Rgya kho chung ba are
two descendant lineages from the first son of the Sum pa progenitor, Sum pa don grub. The meaning of
finding one of Sum pa incarnation in the place of Gudshri khan’s descendants, see Chapter III.
297
This Sha bar nang so (a chieftain of one of Dgon lung estates)’s sandalwood Amitābha was described
in Thu’u bkan III, Dgon lung dkar chag, 67b-68b. Also see Sullivan, “Mother of All Monasteries,” 97-98.
298
See note 262 above.
299
There should have been two “seventh” months in this year, one of which is a leap month.
300
See note 627 below.
98
in the Chahar area of Höhhot, and traveled there to provide medical help. After that, Sum pa
Mkhan po returned to Ordos, and on the twenty-first day of the ninth month, arrived in gong
Mgon skyabs rdo rje301’s ward. The next day Sum pa Mkhan po visited Em chi chos rje
monastery, 302 where he bestowed empowerments, oral transmissions, and consecrations.
Following that, he arrived at the ward of Qanggin banner tā beile Tshe dbang dpal ’byor,303
where he bestowed some rje gnangs. In the twelfth month, Sum pa Mkhan po arrived back at
Dgon lung. He settled ritual regulations for Dgon lung’s tantric college according to instructions
given by Bu ston rin chen grub (1290–1364). Sum pa Mkhan po also made an offering of a
cauldron at Bstan po monastery in Gser khog.
In the earth-bird year (1768), Sum pa Mkhan po established a temple (gtsug lag khang) at
Dgon lung to accommodate the monastery’s many objects of veneration (rten). On the second
day of the fifth month, Sum pa biligtu chos rje Blo bzang dge legs was appointed head (bla ma)
of Dgon lung’s tantric college and enthroned there. That year, on Sum pa Mkhan po’s
birthday,304 a planetary bad omen appeared, and Sum pa Mkhan po fell ill. He shifted to Dkar
drod in Jag rung,305 where he propitiated a female lake deity. Sum pa Mkhan po visited Mchos
301
According to Menggu Hui bu wanggong biaozhuan (50), there was only one “gong (actually
fuguogong 輔國公)” title holder in Ordos at that time. His name is Bstan ’dzin rdo rje (>Ch. Danjin
duo’erji 丹津多爾濟). Further research is needed for the confirmation for identification of these two.
302
Unidentified.
303
“Hang gin” in Tibetan and “Hang jin (杭錦)” in Chinese. The area of this banner covered the northern
part of Yeke juu (a.k.a. Ordos) League in Inner Mongolia. It is not clear why Tshe dbang dpal ’byor was
called “tā beile” by Sum pa Mkhan po. Tshe dbang dpal ’byor (>Ch. Qiwang banzhu’er 齊旺班珠爾)
was entitled “doroi beile” in 1754 according to Menggu Hui bu wanggong biaozhuan, 51. “Tā” perhaps
means “great (Ch. da 大)” but “tā beile” was not an official title of the Qing Dynasty.
304
Sum pa Mkhan po’s birthday was the 15th day of the 8th month.
305
Jag rung is the river that flows from Tianzhu to Yongdeng Counties. “Lower Jag rung” is mentioned as
a place to Stag lung monastery in Tian zhu. See above note 265. Dkar drod is not identified.
99
rten thang on the way back306 and gave some Lam rim teachings there. From there Sum pa
Mkhan po returned to Dgon lung by way of Srog mkhar. He heard that Tu’u bkwan was on his
way, so he welcomed him on the bank of the Tsong kha river called Shang thang.307 Over the
three winter months, Sum pa Mkhan po devoted himself to practice at Lung dkar hermitage. In
the eleventh month, Sum pa Mkhan po dreamed that Lā mo gser khri appeared over Dgon lung’s
shrine.
Having had dreams in which many bad omens appeared, early in the earth-ox year (1769),
Sum pa Mkhan po made efforts to purify his sins. Late in the third month, he moved to Dgon
lung, and set out for Byams pa ’bum gling308 in the fourth month. His first stop along the way
was in the town of Li kya tusi in the land of Mongol tusi Khron khu.309 He then came to Mdzo
mo mkhar.310 On the thirteenth day of the fourth month, Sum pa Mkhan po reached Lō kya tun311
on the banks of the Yellow River, where there was a Cakrasaṃvara statue. Then after passing
306
Located on the border between Tianzhu and Huzhu counties, Mchod rten thang (Ch. Tianthangsi 天堂
) is a large-scale monastery on the riverbank of the Datong River. For more information on this
monastery, see Lang et al., Gansu zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 227-40.
307
Unidentified.
308
Located in Yongjing 永靖 county of Linxia Hui Autonomous Prefecture, Gansu, Byams pa ’bum gling
(Ch. Binglingsi 炳靈 ) is famous for its grottoes and reliefs of Buddhist arts. See Rdor phrug et al.,
Krung go’i bod brgyud nang dgon dkar chag las kan su’u glegs bam, 593-95; and Lang et al., Gansu
zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 186-88.
309
Unidentified.
310
Located in Minhe Hui and Tu Autonomous County in Qinghai Province, Mdzo mo mkhar (Ch.
Honghuasi 宏
or 鸿
) is known as established by the order of Shākya ye shes, who was sent to
the Ming court in lieu of Tsong kha pa in the early fifteenth century. Shākya ye shes’ remain is also
purported to be preserved in a stūpa in the monastery. See Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 61-62.
311
Located in Yongjing County of Linxia Hui Autonomous Prefecture in Gansu Province, Lō kya tun
(<Ch. Luojiadong 罗家洞) is a grotto-complex Dge lugs pa monastery on the riverbank cliff of Yellow
river. See Rdor phrug et al., Krung go’i bod brgyud nang dgon dkar chag las kan su’u glegs bam, 598603; and Lang et al., Gansu zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 189-92. Sum pa Mkhan po describes it as a Chinese
town and famous for its Cakrasaṃvara statue.
100
through a white stūpa, he arrived at Byams pa ’bum gling. On the way back, Sum pa Mkhan po
passed through Gdong dmar hermitage, Ka ma log, Kha ti kha ba monastery,312 Thang ting lung
gsum, and Dga’ ldan bshad sgrub gling.313 At Dga’ ldan bshad sgrub gling, Sum pa Mkhan po
gave empowerments and had a good conversation with saṃgha there. He then moved to Gro
tshang monastery, where he cured smallpox. From there, Sum pa Mkhan po returned to Bkra shis
rtse hermitage. On the thirteenth day of the sixth month, Sum pa Mkhan po went to the hot
springs in Har kil. On the thirteenth day of the seventh month, he returned to his own residence,
and fell sick.
In the first month of the iron-tiger year (1770), Stag lung sprul sku asked Sum pa Mkhan
po to come to his monastery because the sprul sku was about to die. Sum pa Mkhan po, despite
being sick himself, traveled there for the funeral. But when he returned home, he recovered.
Taking up an invitation sent the previous year, in the fourth month Sum pa Mkhan po departed
Lung dkar for Yugur, arriving there in the fifth month. There, Sum pa Mkhan po performed a
rainmaking ritual, and gave teachings and offerings to the people of Yugur. On the way back, in
a place in Upper Mtsho sngon called Pā yan o’u la,314 Sum pa Mkhan po bestowed the ThirteenDeity Vajrabhairava empowerment on 100 people. Since there was a big drought that year, Sum
pa Mkhan po performed a rainmaking ritual. Sum pa Mkhan po also had a bridge built at ’Bo
312
Kha ti kha ba (also known as Khwa ta’i ka’i dgon pa; Ch. Kadikasi 卡地喀 ) monastery is located in
Minhe Hui and Tu Autonomous County in Qinghai Province. See Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan,
64-65.
313
Thang ring dga’ ldan bshad sgrub gling (Ch. Longhesi 龍
) is located in Minhe Hui and Tu
Autonomous County in Qinghai Province. See Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 56-57.
314
Unidentified.
101
khog.315 A bad planetary omen appeared and animal disease broke out at Stag lung. Sum pa
Mkhan po saw Mt. Wutai in a dream.
In the iron-hare year (1771), Sum pa Mkhan po sponsored the painting of a mural in the
assembly hall at Dgon lung. He also sponsored the mural paintings and repair at Dga’ ldan rtse in
Brag rtsa.316 On the twenty-first day of the fourth month, Sum pa Mkhan po departed Dgon lung
for Alashan, where he had been invited, and performed a death ritual for a chieftain there. On the
way back in the sixth month, he visited Zhwa dmar lung dkar prati monastery and bestowed
empowerments on 500 people there. He arrived back at Dgon lung after passing through Mchod
rten thang monastery. At the invitation of the people of Ordos’ Dalad, Sum pa Mkhan po
departed Dgon lung on the twenty-fifth day of the seventh month and arrived at Ordos on the
twenty-ninth day of the eighth month. There, Sum pa Mkhan po was involved in many activities.
In the first month of the water-dragon year (1772), Sum pa Mkhan po went to Dalad
again, where he performed recitation with 500 people. In the third month, at the invitation of
people there, Sum pa Mkhan po went to Dörben Kheükhed Banner317 via Höhhot. He was
welcomed by locals, and bestowed several kinds of empowerment on a group of 1,000 clergy
and laity. After that, Sum pa Mkhan po visited wang Rab brtan rdo rje318 on his deathbed. After
hearing that Lcang skya III would be visiting Dolon Nor, Sum pa Mkhan po went there on the
315
It is probably “Lama” bridge (currently called Xiamen
County. See Datong Huizu Tuzu Zizhixian diming zhi, 239.
316
门 bridge) in Baoku Township in Datong
Unidentified.
317
“Dur pen khu’u khed” in Tibetan. The area of this banner covers the northwestern part of Ulanqab
League in Inner Mongolia. Its Chinese name was Sizibuluo 四子部落 Banner and is present-day
Siziwang 四子王 Banner.
318
Rab brtan rdo rje was entitled junwang from 1710 to 1771. See Menggu Hui bu wanggong biaozhuan,
42.
102
twenty-second day of the fifth month, met with Lcang skya, and received teachings from him.
Lcang skya suggested that they could have a longer meeting at Mt. Wutai the following year.
Sum pa Mkhan po traveled from Dolon Nor to Dörben Kheükhed, and on the twenty-second day
of the tenth month set out for Khalkha, where he gave empowerments. He traveled back to Dgon
lung by way of Muuminggan Banner,319 Ordos, Alashan and Stag lung monastery in Tsung
zhan,320 arriving home on the eleventh day of the eleventh month. He then shifted to Bkra shis
rtse and devoted himself to practice there.
In the third month of the water-snake year (1773), at the age of seventy, Sum pa Mkhan
po gave teachings to Khalkha monks at Bra shis rtse. In the fifth month, an invitation arrived
from Alashan, and in the sixth month he arrived in Ru thog.321 There, Sum pa Mkhan po
performed a rainmaking ritual and bestowed a Kurukullā322 empowerment on a qinwang323
whose wife was Prince Guo’s daughter. Sum pa Mkhan po also established a temple on the bank
of the Rma chu river in Alashan. On his way back, he observed Mt. Alashan. The Alashan
qinwang asked Sum pa Mkhan po to find him a suitable place to worship his ancestors, so Sum
pa Mkhan po selected a place for him. Sum pa Mkhan po also gave the Vajrabhairava and the
Eleven-faced Avalokiteśvara empowerments to 700 clergy and laity and provided medical help
319
“Mo’u ming ghan” in Tibetan. In Qing times, this banner belonged to Ulanqab league in Inner
Mongolia. Nowadays it is a part of Baotou 包頭 city in Darhan Muuminggan (Ch. Da’erhan Maoming’an
達爾罕茂明安) United banner. See Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, 569.
320
Tsung shan is currently called Songshan Township (松山乡), where Dpa’ ris’ Stag lung monastery
(see note 138 above) is located.
321
Unidentified.
322
Tib. Lha mo rig byed ma. For Kurukullā, see Shaw, Buddhist goddesses of India, 432-47.
323
This is Blo bzang rdo rje (>Ch. Luobuzangduoji 罗卜藏多
biaozhuan, 102 and 547-48.
103
济), in Menggu Hui bu wanggong
to people while in Alashan. On the twenty-third day of the tenth month, Sum pa Mkhan po
returned home.
In spring of the wood-horse year (1774), Sum pa Mkhan po gave teachings on
conventional science (tha snyad) topics to students from Sku ’bum. He sponsored the painting of
a mural at Dgon lung’s tantric college. He provided medical attention and cured 60 people in
Upper Mtsho sngon. At the invitation of the Alashan qinwang, in the ninth month Sum pa Mkhan
po departed his hermitage to visit the region again. On the road, he briefly visited Dgon lung and
at Dgon lung, Sum pa Mkhan po met with Thu’u bkwan III and Bsod nams grags pa324 of Bla
brang bkra shis ’khyil, stopped at Mongol Tusalagchi’s place and performed some rituals there.
Sum pa Mkhan po arrived at the Alashan qinwang’s place, where the qinwang requested him to
write an autobiography. That year, Sum pa Mkhan po observed bad omens, which tuned out to
be signs portending the Wanglun 王倫 rebellion in Shandong 山東.325
9. The Third Visit to Mt. Wutai, Activities around Mongolia, and Meeting with the Paṇ
chen bla ma (1775-1780)
In the first month of the wood-sheep year (1775), Sum pa Mkhan po went to Ordos where
he bestowed rjes gnang, provided medical help, and gave oral transmissions to local people. In
the third month, Sum pa Mkhan po gave the Kālacakra tantra empowerment at Üüshin beise326’s
324
Unidentified.
325
For this rebellion, see Susan Naquin, Shantung Rebellion: The Wang Lun Uprising of 1774 (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1981).
326
“U’u shin” in Tibetan and “Wushen (烏審)” in Chinese. The area of this banner covered the southern
part of Yeke juu (a.k.a. Ordos) League in Inner Mongolia. The beise in question is Shakedu’er zhabu 沙
104
place. In the fourth month, he bestowed the Kālacakra tantra empowerment on 700 people at
jasak taiji’s place.327 On the tenth day of the fourth month, Sum pa Mkhan po left for Mt. Wutai,
and arrived there on the twenty-first day of the fourth month. During his time on Mt. Wutai, Sum
pa Mkhan po met with Lcang skya III, whom he asked about finding a new Sum pa zhabs drung.
Sum pa Mkhan po and his retinue had various miraculous experiences, such as meeting a man
with wooden fish who turned out to be a bodhisattva. In the fifth month, after leaving Mt. Wutai,
Sum pa Mkhan po went to Ordos, where he performed a rainmaking ritual. Ordos’ Zünghar
Banner328 sent him an invitation, so he then traveled to Bkra shis mi gyur gling.329 There, Sum pa
Mkhan po bestowed empowerments and rjes gnang. At that time, the people of Tumed and
Dörben Kheükhed invited Sum pa Mkhan po to visit Caqar Diyanchi monastery on the backside
of Höhhot.330 So he went there and bestowed the Kālacakra tantra empowerment with a colored
克都爾扎布, who was a jasag gusan beise from 1773 to 1778. See Menggu Hui bu wanggong biaozhuan,
52. Shakedu’er zhabu was an eldest son and title-successor of Lashiseleng 喇什色棱, who is mentioned
as a former beise in Üüshin in Wushenqizhi bianzuan weiyuanhui, Wushenqizhi (Höhhot: Neimenggu
renmin chubanshe, 2001), 34.
327
At that time, the only jasag taiji in Ordos was Wangzhale chebudeng duo’erji 旺扎勒車布登多爾濟
(<Tib. Dbang rgyal tshe brtan rdo rje?), whose tenure as taiji was from 1762 to 1784. See Menggu Hui bu
wanggong biaozhuan, 53. It is not clear which banner he belonged to and where this place was.
328
“Jo’un gwar” in Tibetan and “zhunge’er 准格爾” in Chinese. The area of this banner covered the
eastern part of Yeke juu (a.k.a. Ordos) league in Inner Mongolia.
329
It is not clearer which site this “Bkra shis mi gyur gling” was. Zünghar juu is the biggest Tibetan
Buddhist monastery in Zünghar banner, but it has not been clarified that the monastery was also called
Bkra shis mi gyur gling.
330
This must be Caqar lama juu, a part of Üsütü juu (>Ch. Wusutuzhao 烏素圖召) monastery complex in
the northwest of Höhhot. Another part of the Üsütü juu complex, Baraɣun üsütü süme (Ch. Faxisi 法禧
), was famous for preserving wood blocks of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Gsung ‘bum up to the mid 1960s. See
Nagao Gajin. Mōko Gakumondera (Kyōto: Zenkoku Shobō, 1947), 293-241;and Wang Qing, “Souji
minzu wenxian jishi,” in Neimenggu tushuguan jianguan sanshiwu zhounian jinian wenji, ed. Neimeng
tushuguan guanqing bangongshi (Höhhot: Neimenggu ribao, 1985), 46. The woodblocks were destroyed
during the Cultural Revolution and are no longer in existence.
105
sand mandala on 2,000 people. In reward, Sum pa Mkhan po was given a huge amount of
offerings. Sum pa Mkhan po also gave dge slong and dge tshul vows there. At the invitation of
the wang of Dörben Kheükhed,331 Sum pa Mkhan po traveled there, too. After that, he set out on
his return journey, arriving back in Dgon lung on the twenty-first day of the tenth month by way
of Dalad, Qanggin, Alashan, and Grong lang.332 Thu’u bkwan III and 1,700 monks welcomed
him. He settled at Lung dkar hermitage Bkra shis rtse. In a dream, Sum pa khan po saw twelve
female deities333 and the Pure Land.
In the fire-monkey year (1776), a new Sum pa zhabs drung was invited. On the eleventh
day of the first month, Sum pa biligtu chos rjes and others performed a long-life ceremony for
Sum pa Mkhan po.334 In the fourth month, Sum pa Mkhan po went to Alashan at their invitation,
where he performed a rainmaking ritual and presented them with the Sde dge bstan ’gyur. In the
fifth month, Sum pa Mkhan po returned to Lung dkar and performed a rainmaking ritual for
Xining. In the eleventh month he went to Srog mkhar, but there was some trouble with a tusi 土
司 and the saṃgha there. Sum pa Mkhan po composed a work based on what had been taught at
Srog mkhar. He then returned to Lung dkar hermitage and devoted himself to practice there.
331
This wang is Lashiyamupile 喇什
332
Unidentified.
333
Tib. bstan ma bcu gnyis.
木丕勒 mentioned in Menggu Hui bu wanggong biaozhuan, 42.
334
Inspired by this long-life ceremony, Sum pa Mkhan po gives a long account of recollection of his life
here. J.W. de Jong mentioned that the part written by Sum pa Mkhan po himself is up to this point (f.
180b1), but it is not true and it is obvious that Sum pa Mkhan po himself continued to write the latter part
up to two weeks before his death (f. 240b). See Jan W. de Jong, “Sum-Pa Mkhan-Po (1704-1788) and His
Works,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 27, no. 3–4 (1967): 209.
106
In the second month of the fire-bird year (1777), Sum pa Mkhan po composed a ritual
text for averting human and animal diseases and had a xylograph of it produced.335 At Lung
dkar’s Bkra shis rtse, he held an offering ceremony with the saṃgha for ornamentation of his
eight-volume Collected Works. A descendent of Chinggis khan at Ordos sent a messenger to
urgently request that he perform a rainmaking ritual there. The Dga’ ldan pho brang estate in
Mtsho sngon also requested that Sum pa Mkhan po perform a rainmaking ritual. So, on his way
to a hot spring, Sum pa Mkhan po visited the area and successfully performed the ritual. In the
fifth month, Sum pa Mkhan po set out to travel to Alashan in Mongolia, and arrived in the sixth
month. The people there also asked him to perform a rainmaking ritual. Sum pa Mkhan po
ordered four dge tsuls to recite the ritual text, and rain successfully fell. On the first day of the
seventh month, when Sum pa Mkhan po arrived in Qanggin of Ordos, people there also
requested a rainmaking ritual, so Sum pa Mkhan po successfully performed it. While at Qanggin,
word arrived from Alashan to inform Sum pa Mkhan po that qinwang’s wife had passed away.336
Leaving the disappointed people of Qanggin behind, Sum pa Mkhan po moved to Alashan,
where he attended the funeral of qinwang’s wife and performed a death ritual. In the eighth
month, Sum pa Mkhan po returned to his own hermitage. There, he met the incarnation of Cang
kya ho’u ban.337 In concert with Sum pa chos rje’s group, Sum pa Mkhan po sponsored painted
works at Dgon lung and Srog mkhar. Fulfilling the prophecies of Lcang skya and a guardian
deity, Sum pa Mkhan po had Blo bzang dge legs bring Blo bzang rgyal mtshan of Zhwa dmar to
335
The only relevant work in Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works is Srung ba lnga sogs kyi sgo nas
gdon bgegs kyi gnod ‘tshe bzlog bsrung bya tshul rin chen go mtshon, the 18th work in vol. nga. However,
its colophon tells that the work was composed in the fire-monkey year (1776).
336
For this qinwang, see note 323 above.
337
Unidentified.
107
Sum pa residence, where he was recognized not as an incarnation of Phun tshogs rnam rgyal, but
of Sum pa Ngag dbang chos ’byor. Sum pa Mkhan po brought a partial copy of the Sde dge
bstan ’gyur to Lung dkar hermitage.
In the earth-dog year (1778), Sum pa Mkhan po went to Dgon lung, where he was
welcomed by many people and sponsored many repair works. On the third day of the third
month, Sum pa Mkhan po departed Lung dkar for Alashan, where he bestowed a rjes gnang on
the qinwang. In the fourth month, he arrived at Qanggin in Ordos, where he witnessed some
storms. He moved to Üüshin, where he bestowed many rje gnangs. On the twenty-seventh day of
the fifth month, Sum pa Mkhan po successfully performed a rainmaking ritual in Üüshin, and
800 clergy and laity offered him a long-life ceremony there. He then moved to Bayannuur338 and
successfully performed a rainmaking ritual. Due to this string of <ritual> successes, detractors
disappeared. Sum pa Mkhan po gave teachings and then moved on to Tshe ring rdo rje tā
wang339’s ward in the sixth month. There, he gave teachings to 1,500 people. Then he left Tshe
ring rdo rje tā wang’s ward, returning to Alashan via Qanggin. In Alashan, Sum pa Mkhan po
fulfilled qinwang’s wishes and was given gifts. On his way home, he gave teachings to as many
as 10,000 people altogether. Sum pa Mkhan po returned to Bkra shis rtse and devoted himself to
practice there. On a trip to Nom chi monastery, Sum pa Mkhan po fell from his mule and was
laid up for three weeks due to his injuries.
In the first month of the earth-pig year (1779), Sum pa Mkhan po performed the
bodhisattva vow self-empowerment. In the second month, he went to Bshad sgrub gling in Zhwa
khog to consecrate a stūpa that had been erected there. On the first day of the ninth month, at
338
Tib. Pā yan no’ur. Bayannuur is nowadays known as Bayannuo’er 巴彦淖
339
City of Alashan league.
The 7th jasag doro’i junwang of Ordos, Cheling duo’erji 車凌多爾濟 in Menggu Hui bu wanggong
biaozhuan, 49.
108
Śalatu,340 Sum pa Mkhan po welcomed Paṇ chen VI Blo bzang dpal ldan ye shes (1738-1780)
who was traveling from Gtsang, and met personally with Paṇ chen there. On the ninth day of the
ninth month, at U lan pu lag,341 Sum pa Mkhan po again welcomed Paṇ chen and invited him to
his tents. The people of Dgon lung welcomed Paṇ chen, who then taught Lam gyi gtso bo rnam
gsum. Sum pa Mkhan po again had a personal meeting with Paṇ chen, who asked him about
comets and Gesar, and asked him to compose works on these subjects and bring them to
Sku ’bum. Sum pa Mkhan po insisted that he was incapable of doing so, and returned to Bkra
shis rtse. On the fifth day of the tenth month, Paṇ chen arrived at Sku ’bum monastery. On the
nineteenth day of the eleventh month, Sum pa Mkhan po brought his collected works (only 7
vols.) with him on his visit to Sku ’bum, where he had a questions-and-answer session with Paṇ
chen. After that, he briefly returned to his hermitage.
On New Year’s Day of the iron-mouse year (1780), Sum pa Mkhan po held a festival at
the hermitage, and then returned to Paṇ chen’s place. After making offerings to Paṇchen, Sum pa
Mkhan po promoted his new astrology, received gifts from Paṇchen, and then returned home. In
the third month, Paṇchen left Sku ’bum for Beijing. An invitation arrived from Qanggin, saying,
“Even though Buddhism arrived here during the Sa skya’s time, the ten sciences have yet to be
well established. We need you for this.” On the twenty-sixth day of the seventh month, Sum pa
Mkhan po departed his hermitage for Qanggin. On the sixth day of the ninth month, he arrived in
Qanggin, where he gave teachings on the ten sciences. Ordos’ Tshe ring rdo rje342 died during
340
On this place, see note 154 above.
341
Also on the route from Central Tibet to Xining, close to what is now called Cabciyal (>Ch. Qiabuqia
恰卜恰) township in Gonghe 共和 county of Hainan 海南 prefecture, Qinghai. See Satō Hisashi,
Chibetto rekishi chiri kenkyū (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1978), 125, 210, 235, 236, 248, and map 1.
342
See note 339 above. Menggu Hui bu wanggong biaozhuan also has it that he died on the forty-fifth
year of Qianlong era (1780).
109
this visit, so Sum pa Mkhan po went to his place and performed a death ritual for him. Then Sum
pa Mkhan po heard that Paṇ chen had died and wished for his swift return. Sum pa Mkhan po
visited many places in Ordos and gave teachings there.
10. The Third Abbacy at Dgon lung and Death (1781-1788)
In the first month of the iron-ox year (1781), while Sum pa Mkhan po was at Qanggin, he
was invited by Alashan’s qinwang, so he went there, and then returned to Bkra shis rtse. In the
fourth month, Sum pa Mkhan po gave the dge slong and dge tshul vows. On the sixth day of the
fifth month, Paṇ chen’s remains arrived in Xining, so Sum pa Mkhan po traveled there to offer
some prayers. He then went back to his hermitage to devote himself to practice. On the first day
of the fifth month, the people of Dgon lung asked Sum pa Mkhan po to assume the abbacy again,
but he declined, giving his advanced age as the reason. He sponsored repairs to ’Bo khog’s
bridge.343 The people of Dgon lung again asked him to assume the abbacy, but Sum pa Mkhan
po again declined, giving many reasons for his decision. In the end, however, he acquiesced. On
the seventeenth day of the eighth month, Sum pa Mkhan po was once again enthroned as Dgon
lung’s abbot. He restored the bca’ yig tradition and ordination process. The people of Alashan
sponsored the Smon lam ceremonies in the water-tiger year (1782). That year, Sum pa Mkhan po
composed Gsung rab rnam dag chu’i dri ma sel byed nor bu ke ta ka.344
343
On this bridge, see note 315 above.
344
This is the 19th work in Collected Works vol. nga, which provides background and critiques on Rnying
ma pa “apocrypha”. For a detailed discussion on this work and its relation to Th’u bkwan III, see Matthew
Kapstein, “The Purificatory Gem and Its Cleansing: a late Tibetan polemical discussion of apocryphal
texts,” History of Religions 28/3 (1989): 217-44.
110
Mongols such as Dörben Kheükhed, Üüshin, Tumed sponsored the Smon lam ceremonies
for the water-hare year (1783). Sum pa biligtu chos rje Blo bzang dge legs returned from Mt.
Wutai. During the Smon lam, Sum pa Mkhan po gave teachings on Jātaka to the residents of
Dgon lung. On the eleventh day of the first month, people from Höhhot and Dörben Kheükhed
offered him a long-life ceremony at Sum pa residence. The practitioners at Bkra shis tshe asked
Sum pa Mkhan po to provide a model for recitation, so he provided a detailed one, and also
offered some teachings on sūtra. Sum pa Mkhan po’s servants asked him to provide a simple
mantra prayer to recite while they were busy, which he provided. The assembly hall at Bkra shis
rtse was established. Sum pa Mkhan po fell ill there, but soon recovered his health by ritual and
medicinal means. Some monks from Dbus performed a long-life ceremony for Sum pa Mkhan
po, who turned eighty that year. Sum pa Mkhan po received news that Paṇ chen’s incarnation
had been born.
The people of Alashan and Dörben Kheükhed sponsored the Smon lam ceremonies for
the wood-dragon year (1784). After the Smon lam, Sum pa Mkhan po indicated his intention to
resign Dgon lung’s abbacy, but the saṃgha opposed it for three days. Sum pa Mkhan po thus
decided to stay on as abbot for a few months more. At Bkra shis rtse, Sum pa Mkhan po gave the
dge slong vows. In the fifth month, Sum pa residence sponsored mural paintings in the assembly
hall of Bkra shis rtse. In the sixth month, Sum pa Mkhan po went to Dgon lung to tender his
resignation, but it was not accepted. Sum pa Mkhan po observed bad omens, which turned out to
foretell the Muslim rebellion of 1784. In the eighth month, Sum pa Mkhan po visited Dga’ ldan
chos rdzong in Srog mkhar and bestowed rjes gnang and oral transmissions on the people there.
He also built a new assembly hall and bestowed full ordination on some at Srog mkhar. Sum pa
111
Mkhan po visited Dga’ ldan bkra shis chos gling in Mā yang345 and bestowed the Avalokiteśvara
empowerment on 1,000 people there. He then moved to Se ra lung and gave oral transmissions
and teachings to 800 people. After that, Sum pa Mkhan po visited Thar pa gling346 and Bkra shis
chos gling. At the end of the year, he was ill with nosebleeds, but was able to recover due to the
compassion of his guardian deity.
Ordos wang and others sponsored the Smon lam ceremonies for the wood-snake year
(1785). Sum pa Mkhan po saw Dam can rdo rje legs pa347 in a dream. His resignation of the
Dgon lung abbacy was finally accepted. That year there were many invitations from Mongols.
On the twenty-fourth day of the third month, Sum pa Mkhan po traveled to Sho ling si,348 where
he fell from a horse, broke his collarbone, and took sick for ten days. Then he went to Alashan,
but not to Ordos, after which he returned to Bkra shis rtse and recuperated in dependence on the
three jewels. On his birthday in the eighth month, 100 clergy, laity, and Mongols held a big
ceremony on his behalf.
In the fire-horse year (1786), when he was eighty-three, a ritual ceremony was held to
place Sum pa Mkhan po’s eight-volume collected works on the shelves. Dörben Kheükhed’s
nang so and mergen offered a long-life ceremony and asked Sum pa Mkhan po to compose a
prayer text for the Sde dge bstan ’gyur and bka’ ’gyur, which he wrote for them. Sum pa Mkhan
345
Also called Mayingsi 马营 and located in present-day Maying Township of northeast Ledu County,
Qinghai. Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 48.
346
Also called Zhangjiasi 章嘉 and located in present-day Lijia Township of Ledu County, Qinghai.
Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 47-48.
347
See note 276 above.
348
This is Maidari-yin juu (>Ch. Meidaizhao 美岱召 or Shoulingsi 壽靈 ) in Western Tumed banner,
which is located in the west of Höhhot. See Isabelle Charleux, Temples et monastères de MongolieIntérieure (Paris: Institut national d’histoire de l’art, 2006), passim.
112
po gave teachings on both Buddhism and conventional sciences (tha snyad) to the saṃgha from
Sku ’bum and Gser khog. He provided a long praise of Lcang skya III, who had died on the eight
day of the fourth month. Then Sum pa Mkhan po sponsored the building of new assembly halls
at Bshad sgrun gling and Mchi dgon byang chub gling in Lower Dpa’ ris stong shag.349 On the
fifth day of the ninth month, Sum pa Mkhan po had a vision of the Pure Land in the clouds. On
the twentieth day of the tenth month, he saw the Five Sisters of Long Life350 in a dream. That
year, an incarnation of Sum pa chos rje passed away at the age of twenty, so Sum pa Mkhan po
arranged his funeral. At the end of the year, Sum pa Mkhan po saw some letters and the Pure
Land in his dreams.
In the fire-sheep year (1787), Sum pa Mkhan po appointed some dge skods at Bshad
sgrub gling in Zhwa khog because it had become a large-scale hermitage. He gave the ThirteenDeity Vajrabhairava empowerment at Bkra shis rtse at the request of a zhabs drung of Nom chi
monastery. The people of Dgon lung came to Lung dkar to request Sum pa Mkhan po to perform
a rainmaking ritual, which he did. An Oirat head of Shas po ro351 in Mtsho sngon, Dkun dga’
jasag,352 grew sick, and Sum pa Mkhan po went there and cured him with ritual and medical help,
after which he returned to Lung dkar. Then Sum pa mkha po went to Nom chi monastery, where
a long-life ceremony was performed for him on his eighty-fifth birthday. Sum pa Mkhan po was
invited to ’Dul ba bshad sgrub dar rgyas gling,353 where he bestowed a Vairocana empowerment
349
Unidentified.
350
Tib. Tshe ring mched lnga.
351
Unidentified.
352
The 3rd jasag yideng taiji of Mtsho sngon, Gongge 貢格 in Menggu Hui bu wanggong biaozhuan, 115.
353
See above note 262.
113
on 500 monks. He then moved to Sum pa hermitage Bshad sgrub gling, where he bestowed the
Thirteen-Deity Vajrabhairava empowerment on 200 monks. He became sick but recovered. Sum
pa Mkhan po met with some students who had just returned from Dbus and Gtsang, from whom
he heard the news that a new Lcang skya had been born. From the end of the twelfth month, Sum
pa Mkhan po’s body grew tiresome, but he continued to practice. On the twenty-fourth day of the
twelfth month, Alashan qinwang’s minister, tusalagchi Tshe dang rdo rje, and his family came to
visit Sum pa Mkhan po. On the twenty-seventh day, Sum pa Mkhan po made an offering to a
thangka of Re ma ti, the guardian of Zhwa khog Bshad sgrub gling.354
Sum pa Mkhan po began the new year, the earth-monkey year (1788), at Bkra shis rtse.
From the first to third days of the new year, Sum pa Mkhan po circumambulated the hermitage.
Höhhot’s Tumed sent Sum pa Mkhan po’s disciple Grags pa don grub, arranged a long-life
ceremony and silver mandala, and offered him a clean xylograph copy of his eight-volume works.
On the third day, the tusalagchi Tshe dang rdo rje offered a long-life ceremony. On the fifth day,
Sum pa Mkhan po held a feast for the Mongol travelers. On the sixth day, he sent Sum pa biligtu
chos rje, who made an offering to Lcang skya IV Ye shes bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan (1787-1846)
on the eighth day. On the seventh day, Bzang skor zhabs drung offered a long-life ceremony to
Sum pa Mkhan po. On the eight day, Sum pa Mkhan po drew a picture for novice monks. On the
tenth day, Sum pa Mkhan po lost his appetite, but his mind was sharp. Many people around him
began to despair, but Sum pa Mkhan po told them not to. On the eleventh day, Sum pa Mkhan po
wrote his final verse.355 On the twenty-sixth day of the first month of the earth-monkey year,
Sum pa Mkhan po passed away at Bkra shis rtse of Lung dkar.
354
Re ma ti is a form of Dpal ldan lha mo. See Nebesky-Wojkowitz, Oracles and demons of Tibet, 33.
355
Sum pa Mkhan po penned his autobiography up to this point (SKRL1, 240b; SKRL2, 627).
114
Chapter III. Sum pa Mkhan po’s Incarnation Lineages
1. Introduction
/mi shes gdol ba’i phru gu dar zab kyis/
/phang phung mdzes par byas te mthon po’i khrir/
/blun po’i ’khor tshogs dbus na ’gying ba yi/
/ba mos thub bstan pad tshal bcom gyi dogs//
/chos spyod bcu yi sgrub pa rgyab bor nas/
/kha drag dpung dang rgyu nor g.yo khram gyis/
/’gro ba’i phan bde sgrub par rlom byed na/
/kun mkhyen shākya’i gtso de ’khrul bar nges//
“A foolish and inferior child,
Beautifully decorated with satin piece by piece,
Put on the higher throne in the midst of a foolish group of followers,
Is like frost destroying the lotus garden of Buddha’s teachings.
Having discarded the achievement of the ten dharma activities,356
By strong words, physical force, material wealth, and deception,
If one is boastful of achieving benefit for beings,
It is certain that the omniscient Śākya’s main purpose will be distorted.”357
As Chapter I explained, the Amdo region took a leading role in the spread and
popularization of the incarnation institution in culturally Tibetan areas from the eighteenth
century onwards. This trend kept pace with other historical developments in the region as well,
namely, the growth of monasticism and the proliferation of literary production. To make this
pattern recognizable, in Chapter I these cultural trends were quantified as data collected with
356
“The ten dharma activities” (chos spyod bcu) are: 1. copying scriptures (gsung rab kyi yi ge ’bri ba), 2.
making offerings (mchod pa ’bul ba), 3. giving alms (sbyin pa gtong ba), 4. listening to teachings (chos
nyan pa), 5. comprehending (’dzin pa), 6. reading (klog pa), 7. expounding (’chad pa), 8. reciting (kha
ton du bya ba), 9. reflecting upon the meaning of the dharma (chos kyi don sems pa), and 10. meditation
on the meaning of the dharma (chos kyi don sgom pa). Zhang Yisun et al., Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo.
840.
357
SKRL1, 4b; SKRL2, 9. As Sum pa Mkhan po indicated, these stanzas can be found in Dalai Lama V
Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho, Chos mngon rin chen ’dren pa’i shing rta, in Gsung ’bum, vol. 17
(tsa) (Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2009), 660.
115
respect to each category. That piece of quantitative research helped us to better understand
aspects of the history of Amdo. But we should also consider the qualitative aspects of these
cultural trends. Sum pa Mkhan po’s quotation of the words of the Fifth Dalai Lama above
captures a qualitative measure of the incarnation institution during his time, as Sum pa concluded
his critique on the incarnation institution with that quotation. By quoting the Dalai Lama’s
words, Sum pa Mkhan po implied that his contemporaries were erring by promoting the
incarnation institution.
This chapter will address questions regarding the kind of reality the incarnation
institution was creating for the people of eighteenth-century Amdo, like Sum pa Mkhan po, and
how he responded to and corrected what he saw as the institution’s problems. In this chapter we
will mainly rely on Sum pa Mkhan po’s autobiographies in order to tell his story. Sum pa Mkhan
po’s autobiographies provide rare insider’s perspective into perceived problems with the
incarnation institution and potential solutions. Sum pa Mkhan po himself was an incarnate lama,
and he was also directly involved in frictions inside the institution. Taking a critical view of his
own and others’ incarnation status, he worked to improve and correct the institution. By looking
closely into his autobiographical records, we will gain a better understanding of the incarnation
system and its development in this period and region. Given its focus, this chapter will be a
necessary supplement to recent scholarship on the incarnation institution.358 In sum, this chapter
358
For a select few of references, see Max Oidtmann, “Between Patron and Priest: Amdo Tibet Under
Qing Rule, 1792-1911” (PhD Diss., Harvard University, 2014), 18-269; Peter Schwieger, The Dalai
Lama and the Emperor of China: a political history of the Tibetan institution of reincarnation (New
York: Columbia University Press, 2014), 17-49; and Gray Tuttle, “Pattern Recognition.” Although
strictly speaking they are not recent studies, there are two useful compilations of articles (although some
parts overlap) on the topic of incarnation published in China recently, i.e., Zhongguo zangxue yanjiu
zhongxin zongjiao yanjiusuo ed., Zangchuan fojiao huofo zhuanshi zhidu yanjiu lunwenji (Beijing:
Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe, 2007) and Zangchuan fojiao huofo zhuanshi zhidu yanjiu ziliao xuanbian
bianzhuan weiyuanhui ed., Zangchuan fojiao huofo zhuanshi zhidu yanjiu ziliao xuanbian (Lhasa: Xizang
renmin chubanshe, 2014). Even more recently, one issue of Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines (vol. 38, February
116
adds to the longue durée history of the quantitative progression of the incarnation institution with
a qualitative analysis of the same.
Another purpose of this chapter will be to provide new insights into the history of “the
mega monastery” that was the site of Sum pa Mkhan po’s lineage residence (bla brang), Dgon
lung byams pa gling. The monastery’s historical importance has attracted scholarly attention in a
number works by now,359 and its particular role in the development of monasticism has been
fully analyzed in a recent work by Brenton Sullivan.360 In addition to these scholarly works, we
have a series of records of successive abbotships (gdan rabs) compiled by monks that resided in
the monastery,361 which are more than simple lists and provide much information on the history
of the monastery. However, given that the primary focus of these chronicles is on the highest
authority in the monastery, they do not tell us much about individual lamas who were affiliated
with the monastery. The story of Sum pa Mkhan po and his lineages fills in that gap and
contributes much to the history of Dgon lung monastery. Sum pa Mkhan po is furthermore
2017, 11 articles altogether) was dedicated to the topic of the incarnation institution, which attests to the
ongoing scholarly interest in the subject.
359
To name just a few, Louis Schram, “The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Border: part II. their
religious life.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 47, no. 1. New Series (1957): 26–36;
Han Rulin, “Qinghai Youningsi ji qi mingseng (Zhangjia, Tuguan, Songba),” [Dgon lung monastery of
Qinghai and its eminent clerics (Lcang skya, Thu’u bkwan, Sum pa)] in Qiongluji, (Shanghai: Shanghai
renmin chubanshe, 1982 [1944]), 390-415; Duo zang et al. trans. Youningsi zhi: sanzhong [Histories of
Gönlung monastery: three sets] (Xining: Qinghai renmin chubanshe, 1990).
360
Brenton Sullivan, “The Mother of All Monasteries: Gonlung Jampa Ling and the rise of mega
monasteries in northeastern Tibet” (PhD diss., University of Virginia, 2013).
361
Altogether there are six different versions of gdan rabs (“records of the succession of abbots”) for
Dgon lung monastery. During my visit to the monastery in the summer 2012, I could obtain four different
gdan rabses circulated among monks there. Although Brenton Sullivan intensively makes use of other
gdan rabs of the monastery, two of them among my findings are not listed in Sullivan’s work: Chos ’phel,
Dgon lung gdan rabs gser ri’i ’phreng ba (manuscript, [Dgon lung?], [1902]); Anonymous, Chos sde
chen po dgon lung dga’ ldan byams pa gling gi mkhan rabs byon tshul sogs rim par bsgrigs pa padma
dkar po’i ’phreng mdzes (unfinished manuscript [Dgon lung?], [1958?]). It is interesting that Dgon lung
monastery has maintained a tradition of updating their gdan rabs periodically.
117
important to any quest to gain a fuller picture of the history of this “mega monastery,” because
his life and activities involved not only historical events at Dgon lung, but also in Amdo and
Inner Mongolia as well. The story of Sum pa Mkhan po’s lineage illustrates the transition of
power in the incarnation institution from the locally-based authority at Dgon lung to the Dge
lugs-Mongolian partnership that was enacted from the early eighteenth century onwards.
2. Overview of Tibetan incarnation institution
Before Sum pa Mkhan po’s story begins, it would be appropriate to give a brief overview of the
concept, origin, and development of the incarnation institution in Tibet as background for the
main parts of this chapter.
The concept of incarnation (sprul sku) originated from the Mahāyāna doctrine of the
three bodies (trikāya) of Buddha, that is, three respective embodiments of the nature of
buddhahood.362 The three buddha bodies refer to “truth body (Skt. dharmakāya; Tib. chos sku),”
“enjoyment body (Skt. sambhogakāya; Tib. longs sku),” and “emanation body (Skt.
nirmāṇakāya; Tib. sprul sku).” Among these three, Tibetans took the concept of “emanation
body” as an “earthly” manifestation of Buddhahood, and began to regard some prominent
religious figures as being such earthly manifestations. It is not easy to pinpoint exactly when this
concept developed into an institution, but Tibetan tradition has it that the incarnation institution
began with Karma Pakṣī (1206-1283), the second hierarch of the Karma pa branch of the Bka’
362
For more detailed discussion on the embodiments of Buddha, see John Makransky, Buddhahood
Embodied (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1997).
118
brgyud pa school, who succeeded the first hierarch, Dus gsum mkhyen pa (1110-1193).363
Recent scholarship has suggested that there were cases of the incarnation earlier than the Karma
pa. 364 In any case, it is obvious that the thirteenth century saw the beginning of Tibet’s
institutionalization of incarnation and the Karma pa lineage led the convention for some time.
Another significant measure of the institutionalization of incarnation was the hagiographic
construction of a lineage comprised of multiple former lives that often were said to stretch back
to Indian saints. A Tibetan term for such lineages, which has existed from institution’s very early
phase of development, is sku phreng (“incarnation series”).365
As Yamaguchi correctly observed, only Tibet has had a tradition that transformed this
highly religio-cultural phenomenon into a social institution and a means for inheriting economic
status.366 Wylie interprets the means by which the incarnation institution gained the upper hand
in competition with other institutions (especially the clan-based uncle-nephew succession of the
363
José Cabezón recently pointed out that such a tradition can be dated to the fifteenth century writer
‘Gos lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal’s Deb ther sgnogn po. For this see José Cabezón, “On Tulku Lineages,”
Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 38 (February 2017): 3 no.8. Two pioneering works on the incarnation
institution by Yamaguchi Zuihō and Turrell Wylie both show that the actual first re-incarnation was not
Karma Pakṣī, but the next hierarch of the Karmapa, Rang ’byung rdo rje (1284–1339). For this see
Yamaguchi Zuihō, “Katsubutsu ni tsuite,” in Hotoke no kenkyū (Tōkyō : Shunjūsha, 1977), 286-88; and
Turrell Wylie, “Reincarnation: a political innovation in Tibetan Buddhism,” in Proceedings of the Csoma
de Kőrös Memorial Symposium, ed. Louis Ligeti (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1978), 580-81. For
slightly different account of the tradition, see Dalai Lama XIV Bstan ’dzin rgya mtsho, My Land and My
People (New York: Warner Books, 1997), 2, in which the fourth hierarch of the Karma pa, Rol pa’i rdo
rje (1340-1383), is regarded as “the first incarnation recognized in Tibet.”
364
Leonard van der Kuijp, “The Dalai Lamas and the Origins of the Reincarnate Lamas,” in The Dalai
Lamas: a visual history, ed. Martin Brauen (Chicago : Serindia Publications, 2005), 28-29; Cabezón, “On
Tulku Lineages,” 4-6. However, these cases did not develop into enduring institutional lineages as the
Karma pa achieved it successfully.
365
Some, however, still hold the opinion that this term was developed later. For a fuller discussion of this
sku phreng, see Jose Cabezón, “On Tulku Lineages.”
366
Yamaguchi, “Katsubutsu ni tsuite,” 286. In his critical remarks on his own incarnation status, Sum pa
Mkhan po also pointed out the management of inherited economic property is the most significant role of
his being an incarnate lama. See SKRS1, 3b; SKRS2, 10.
119
Sa skya pa school) as “the transition from charisma of person to a charisma of office.”367 Karma
pa’s institution was so successful that other schools of Tibetan Buddhism began to emulate it,
and eventually the Dge lugs pa school also adopted the institution, putting Dalai Lamas and Paṇ
chens at its head.
The methods for identifying an incarnation, such as divination, tests using the former’s
possessions, and reports of miraculous signs, seem to be a later development and vary according
to period and location. In other words, there has been no specified regulation or code for
identifying incarnations in the Tibetan system, and this is partially why the institution collided
with outside authorities, who attempted to regulate it with a code of law.368 Examples of these
attempts include the regulatory system for incarnation identification established during the Qing
dynasty, “the Golden Urn Lot-drawing (Ch. Jinping cheqian 金瓶
led registration system for “living-Buddhas (Ch. Huofo 活
籤)”, and the government-
)” established by the People’s
Republic of China. It will take time for us to see how the incarnation system will be affected by
these centuries-long attempts to control the system, since the incarnation institution is a living
system that will continue to exist as long as Tibetan Buddhism maintains its perpetuity.
3. Sum pa before Sum pa Mkhan po
367
Wylie, “Reincarnation,” 584. Wylie uses Max Weber’s discussion on this process.
368
Recent two studies provide detailed history of the incarnation system in a relation with Qing dynasty’s
political dominance over Tibet. These are Schwieger, The Dalai Lama and the Emperor of China and
Oidtmann, “Between Patron and Priest.” Although two works cover different focus and time periods—the
former on the incarnation in general up to 1800 and the latter on Amdo and legal aspects after 1800—the
conclusion from both works is that Qing had to depend on the traditional incarnation system to effectively
control Tibet.
120
It is commonly known that there were five major and nine minor incarnation lineages at
Dgon lung monastery.369 Among the five major incarnations, Lcang skya, Thu’u bkwan, and
Sum pa were regarded as the three preeminent lineages.370 But it seems that no definitive
hierarchy existed among them, and that the preeminent status enjoyed by some has been solely
due to the circumstantial and accidental vicissitudes of Dgon lung’s history.371 Even though the
story of how Lcang skya and Thu’u bkwan eventually became the most prominent among the
incarnation lineages is worthy of further investigation, 372 the significance of the Sum pa
incarnation lineage should be recognized especially in a relation to Dgon lung’s early history.
Upon closer examination it becomes clear that the Sum pa was a local clan community that had a
strong connection with Dgon lung’s establishment, rather than an incarnation institution per se.
369
Qinghaisheng bianjizu, Qinghai tuzu shehui lishi diaocha (Xining: Qinghai renmin chubanshe, 1985),
48. For the most detailed account of these incarnations lineages, see Per Nyi ma ’dzin, Bshad sgrub bstan
pa’i ’byung gnas chos sde chen po dgon lung byams pa gling gi gdan rabs zur rgyan g.yas ’khyil dung gi
sgra dbyangs (hereafter Dgon lung gdan rabs) (unpublished manuscript, 2007),19-127.
370
Louis M. J. Schram, “The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Border: Part II. Their Religious Life,”
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 47, no. 1. (1957): 29-33; Han Rulin, “Qinghai
Youningsi ji qi mingseng (Zhangjia, Tuguan, Songba),” [Dgon lung monastery of Qinghai and its eminent
clerics (Lcang skya, Thu’u bkwan, Sum pa)] in Qiongluji, (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1982
[1944]), 390-415.
371
In several accounts of these lineages, the order of which incarnation lineage has priority has been
different depending on the circumstance in which an account was made. In most cases Lcang skya, Thu’u
bkwan, Sum pa, Chu bzang and Wang is the order, but Qinghai tuzu shehui lishi diaocha puts Sum pa as
the first in its account of incarnation lineages (55-57). It is probably due to the fact that the sixth Sum pa
Blo bzang dpal ldan bstan pa’i nyi ma (1923-2006) was an active figure in the political scene at the time
of compiling Qinghai tuzu shehui lishi diaocha. For his short biography, see Per Nyi ma ’dzin, Dgon lung
gdan rabs, 96-98.
372
Of course Lcang skya’s and Thu’u bkwan’s higher status in Dgon lung was due to their position in the
Qing official registry for incarnate lamas, in which both were entitled the “Zhujing 駐京 (capital
residence) lama.” For the detailed hierarchy of this system, see Miaozhou, Mengzang fojiaoshi
(Yangzhou: Jiangsu gunagling guji keyinshe, 1993), vol.6, 1-10; Zhao Yuntian ed., Qianlongchao neifu
chaoben ‘Lifanyan zeli’ (Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe, 2006), 368-370. For a history of this
system, see Ikejiri Yōko, Shinchō zenki no Chibetto Bukkyō seisaku: jasaku rama seido no seiritsu to
tenkai (Tōkyō : Kyūko Shoin, 2013).
121
To demonstrate this fact, we will review the history of the Sum pa lineage in a relation to Dgon
lung monastery.
“Sum pa” is regarded to be the name of a clan mentioned in accounts of the Tibetan
Empire period (7th-9th centuries). It is a somewhat vague entity. There is no consensus about
whether the Sum pa clan was a group of people that moved from Central Tibet to an eastern
region or were a group that already resided in the east and had a connection to the Mi nyag.373
This Sum pa clan was also considered to have been one of great clans of the Tibetan Empire.
Sum pa Mkhan po himself indicated that “it is probable that [our] clan is the Sum pa [listed]
among the eighteen great clans of Tibet.”374 Yet, Sum pa Mkhan po’s “Sum pa” is sometimes
rendered “Sum bha,” which suggests another possible etymology for the name.375 In any case, it
seems that there is no clear evidence that ties the current Sum pa clan to the Sum pa clan
mentioned in ancient accounts.
In his autobiography, Sum pa Mkhan po identifies the current Sum pa clan with great
specificity. According to him, the Sum pas were called “Be’i kya” in Chinese.376 Zhongguo
zangzu buluo 中
藏族部落 contains a list of Tibetan clan names in Huzhu County, among
373
For discussions of this old “Sum pa”, see Erik Haarh, The Yar-luṅ Dynasty (Copenhagen: G.E.C.
Gad’s Forlag, 1969), passim and Yamaguchi Zuihō, “Bakulan to Sum pa no rLaṅs si,” Toyo Gakuho vol.
52, no. 1 (1969): 1-61; and Dung dkar Blo bzang ’phrin las, Dung dkar tshigs mdzod chen mo (Beijing:
Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2002), 2042.
374
SKRL1, 7a; SKRL2, 16: rus ni bod kyi rus chen bco brgyad kyi nang gi sum pa yin shas che ste/ For
“the great eighteen clans (rus chen bco brgyad)” see Haarh, The Yar-luṅ Dynasty, 259, 282.
375
This different rendering is seen especially in accounts in later generations. In the woodblock printings
of Sum pa Mkhan po’s works (produced no later than the end of 18th century) “Sum bha” was not in use.
However, mid nineteenth century accounts such as Deb ther rgya mtsho have both Sum pa and Sum bha.
A very recent account by Per Nyi ma ’dzin uses “Sum bha” for all the lineage. However, the versified
autobiography of Lcang skya II Ngag dbang blo bzang chos ldan (1642-1714) has “Sum bha” in its
xylographs. Further research is needed to understand this use of “Sum bha”.
376
SKRL1, 7a; SKRL2, 16: sum pa zhes bod kyis btags pa’i ming yin kyang rus dngos ni be’i kya zhes
rgya la grags zer.
122
which is listed a “Baizha’er 白扎
(or Beizha’er
)” clan that may be connected to the
“Be’i kya” that Sum pa Mkhan po mentions. According to Zhongguo zangzu buluo, the
Baizha’er are linked to Xia ma ri 夏麻日 (<Tib. Zhwa dmar ?) in Tianzhu County, which is a
further piece of evidence in favor of the idea that this clan is related to the Sum pas. In this way,
the Sum pas’ turf was not limited to Huzhu County, but covered much larger areas.377 The Sum
pas also had a connection to a Chinese polity. An anecdote from Sum pa Mkhan po’s
autobiography indicates that a Sum pa ancestor took care of one of thirteen temples built along
the Sino-Tibetan border area under the auspices of the mother of the Ming emperor Wanli 萬曆
(r. 1573-1620). She had people build the temples after she completed the project of producing
and disseminating one-hundred copies of the golden bka’ ’gyur.378 Regardless of how long these
Sum pas lived before Sum pa Mkhan po, the significance of Sum pa Mkhan po’s work with
respect to the subsequent history of the Sum pas has to do with Dgon lung monastery.
The Sum pas were certainly already an important clan in the area when Dgon lung was
founded. The first abbot (khri pa) of Dgon lung came from this clan, and it seems that his
appointment was not simply a fortuitous one. The first abbot, Sum pa slob dpon che ba (“greater
master”) Dam chos rgya mtsho, had earned a reputation as a scholar even before Dgon lung was
established. Born in Amdo, young Dam chos rgya mtsho traveled to Cetral Tibet to attend Bkra
377
Chen Qingying et al., Zhongguo zangzu buluo (Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe, 1990), 335-40.
For Xia ma ri, ibid., 338. For the connection between Sum pa and Zhwa dmar in Tianzhu County, see
note 436 below.
378
SKRL1, 7a; SKRL2, 16. This account is repeated in Dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas, The Ocean
Annals of Amdo (New Delhi: Sharada Rani, 1975-1977), vol. 1, folio 76a-76b (Mdo smad chos ʼbyung ed.
Smon lam rgya mtsho (Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1982), 63); Anduo zhengjiao shi
(Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe, 1989), 68); I have been unable to find any evidence from Chinese
historical sources of this enterprise sponsored by Wanli’s mother, Empress Dowager Xiaoding 孝定, who
is known as a devout Buddhist. More research is needed.
123
shis lhun po’s Shar rtse college and Sgo mang college at ’Bras spungs’. He was given the epithet
slob dpon pa (“master”) by ’Phags pa lha III Mthong ba don ldan (1567-1604) when he was
invited to Chab mdo in Khams before returning to Amdo.379 He was likely chosen as abbot, not
only because of his scholarly achievements, but because of his father’s important role in the
building Dgon lung. According to Sum pa Mkhan po’s account, Dam chos rgya mtsho’s father,
Sum pa Don grub, had received written permission to use the land to build Dgon lung from the
Lanzhou zongdu.380 Why people in the area needed written permission from a Chinese authority
to develop a monastic property and how Sum pa Don grub was able to attain permission to do so
are questions requiring further investigation. In any case, this story suggests that the Sum pas
played a key role in the establishment of Dgon lung.
Sum pa Mkhan po mentions another way in which the Sum pas were important in
establishing the monastic community. When Sum pa Dam chos rgya mtsho returned to his
hometown from Chab mdo, he helped Rgyal sras Don yod chos kyi rgya mtsho, the founder of
Dgon lung, establish a “stream of monks (grwa rgyun)” for the new monastery. He provided
young monks by “buying many boys (bu chung mang po nyos nas)” from their families with
379
Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma, Bshad sgrub bstan paʼi ʼbyung gnas chos sde chen po
Dgon lung byams pa gling gi dkar chag dpyod ldan yid dbang ʼgugs paʼi pho nya (hereafter Dgon lung
dkar chag), in Gsung ‘bum, vol.2 (kha), 14a-14b (typeset edition (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun
khang 1988), 27-28). ’Phags pa lha is an incarnation lineage of Dga’ ldan byams pa gling in Chab mdo,
Khams.
380
SKRL1, 7b; SKRL2, 17: slob dpon pa che ba dam chos rgya mtsho pa ni sum pa don grub ces pa dgon
lung ’debs skabs su lan gru mkhar gyi dpon tsung gru las dgon pa’i gzhi’i yig gdan len mkhan de’i bur
’khrungs nas. In the early seventeenth century, the Ming government installed sanbian zongdu 三邊總督
whose jurisdiction covered the Gansu area. For this position see Du Wanyan et al. Zhongguo
zhengzhizhidu tongshi, (Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 1996), vol.9 (Ming period), 214. However, Sum pa
Mkhan po probably uses the term zongdu not as an exact position but just refers to a highest authority in
Lanzhou, i.e., lan gru mkhar gyi dpon. More research is needed for details.
124
horses and other types of wealth.381 The property that Dam chos rgya mtsho used to accomplish
this purpose seems not to have been his personal property; it very likely that he used the wealth
of his father Sum pa Don grub or that of the clan as a whole. When Dam chos rgya mtsho was far
away in Central Tibet and Khams for many years, Sum pa Don grub, or at least the Sum pa clan,
played a key role in establishing Dgon lung by procuring its estate. Later, when he had returned,
they continued their relationship with the monastery by helping to provide its initial population
of monks.
After they had provided the monastery with land and personnel, the Sum pas were
entrusted to create its systems of discipline and curriculum. The founder of Dgon lung monastery,
Rgyal sras Don yod chos kyi rgya mtsho, bestowed authority over the monastery on Sum pa slob
dpon che ba Dam chos rgya mtsho and then moved to Central Tibet. Dam chos rgya mtsho twice
assumed the khri pa position, from 1609 to 1612 (Dgon lung’s first khri pa) and from 1621 to
1627 (Dgon lung’s fourth khri pa). During his tenures, Dam chos rgya mtsho taught guru yoga,
topics on Lam rim, a guide to Tsong kha pa’s Three Principal Aspects of the Path,382 as a result
of which he nurtured many prominent disciples, such as ’Jam pa chos rgya mtsho, Lcang skya I
Grags pa ’od zer (?-1641), and Sum pa Dam chos rgyal mtshan. He also established a salary
system to promote the monks’ studies.383 As his epithet “slob dpon che ba” indicates, he earned
enough of a reputation that when he passed away, his disciples sought his rebirth. However, this
381
SKRL1, 7b; SKRL2, 17-18: rgyal sras rin po ches dgon lung chos sde chen po gsar ’dzin dus su rta
nor gyis bu chung mang po nyos nas grwa rgyun bzhag sogs rog ram gang thub byas.
382
Tib. lam gyi gtso bo rnam gsum gyi ’khrid
383
Thu’u bkwan III, Dgon lung dkar chag, 15a (1988 typeset edition, 29-30). Details of this salary system
are not known.
125
lineage was not maintained under the name of Sum pa for several reasons that will be discussed
in the next part of this chapter.
The comparative epithet slob dpon che ba (“greater master”) implies that there was “slob
dpon chung ba,” a lesser master of Sum pa, too. Dam chos rgya mtsho’s younger brother,384 Dam
chos rgyal mtshan, was the Sum pa slob dpon chung ba. He helped his brother solidify the
foundations of the newly established monastery. Dam chos rgyal mtshan served as the khri pa
from 1633 to 1637 (Dgon lung’s seventh khri pa). He was also known as an instrumental figure
in protecting Xining and Dgon lung against Chinese rebel forces led by Li Zicheng when they
approached the area in 1644.385 Dam chos rgyal mtshan established connections with Te’i thung
monastery and the Se ra lung monastery in Tianzhu County, which were maintained up to Sum
pa Mkhan po’s time.386 Thus, Sum pa slob dpon chung ba Dam chos rgyal mtshan, like his elder
brother, was a significant figure in the early history of Dgon lung monastery.
384
Sum pa Mkhan po explains that Dam chos rgyal mtshan is a “dbon po (nephew)” of Dam chos rgya
mtsho (SKRL1, 7b; SKRL2, 18). However, other accounts refer to him as latter’s “nu bo (younger
brother).” For example, see Thu’u bkwan III, Dgon lung dkar chag, 18a (1988 typeset edition, 36).
Although terms for family relations are often polysemous in different areas of Amdo, this seems Sum pa
Mkhan po’s mistake because he obviously give a term “nu bo” when he calls his younger brother in the
explanation of his own family relations (SKRL1, 10a; SKRL2, 25). The genealogy provided in his own
autobiography (SKRL2, 25, 15-16) also has the relationship of Dam chos rgya tsho and Dam chos rgyal
mtshan as the older and younger brother.
385
In Tibetan, the name of the rebel leader is given “lu’u zi” or “lu’u ci.” A note by the editor of the
Chinese translation of Thu’u bkwan III’s Dgon lung dkar chag explains it as a Tibetan transliteration of
Chinese li zei 李贼 (“Li’s bandits”), but it is highly doubtful (Duo zang et al. You ning si zhi (san zhong)
(Xining: Qinghai renmin chubanshe, 1990), 114, note 141). In Qinghai lishi jiyao [Summary of Qinghai
History], an account of the rebellion in the last years of the Ming dynasty provides details of the situation,
and the rebel leader Lu Wenbin 鲁⽂彬 comes forth. His family name seems more close to “lu’u”
(Qinghai shengzhi bianzuan weiyuanhui, Qinghai li shi ji yao (Xining: Qinghai renmin chubanshe, 1987),
150-51). However, more research is needed to know how Li Zicheng’s rebellion was understood by the
Amdo—especially Tibetan speaking—people.
386
For these two monasteries, see Tianzhu zangzu zizhixian weiyuanhui, Tianzhu zangchuan fojiao
siyuan gaikuang (Tianzhu xian: Zhongguo renmin zhengzhi xieshang huiyi Tianzhu zangzu zizhixian
weiyuanhui, 2000), 25-56 and 165-70. For Sum pa Mkhan po’s relationship with these monasteries, see
the chapter V of this dissertation. A seventeenth-century figure Rong bo Skal ldan rgya mtsho (1607-
126
Since these two bothers played a significant role in the founding and early development
of Dgon lung, titles of “greater” Sum pa and “lesser” Sum pa have remained as vestiges of their
contributions. There have been attempts to connect these two titles to the Sum pa incarnation
lineage of later generations. Han Rulin has suggested that there exist two incarnation lineages for
Sum pa,387 but only the incarnation lineage of the “lesser” Sum pa brother has survived.388
4. The Sum pa Bifurcation
Although there is no indication that the system of incarnate lamas was in full swing in
early seventeenth-century Amdo, there is some evidence that the system did already exist in the
region by that time.389 If the Sum pas may have attempted to use the incarnation system to keep
their influence intact, it seems that they developed their system in a very clumsy way, probably
because the institution was very new to them. It may be that maintaining the power of the
1677) also mentioned activities of these monasteries in a relation to Dgon lung monastery. For this see
Sullivan, “The Mother of All Monasteries,” 47.
387
Han Rulin, “Qinghai Youningsi ji qi mingseng (Zhangjia, Tuguan, Songba),” 409.
388
There is a misunderstanding in an account of Deb ther rgya mtsho regarding Dgon lung’s third khri pa
Bkra shis phun tshogs. Brag dgon pa gives it Sum pa Bkra shis phun tshogs (Brag dgon pa, Deb ther rgya
mtsho, vol.1, folio 69b line 1), but it must be a mistake of “[khri pa] gsum pa (the third abbot)” Bkra shis
phun tshogs. The Chinese translation of Deb ther rgya mtsho follows the mistake and puts it “Songba
Zhaxipengcuo 松巴•扎西朋措” (Wu Jun et al trans. Anduo zhengjiao shi, 62) as if he is one of Sum pa.
However, the third khri pa Bkra shis phun tshogs is not one of the Sum pa clan nor lineage according to
other sources.
389
For the first incarnation in Amdo, see Tuttle “An Overview of Amdo (Northeastern Tibet) Historical
Polities,”
Tibetan
and
Himalayan
Librariy
(2011),
http://places.thlib.org/features/24106/descriptions/1228#ixzz1jsMIHAZH, and Sullivan, “The Mother of
All Monasteries,” 32, note 102. Also see Sullivan’s description of the incarnation system in Bde ba chos
rje’s time, “This suggest that the phenomenon of recognizing the rebirths of lamas was still unfamiliar in
Amdo at this time,” in Sullivan, “The Mother of All Monasteries,” 112.
127
bloodline was not the only motive for attempting to find an incarnation of Sum pa Dam chos
rgya mtsho. Religious and spiritual elements must have played a role as well, given his
attainment of the status of master in Chab mdo and his contribution to the scholarly foundations
of Dgon lung’s early history. Such secular and religious motives must have mingled in a
complex fashion as his retinue searched for his incarnation.
The attempt to create an incarnation lineage for Dam chos rgya mtsho seems to have
developed along an unintended path and only survived as a vestige in later generations of the
Sum pas. Sum pa Mkhan po emphasized the meaning of Dam chos rgya mtsho’s being an
incarnate lama:
Specifically, everyone knows that khri chen Lā mo ba Blo gros rgya mtsho
himself, who was the next incarnation of the one known as Sum pa slob dpon che
ba [Dam chos rgya mtsho], was prophesized to be one who would appear as a dga’
ldan khri pa, an emanation of Tsong kha pa himself, [as recorded] in the Book of
Tsong kha pa’s Emanations. The former Lcang skya also said so. This khri chen
sprul sku (i.e., khri chen Lā mo ba, a.k.a. Galdan Siregetü qutuγtu) also admitted
it, and when the Manjuśri Great Emperor (i.e., Kangxi) asked him his life lineage
he answered like that. [Thus] the lineage of Sum pa lamas is known to be
blessed.390
It is noteworthy that khri chen Lā mo ba Blo gros rgya mtsho was identified as the next
incarnation of Sum pa Dam chos rgya mtsho. Khri chen Lā mo ba Blo gros rgya mtsho was the
forty-fourth holder of the position of Dga’ ldan khri pa, the most prestigious position in the
whole Dge lug pa hierarchy. Born in Ra lding, Amdo, he spent some time in Mongolia during his
childhood. After traveling to Central Tibet for his education, he became an accomplished scholar,
ultimately ascending to the Dga’ ldan khri pa position in 1682. When conflict broke out between
390
SKRL1, 7a; SKRL2, 17: khyad par du dus phyis sum pa slob dpon pa che bar grags pa’i sku tshe rjes
ma khri chen lā mo ba blo gros rgya mtsho gang de ni rje blo bzang grags pa’i sprul ba’i glegs bam du
rje rang gi rnam ’phrul dga’ ldan khri pa zhig ’byon par lung bstan pa de yin zhes kun la grags shing
lcang skya rin po che gong mas kyang gsungs pa dang / khri chen sprul sku ’di pas kyang zhal gyis bzhes
te ’jam dbyangs gong ma chen pos khong gi skye ’phreng dris skabs su’ang de bzhin zhus pa’i sum pa’i
bla ma rnams kyi gdung brgyud la byin rlabs can du grags/
128
Oirat and Khalkha in 1686, he was dispatched by the Dga’ ldan pho brang government to
reconcile them. After that, he visited Beijing at the invitation of the Kangxi emperor. On his way
back to Tibet, Blo gros rgya mtsho passed away somewhere in Amdo. He was also known by the
title Galdan Siregetü qutuγtu.391 The suggestion that Sum pa Dam chos rgya mtsho had been the
preceding incarnation of this prominent figure was only partially successful, as indicated in this
passage from an eighteenth-century record of the Galdan Siregetü qutuγtus authored by the
Seventh Dalai Lama:
It has been said that he was then born in the area of Dgon lung in Mdo smad as
Sum pa Dam chos rgya mtsho, a realized master who would nourish the
Teachings and beings in that area. But since I have neither seen nor heard the
story of his full biography, I am unable to write such here.392
This statement indicates that Sum pa Dam chos rgya mtsho was once placed in the line of
incarnations that eighteenth-century figures like Sum pa Mkhan po or Dalai Lama VII Bskal
bzang rgya mtsho (1708-1757) knew as Galdan Siregetü qutuγtu, but his place in that lineage did
not go unquestioned. Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma (1737-1802) also wrote, “It is
391
For more about Galdan Siregetü qutuγtu and his lineage, see Dalai Lama VII Skal bzang rgya mtsho,
Khri chen sprul sku blo bzang bstan pa’i nyi ma dpal bzang po’i rnam par thar pa dpyod ldan yid dbang
’gugs pa’i pho nya (hereafter Dpyod ldan yid dbang ’gugs pa’i pho nya), in Gsung ’bum, vol.10, 328-430;
Wakamatsu Hiroshi, “Galdaln Siregetu Qutugtu kou [A Study of the Galdan siregetü qutuγtu],” Toyoshi
Kenkyu 33.2 (1974): 1-33; Skal bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan, La mo gser khri hu thog thu’i sku phreng gi
lo rgyus dang a chung gnam rdzong gi lo rgyus bcas ([Xining?]: Srid gros mtsho sngon zhing chen rma
kho bod rigs rang skyong khul u yon lhan khang, 1990); Sangs rgyas rin chen, “Lā mo bde chen dgon pa’i
sku phyags gser khri rin po che’i sku phreng rim byon gyi lo rgyus mdo bsdus ngo sprod zhu ba,” Mdo
smad zhib ’jug 7 (1991.1): 108-118; and Zla ba tshe ring, La mo bde chen chos ’khor gling gi lo rgyus
(Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2014), 61-78.
392
Dalai Lama VII, Dpyod ldan yid dbang 'gugs pa'i pho nya, 3b-4a: de nas mdo smad dgon lung phyogs
su sum pa dam chos rgya mtsho zhes phyogs de'i bstan 'gro'i gsos su gyur pa'i mkhas grub zhig tu
'khrungs 'dug na'ang rnam thar rgyas pa'i gtam mthong thos su ma gyur pas 'dir 'dri ba'i rngo ma thogs/
Dalai Lama VII mentioned that his main source for Ngag dbang blo gros rgya mtsho’s biography is one
included in ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’s ’Jigs byed chos ’byung (Ibid., 17b). However, there is no mention of
Sum pa as Ngag dbang blo gros rgya mtsho’s former incarnation in his biography from’Jigs byed chos
’byung. For Ngag dbang blo gros rgya mtsho’s biography by ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa, see ’Jam dbyangs
bzhad pa, ’Jigs byed chos ’byung (Lhasa: Xizang zangwen guji chubanshe, 2013), 579-605 (in vol.2).
129
widely known that his [Sum pa’s] subsequent incarnation was none other than La mo khri chen
Blo gros rgya mtsho. Yet despite that being widely known, [he] isn’t included in Khri sprul sku
blo bzang bstan pa’i nyi ma’i ’khrungs rabs gsol ’debs composed by Paṇ chen rin po che.”393 The
belief that Sum pa’s subsequent incarnation was khri chen was still in circulation in the midnineteenth century. It is mentioned briefly in this passage from Brag dgon pa’s Deb ther rgya
mtsho: “It is known that the subsequent incarnation in the line was khri chen [Ngag dbang] blo
gros rgya mtsho.”394
However, in more recent sources, there is an increased certainty of his place in the
Galdan Siregetü qutuγtu lineage, rather than in Sum pa’s own lineage. Gser tog Blo bzang tshul
khrims rgya mtsho gives a description of the “Dga’ ldan gser khri” lineage when providing an
account of the sixty-seventh abbot of Sku ‘bum monastery, Blo bzang thub bstan rgya mtsho
(1847-1902), who was one of Galdan Siregetü qutuγtu.395 In this account, the Galdan Siregetü
qutuγtu lineage is reformed and Sum pa Dam chos rgya mtsho is described as a member of that
line. More recently, the fifth Shing bza Skal bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan provided the most
detailed account of the Galdan Siregetü qutuγtu lineage.396 As Shing bza’s account indicates,
Sum pa Dam chos rgya mtso has now been firmly absorbed into the Galdan Siregetü qutuγtu
393
Thu’u bkwan III, Dgon lung dkar chag, f. 15a: /sku’i skye ba phyi ma la mo khri chen blo gros rgya
mtsho zhes grags pa de nyid yin par grags che yang / dus phyis paṇ chen rin po ches mdzad pa’i khri
sprul sku blo bzang bstan pa’i nyi ma’i ’khrungs rabs gsol ’debs su ma thebs. I have been unable to locate
this work by Paṇ chen. Was Thu’u bkwan confused with a work by the seventh Dalai Lama?
394
Brag dgon pa, Deb ther rgya mtsho, vol. 1, f. 69a: sku ’phreng phyi ma khri chen blo gros rgya mtsho
yin par grags/
395
Gser tog Blo bzang tshul khrims rgya mtsho, Sku ’bum gdan rabs (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe
skrun khang, 1982), 170-182.
396
Skal bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan, La mo gser khri hu thog thu’i sku phreng gi lo rgyus dang a chung
gnam rdzong gi lo rgyus bcas ([Xining?]: Srid gros mtsho sngon zhing chen rma kho bod rigs rang
skyong khul u yon lhan khang, 1990).
130
lineage. He also gives Dam chos rgya mtsho’s death year as 1634 CE, a piece of information that
is not found in any other source. This information seems to have been added in an attempt to
more smoothly integrate him into the line of Galdan Siregetü qutuγtu incarnations. Another
biographical account of successive Galdan Siregetü qutuγtus by Sangs rgyas rin chen also places
Sum pa Dam chos rgya mtsho as a fixed figure in the earlier line of Galdan Siregetü qutuγtus.397
Despite these developments, the idea of forming a “greater” Sum pa lineage has not lost
its vitality on the Sum pa’s side. Per Nyi ma ’dzin, in his account of the Sum pa lineage, suggests
that Lā mo khri chen Ngag dbang blo gros rgya tsho was a lineage holder. According to him, the
Sum pa lineage is unilinear, with Sum pa Dam chos rgya mtsho being the first incarnation, Ngag
dbang blo gros rgya mtsho the second, and Sum pa Mkhan po the third.398 It is patently obvious
that the author fabricated the lineage and has ignored the complexity that existed in the early
history of the Sum pa lineage. He also disregards the existence of “greater” and “lessor” Sum pas,
substituting a unilinear incarnation lineage in their place.
397
Sangs rgyas rin chen. “Lā mo bde chen dgon pa’i sku phyags gser khri rin po che’i sku phreng rim
byon gyi lo rgyus mdo bsdus ngo sprod zhu ba.” Mdo smas zhib ‘jug 7 (1991.1): 108-118. Appendix to
Youningsizhi gives Dam chos rgya mtsho’s death year as 1651 with no source mentioned. Schram
describes Dam chos rgya mtsho’s monastery-building activity in 1651, but it is misreading of Han Rulin.
This mistake is repeated in Klaus Sagaster, Subud Erike: ein Rosenkranz aus Perlen ; die Biographie des
1. Pekinger lCaṅ skya Khutukhtu Ṅag dbaṅ blo bzaṅ č’os ldan (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967), 106,
note 173.
398
Per Nyi ma ‘dzin, Dgon lung gdan rabs, 81-88.
131
Kun dga' don grub
Stag lung grags pa 'Jam dbyangs blo gros
Sum pa Dam chos rgya mtsho
Ngag dbang blo gros rgya mtsho (1635-1688)
Blo bzang bstan pa'i nyi ma (1689-1762)
'Jam dbyangs bstan 'dzin 'phrin las rgya mtsho (1763-1772)
Ngag dbang thub stan 'phrin las rgya mtsho (1773-1815)
Ngag dbang thub sstan bstan pa'i nyi ma (1816-1846)
Blo bzang thub bstan rgya mtsho (1847-1902)
Dge 'dun lung rtogs nyi ma (1904-1932)
Blo bzang bstan pa'i rgyal mtshan (1933-1960)
Chos kyi blo gros rgya mtsho (1969-)
Figure 10. Lineage of Galdan Siregetü qutuγtus, based on Gser tog Blo bzang tshul khrims rgya
mtsho, Sku ’bum gdan rabs [Succession of Abbots of Kumbum monastery] (Xining: Mtsho
sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1982), 170-82; and Zla ba tshe ring, La mo bde chen chos ’khor
gling gi lo rgyus [A History of Lāmo dechen chökhorling monastery] (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun
khang, 2014), 78.
The reality of the lineage is complex because in the beginning the Sum pas held local
power based on their property and kinship relations. Their local power also had some connection
with Chinese authority. At some point, a son of this family was sent to Central Tibet to increase
his prestige through education. When he returned to his hometown, the stage for his activities
had been prepared. His achievements led to the development of an incarnation lineage with
respect to him, but the line was unstable and absorbed by a more powerful monastic institution.
Thus, the “greater” Sum pa is now lost to us. However, another Sum pa incarnation lineage
managed to overcome these obstacles by looking outside. This new version of the Sum pa
132
incarnation lineage identified Sum pa Mkhan po as its new Sum pa. We will now examine the
details of this new chapter in the Sum pa lineage.
Sum pa don grub
Dam chos rgya mtsho
Dam chos rgyal mtshan
[Galdan Siregetü
qutuγtu]
Sum pa zhabs drung blo bzang
bstan pa'i rgyal mtshan
Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal
'byor (1704-1788)
Sum pa 'Jam dpal tshul khrims
bstan 'dzin (1802-1852)
Sum pa Blo gros phun tshogs
rnam rgyal (1854-1922)
Sum pa Blo bzang dpal ldan
bstan pa'i nyi ma (1923-2006)
Sum pa Blo bzang ye shes bstan
'dzin rgya mtsho (2007-)
Figure 11. Lineage of Sum pa incarnation
5. Identification of Ye shes dpal ’byor as a Sum pa incarnation
While the greater Sum pa, slob dpon che ba, was absorbed into the more powerful
Galdan Siregetü qutuγtus’ lineage, the lesser Sum pa lineage has survived. The path that this line
of incarnations has taken shows its own distinctive development that illuminates the functions
and mechanism of the incarnation institution in eighteenth-century Amdo. We begin our
133
examination of the details of how this lineage developed and has survived with the second lesser
Sum pa, Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan.
Little is known about how Sum pa zhabs drung Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan was
chosen as the incarnation of Sum pa slob dpon chung ba. According to Sum pa Mkhan po, he
was born in Shing ru, a part of the Dgon lung monastic estate. He went to Central Tibet (bod)
where he attended Smon lam grwa skor.399 His activities in Central Tibet are attested by Lā mo
dge bshes Ngag dbang ’phrin las, who spent some time with Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan
in Central Tibet. Ngag dbang ‘phrin las was later called in to test the young Sum pa Mkhan po
because of that experience.400 Sum pa Mkhan po claims that Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan
was the first Smon lam rab ’byams pa to have come from Dgon lung or its affiliated
monasteries.401 After his return, Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan only wanted to live as a
hermit.402 It seems that he also possessed some property, but was not distracted by it, as
Nāgārjuna had warned against.403 Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan probably did not spend
much time as a hermit because he became a leading figure in the retinue of Lcang skya II Ngag
399
About this Smon lam grwa skor, see note 191 in Chapter II.
400
SKRL1, 13a; SKRL2, 32.
401
There is a different opinion on who the first rab ’byams pa in Dgon lung was. Sullivan, quoting Per
Nyi ma ’dzin’s account (Per Nyi ma ’dzin, Dgon lung gdan rabs, 137-139), claims that ’Dan ma Tshul
khrims rgya mtsho was the first Dgon lung figure who earned the rab ’byams pa title. For this see
Sullivan, “The Mother of All Monasteries,” 120.
402
SKRL1, 8a; SKRL2, 19.
403
Prajñādaṇḍa: nor dang rig pa rnyed gyur na/ /'gro ba kun la rtsa snyam sems/ /pags pa sngon po'i
wa bzhin no/ It is a part of the 44th stanza from Prajñādaṇḍa by Nāgārjuna. For this see Michael Hahn
“Cry for Help: The Unidentified Stanzas of Nāgārjuna's Prajñādaṇḍa,” Archiv Orientální, Quarterly
Journal of African and Asian Studies 71 (2003): 524. Sum pa Mkhan po slightly modified the first line
from “ram” to “dang”, which makes it a warning for possessing both wealth and knowledge.
134
dbang blo bzang chos ldan (1642-1714) when the latter traveled to Beijing in 1693.404 His title
zhabs drung (which Sum pa Mkhan po inherited for a time) was probably awarded to him for his
service to Lcang skya.405 He was likely a close servant to Lcang skya because he traveled to
Donolor and Beijing with him again in 1701. On that trip, Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan fell
ill when Lcang skya’s company arrived in Beijing from Dolonor, and passed away there in 1702.
We can be sure that Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan was quite important to Lcang skya,
because the account of his death is preserved in verse in a long section of Lcang skya’s
biography:
On behalf of Sum bha (sic.) zhabs drung, who had fallen ill with a serious
sickness, I made donations to more than a thousand saṃgha who received their
salaries in Beijing, performed a healing rite, and provided whatever medical care
was available. Nevertheless, I was struck with immense grief because, as if it
were inevitable, he passed into nirvāṇa.406
It took some time to begin the process of finding a new Sum pa. In 1710, when a
consecration ceremony was held for a newly built assembly hall at Dgon lung, Lcang skya II
publicly raised the issue. Interestingly enough, instead of initiating the search himself, Lcang
skya entrusted the task to ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa I Ngag dbang brtson ’grus (1648-1722). When
’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa visited Dgon lung monastery, Lcang skya told him, “[My] friend Sum pa
zhabs drung Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan, who escorted me to China and was a virtuous
404
Schram, “The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Border: Part II,” 29; Sagaster, Subud Erike, 106.
405
The literal meaning of “zhabs drung” is “at the feet of.” Generally it refers to a servant of a great lama.
For this see Zhang Yisun et al., Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo, 2375. When Sum pa Mkhan po arrived in
Central Tibet, he was still called “Sum pa zhabs drung.” For this see SKRL1, 38a; SKRL2, 98.
406
Lcang skya II, Rje btsun bla ma ngag dbang blo bzang chos ldan dpal bzang po’i rnam thar dad pa’i
rol mtsho, in Gsung ’bum. vol. 5 (ca) (Lhasa: Zhol par khang chen mo, [1713]), 27b-28a (also Lcang skya
II, Rnam thar bka’ rtsom, in Gsung ’bum. vol. 2 (kha) (Beijing: s.n., [1713]), 24b-25a): /sum bha zhabs
drung bsnyun bab lci ba yis/ /bsnyung bar pe’i cing nang gi phog bzhes pa’i/ /dge ’dun stong phrag
lhag la yon phul ste/ /sku rim bsgrub cing sman gyi ’phrod rten yang / /gang mang byas kyang dus
bab lta bu yis/ /zhi bar gshegs pas sems khral chen po byung/
135
friend in the spirit of the Kadam passed away. May you find an incarnation of him.”’ Jam
dbyangs bzhad pa delightedly accepted the task.407
Some accounts about Sum pa Mkhan po explain that this ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa was the
person who led the identification of Sum pa Mkhan po as the Sum pa incarnate.408 In a very
broad sense this is correct. However, a detailed analysis of the situation reveals that frictions and
rivalry existed during the identification process. This becomes clearer when we realize that ’Jam
dbyangs bzhad pa was not the only figure who was involved in identifying Sum pa Mkhan po,
nor was he the only person trying to find Sum pa’s incarnation. An attendant of the former Sum
pa, whose name was Sum pa chos rje Phun tshogs rnam rgyal (?-1740), began a parallel search
for the incarnation. Phun tshogs rnam rgyal was a kitchen servant (thab g.yog) for Blo bzang
bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan and bore the academic title of Ngam ring rab ’byams pa.409 He even
traveled to Central Tibet to perform a funeral ritual for the deceased Sum pa and made a
supplication to Paṇ chen V Blo bzang ye shes (1663–1737) to facilitate Sum pa’s quick return.410
Sum pa chos rje Phun tshogs rnam rgyal was born in Sum pa village and went to Ngam
ring to attain his rab ’byams pa title when he was seventeen. He was also a participant in other
407
SKRL1, 12a; SKRL2, 29: ngas rgya nag tu khrid pa’i grogs po sum pa zhabs drung blo bzang bstan
pa’i rgyal mtshan zhes pa bka’ gdams pa’i dge ba’i bshes gnyen zhig yod pa ’das pas/
de’i sprul sku
khyod rang gis tshol/ The fact of ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’s visit to Dgon lung in 1710 is seen in his
biography too, but no mention of Sum pa is found in it. For this see Dkon mchog ʼjigs med dbang po, Kun
mkhyen ʼJam dbyangs bzhad paʼi rnam thar (Lanzhou: Kan suʼu mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1987), 171172.
408
For example, authors of Gangs can mkhas grub rim byon ming mdzod explain that Sum pa Mkhan po
was indentified as a reincarnation of Sum pa zhabs drung Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan by ’Jam
dbyangs bzhad pa when he was three years old. The year of his identification is obviously erroneous. For
this see Ko zhul Grags pa ’byung gnas et al., Gangs can mkhas grub rim byon ming mdzod (Lanzhou:
Gansu minzu chubanshe, 1992), 1767.
409
An interlinear note in SKRL1, 8b (SKRL2, 20) says that there was no ’Bras spungs Rab ‘byams pa
title at that time.
410
SKRL1, 8b; SKRL2, 20.
136
important moments in Dgon lung’s history. During the incident with Blo bzang bstan ’dzin in
1723, he was among three chos rjes who tried to dissuade Dgon lung monks from joining Blo
bzang bstan ’dzin’s troops.411 No matter how vehemently he warned them against it—he even
asked a dharma-protector through a medium about it—he could not dissuade the community, so
Phun tshog rnam rgyal gathered the remaining monks at Byang chub gling 412 to avoid
participation in the battle. Thanks to his role in these events, he became the first khri pa of Dgon
lung after it was re-established in 1729.
What does the title “chos rje” mean? Its literal meaning is “dharma lord,” 413 but
according to Gser tog Blo bzang tshul khrims rgya mtsho, it was a title bestowed by the Dalai or
Paṇ chen Lamas, as in the case of “mkhan po.”414 No matter how much this early twenty-century
understanding of the title “chos rje” is applicable to the early eighteenth century title, it seems
obvious that Sum pa chos rje Phun tshogs rnam rgyal was one of the Sum pas who had localized
power and had a very similar background to the two Sum pa brothers. This Sum pa chos rje also
became an incarnation lineage. It seems likely that he lived at a time when people formed as
many incarnation lineages as possible, so long as candidates had academic training and were
politically active.
According to Sum pa Mkhan po, Phun tshogs rnam rgyal was not happy with others’
attempt to identify Sum pa Mkhan po as the incarnation of Sum pa zhabs drung. He believed that
411
Passages from the longer autobiography (SKRL1, 36b; SKRL2, 93-94) are ambiguous about this
event, but it is clear in the shorter autobiography (SKRS1, 8a; SKRS2, 29-30).
412
For Byang chub gling, see note 196 in Chapter II.
413
Zhang Yisun et al., Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo, 836.
414
Blo bzang tshul khrims rgya mtsho, Sku ’bum gdan rabs, 244: mkhan po dang chos rje’i bka’ shog
rgyal ba paṇ chen rnam gnyis nas gnang rgyu’i go sa yin/
137
another child, born in Shing ru, the same town where the former Sum pa zhabs drung was born,
was the incarnation. He even made a prophecy inquiry (lung zhu ba) regarding this boy in
Central Tibet and seems to have received a positive answer. He may have been looking to
identify an incarnation in the prior incarnations village to preserve local authority. When he
informed ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa of his work, ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa blocked his inquiry,
declaring, “Given that other than that the prophecy simply conforms to the petitioner, there isn’t
much certainty [in this method], we will only be certain when he unerringly recognizes the
prayer beads, water bottle, three supports, and such, of his own prior incarnation.”415
We do not know why ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa blocked Sum pa chos rje’s attempt. In any
case, ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa instead entrusted this task to a descendant of Gushri khan, Erdeni
taiji Tshang ba skyabs.416 Then Tshang ba skyabs dispatched messengers to many places and
finally Sum pa Mkhan po’s parents informed one of them that their seven-year-old son was
showing monk’s habits.417 ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa might have wanted to thwart the continuation
of Sum pa’s local authority in this matter, instead relying on his own patrons of the Qoshud
Mongols.
415
SKRL1, 12a; SKRL2, 30: lung bstan ni zhu ba por bstun tsam las nges pa cher med pas rang gi sngon
ma’i phreng ba chab ril rten gsum sogs ma nor bar shes na nges/
416
Erdeni taiji Tshang ba skyabs was a grandson of Gu shri khan’s sixth son, Rdo rje dalai hungtaiji. For
this see the Gu shri khan’s genealogical table in Sum pa Mkhan po, ’Phags yul rgya nag chen po bod
dang sog yul du dam pa’i chos byung tshul dpag bsam ljon bzang, in Gsung ’bum, vol. 1 (ka), 310b.
According to Oyunbilig, “the area of Toli (i.e., Sum pa Mkhan po’s birthplace) was under the jurisdiction
of Gu shri khans sixth son.” For this see Oyunbilig Borjigidai, “The Hoshuud Polity in Khökhnuur
(Kokonor),” Inner Asia 4, no. 2, (2002): 184. However, more research is needed for details of how this
Gu shri khan’s descendant was connected both to Sum pa Mkhan po’s family and ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa.
417
SKRL1, 12b; SKRL2, 30.
138
But the story does not end there. The identification process unfolded in a way that did not
match ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’s intentions either. People from Lā mo bde chen monastery418 got
involved in the search for the incarnation. The most important person in that process that Sum pa
Mkhan po mentions was Lā mo dge bshes Ngag dbang ’phrin las.419 He was the person who had
spent time with the former Sum pa and was called in to test Sum pa Mkhan po. According to
Sum pa Mkhan po, during his time in Central Tibet, this Lā mo dge bshes was so learned that
“no great dge shes from Se ra, ’Bras spungs, Dge ldan, or the Upper or Lower Tantric schools
was a match for him in debate.”420 An interesting anecdote about Lā mo dge shes from Sum pa
Mkhan po’s autobiography is that he defeated ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’s follower, dge shes Ngag
dbang bkra shis, when they had a debate at Lā mo bde chen monastery. He also immediately and
directly contradicted ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa when he held a disputation based on his own
textbook. Sum pa Mkhan po heard this story from Galdan Siregetü qutuγtu Blo bzang bstan pa’i
nyi ma and Lā mo dge shes Ngag dbang ’phrin las in person when he visited them later.421 At
that time, Lā mo bde chen monastery was an emerging monastic power in the middle of the
Amdo region with its thirty years’ history. It seems that Lā mo bde chen was competing with
people who were subordinate to ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa who later formed a more powerful
religious center called Bla brang bkra shis ’khyil monastery. It is difficult to know details of
418
Lā mo bde chen monastery was established by the third Zhabs drung dkar po III Ngag dbang blo bzang
bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan (1660-1728) in 1682. For this see Rongzeng Kezhjiacuo, “Libei lamou cahan
nuomenhan hutukehu (xiarong kabu) zhuanlüe” [Brief biographies of successive Lā mo Čagan Nomunhan
qutuγtus (zhabs drung dkar po)], Xizang yanjiu (1994.1): 90.
419
This is the first A mdo zhwa dmar, an important incarnation lineage in the A mdo area especially for
Lā mo bde chen and its sub-monasteries.
420
SKRL1, 14a; SKRL2, 34: de la ser ’bras dge ldan pa dang rgyud pa ra pa stod smad kyi dge bshes
che bas sus rtsod kyang mi thub.
421
SKRL1, 14a; SKRL2, 35.
139
which points the Lā mo dge shes opposed in ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’s text book (yig cha)
without further sources. However, we know that the atmosphere of this confrontation had a
lingering effect on Sum pa Mkhan po’s later life. He kept on good terms with Lā mo bde chen
monastery, but he never visited Bla brang bkra shis ’khyil nor did he maintain a close
relationship with lamas there during his lifetime.422
422
In a later time Sum pa Mkhan po even became a lecturer (dam bca’ bzhag pa, which means “expresser
of thesis”) at Lā mo bde chen monastery by staying there more than two months. For this and his other
activities at Lā mo bde chen, see SKRL1, 66a-66b; SKRL2, 170-172; Between Dgon lung and Bla brang,
the fraught relationship seems not only of Sum pa Mkhan po’s personal matter, but also of an intermonastery issue. In 1763, the second ʼJam dbyangs bzhad pa Dkon mchog ʼjigs med dbang po was
appointed as Dgon lung’s thirty-seventh khri pa. However, after appointing two incompetent
disciplinarians (dge bskos), Dkon mchog ʼjigs med dbang po left for Bla brang and did not visited Dgon
lung for one whole year. Worrying that Dkon mchog ʼjigs med dbang po’s absence would disgrace the
monastery, Sum pa Mkhan po acted as a de facto khri pa for that period (SKRL1, 137a; SKRL2, 354)).
Later, Sum pa Mkhan po made Dkon mchog ʼjigs med dbang po to resign the position (SKRL1, 137b;
SKRL2, 358)). In this way, ʼJam dbyangs bzhad pa’s appointment to Dgon lung khri pa was harmful,
rather than beneficial, for the relationship between two monasteries.
140
Figure 12. A scene of the main entrance to the assembly hall of Lā mo bde chen monastery,
where Galdan Siregetü qutuγtus’ main villa is located, in Gtsan tsha County of Rma lho Tibetan
Autonomous Prefecture, Qinghai, China. Photo taken by Hanung Kim in August 2016.
Thus, the boy sent by Erdeni taiji Tshang ba skyabs was confirmed at Lā mo bde chen.
Lā mo dge shes Ngag dbang ’phrin las was the key figure in confirming Sum pa Mkhan po as a
Sum pa incarnation. However, rather than finalizing the incarnation discovery process, ’Jam
dbyangs bzhad pa sent Sum pa Mkhan po to Thar shul I Chos skyong rgya mtsho under the
pretext of continuing his education. It seems that the boy was also sent to Thar shul to verify his
identity as the incarnation of the lama through an examination of his character. It is interesting
that Galdan Siregetü qutuγtu Blo bzang bstan pa’i nyi ma made the final notification to the Sum
pa residence in Dgon lung monastery after Thar shul confirmed the final decision.
However, the monastery did not accept that Thar shul and Galdan Siregetü qutuγtu had
the authority to confirm that the boy was the incarnate lama. After receiving Galdan Siregetü
141
qutuγtu’s notification, Sum pa chos rje dispatched a dge slong Blo bzang rab brtan to the family
of Sum pa Mkhan po. They made a final confirmation of the child’s identity by having him
identify the former Sum pa’s old books. The identification was successful and the dge slong
brought the news to Dgon lung. Dgon lung arranged an escort company for Sum pa Mkhan po’s
family, but a female chieftain of the tribe refused to cooperate, saying, “’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa
told us that [this child] should be brought to [Dgon lung] next year.” Instead of Dgon lung’s
company, the escort was led by the female chieftain, and Sum pa Mkhan po finally arrived at the
Sum pa residence on the eighth day of the third month in the water-dragon year (approx. 1712), a
date that had been specified by ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa himself.423
Even though Dgon lung and the Sum pas took the initiative to find a new Sum pa, the
process was seized by non-Dgon lung powers once the process began. The non-Dgon lung
powers that interfered with the identification were the newly built monasteries and Oirat
Mongolian communities. Dgon lung was already an old powerhouse whose authority was based
on their local power and groups of clan communities. Although they had tried to adjust their
method of transmission of power by adopting the incarnation lineage, the lineage itself was soon
absorbed by more well-organized groups whose connections were more far-reaching. Sum pa
Mkhan po’s identification process shows the complex nexus of monastic and secular powers in
early eighteenth-century Amdo. As the Sum pa lineage was removed from the auspices of local
authorities, monastic powers who were strongly connected to Oirat Mongols vied with one
another to control it. The changes in authority over the lineage can be seen in Sum pa Mkhan
po’s later life, too, upon close examination.
423
SKRL1, 16b & 18a-18b; SKRL2, 41 & 45-47.
142
6. Old and New Sum pa Coexistence
Although the selection process of a new Sum pa was largely controlled by forces outside
of Dgon lung, Sum pa Mkhan po could not escape the Sum pas’ meddling in the course of his
life once he arrived at the Sum pa residence in Dgon lung monastery. The term “khu dbon”
appears frequently in Sum pa Mkhan po’s accounts. It means “uncle and nephew,” and generally
refers to a familial bond.424 But Sum pa Mkhan po uses the term to refer to a group of people
who were part of the Sum pas both in bloodline and incarnation lineage. The use of this term
may indicate that the Sum pas had adopted the uncle-nephew hereditary system. In any case,
Sum pa Mkhan po’s relationship with this Sum pa khu dbon helps us to understand the complex
dynamics inside the Sum pa bla brang.
In 1722, when Dgon lung was about to send an envoy to Rgyal sras ’Jigs med ye shes
grags pa (1696-1750) in Central Tibet, Sum pa Mkhan po asked Sum pa chos rje “khu dbon” for
permission to go along. They did not grant him permission.425 Sum pa Mkhan po persistently
tried to get permission, even presenting positive evidence gained by requesting a dharma
protector through a medium for a divination, until he was finally allowed to go. In 1723, when
Sum pa Mkhan po was about to leave for Central Tibet, he overheard some Sum pa dbon pos
(“nephews”) and other bad company talking behind his back. They said, “When these two, our
zhabs drung and Sum pa Blo bzang phun tshogs, arrive in Dbus, this dbon po will correct this
untamed zhabs drung who does not practice good qualities.” Sum pa Mkhan po described how
424
Zhang Yisun et al., Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo, 231.
425
SKRL1, 29b; SKRL2, 75.
143
hearing other monks describe him in that way was like a dagger in his heart, but the incident
provided him good motivation to study.426
Two things are noteworthy about this anecdote. First, there existed in Dgon lung
monastery a group of people who shared the name “Sum pa” and who were described as
“uncle(s) and nephews”. We do not know if the term for uncle is singular or plural, but we do
know that Sum pa chos rje was called “uncle” (khu) and was the person in charge of everything
related to the Sum pa group. An equally important fact is that there were a number of Sum pa
“nephews” (dbon) in Dgon lung monastery. Second, Sum pa Mkhan po was not sent to Central
Tibet as an individual person, but as part of a “Sum pa” group. Sum pa Blo bzang phun tshogs
went along as a guide for Sum pa Mkhan po, and Sum pa rab ’byams pa Phun tshogs don grub
was to be one of his kitchen servants. Eventually, this Phun tshogs don grub became an
obstruction, rather than a servant, causing Sum pa Mkhan po to lose the opportunity to attend
Rgyud smad College (rgyud smad grwa tshang). Unable to tolerate the man any longer, Sum pa
Mkhan po forced him to return to Dgon lung by giving him his own possessions.427 When Sum
pa Mkhan po returned to Dgon lung monastery, Phun tshogs don grub again became a mischiefmaker, causing later hostility between Sum pa Mkhan po and the Sum pa “uncles and
nephews.”428 These are all signs that there was discord between Sum pa Mkhan po and the
preexisting Sum pa faction.
426
SKRL1, 30a; SKRL2, 76.
427
This was not simply a one-time setback, but had a lingering effect on Sum pa Mkhan po’s later career.
Thu’u bkwan II once recommended Sum pa Mkhan po as an abbot of the Tantric College at Dgon lung,
but elders of the monastery opposed the idea for the reason that Sum pa Mkhan po had never attended a
Tantric college. For this Sum pa Mkhan po blames the “kitchen servant” (thab g.yog pa) Phun tshogs don
grub. For this, see SKRL1, 102a; SKRL2, 267-268; Sullivan, “The Mother of All Monasteries,” 355.
428
SKRL1, 43a; SKRL2, 111-12.
144
Something about Sum pa Mkhan po’s relationship with Sum pa chos rje can be gleaned
from Sum pa Mkhan po’s reaction to the passing of Sum pa chos rje after a long illness in 1740.
Even though Sum pa Mkhan po took care of the chos rje for more than twenty days, he attributed
chos rje’s misfortune to the harm chos rje had done to him earlier in his life. Sum pa Mkhan po
even quoted a stanza from Bodhicaryāvatāra to indicate his mixed feelings about losing the chos
rje:
Those who will falsely accuse me,
and others who will do me harm,
and others still who will degrade me,
may they all share in Awakening.429
In any case, Sum pa Mkhan po led the funeral ceremony with abundant offerings and erected a
stūpa to house chos rje’s relics.430
It seems that the Sum pa faction had a strained relationship with Sum pa Mkhan po even
after Sum pa chos rje’s death. In 1741 there were many Buddhist services for Sum pa Mkhan po
including the reinstallation of the Maitreya statue and its temple. Sum pa Mkhan po composed a
dkar chag for the celebration.431 However, Sum pa Mkhan po also lamented that there were some
people who “Do harm, like repaying great religious or material benefits given them with
poisonous food in a feast,” and that the “khu dbon” were the main group of this kind of wicked
429
SKRL1, 95b; SKRL2, 249 (Bodhicaryāvatāra, III: 16): /gang dag bdag la kha zer ram/
/gzhan
dag gcod pa byed pa’am/
/de bzhin phyar ka gtong yang rung /
/thams cad byang chub skal
ldan gyur/ This is the 16th stanza of the chapter III from Bodhicaryāvatāra by Ś探ntideva. I follow an
English translation of Kate Crosby et al., trans., The Bodhicaryāvatāra (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1995), 21.
430
SKRL1, 95b-96a; SKRL2, 249-250.
431
This dkar chag is in SKRL1, 97a-97b; SKRL2, 252-254. For another details of the Maitreya statue, see
Thu’u bkwan III, Dgon lung dkar chag, 62b-63a (1988 typeset edition, 135-136). About Sum pa Mkhan
po’s positive evaluation of the iron-bird year (i.e., approx. 1741 CE), see SKRL1, 99a; SKRL2, 258.
145
people.432 These themes were mentioned again in 1749 when Lcang skya praised Sum pa Mkhan
po’s tenure as a Dgon lung’s khri pa.433 No matter how mean they were to him, Sum pa Mkhan
po did not retaliate against his enemies, at least according to his own accounts.
It is interesting that Sum pa chos rje began to be succeeded through his own incarnation
lineage. What was the prerequisite for the search being conducted in that way? Sum pa Mkhan
po doesn’t provide any details, other than to say that he began the search for Sum pa chos rje’s
incarnation in 1746. No permission or agreement from any higher authority are mentioned. It is
likely that Sum pa Mkhan po did not have strong support for his search from the “big lamas up
and down or protector-possessed mediums”. He depended on his own dreams to make the
eventually choosing Blo bzang dbang rgyal, the son of a Li kya chieftain from one of Dgon
lung’s monastic estates. Sum pa Mkhan po invited the boy to Dgon lung with a ceremony in
1746.434 For this occasion, it seems that the Sum pas still kept their influence within the bounds
of Dgon lung’s territory. However, Sum pa Mkhan po’s next step jeopardized their influence.
In 1762, the Sum pa chos rje’s incarnation, Blo bzang dbang rgyal, suffered an illness
and passed away at the age of twenty. Sum pa Mkhan po had an interesting interpretation of this
incarnation’s young death. He recounted that the former chos rje had helped him up until the
time when he moved to Central Tibet at the age of twenty. After that, the chos rje did not have
the same kindness toward him because they were estranged from each other. Sum pa Mkhan po
argued that, like the chos rje, he could only take care of his incarnation until the boy was twenty
years old. In that way, he framed the incarnation’s death as karmic repayment for the former
432
SKRL1, 98b; SKRL2, 256: chos sam zang zing sogs kyis phar la phan ’dogs rgya chen byas pa’i lan
du ston mo’i lan la dug zas kyis ’jal ltar gnod pa byed pa.
433
SKRL1, 112b; SKRL2, 294.
434
SKRL1, 105a-105b; SKRL2, 273-274.
146
chos rje’s mistreatment.435 It is noteworthy that Sum pa Mkhan po did not bestow the title chos
rje on this young incarnation, but called him “zhabs drung” instead. The title chos rje might not
be inheritable by the next incarnation.
The progression of the incarnation lineage took a turn when Sum pa Mkhan po decided to
confirm a new incarnation of the deceased zhabs drung. Sum pa Mkhan po’s account has it that
he had consulted relevant authorities in Central Tibet with several candidates’ names, but a
definitive answer could not be obtained for some time. As a result, it took more than ten years to
determine the next incarnation after the former’s death in 1762. Among several candidates for
the new zhabs drung, there were two final ones. For the first one, a medium possessed by a deity
local to Dgon lung prophesied that a boy who was born to a family in Zhwa dmar, a place five or
six days’ journey to the northeast of Dgon lung monastery, was the incarnation.436 The second
candidate was a son of gong Mgon skyabs rdo rje in Ordos,437 whom Sum pa Mkhan po had met
435
SKRL1, 134b-135a; SKRL2, 349-350.
436
SKRL1, 170a; SKRL2, 439. “Zhwa dmar” is an old name for a tribal union in present-day Dpa’ ris (>
Ch. Huarui 華銳; a.k.a.Tianzhu 天祝) County in Gansu. According to Huarui diming wenhua tanyuan,
Zhwa dmar tshe ba lnga (“five tribes of Zhwa dmar”) is comprised of Bde chen, Pra sti, Rgya tig, mang
mtho, and Bde yangs tribes (Gansu sheng Tianzhu zangzu zizhixian zang yuyan wenzi gongzuo
bangongshi ed., Huarui diming wenhua tanyuan, 207). Sum pa Mkhan po gives parents’ names of the
candidate: Rgya tig Tshe ring bkra shis and Dor shi Za mtsho mo and, as seen above, Rgya tig is a part of
Zhwa dmar. Dor shi might be a different rendering of “Dor zhi” in Dpa’ ris County (about Dor zhi, see
Gansu sheng Tianzhu zangzu zizhixian zang yuyan wenzi gongzuo bangongshi, Huarui diming wenhua
tanyuan, 242). Despite Sum pa Mkhan po’s final selection of the Ordos candidate for the zhabs drung
incarnation, a Sum pa zhabs drung lineage seemed to be maintained at Zhwa dmar in later times, as the
fifty-third Dgon lung khri pa was Sum pa Zhwa dmar zhabs drung Blo bzang rgyal mtshan. For this and
Zhwa dmar’s connection to Sum pa, see Duo zang et al. You ning si zhi (San zhong) (Xining: Qinghai
renmin chubanshe, 1990), 150 and 195, note 108. Nonetheless, more research is needed to clarify this
connection.
437
According to SKRL1, 172a; SKRL2, 444, Mgon skyabs rdo rje was the second son among three (other
two were wang Tshe ring rdo rje and taiji Mgon po rdo rje) of wang ’Jam dbyangs of Ordos, who was a
descendant of Chinggis Khan. Menggu Hui bu wanggong biaozhuan has Zhamuyang 札木楊 (<Tib. ’Jam
dbyangs) and Cheling Duo’erji 車凌多爾濟 (<Tib. Tshe ring rdo rje) as two successors of zhasake
duoluo junwang 札薩克多羅郡王 in Ordos, but gives no mention of Mgon skyabs rdo rje or Mgon po rdo
rje.
147
in Ordos on his way to Dolonor in 1772. Sum pa Mkhan po must have agonized over making the
final decision for the selection. He requested that Lcang skya III Rol pa’i rdo rje (1717-1786)
advise him on the matter when the two met during their time on Mount Wutai in 1775, but Lcang
skya maintained an ambiguous attitude with respect to the situation.438 Eventually, when Sum pa
Mkhan po passed through Ordos again in the same year, he requested that the chieftains of the
area let him bring the child to Dgon lung. The child’s parents agreed to let him follow Sum pa
Mkhan po.439
Some points need to be made regarding this procedure for selecting a new zhabs drung.
First, by selecting this Ordos child as the incarnation, Sum pa Mkhan po was on the side of
undercutting local vested interests in the Sum pa chos rje lineage, instead connecting the lineage
to a Mongolian community beyond the bounds of the Dgon lung estates. In so doing, Sum pa
Mkhan po may have been acting upon his own belief that an incarnation should not be born in
the same place as the former’s birthplace.440 Secondly, this was not simply an isolated event in
which a boy from among Chinggis Khan’s descendants in Ordos was brought into Dgon lung
monastery, but had a lingering effect on the monastery. In Sum pa Mkhan po’s later years,
especially during his third term as the abbot of Dgon lung monastery (1781-1785), the major
sponsors for religious ceremonies held in the monastery—New Year’s Smon lam Festival in
438
SKRL1, 170b; SKRL2, 440. It is noteworthy that Lcang skya suggested the different benefits for
identification of each candidate. For the Ordos one, he expected that the selection would be good not only
for Teaching and sentient beings, but also for Sum pa household (Sum pa tshang). For the Zhwa dmar
one, Lcang skya simply regarded him as important because of Sum pa’s close relationship with them.
439
SKRL1, 172a-72b; SKRL2, 443-45.
440
This is one of ways Sum pa Mkhan po believes the incarnation institution should be. Sum pa Mkhan
po’s discussion of the incarnation was given at the beginning of his autobiography, SKRL1, 3a-3b;
SKRL2, 4-6. For a more details of the discussion, see the following conclusion part of this chapter.
148
particular—were Mongolian chieftains, including those from Ordos.441 Thirdly, the selection was
not an arbitrary and instant action, but a careful and time-consuming process, which shows the
seriousness that the process of selecting an incarnation entailed. The final consultation with
Lcang skya, in particular, clearly shows that Sum pa Mkhan po maintained his prudence with
respect to making the choice, even though the right to select the incarnation was in his hands and
he was well aware that the incarnation institution was one of main pillars that buttressed the
Tibetan form of Buddhism. Last but not the least, it should be pointed out that what Sum pa
Mkhan po had done with respect to the chos rje incarnation lineage was in keeping with a trend
that had also made Sum pa Mkhan po himself an incarnate lama, namely, the transition of power
in the matter of the incarnation institution from locally-based authority to the Dge lugsMongolian partnership.
7. Conclusion: Sum pa Mkhan po’s discourse on incarnation
In this chapter, I have tried to reconstruct how the institution of incarnation developed in
the Amdo region during the time of Sum pa Mkhan po. With the growing number of incarnate
lamas given in Chapter I, what has been shown in this chapter was the change of the inside
nature of the incarnation institution. Sum pa Mkham po’s accounts of his own experiences with
the institution of incarnation show that the institution had moved in a certain direction. Sum pa
Mkhan po was both a result of this shift, being an incarnation himself, as well as a contributor to
441
Of course Sum pa Mkhan po did not mention that sponsorship was a direct result of this selection.
However, the selection can be one of many activities Sum pa Mkhan po exerted himself with for making
connections with Mongols in his later life. This patron relationship between Dgon lung and Mongols will
be addressed in detail in Chapter V.
149
it, being a person responsible for selecting incarnations. But was the institution of incarnation
moving in the right direction? To conclude this chapter, we will examine what the “right
direction” was according to Sum pa Mkhan po.
At the beginning of his autobiography, Sum pa Mkhan po discusses the topic of
incarnation, including his own eligibility as one.442 In the discussion he gives a succinct but
interesting overview of incarnation as follows: 1. There is no doubt that great sages, from
Śākyamuni to Tsong kha pa’s two disciples,443 have reincarnated in a continuous sequence; 2.
Originally there was no custom of incarnation in Tibet, but sages were intentionally born in Tibet
to disseminate Buddha’s teachings; 3. In later times, incarnation became popular around Central
Tibet, Khams, Amdo, and Mongolia and incarnate lamas became as many as “the number of ears
in a good harvest”; 4. However, authentic incarnations, who are attended by unmistakably
miraculous signs and have memories of their former lives are so rare that only a few exist in
Tibet444; 5. Therefore, those who were selected as incarnations should make every effort to
generate faith of both Buddhists and non-Buddhists and not to lose face for his/her disciples.
Problems appeared in the system from this stage. In Sum pa Mkhan po’s opinion, the
main problem of the incarnation institution was twofold. The first issue was that the incarnation
institution was regionally limited. Of course, Sum pa Mkhan po did not deny the incarnation
442
Same as his discussion about his eligibility of writing a biography himself in the chapter II, Sum pa
Mkhan po maintains a paradoxical stance for his being an incarnate lama. He denies any memory or
sacred ability as an incarnation, but seems to accept what other teachers talked about signs of his being
one when he was young. It is a common feature that most Tibetan incarnate lamas have when it comes to
their eligibility of being an incarnation (from personal conversation with Professor Janet Gyatso).
443
Between Śākyamuni to Tsong kha pa’s disciples, Sum pa Mkhan po enumerates such sages: in India,
“Six Ornaments and Two Supreme Ones (Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva, Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, Dignāga, and
Dharmakīrti; Guṇaprabha and Śākyaprabha)” and 84 mahāsiddhas; in Kashimir and Nepal, many siddhas
and paṇḍitas; in Tibet, Mar pa, Mi la ras pa, and Bu ston rin chen grub, as who were incarnated.
444
An interlinear note here says. “in Tibet [only] such as Dalai and Paṇ chen Lamas and Lcang skya [are
authentic incarnations].”
150
institution itself. He admitted that there were no doubt excellent beings in lands from India to
Tibet producing series of incarnations in this world.445 He did emphasize, however, that he had
never heard of so-called incarnations being reborn in the same area where he/she had been born
in the previous life. Originally no such concept of incarnation existed in Tibet, and incarnations
intentionally appeared in non-native areas in order to disseminate the Buddha’s teachings more
broadly. But many rich people began to appropriate the system, and the number of incarnate
lamas grew to be too many in number and became fixed as a locally-bound custom.
This corrupted state of affairs is connected to the second problem from which the
institution suffers. The incarnation institution was increasingly being monopolized by the rich
during his lifetime. If a great incarnation chose a life of poverty by discarding all his/her
possessions, as was the case with Mi la ras pa, it was very difficult to maintain the incarnation
lineage. Eventually, false incarnations make ordinary people doubt the Buddha’s teachings in
general. There were even cases where parents lied about the time of their children’s births to
place them closer to the time of death of deceased lamas, or concocted omens or other evidence
that their children were incarnations.
This critique anticipates the well-known Discourse on the incarnation institution (Ch.
Lama shuo 喇嘛說 pronounced by the Qianlong emperor of Qing China in 1792.446 In the
discourse, the emperor mainly criticizes abuse of the incarnation institution for private gain.
These two discourses appear similar in their work of criticism, but there are some key differences
between the critiques of Qianlong and Sum pa Mkhan po. Most significantly, what each cared
445
SKRL1, 3a ; SKRL2, 4: sngon byon rgya gar gyi rgyal ba shākya thub pa dang rgyan drug mchog
gnyis grub chen gya bzhi sogs dang kha che bal yul gyi paṇ grub du ma dang bod kyi mar pa mi la bu
ston rin po che rje tsong kha pa yab sras lta bu’i dam pa rin chen.
446
For a recent analytic translation of this discourse, see Oidtmann, “Between Patron and Priest,” 570-80.
151
about was totally different: while Qianlong was worried about any harmful effect on
administration of the Qing, what mattered most to Sum pa Mkhan po was any possible
degeneration of people’s opinion of Buddhism and the Buddhist teachings. Another important
difference was that Sum pa Mkhan po was an insider of the institution and was in a position to
change the actual course of how the incarnation institution developed.
Reviewing the history of the Sum pa lineage, it becomes clear that the incarnation
institution in the Amdo region was not a static and antique system, but was lively and continually
evolving. Control of the lineage shifted from localized power toward Tibeto-Mongolian groups.
This is what Sum pa Mkhan po experienced in his former and early lives, and also what Sum pa
Mkhan po fostered within the incarnation lineage system.
152
bla ma rgya kho
che ba tshang
rgya kho chung
ba tshang
don grub bkra
shis
bka' bcu blo
bzang chos
'byor
dge gnyen
tha ri
Sum pa don grub
mi la han
pad+ma 'bum
'gu tu
rgyal mtshan
(skya ser spun
gsum)
rab 'byams pa
blo bzang bstan
pa
slob dpon che
ba tshang
dpal phyug
slob dpon
chung ba tshang
bkra shis 'bum
bsod nams tshe
ring (skya ser
spun lnga)
rab 'byams pa
blo bzang chos
rgyal
pad+ma brtan
chos skyabs
(skya ser spun
gsum)
mdon po bsrung
bkra shis tshe
brtan
phyug po brgya
dge slong blo
bzang chos
skyong
dpa' yag
dge 'dun skyabs
bla ma zur rgan
tshang
Figure 13. Sum pa clan genealogy (1).
153
rab 'byams pa
phun tshogs
don grub
lha mkhar
klu mkhar
dbang lha
gnyan a 'bum
shak rgyal
khams yu
rgya rtsa 'thing
bo (ancestor of
tsong kha's
'ba')
gnyan tag
khro rtse
kyag sba
rog shu
skyab li
'bum yag
a thar
khro yag
rwa khri
khya po
thub pa yag
thub pa ri
ser sding
'phen ne (this
family is dgon
lung's ser
lding)
thub pa skyabs
(phyi nang's
thub pa
skyabs)
thub pa 'bum
(thang ring's
sum pa)
ba leb
ko 'gyo
tshangs ste
'bum yag
lha rung rgyal
Figure 14. Sum pa clan genealogy (2). Two Sum pa clan genealogies are based on SKRL2, 1516. Theses genealogies exist only in the typeset edition of Sum pa Mkhan po’s autobiography,
not in the woodblock printing. According to the main editor of the 2001 typeset edition, Ra kho
Ye shes rdo rje, this part of genealogies was added as a note on the margin of the original
woodblock printing that the editorial team used as their master copy. During my interview with
him, Ra kho Ye shes rdo rje insisted that the note must have been taken by Sum pa Mkhan po
himself, on a basis that others dare not to add such a long note on this preeminent scholar’s work
(interviewed by Hanung Kim, July 27, 2017). However, I was not able to track down nor check
the original copy the editorial team used in late 1990s. The provenance of those genealogies still
needs to be investigated unless more supporting evidence for Ra kho Ye shes rdo rje’s opinion
appears.
154
Chapter IV. Sum pa Mkhan po’s Scholarship
1. Introduction: from Sa skya Paṇḍita to Sum pa Mkhan po
“Previously, precious Sa skya Paṇḍita and his nephews, having come to this vast
Mongol land, acted with gleaming virtue, and the sunbeams of the teachings of
sūtra and mantra, shining brighter and brighter, spread. Yet, although there were
already many sangha communities that were fertile grounds for faith among our
lay and religious communities, in the past, other than propagating mere acts of
subsistence that provided only the tiniest short-term benefit to beings, we did not
plant the good tradition of practicing the ten fields of knowledge that produce
scholars. So even though the thousand rays of the jewel of the heavens that is
Buddha’s teachings effortlessly and voluntarily fell upon the entire circumference
of the earth of fortunate students, the organs of visual perception of each were
hindered by the cataracts of delusion. Even though they sometimes heard holy
words of scripture, its essential meaning was obscured, clouded by a thick fog of
doubt. There has been little opportunity to differentiate what we should and
shouldn’t do! Mkhan po Paṇḍita, look with your own long, boundlessly loving
eyes, and agree that it will benefit the teachings and beings, decide that, come
what may, now is the time to not only come here, but to use the powerful wind
that is perfect explanation of the holy words of scripture to disperse without a
trace the thick cloud of doubt. And at the same time, using the sharp golden
scalpel of scripture and reasoning to clear away the cataracts that masked the
eyes, cause the light of the ten fields of knowledge to spread.”447
The time had come for both Sum pa Mkhan po and the Ordos Qanggin Mongols. When
he reached seventy-seven years of age, Sum pa Mkhan po received this invitation letter from the
447
SKRL1 201a; SKRL2 520-21: hor gyi yul gru chen po 'dir sngar sa skya paṇ chen rin po che khu dbon
byon nas rab dkar dge ba'i mgo tshugs te mdo sngags kyi bstan pa'i nyi zer ches cher 'bar bas khyab
la/ de lta na yang nged kyi mi sde lha sde'i khrod du dad pa'i zhing sa dge 'dun gyi sde mang du bzhugs
kyang / sngar 'phral gyi 'gro don phra mo tsam byed pa'i za chog 'ga' tsam dar ba las gzhan mkhas par
'gyur byed kyi bcu phrag rig gnas slob pa'i srol bzang ma tshugs pas/ rgyal bstan nam mkha'i nor bu'i
'od stong bskul ba med par skal ldan gdul bya'i 'dzin ma'i khyon la 'bad med du 'bab mod kyang / so
so'i gzugs 'dzin dbang po rmongs pa'i rab rib kyis sgrib cing lung gi dam chos kyi tshig cung zad re thos
kyang som nyi'i na bun 'thug po 'thib nas don gyi snying bo bsgrib ste blang dang dor bya 'byed pa'i skal
ba phra skabs lags pas/ mkhan po paṇḍita nyid dmigs med byams brtse'i spyan dkyus ring du spros pas
gzigs te bstan 'gro'i don bzang thugs kyis dgongs nas ci nas kyang 'dir phyag phebs par ma zad/ byon
nas kyang lung gi dam chos legs par 'chad pa'i dri gzhon shugs drag gis som nyi'i sprin stug bdas te rmig
med par byas pa dang lhan cig tu lung rigs rnon po'i gser sbyangs mig thur gyis mig gi sgrib g.yog bsal
nas bcu phrag rig gnas kyi snang ba spel bar mdzad pa skabs su babs pa lags/
155
Ordos Qanghin Mongols to come to their land “to clear away their obscurations” and “to
promote illumination of the ten fields of knowledge.” It came at a time when he had already
achieved all the academic and religious accolades. For the Ordos Qanggin Mongols, Sum pa
Mkhan po embodied the scholarship and religiosity of the time and they felt they could rely upon
him. The Ordos Qanggin Mongols thought that the old order, introduced by Sa skya Paṇḍita
more than half a millennium before, needed to be improved and regarded Sum pa Mkhan po as a
well-qualified to make such improvements, given his expertise in the ten fields of knowledge.
What exactly about the old order prescribed by Sa skya Paṇḍita did they think needed
improvement? What had Sum pa Mkhan po achieved as a scholar that was new to them? I will
argue in this chapter is that, although Sum pa Mkhan po was educated within the old structure of
traditional Tibetan scholarship, he was able to improve himself and absorb the needs of local
people into his studies, and that is why he developed such a wide range of scholarship. To
corroborate this argument, I will address two aspects of his scholarship in this chapter: The first
will be his education, by which I mean the way he received and internalized Tibetan scholarly
knowledge; and the second will be his dissemination of knowledge, the description of which I
will base on accounts of his travels for religious work and the formation of his Collected Works.
2. Sum pa Mkhan po’s Education
This section of the chapter will provide a chronological account of the education he
received as recorded in his two autobiographies. Sum pa Mkhan po’s autobiographies are of
great value because they provide the rare opportunity of a detailed glimpse into the practical,
day-to-day lived experience of an individual monk apart from normative and prescriptive
156
curricula or etic observations of outsiders of later generations. They also allow us to cross-check
information between two distinct autobiographical accounts. Of course, Sum pa Mkhan po’s
accounts do not reveal the exact schedule of his education, and his course of learning sometimes
does not correspond to what we know of the Dge lugs pa curriculum. In addition, his accounts of
his education are often ambiguous about exactly what he learned, because in many cases they
focus more on praise for teachers than on what was taught. Despite these difficulties, these
documents are important for understanding how Sum pa Mkhan po forged his intellectual path
from his youth, and what his interests were among the many disciplines and topics of Tibetan
scholarship.
2.1. Early education at Amdo
Sum pa Mkhan po’s rudimentary education began at home, and this became the basis for
all his future studies.448 Sum pa Mkhan po’s father began teaching him Tibetan letters and a part
of Paṇ chen’s prayer called Dge legs yon tan ma śloka, 449 at the ages of two and three,
respectively. Sum pa Mkhan po says that his father “knew Tibetan letters and enjoyed virtuous
448
According to Dung dkar Blo bzang ’phrin las, one of guidance at home (khyim tshang gi slob sgo)
prior to monastic studies was the basis for studies, namely reading, writing and learning the basic
grammar (Dungkar Lobzang Tinley and Sangye T. Naga, “Development of the Monastic Education
System in Tibet,” The Tibet Journal, vol.18, no.4 (winter 1993): 26-27).
449
SKRL1 11a; SKRL2 28: thog mar paṇ chen rin po che’i gsol ‘debs kyi mgo’i dge legs yon tan ma sho
lo ka gcig bslab skad. The identity of Dge legs yon tan ma śloka is dubious and needs more research. The
likely same work is mentioned in Lcang skya III’s biography when he offered a series of prayers as a
preparation to enter Central Tibet for a duty of escorting Dalai Lama VII in 1734. For this see Thu’u
bkwan III, Lcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje’i rnam thar, 151: khad par du dmigs brtse ma dang/ dge legs yon
tan ma dang blo bzang rgyal ba ma sho lo ka nas ’bum ther re zhal ’don gnang bas.
157
practices such as recitation.”450 We do not know how this Mongolian-Bātud came to have
enough knowledge of Tibetan to teach his son, but this bit of information demonstrates that there
existed some cultural inclination among early eighteenth-century Kokonor Mongols.
At the age of four, Sum pa Mkhan po was sent to Gong ba Brag dkar me long gling,
which seems to have been a local practice center, where he studied recitation and dharma
practices under a so-called Sog po Cho hor dge slong there. This brief stay at Brag dkar me long
gling seems to have been of no great importance to Sum pa.451 His first teacher in the true sense
was Thar shul Chos skyong rgya mtsho, to whose residence Sum pa Mkhan po was sent at the
age of seven. Although he praised Chos skyong rgya mtsho with hagiographical accounts452 and
received the “fully perfected householder”453 vow along with the religious name “Blo bzang chos
skyong” from him, it is not clear which topics Sum pa Mkhan po studied under him. By the time
he entered Dgon lung monastery at the age of nine (1712), Sum pa Mkhan po may not have yet
received any of the systematic education scheduled and provided under a strict pedagogy
available only in large-scale monasteries.
Upon entering Dgon lung, Sum pa Mkhan po began by focusing on “listening” (thos), the
first step in the successive series of practices, namely listening, reflection and meditation (thos
450
SKRL1, 10a: bod yig shes shing kha ton dge sbyor la dga’ ba dang. SKRL2 omits this passage that is
supposed to be in page 24.
451
In the shorter autobiography, although Sum pa Mkhan po’s visit to Gong ba Brag dkar me long gling is
mentioned, the teacher’s name is not specified (SKRS1 8r; SKRS2 7-8). This also indicates unimportance
of the teacher he had at this site.
452
SKRL1, 14a-15a; SKRL2, 35-37.
453
Tib. yong rdzogs dge bsnyen. For the English translation of the term, I followed Sobisch, Three-vow
Theories in Tibetan Buddhism, 277.
158
bsam sgom).454 Sum pa Mkhan po must have shown a keen ability to memorize scriptures at the
first attempt to do so, as tested by Sum pa chos rje with the text of Gnas bcu’i bstod pa.455
From the spring session of the water-snake year (1713) to 1723,456 Sum pa Mkhan po
studied under the guidance of two teachers, namely Tshang kya slob chung Ngag dbang
bstan ’dzin and Ul shri slob chung Blo gros rgya mtsho.457 While following guiding recitations
454
The importance of “listening” was emphasized in the summary of his activities in the appendix of his
autobiography. In the third part of the summary (SKRL1, 266a-68a; SKRL2, 688-93), after discussing
briefly about how he managed to uphold the vow, Sum pa Mkhan po moved to the subject of “listening”
by depending on scriptures and monk community. For it, Sum pa Mkhan po cited Phar phyin bsdus pa
(Skt. Pāramitā-samāsa-nāma):
de bas thos la brtson bya de rgyu las/
/bsams shing bsgom pa'i shes rab yangs pa 'byung /
“therefore, by the cause of an act of effort at listening,
extensive wisdom of reflection and meditation will come forth.”
SKRL1, 266a-66b; SKRL2, 689.
In this respect, making efforts at “listening” is a prerequisite for the success of reflection and meditation,
whose result will be extensive wisdom. Sum pa Mkhan po provides another reason for the importance of
“listening” by quoting Tsong kha pa’s Gsang sngags lam rim (= Sngags rim chen mo):
rang gis sgrub pa dang gzhan la ston pa sogs gang byed kyang thog mar thos bsam gyis
go ba ma nor ba cig btsal dgos te/ rang gis mi shes na gzhan la ston mi nus pa'i phyir
dang / ma shes bar nyams su blangs pa med pa'i phyir/
“even though one has achievement and teaches others whatsoever, one needs to seek an
unmistaken understanding by listening and reflection at the beginning. It is because one
cannot teach others when one does not understand, and because there is no such thing that
one puts into practice that which one does not understand.”
SKRL1, 266b; SKRL2, 689.
In this way, the proper listening is not only the matter of one’s own pursue for perfection, but also the key
factor for guiding others. For a discussion of listening, reflection and meditation as “the three acumens”
to develop wisdom (prajñā), see Dreyfus, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping, 165-67.
455
SKRL1 19a; SKRL2 47-48; SKRS1 5b; SKRS2 19.
456
There is a mistake on the last year of his studies at Dgon lung. Whereas SKRL has the iron-hare year
(1711 or 1771), SKRS has the wood-dragon year (1724). Both are problematic. If we count Sum pa
Mkhan po’s studies at Dgon lung up to his departure to Central Tibet, the last year should be the waterhare year (1723).
457
Ul shri slob chung Blo gros rgya mtsho is mentioned as one of “teachers of letters (yi ge slob dpon,
elementary-level teachers?)” when Sum pa Mkhan po lists his 33 lifetime teachers in the summary of his
activities in the appendix of his autobiography (SKRL1 262b; SKRL2 678-80). The name Ngag dbang
bstan ’dzin appears among the “teachers of letters,” but he is mentioned as “’Dan ma grub chen,” instead
159
(rtsi bzhag),458 Sum pa Mkhan po memorized beginning, intermediate, and advanced parts of the
Bsdus grwa text and practiced them.459 In the water-snake year (1713) he debated Bsdus grwa
with Dge dgu zhabs drung Dge legs rgyal mtshan. Sum pa Mkhan po also had a chance to hear
instruction on Lam rim from Chu bzang II Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan (1652-1723).
Around this time he also studied vinaya (’dul ba), Abhidharmakośa (Mngon pa ’og ma), and
Prajñāpāramitā in 100,000 ślokas (Rgyal yum). For these three topics, however, Sum pa Mkhan
po seemed to have only had the chance to listen to what was discussed in the dharma courtyard,
and was not fully studying the subjects.460 Instead, for nine years beginning in 1715,461 Sum pa
Mkhan po studied Abhisamayālaṅkāra. Specifically, he memorized Gung ru Chos kyi ’byung
gnas’ Skabs dang po’i rigs pa and Dge ’dun nyi shu’i thal phreng, 462 and debated the
of “Tshang kya slob chung.” Tshang kya is a name of monastery that was affliated to Dgon lung. For this
see Pu, Qinghai zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 43.
458
Dreyfus explains rtsib bzhag as the recitations of monastic classes led by a reciting leader (skyor dpon).
For this see Dreyfus, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping, 251 and 388, note 50. Rtsi bzhag seems same as
rtsib bzhag and Sum pa Mkhan po sometimes spelled it differently with “rtsis bzhag.”
459
Bsdus grwa is commonly translated as “collected topics.” It is the first part of Dge lugs pa monastic
syllabi among five subjects known as Po ti lnga, namely, tshad ma, phar phyin, dbu ma, ’dul ba, and
mngon mdzod, and covers basic topics of epistemology (tshad ma). For a useful introduction to Bsdus
grwa, as a genre of literature, see Shunzo Onoda, “bsDus grwa Literature,” in Tibetan Literature: Studies
in Genre, ed. José Cabezón et al., (Ithaca: Snow Lion Press, 1996), 187-201. Here, beginning,
intermediate, and advanced (chung, ’bring, and che) mean three groups of subjects in the Bsdus grwa
literature. For example, the famous Phur lcog bsdus grwa is comprised of 17 subjects, and among them 7
are under chung, 6 under ’bring and 4 under che (ibid, 198, n.15). The earlier Ra bstod bsdus grwa of the
15th century also shows the similar division (ibid, 197, n.9). Sum pa Mkhan po does not provide which
Bsdus grwa text he used.
460
As I will show below, Sum pa Mkhan po had a full-scale study of vinaya and Abhidharmakośa while
he was in Central Tibet later.
461
SKRL1 20b; SKRL 51: shing lugs nas lo ngo dgu’i bar du. As in the case of note 456 above, the
ending year (1724) of this study is problematic too, because it was intercepted by Sum pa Mkhan po’s
departure to Central Tibet in 1723.
462
For Gung ru Chos kyi ’byung gnas, who was the 17th abbot of Sgo mang college, and his old text
books, see Bstan pa bstan ’dzin, Sgo mang grwa tshang gi chos ’byung, 33-39 and Jongbok Yi, “Monastic
Pedagogy on Emptiness in the Geluk Sect of Tibetan Buddhism” (PhD diss., University of Virginia,
160
commentaries on the 8 categories and 70 topics of Abhisamayālaṅkāra with dharma friends (dge
ba’i chos grags).
Alongside his study of exoteric parts of Buddhist curriculum, Sum pa Mkhan po also
began to receive esoteric training, such as tantric practices and recitation or mantra, during his
early time at Dgon lung monastery. Sum pa Mkhan po’s first contact with esoteric teachings
happened by accident, not according to the normative curriculum of the monastic education.
In 1715 Sum pa Mkhan po had a stroke at the sight of a dead monk, but was treated and
recovered by listening to the action tantra permission blessing (rjes gnang) of Wrathful
Vajrapani463 given by ’Dan ma sprul sku Ngag dbang bstan ’dzin (1666-1723), and reciting it for
two and a half months. Sum pa Mkhan po comments on the effectiveness of tantra by asserting a
fideistic opinion that analytic examination reduces effectiveness of tantra and deities, quoting
lines from ’Jigs byed kyi rgyud: “The inferer who investigates and analyzes, to that person the
sublime spiritual attainment is far away.”464 Sum pa Mhan po also regretted that he himself was
losing effectiveness in his use of tantra as he grew old, whereas it was very effective when he
was young. In any case, that early experience led him to give credence to tantric practice and its
literature throughout his life. At the time, he was still not yet mature enough to engage in full2013), 57-82. However, the two titles mentioned by Sum pa Mkhan po are not found in the list of Chos
kyi ’byung gnas’ works of Sgo mang grwa tshang gi chos ’byung. For this discrepancy more research is
needed. In any case, it indicates that the old textbooks of Abhisamayālaṅkāra were used at Dgon lung in
the early 18th century.
463
SKRL1 21b: SKRL2 55: bya rgyud kyi phyag rdor gtum chung gi rjes gnang; SKRS1 6a; SKRS2 21:
phag rdor gtum po khyung gshams.
464
SKRL1 57; SKRL2 22b: rtogs cing dpyod pa’i rtog ge pa/ /de la mchog gi dngos grub ring/ Lcang
skya Rol pa’i rdo rje also showed his opinion about this fideism according to his biographer Thu’u bkwan
III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma. For this, see Thu’u bkwan III, Lcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje’i rnam thar,
636-37. For this see Matthew Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation,
and Memory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 240, note 4, which is, however, not about the
effectiveness of tantra but about the distinction between “rationalist (rigs pas rjes su ’brangs pa)” and
“fideist (dad pas rjes su ’brangs pa).”
161
scale study of tantra, as he did not enjoy the low-motive memorization of tantric texts.
Nevertheless, Sum pa Mkhan po had another chance to be among the recipients (along with
1,000 Dgon lung tantric college students) of a Thirteen-Deity Vajrabhairava (dpal rdo rje ’jigs
byed lha bcu gsum ma) empowerment (dbang) and Dpa’ bo gcig pa zur bka’ empowerment from
Thu’u bkwan II Ngag dbang chos kyi rgya mtsho (1680-1736). Sum pa Mkhan po was delighted
at the opportunity to enter the path of secret mantra and praised in with long closing verses.465
In 1716 Sum pa Mkhan po received the vows of a novice monk (dge tshul) from Chu
bzang II.
From 1718 to 1723 Sum pa Mkhan po strove to train himself in arts and crafts (bzo ba rig
pa) and he donated some thankas to lamas in Dgon lung monastery.466 He does not mention by
name any teacher or any textbook used to train in this field; he may have learned the skills on his
own. In 1720, he practiced Rdo rje ’jigs byed (Vajrabhairava) meditation, probably based on the
empowerment he received from Thu’u bkwan II in 1715.
In 1722, to discourage Sum pa Mkhan po from going to Central Tibet, Sum pa chos rje
Phun tshogs rnam rgyal asked Chu bzang II to bestow Dgon lung’s gling bsre degree467 on Sum
465
SKRL1 23a-23b; SKRL2 58-60.
466
SKRL1 23b; SKRL2 61.
467
Gling bsre literarily means “mixture of communities,” and, as Dreyfus has it, the gling bsre title
“seems to reflect more the past practices of Sang-pu, where the candidate was examined by both
monasteries (i.e., the Upper Community and the Lower Community), than the present practices of the
three monasteries (Dreyfus, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping, 389, note 58).”According to Bod rgya
tshig mdzod chen mo, dge bshes is comprised of four sub-titles and gling bsre is one them. In their
explanation of Dge lugs pa academic titles, Zhou and Liu have a similar account and add that gling bsre is
the lowest one among four (Zhou Runnian and Liu Hongji, Zhongguo Zangzu siyuan jiaoyu (Lanzhou:
Gansu jiaoyu chubanshe, 1998), 136). It can be the lowest dge bshes title at Dgon lung too, but more
research is needed for clarification for the gling bsre title at Dgon lung monastery in the past. For more
detailed history of the gling bsre degree and its establishment at Blab rang bkra shis ’khyil monastery, see
Dpal mang paṇḍita Dkon mchog rgyal mtshan, Bla brang bkra shis ’khyil gyi gdan rabs lha’i rnga chen
(Lanzhou: Kan su'u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1987), 272-74.
162
pa Mkhan po, but Sum pa Mkhan po declined to receive it. This incident is interesting for several
reasons. First, it seems that the Dgon lung (or the Sum pa residence) authority used the bestowal
of the gling bsre degree as a bargaining chip to persuade Sum pa Mkhan po not to leave the
monastery. This demonstrates that either Sum pa Mkhan po already had academic achievements
of some note, or that the degree was not that serious and could be bestowed whenever felt
necessary. Second, receiving an academic degree may have had the effect of binding one to the
monastery. According to Dung dkar Blo bzang ’phrin las, dge shes lha rams pa awardees were
not allowed to leave the monastery.468 Sum pa chos rje may have been attempting to compel
Sum pa Mkhan po to stay in a similar way. Sum pa would have been aware of the implications of
accepting the degree. In the same year, Sum pa Mkhan po attended the Phar phyin ston mo
during the winter session.469
In 1723, in the company of 700 other monks, Sum pa Mkhan po received 45
empowerments from the four tantras of the union of Vajra Garland and Higher Action Tantra470
from Dpa’ rin Ngag dbang bkra shis,471 who prophetically instructed Sum pa Mkhan po and Gro
tshang brag Shes rab bzang po to keep practicing what they had received from him. As a result
Sum pa Mkhan po was later well versed in this set of tantra ans their practice.
468
Dungkar and Sangye, “Development of the Monastic Education System in Tibet,” 10.
469
This seems the last course of Abhisamayālaṅkāra study ending with feast celebrated on the occasion of
the completion of the phar phyin studies. For this see Obermiller, Analysis of the Abhisamayālaṅkāra, vi.
470
SKRL1 30a: SKRL2 77: rdo rje phreng ba dang khrī ya sa mu tsha zung du ’jug pa’i rgyud sde bzhi’i
dbang zhe lnga; SKRS1 7a; SKRS2 25: rdo rje phreng ba kri ya sbrags pa’i rgyud sde bzhi’i dbang zhe
lnga spyi bka’.
471
Dpa’ rin Ngag dbang bkra shis is listed as one of three “vajra masters” (rdo rje slob dpon) in the list of
the 33 teachers of Sum pa Mkhan po’s life time. For this see SKRL1 262b; SKRL2 679. “Dpa’ rin” is not
identifiable.
163
Sum pa Mkhan po spent eleven years in Dgon lung monastery and many of his activities
during this period that lasted until he was twenty years old constituted learning the basic level of
the monastic curriculum. Up to this level, Sum pa Mkhan po makes no mention of any
Madhyamaka-related works. Although he mentions vinaya and Abhidharmakośa, Sum pa Mkhan
po does not provide details about these two topics, nor of the teachers or textbooks he worked
with to learn them. If we assume that Dgon lung monastery followed the curriculum of Sgo
mang College of ’Bras spungs monastery, Sum pa Mkhan po completed his tshad ma using their
bsdus grwa textbook and phar phyin using Abhisamayālaṅkāra. These are just two of the five
topics of exoteric studies (gzhung po ti lnga). Along with these, Sum pa Mkhan po also laid a
practical foundation for two tantras, namely Vajrabhairava and Vajramālā, practices in which he
continuously engaged throughout his later religious activities.
2.2. Education in Central Tibet
Upon arriving in Central Tibet, Sum pa Mkhan po took the vows of fully ordained monk
(bsnyen rdzogs dge slong) and the new religious name “Ye shes dpal ’byor” from Paṇ chen V
Blo bzang ye shes (1663-1737). After that, on the instruction of Rgyal sras IV ’Jigs med ye shes
grags pa, Sum pa Mkhan po moved to Rwa ba stod and memorized ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo
rje’s work on rtags rigs.472 Then Sum pa Mkhan po became a member of the Bsam blo monastic
472
According to Onoda, rtag rigs is the third and the last stage of Bsdus grwa studies of the Dge lugs pa
curriculum (Onoda, “bsDus grwa Literature,” 188-190). There is Rtags rigs kyi rnam bzhag nyung gsal
legs bshad gser gyi phreng mdzes in ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje’s Gsung ’bum, vol. 15 (ba) (New
Delhi: Ngawang Gelek Demo, 1972-1974), 177-301, and it is the only work in whose title rtags rigs is
mentioned. It is highly probable that Sum pa Mkhan po memorized this work during his time at Rwa ba
stod. This also tells us that Sum pa Mkhan po had not studied ‘Jam dbyang bzhad pa’i rdo rje’s new
textbook before he came to Central Tibet.
164
section (khams tshan) of Sgo mang College at ’Bras sungs monastery and took the role of chos
mdzad there.473 Sum pa Mkhan po began to attend classes at Sgo mang College during the winter
session of 1723. There he studied many scriptures (gtsug lag) under Mog kya mkhan chen ’Jam
dbyangs rgya mtsho (1688-1761)474 of the Klu ’bum monastic section.
Sum pa Mkhan po gives a favorable evaluation of his study situation during that period.
For him it was certainly a favorable time for scholastic pursuits, because a novice is able to
achieve in two or three years what would otherwise take more than fifteen years. Sum pa gives
two reasons for this: first, the Zünghar purged the monasteries of all who were not enthusiastic
learners during their occupation of Tibet (1717-1720) 475; and second, because of that, the
teachers who remained there at the time were the cream of the crop, who later became Dga’ ldan
khri pa, abbots of Sgo mang, or heads of tantric colleges. Sum pa Mkhan po said that his teachers
of Abhidharmakośa and vinaya were particularly good. Therefore, he claims, academic titles
earned there were sufficiently meaningful. Sum pa also benefited from having great study
companions like Rtag tshag rje drung, Thor gwod sprul sku, Mnga’ ris sprul sku, and Btsan po
Nomunqan.
473
According to Dreyfus, chos mdzad is a monk who is rich enough to be a monk-sponsor and as a result
can occupy higher positions of the monastery using his wealth (Dreyfus, The Sound of Two Hands
Clapping, 51-52). Tshig mdzod chen mo also has the similar definition of the term (Zhang et al., Tshig
mdzod chen mo, 842). It was possible that Sum pa Mkhan po donated enough wealth to be a chos mdzad
and was exempted from chores that were supposed to be done by newly entering monks. However, Sum
pa Mkhan po’s chos mdzad might be a different role, because he mentioned, “I needed to be a chos mdzad
involuntarily (SKRS 8a: grwa tshang chos mdzad zer ba’ang dbang med du ‘dug dgos byung).” His way
of speaking gives an impression that the chos mdzad was not a desirable one but a burdensome position.
More research is needed for clarifying Sum pa Mkhan po’s chos mdzad position at Sgo mang College.
474
For Mog kya Mkhan chen ’Jam dbyangs rgya mtsho, see Hor gtsang ’jigs med, Mdo smad lo rgyus
chen mo, vol.6, 121.
475
For details of Zünghar’s invasion, occupation, and withdrwal from Tibet from 1717 to 1720, see
Petech, China and Tibet in the Early 18th Century, 32-73.
165
During the Smon lam festival of 1724, Sum pa Mkhan po had the chance to listen to
points (tshig don) of Prajñāpāramitā (Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa) at Jo khang together with
1,000 other monks. That year, when news of the disturbance in Amdo made Sum pa mkhan po
sick, he practiced a guruyoga related to Tsong kha pa to recover. One day when Sum pa Mkhan
po dreamed of Tsong kha pa wreathed with a lotus garland, he fully recovered from the sickness.
From that time on, Sum pa Mkhan po claims, he had the ability to understand books on his own,
bit by bit, without the help of a teacher. In this way, Sum pa Mkhan po continued to use tantric
practice to remedy his own illnesses and linked his practice of guruyoga to his improved bookbased exoteric studies.
When Sum pa Mkhan po visited Rgyud smad College in 1725, he met Slob dpon Bya
khyung ba Nomunhan Rin po che, who rebuked him for his arrogance. Because of that
experience, Sum pa Mkhan po turned over a new leaf and discussed the qualities of a truly good
scholar (mkhas pa).476 In 1726, he received the gling bsres degree that he refused when he was in
Dgon lung. To earn the degree, he attended Smon lam grwa skor and was unbeatable during his
debates. In 1727 Sum pa Mkhan po held public debates (tshogs langs) in the debating courtyard
(chos ra) of ’Bras spungs monastery on the topics of “the three refuges (skyabs gsum)”,
Differentiation of the Interpretable and the Definitive (drang nges rnam ’byed) by Tsong kha pa
and “the opposite of the consequences in Madhyamaka (dbu ma’i thal bzlog)”, and attained a
476
Sum pa Mkhan po concluded that, among other things, keeping a modest attitude is the most important
virtue for mkhas pa. For this, Sum pa Mkhan po shows how big the world is and how many great people
dwell there. This part (SKRL1 39b-42a; SKRL2 102-108) seems a harbinger of his work on world
geography, ’Dzam gling spyis bshad ngo mtshar gtam snyan. In analyzing the work, Matthew Kapstein
also indicates the same point for the intention of Sum pa Mkhan po’s writing of the geographical work.
For this see Kapstein,“Just where on Jambudvīpa are we?,” in Forms of Knowledge in Early Modern
Asia: Explorations in the Intellectual History of India and Tibet 1500-1800, ed. Sheldon Pollock (Durham
NC: Duke University Press, 2011), 364.
166
satisfactory result. This event indicates that Sum pa Mkhan po was already well versed in the
topics of Pāramitā and Madhyamaka.
At that time, Sum pa Mkhan po continued to memorize texts such as:
1. Madhyamakāvatāra (’Jug pa)
2. Vinayasūtra ([’dul ba] mdo rtsa ba)
3. Sgo mang College’s new text book for Pāramitā (Phar phyin sgo mang yig cha gsar
ma), especially the 1st chapter (skabs dang po)’s rigs par (?) and most of the 4th (bzhi
pa), the 5th (lnga pa) and the 8th (brgyad pa) chapters477
4. three supplements (zur bkol)478 from the old textbook ([yig cha] rnying ba)479
5. a half of the Essence of true eloquence (Drang nges rnam ’byed legs bshad snying
po)480 from the new textbook ([yig cha] gsar ba)
6. a half of the Survey of Madhyamaka (dbu ma’i stong thun)481
7. most of Dbu ma gsar ba (?)
Sum pa Mkhan po assiduously worked at memorization late into the night and even twice
fainted on the sand of the debating court during his memorization.
477
This is ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje’s new textbook for Sgo mang college. Here skabs means
chapter (Zhang et al., Tshig mdzod chen mo, 109) and refer to each chapter of Abhisamayālaṅkāra.
478
Dreyfus translates zul bkol into “special topics,” that are subjects only tangential to
Abhisamayālaṅkāra. For this, see Dreyfus, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping, 176.
479
This is Gung ru Chos kyi ’byung gnas’ old textbook mentioned note 16 above.
480
This is Tsong kha pa’s work on Madhyamaka. For an English translation of the work, see Tsong kha
pa Blo bzang grags pa, Tsong Khapa's Speech of gold in the Essence of True Eloquence: Reason and
Enlightenment in the Central Philosophy of Tibet, trans. Robert Thurman (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1984).
481
This seems Mkhas grub rje dge legs dpal bzang (1385-1438)’s work on Madhyamaka.
167
Aside from studying at Sgo mang College, Sum pa Mkhan po also moved to the Dge legs
ri khrod and memorized the Rnam bshad snying po rgyan482 at the pace of at least five folios a
day. These list of memorizations indicate that Sum pa Mkhan po’s focus of his study during the
time at Central Tibet was Madhyamaka and Pāramitā based on new textbooks.
In the meantime, Sum pa Mkhan po tried to enter Rgyud smad College at the urging of
Rgyud smad slob dpon rin po che, but could not make it because his servant was ill.483
In addition to studying the Dge lugs pa curriculum and performing activities relevant to
it, Sum pa Mkha po provides a list of teachers and extra-curricular topics he studied with
them.484 Sum pa Mkhan po divides these extracurricular topics into two categories, namely (1)
Buddhist studies (nang don rig gnas mdo sngags), and (2) conventional studies of non-Buddhist
[topics] (phyi’i tha snyad rig gnas). Sum pa Mkhan po provides following list of topics in the
first category:
a. Ta la'i bla ma VII Bskal bzang rgya mtsho
Lam rim bsdus don485
b. ’On rgyal sras IV Blo bzang ngag dbang ‘jigs med
Collected Works (Gsung rtsom) of ’On rgyal sras IV himself 486
c. Rkong po slob dpon
482
This is the a Pāramitā textbook of Rgyal tshab dar ma rin chen (1364-1432).
483
For details of this incident and its implications for Sum pa Mkhan po’s future careers, see Chapter III.
484
SKRL1 45a-51a; SKRL2 116-32.
485
Lam rim bsdus don is known as the shortest form of path teaching written by Tsong kha pa. Its English
translation can be found in Robert Thurman et al., The Life and Teachings of Tsong Khapa (Dharamsala:
Library of Tibetan Works & Archives, 1982), 59-66.
486
The list of ’On rgyal sras IV’s Collected Works can be found in Bod rang skyong ljongs rig dngos do
dam u yon lhan khang gi po ta la rig dngos srung skyob do dam so'o, Po ta lar bzhugs pa'i dge lugs gsung
'bum gyi dkar chag (Lhasa: bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1990), 449-51.
168
Laghu-kālacakra-tantra (Dus ’khor bsdus rgyud) and Vimāla-prabhā (’Grel chen dri
med ’od)
d. Ngag dbang mchog ldan
Cakrasaṃvara (bde mchog), the Ghaṇṭāpa (dril bu pa)’s body maṇḍala, Vairocana’s
empowerment, and other maṇḍala empowerments and tantras
e. Nam mkha’ bzang po
Reading transmission (bshad lung) of Lam rim chen mo, Practical instruction (nyams
khrid) of Lam rim bde lam,487 Reading transmission (bshad lung) of Tsong kha pa’s
Four Interwoven Commentaries on the Guhyasamāja Tanta
488
, Permission
transmission (rjes lung) of ’Jam dbyangs chos skor (“Dharma cycle of
Mañjughoṣa”),489 Permission blessing (rjes gnang) of Sgrol ma nyer gcig (“TwentyOne Tārā”), Teaching transmission (khrid lung) of Tsong kha pa’s Three Instructions
(rje'i man ngag gsum), 490 Dben sa snyan brgyud (“Dben sa era-whispered
transmission”),491 Oral transmission of the Collected Works of Paṇ chen IV Blo
bzang chos kyi rgyan mtshan (1570-1662) and others.492
f. Rkong po slob dpon bka’ ‘gyur pa Dam chos rin chen
487
This is The Easy Path – Stages of the Path to Enlightenment (lam rim bde lam) by Paṇ chen IV
Lobsang Chokyi Gyaltsen (1570-1662).
488
Tib. Gsang 'dus 'grel ba bzhi sbrags.
489
Thu’u Bkwan III, The Crystal Mirror of Philosophical Systems, 166 and 234.
490
Ibid., 288-89.
491
“A highly influential esoteric transmission of Gcod and Mahāmudrā teachings within the Dge lugs pa
school” (Martin, Tibetan Histories, 106).
492
SKRS1 9b; SKRS2 35: gzhan man ngag snyan brgyud bsam gyis mi khyab pa bstsal, “[he] bestowed
[me] other inconceivable instructions and oral transmissions.”
169
Tsong kha pa’s Collected Works except for gser phreng
g. Sgo mang bla ma Sems nyi dam chos
Lam rim bshad khrid, The Wheel-Weapon Mind Training (Blo sbyong mtshon cha’i
khor lo), oral transmission of Rma bya dug ’joms493
h. Sgo mang bla brang (abbot’s residence?), along with many ’Bras spung dge bshes
Reading transmission (bshad lung) of Legs bshad snying po and oral transmission
(lung) of Phar phyin rnam bshad snying po’i rgyan
i. Rgyud smad slob dpon Pho rod zhwa mar pa Shes rab rgya mtsho
Teachings of two stages of Rdo rje ’jigs byed, Byams chos sde lnga dbu ma rigs
tshogs drug, Glang thang pa’s Be’u bum khra bo, oral transmission of the former
Lcang skya’s Collected Works
j. Mnga’ ris pa sngags pa bla zur Blo zbang yar ’phel ba
Permission blessing (rjes gnang) of Ba ri brgya rtsa, Snar thang brgya rtsa, and
Mgon chen bcu gsum at ’Bras spung
k. Dge bshes Dgon lung ba Bo’u kya myanm bzhag pa
Permission blessing of Dgrol dkar at Dge ’phel ri khrod
l. A kha Bsod nams bzang po
teaching of Lam rim bde lam
At the conclusion of this list of teachers and Buddhist studies topics of study, Sum pa
mkhan po raises the issue of regarding the study of non-Buddhist topics. He begins by citing a
493
Geshe Lhundup Sopa, Peacock in the Poison Grove: Two Buddhist Texts on Training the Mind; the
Wheel Weapon (mtshon chaʾkhor lo) & the Poison-destroying Peacock (rma bya dug ʾjoms) Attributed to
Dharmarakṣita (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2001).
170
locus classicus from Mahāyānasūtrālamkāra to emphasize the importance of studying the five
sciences:
/rigs pa’i gnas lnga dal la brtson par ma byas na/
/’phags mchog gis kyang thams cad mkhyen nyid ga la thob/
“Without becoming a scholar in the five sciences,
Not even the supreme sage can become omniscient”494
He does not stop here, but tries to further emphasize the necessity of also studying
“worldly treatises” (’jig rten lugs kyi bstan ’chos).495 He underlines the notion that mastery of
both conventional Buddhist sciences and worldly sciences is what elevates one to truly high
status. However, the list of what he studied with regard to these topics during his time at Central
Tibet is rather simple:
a. Rin chen don grub dpal bzang po and his student Mdzo mo mkhar pa rab ’byams
Smon lam lhun grub
made copies of Dbyang can sgra mdo and its commentaries at Se ra’s Prati hut496
b. Bsod nams rgyal mtshan, who was also know as Sku ’bum pa Bsam blo the dwarf
(mi’u thung)
494
Among others, this statement is cited in Sa skya Paṇḍita’s Mkhas pa ‘jug pa’i sgo and Bu ston Rin
chen grub’s Chos ’byung. For its English rendition, I followed Jonathan Gold’s translation in Gold, The
Dharma’s Gatekeepers (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007), 14.
495
To emphasize the importance of worldly treatise, Sum pa Mkhan po cited Nāgārjuna’s Prajñāśataka
(verse no. 98):
/mi yis chos lugs legs spyad na/
/lha yul bgrod pa thag mi ring /
/lha dang mi yi them skas la/
/’dzegs na thar bag am na ’dug/
“If a person practices well the dharma’s way,
The distance to step into the god’s realm is not far away.
To the stairs of gods and humans,
If one climbs, liberation exists very closely.”
SKRL1 48b: SKRL2 126.
496
Se ra’i pra ti’i spyil bu. Unidentified. A part of Se ra monatery?
171
Sum cu pa and Rtags ’jug
c. Dge bshes Rgyud smad slob dpon Pā tsa grags pa lhun grub of Gser khog btsan po
mi tshan
how to write Lantsha and Urtu letters
d. (no teacher in Central Tibet)
self educated from young age, how to draw stūpa lines and deities and Tibetan
stripts (both dbu can and dbu med)
e. (no teacher in Central Tibet)
medical science (gso ba rig pa), poetry (snyan dngags) and poetic metrics (sdeb
sbyor), studied later in Amdo
f. Sog po rab ’byams pa Ngag dbang rgya mtsho who was a student of Ngag dbang
chos ’phel497
Lnga bsdus etc. of the Kālacakra tradition in Dkar rtsis
g. ’Bras spungs spyi’i sman sbyin pa bod pa sman rams pa
throwing 45 rde’u methods of the Spor thang tradition in Rgya rtsis
In sum, Sum pa Mkhan po’s extra-curricular learning in Central Tibet was mostly related
to Buddhist sūtra and mantra. In this regard, his most important teacher was certainly Nam mkha’
bzang po, from whom Sum pa Mkhan po not only studied Lam rim literature but also received
several key Dge lugs pa oral transmissions. Although Sum pa Mkhan po’s focus was Buddhist
philosophy, he indicates a strong sense of division of knowledge, broadly speaking, between
Buddhist studies (nang don) and the conventional sciences (tha snyad). An important point to
497
Ngag dbang chos ’phel was the one who questioned Vaiḍūrya dkar po, an astrological treatise by
Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho. As a result, Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho composed Vaiḍūrya g.ya’ sel as a response
to the former’s questions.
172
keep in mind for the future development is that he did not limit his study of tha snyad topics to
conventional sciences as represented by five fields of knowledge, but was open to the study of
worldly traditions too. In this way, Sum pa Mkhan po left room for further innovations in his
scholarship.
2.3. Ongoing learning after returning to Amdo
Sum pa Mkhan po continued his studies after returning to Amdo in 1731. It is worth
noting that Sum pa Mkhan po acquired most of his learning in Amdo while traveling. When he
visited Lā mo bde chen monastery in 1732, he learned the following topics from Galdan Siretü
Qutugtu Blo bzang bstan pa’i nyi ma (1689-1762): an empowerment (dbang) of Bka’ gdams thig
le bcu drug,498 a permission blessing (rjes gnang) of Rnam sras bka’ chen bco lnga, a teaching
(khrid) of Gtor chen zur dgu ba (?), oral transmissions of Bka’ gdams pha chos bu chos, Jo bo
rje’i chos chung brgya rtsa, and Lho brag mar pa’i snyan brgyur. While at Lā mo bde chen, Sum
pa Mkhan po also learned from Smon lam dpal ’byor bzang po topics such as: the Ārya Tradition
of Guhyasamāja Tantra (gsang ’dus ’phags lugs), empowerments of many deities of
Cakrasaṃvara in the Luipa tradition (bde mchog lū hi pa'i lugs) and Dril bu pa’s (Ghaṇṭāpa) five
deities, permission blessings of Lho brag bka’ ’bum nang (?) and ’Jigs byed dmar po mda’ gzhu
’gengs pa, and an oral transmission (lung) of khrid chen brgyad. In the same year, when Sum pa
Mkhan po visited Gong ba monastery, over the course of 18 days he, along with 800 other
498
Ehrhard, “The Transmission of the Thig le bcu drug and the Bka’ gdams glegs bam,” in Helmut Eimer
and David Germano, eds. The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism, (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 29-56.
173
laymen and monks, received an oral transmission of maṇḍala rite (dkyil chog) from the abbot
Dge ’dun don grub pa.
In 1734, when Sum pa Mkhan po stayed at Bkra shis chos gling, he studied the full aspect
(108) of Mitra bgya tsa with Sngags rams pa Blo gros ‘byung gnas (1684-?) of Lha ri
hermitage,499 who had in turn studied it with ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa I. Sum pa Mkhan po also
received empowerments of ’Jigs byed dpa’ gcig, Gcod, Tshe dapg med lha dgu and Bcu gcig
zhal, 203 permission blessings of Sgrub thabs rgya mtsho, and teachings of Snying po don gsum,
’Phrul ’khor of ’Jigs byed, and Lcags mkhar zur dgu ba from this sngags rams pa. Sum pa
Mkhan po also studied ’Pho ba ‘jag tshugs ma500 with Gro tshang brag Rin po che, who was
present there.
Sum pa Mkhan po then traveled to Gro tshang monastery, where he studied many
subjects under Gro tshang brag Rin po che, such as empowerments of Gdugs dkar lha mang and
Mi ’khrugs pa lha dgu and a permission blessing of Bka’ gdams lha bzhi, reading transmission
(klags lung) of Dmigs brtse ma'i las tshogs bcu gcig, and elaborating (zhib rgyas) Tsong kha pa’s
Man ngag gsum transmitted by ’Jam dbyang bzhad pa I.
During the next year, 1735, Sum pa Mkhan po went to Sku ’bum monastery. During a
one month’s stay there, he received from Ra kho dpon slob Shes rab chos ’byor (1672-?)501 the
499
Although both SKRL and SKRS has the name Blo gros ’byung gnas for this learning, this seems a
mistake of Blo bzang ’byung gnas, who had studied in Central Tibet and later founded Lha ri bsam gtan
gling. Blo bzang ’byung gnas is mentioned as one of “rdo rje slob dpon” in the list of Sum pa Mkhan po’s
33 teachers in the appendix. For more details of this master, see Lce nag tshang hūṃ chen and Ye
shes ’od zer sgrol ma, Reb kong sngags mang gi lo rgyus phyogs bsgrigs (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun
khang, 2004), 64-65.
500
It is the ritual for soul-redemption. In the shorter autobiography, it is called’Pho khrid ‘jag zug ma.
501
Ra kho dpon slob Shes rab chos ’byor was the 23rd abbot of Sku ’bum monastery (fl. 1731-1734). For
more details of this person, see Ko zhul Grags pa ’byung gnas et al., Gangs can mkhas grub rim byon
ming mdzod (Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe, 1992), 1594-95. Also see Gser tog Blo bzang tshul
khrims rgya mtsho, Sku ’bum gdan rabs, 63.
174
permission blessings (rjes gnang) of Sa skya’i gser chos, an initiation (rigs gtad)502 of Tshe ring
mched lnga, oral transmissions of Rwa bod (?) and Mkhas grub rjes’ Gsung thor bu ba and Thog
ma’i blo sbyong. While at Sku ‘bum, he also received teachings of Dpal gsang ba ’dus pa’i
rdzogs rim rdo nag lag brgyud, Blo sbyong don bdun ma and Paṇ chen IV’s Bla ma mchod pa,
and an oral transmission of the Bka’ gdams gzhung drug from Chi kya slob dpon Blo bzang kun
dga’.
More than anything else, however, while at Sku ‘bum Sum pa Mkhan po received the
empowerment of Kālacakra trantra from the abbot Dge ‘dun don grub. The first day of the
empowerment comprised a preliminary ritual (sta gon) based on Mkhas grub rje’s text and the
second and third days, the actual empowerment. On that occasion, he also helped set up a
Kālacakra maṇḍala mde of colored sand. Lastly, while at Sku ‘bum, Sum pa received a
permission blessing of Bde mchog sngags btus from Sgo mi Dga’ ldan rab ’byams pa Ye shes
skal bzang.
This is how Sum pa Mkhan po continued to study after returning to his home monastery.
His studies—or at least records them—were already extensive just a few years after his return
from Central Tibet. Many of the topics he studied during that period were esoteric oral
transmission teachings of the Dge lugs pa school. Sum pa had barely ventured beyond the
bounds of the Dge lugs pa and most of his teachers during his later period of study had
themselves studied at Dge lugs pa monasteries in Central Tibet during their earlier academic
careers. After his stay at Sku ’bum monastery in 1735, Sum pa taught more than he studied. Sum
502
Rigs gtad is a name of initiation in which the blessing of deities is bestowed. In the shorter
autobiography (SKRS1 12b; SRKS2 50) Sum pa Mkhan po has byin rlabs (“blessing”) instead of rigs
gtad. For ther term rgis gtad, see ʼGos lo tsā ba gzhon nu dpal, The Blue Annals, trans. George Roerich
(Calcutta: Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1949-53), 1024 and Jigme Lingpa, Treasury of Precious
Qualities Book Two: Vajrayana and the Great Perfection, trans. the Padmakara Translation Group
(Boston: Shambhala, 2013), 423, note 355.
175
pa Mkhan po also made his first attempt at writing during that year when he finalized his
studies.503
The only meaningful records of study in his later years are the following few cases: In
1736, Sum pa Mkhan po received a permission blessing of Mitra lha drug from Sum pa chos rje
to ensure he safely travel to Beijing. While in Beijing in 1737, he requested the blessing of 84
siddhas from Lcang skya’s teacher Blo bzang chos ’dzin. One noteworthy area of Sum pa Mkhan
po’s later learning was his study of medical texts. In 1752, when Sum pa Mkhan po visited Stag
lung of lower Jag rung, he met the disciple of a doctor to Dalai Lama V, Nyi ma rgyal mtshan at
the camp behind the monastery, with whome he studied the Rgyud bzhi. Lastly, Sum pa Mkhan
po occasionally received teachings when higher religious figures visited his area. In 1749, when
Lcang skya III Rol pa’i rdo rje visited Dgon lung during Sum pa Mkhan po’s abbacy, Lcang skya
gave some teachings along with his bestowal of the title “Erdini Paṇḍita” on Sum pa Mkhan po.
When Lcang skya III arrived in Dgon lung for the funeral of his father in 1763, Sum pa Mkhan
po again received teachings from Lcang skya. In 1764, Lcang skya called Sum pa Mkhan po to
join the Cakrasaṃvara Tantra empowerment, which Lcang skya was offering to 17 monks,
including Chu bzang III. Lcang skya gave more teachings and gave Sum pa mkhan po the name
“rol pa’i rdo rje”. In the same vein, when Paṇ chen VI Blo bzang dpal ldan ye shes (1738-1780)
traveled to Beijing via Amdo in 1779, he offered a teaching on lam gyi gtso bo rnam gsum to
Sum pa Mkhan po and others on a stopover in Amdo.
503
This is the work in Collected Works, vol. 5 (ca), Rgyal ba’i gsung rab thams cad kyi man ngag gi
snying po rnam par bsdus pa chos spyod nor bu’i 'phreng ba. For details of this work, see Chapter
Appendix II below.
176
2.4. Summary of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Learning
In sum, Sum ps Mkhan po’s autobiography shows the basic trajectory of his learning. His
education began first at home, and then he completed the basic level of study with local monkscholars. Once he was identified as a reincarnation and moved to Sum pa residence, Sum pa
Mkhan po was entered the traditional monastic curricular track. Over the course of eleven years
of study at the monastery Sum pa completed the first two of the five stages of monastic
curriculum (gzhung po ti lnga), and seemed to have been considered learned enough that
monastic officials requested that he not to leave the monastery to study elsewhere. The education
he had received up to this point mostly pertained to exoteric topics, although he had been
introduced to esoteric topics as well. During his eight-year period of study in Central Tibet, Sum
pa Mkhan po did not follow the normative path to certain academic titles, but strove to learn
from great scholars available at the time. Although it appears that Sum pa balanced exoteric and
esoteric subjects with respect to his curricular and extracurricular studies while in Central Tibet,
the balance between “inner” Buddhist studies and “outer” non-Buddhist subjects was decidedly
slanted more toward Buddhist philosophy than toward conventional sciences. The record of his
learning experiences stops there.
So why did the Ordos Qanggin Mongols, four decades later, solicit Sum pa Mkhan po to
lead a reformation of education with an eye to establishing a better balance between inner and
outer topics? In the following section I will deal with events in Sum pa Mkhan po’s teaching
career during those four intervening decades.
177
3. Sum pa Mkhan po’s activities of sharing and implementing his knowledge
Sum pa Mkhan po’s teaching activities began as early as his time in Central Tibet and
continued throughout and into his later life. His first experience teaching a monastic community
in his capacity as a mkhan po (abbot) was in ’Bras yul skyid tshal monastery.504 By examining
the trajectory along which these activities unfolded we can better understand Sum pa Mkhan po’s
scholarship. To limit our focus only to his actual teaching activities to evaluate the influence that
his great knowledge and authority had on people would be overly narrow. To broaden the scope
to sufficiently capture the influence he wielded as a teacher, I will also consider how he
implemented his knowledge by giving tantric initiations and empowerments to laypeople and
monks and other acts of generosity derived from his knowledge, such as offering medical help,
and performing rainmaking and soul-redemption rituals. With the inclusion of these activities,
my discussion will cover a more broadly conceived notion of scholarly activities and will serve
as a bridge between the investigation of his formal education in the previous section and the
analysis of his writing that will follow in the next part.
3.1. Teaching Activities
Sum pa Mkhan po undertook a variety of teaching activities throughout his life. Many of
these are recorded in his autobiographies. Although some are just vaguely presented there, a
decent number of them are recorded with enough detail to show the direction that Sum pa Mkhan
504
For this teaching activity at ’Bras yul skyid tshal, see SKRL1 56b-57a; SKRL2 147: mkhan slob chos
gsum ’dus pa’i mkhan khrir ’khod de chos thog la byams chos kyi rtsi bzhag btang/ It seems that Sum pa
Mkhan po merely guided its monk community to memorize five treatises of Maitreya.
178
po’s scholarship took. Of course, these records do not reflect each and every aspect of his “real”
teaching experience, but they do at least reveal the intentions and tendencies that Sum pa Mkhan
po exhibited throughout his teaching career. The following are Sum pa Mkhan po’s major
experiences teaching as recorded in his autobiography:
year
1732
1733
1746
1747
1757
1757
1765
1768
1770
1773
1774
1778
1780
1783
1783
1786
1787
place
Sbas yul dkar po brag rdzong
Bkra shis chos gling,
Stag lung
Dgon lung
Dgon lung
Dgon lung
Stag lung
teaching activities
taught Byang chub lam rim
the monk community
gave teachings to 2,000 laity & monks
taught Smon lam jātaka
taught Smon lam jātaka
taught Byang chub bde lam
taught sūtra and mantra and difficult points of
conventional sciences (tha snyad rigs gnas), to
1,000 laity and monks
Mchod rten thang
taught Lam rim
Yu gur
taught dharma (chos)
Bkra shis rtse
taught grammar (sgra), astrology (rtsis), poetic
matrics (sdeb sbyor), and sum rtags
[Bkra shis rtse?] to students from taught mostly conventional science (tha snyad)
Sku ’bum
subjects
Bayannuur
gave teachings to 1,500 laity and monks
Ordos Qanggin
taught 10 sciences
Dgon lung
taught Smon lam jātaka
Bkra shis rtse
taught topics of sūtra
[Bkra shis rtse?] to some sangha offered sūtra & mantra and conventional science
from Sku ‘bum and Gser khog
(tha snyad) teachings
Bshad sgrub gling
exhortation for studying conventional sciences
(tha snyad) such as medicine, astrology, poetry
One observation that we can draw from this list is that although Sum pa Mkhan po’s
earlier teachings show no specific trend, as the years wore on he grew inclined to emphasize a
balance in study between sūtra and mantra and tha snyad topics of Tibetan scholarship. This
trend was initiated to some extent by Lcang skya III’s exhortation in reply to Sum pa Mkhan
po’s invitation to Dgon lung monastery in 1746, wherein Lcang skya observed: “For a great
monastery, it is not enough to [only] promote teaching and study of Buddhist philosophy
179
(mtshan nyid). Let [the monks] study topics of conventional sciences (tha snyad) [too], because
they are [also] important.”505 The same trend is obvious in his last instruction for Zhwa khog
Bshad sgrub gling, in which Sum pa Mkhan po exhorted that monks should exert themselves to
study medicine, astrology, and poetry when he settled a basis for both Inner and conventional
topics.506
3.2. Empowerments
Although Sum pa Mkhan po received empowerments related to many different tantras, he
only gave initiations (rjes gnang, dbang, lung and khrid) related to a number of specific tantras.
The following are the tantric empowerments that Sum pa Mkhan po recorded having given in his
autobiography.
a. Mitra brgya tsha empowerment
This is one of the tantric empowerments most frequently given by Sum pa Mkhan po. He
bestowed them especially early in his career (1733, Dga’ ldan rin chen gling, 500 clergy
and laity; 1734, Bkra shis chos gling 1000 clergy and laity; 1735, Dgon lung, 1000 clergy
and laity; 1746, Stag lung, 2000 clergy and laity; 1753, Dalad, 5000 clergy and laity;
1760 Dgon lung people at Sum pa residence, recipients number unknown).
b. Kālacakra empowerment
505
SKRL1 106b; SKRL2 278: dgon chen la mtshan nyid 'chad nyan rkyang bas mi chog par tha snyad rig
gnas kyang gal che bas slob chug/; Lcang skya III’s dichotomy of branches of Tibetan scholarship with
mtshan nyid and tha snyad is worthy of further consideration. Mtshan nyid means definition,
characteristic, or philosophy, but, according to Dreyfus, in the Dge lugs pa curriculum it means “all the
exoteric aspects of the tradition distinguished from sngags” (Dreyfus, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping,
119). However, Sum pa Mkhan po often uses the term to indicate topics related to both sūtra and mantra,
as it is sometimes interchangeable with the term mdo sngags. In this way, the dichotomy between mtshan
nyid and tha snyad is more like that between the Buddhist studies and conventional sciences. It is not
clear whether Sum pa Mkhan po used the exact Lcang skya’s wording or it reflects Sum pa Mkhan po’s
own way of using the word.
506
SKRL1 236b; SKRL2 616.
180
This is another of the most frequently given tantric empowerments. The bestowal of
Kālacakra tantra empowerment was a later development of Sum pa Mkhan po’s career.
Also it seems this tantra empowerment was more frequently requested by Mongols (1750,
Ordos, 500; 1754, Ta yan chi Dga’ ldan rin chen gling, 500; 1759, Dgon lung, 10,000;
1760, Mdong nag, 500; 1761, Phyag rdor beise, 1,000507; 1775 Üüshin beise’s place;
1775, [Ordos] jasak taiji’s place, 700; 1775, Tumed near to Höhhot and Dörben
Kheükhed, 2,000).
c. Rdo rje phreng ba (Vajramālā) empowerment
This is one of the earliest tantras that Sum pa Mkhan po had learned and practiced (1734,
Dga’ ldan bshad sgrub gling, 800; 1736 Ser lung; 1747 Matisi; 1760, Mdong nag, 500;
1761, Phyag rdor beise’s people; 1000508).
d. ’Jigs byed (Bhairava) empowerment
This is another of the earliest tantras that Sum pa Mkhan po had learned and practiced
(1743, Dgon lung, individually to Thu’u bkwan; 1746, Pho rod Zhwa dmar’s Dga’ ldan
chos ‘khor gling, 700509; 1770, Pā yan o’u la, 100, 1773, Alashan, 700510; 1787, Bkra shis
rtse, recipients number unknown; 1787, Bshad sgrub gling, 200).
e. other empowerments
Tshe dpag med (Amitayus): 1746, Pho rod Zhwa dmar’s Dga’ ldan chos ‘khor gling,
700511
Eleven-faced one (Ekadaśamukha): 1746, Pho rod Zhwa dmar’s Dga’ ldan chos ‘khor
gling, 700512; 1773, Alashan, 700513
Avalokiteśvara: 1784, Mā yang’s Dga’ ldan bkra shis chos gling, 1,000
Guhyasamāja 4 commentaries compendium: 1747, Dgon lung; 1753, Bkra shis chos
gling, 500
Gdugs dkar (Sitātapatrā): 1778, Tshe ring rdo rje ta wang’s ho ro, 2,000
We can surmise that Sum pa Mkhan po used his learning or receipt of tantric
empowerments well and himself became a disseminator of this tradition. As the list
demonstrates, Mitra brgya tsa and Kālacakra were the two pillars of Sum pa Mkhan po’s tantric
507
Along with Rdo rje phreng ba.
508
Along with Kālacakra empowerment.
509
Along with Tshe dpag med and 11 faced one.
510
Along with 11 faced one.
511
Along with ‘Jigs byed and 11 faced one.
512
Along with ‘Jigs byed and Tshe dpag med.
513
Along with ‘Jigs byed.
181
initiation activities. In Chapter V, I will more fully discuss the role that tantric empowerments
have in forging monastic and societal connections.
3.3. Medical Help
Sum pa Mkhan po also drew on his knowledge of medicine to offer medical aid in several
cases. As an author of five treatises on medicine, Sum pa Mkhan po had actively practiced
medicine. We don’t know the details of most of these cases, but the description of the procedure
used to treat Lcang skya’s eye disease in 1755 shows that Sum pa Mkhan po’s medical work
combined ritual and medication, which is different from medical treatment in the modern sense.
Sum pa mentions in his autobiography having provided medical help on the following occasions:
1755 cured Lcang skya’s eye disease in Beijing;
1760, cured the chieftain of Suzhou 肅州;
1767, cured people at Höhhot’s Cha har Ti yan chi’s temple and Dörben Kheükhed;
1769, cured smallpox at Gro tshang;
1774, cured 5-60 people in upper Mtsho sngon;
1775, providede medical help in Ordos;
1787, cured an Oirat chieftain of Shas po ro in Mtsho sngon.
3.4. Rainmaking Rituals (char ’bebs)
One of the reasons Sum pa Mkhan po was popular among Amdo and Mongol people was
his skill at rainmaking rituals. In his discussion of rainmaking rituals,514 Sum pa Mkhan po
makes two assertions regarding his own rainmaking ritual. Firstly, he says that his way of
performing the ritual works better than that of other Buddhist or non-Buddhist wizards. Sum pa
514
SKRL1 150a-152b; SKRL2 388-95.
182
Mkhan po had in fact competed with others in rainmaking and was blamed for the
ineffectiveness of the ritual.515 In any case, Sum pa Mkhan po claimed that his own method
worked best. Secondly, Sum pa Mkhan po was critical of learned scholars of both Inner Topics
and conventional sciences who were not capable of rainmaking and didn’t count rainmaking as
one of their capacities (yon tan).516 Explaining that being able to produce timely rain is important
not only for gaining temporal benefits but also for ultimate well-being, Sum pa Mkhan po counts
the yon tan of the rainmaking among those that the learned should possess. In this way, Sum pa
Mkhan po extended the scope of a scholar’s trade by including a very practical and commonerfriendly skill. Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works includes a work on rituals to avert natural
disasters that includes a rainmaking ritual as its penultimate rite in the whole list.517 The times
and places of his performance of rainmaking rituals are as follows:
1735, Bkra shis chos gling; 1746, Dgon lung; 1770, Yu gur; 1770, upper Mtsho sngon;
1773, Alashan; 1775, Ordos; 1776, Alashan; 1776, Xining; 1777, Mtsho sngon’s Dga’
ldan pho brang’s manor; 1777, Alashan; 1777, Hang gin; 1778, U’u shin; 1778, PA yan
no’ur; 1787, Dgon lung
3.5. Soul-redemption Rituals (’pho ba btab pa)
Another factor that contributed to Sum pa Mkhan po popularity, especially among
Alashan and Ordos Mongols, was his ability to perform soul-redemption rituals. According to his
515
For an example of such blame from others (but finally overcame them by successful results), see
SKRL1 187b-188b; SKRL2 484-86.
516
SKRL1 150b; SKRL2 389: mtshan nyid pa'i dge bshes su grags pa dang sgra gso bzo rtsis la mkhas
zhes pa dag gi gang dang gang bslab pa de yon tan chen po re yin zhing phugs su sman par 'gyur mod
kyang de dang des char ba 'beb mi nus la/ de dag gis char 'beb shes pa yon tan gyi gral du mi tshud pa
lta bur byed kyang /
517
This is Kha char 'beb bsrung sogs kyi gdams pa gnam sa'i mdzes rgyan, in Collected Works, vol. 8
(nya).
183
discussion of soul-redemption rituals,518 Sum pa Mkhan po’s rituals seemed to have been based
on a set of normative rules, as he mentions that he learned the rite through textual transmission
from Gro tshang brag rin po che. 519 Another interesting point from Sum pa Mkhan po’s
discussion of this type of ritual is that he displays a strong sense of fideism related to the
effectiveness of the ritual. In other words, what makes the redemption successful is not one’s
intellectual ability to understand the rite, but one’s faith (dad pa) in it. In this way, Sum pa
Mkhan po attaches greater importance to ongoing postnatal efforts than to naturally inborn
ability. Sum pa Mkhan po’s record of performing soul-redemption rituals is as follows:
1770 Stag lung sprul sku’s deathbed; 1771, Alashan tusalagci’s mother’s funeral; 1771,
Du ral Blo bzang shes rab’s deathbed; 1772, dur pen khu’u khed wang’s funeral; 1777,
Alashan qinwang wife’s funeral;1780, Ordos Tshe ring rdo rje wang’s deathbed.
4. Collected Works520
4.1. The Mindset Behind Its Writings
Another way in which Sum pa Mkhan po shared his academic achievement was through
his writings and their dissemination. Compared to his work in directly sharing knowledge by
traveling and teaching, as discussed above, his writings had different dimensions of spatial and
518
SKRL1 155b-156b ;SKRL2 402-5.
519
In 1734, Sum pa Mkhan po received the oral transmission (lung) of ’Pho ba ‘jag tshugs ma from Gro
tshang brag rin po che. For this see SKRL1 70b; SKRL2 182. Sum pa Mkhan po composed two works on
funeral rites, namely Pur chog gi lag len phan bde'i gtam snyan, in Collected Works, vol. 4 (nga) and Bar
do 'phrang sgrol gyi tshig 'grel nyung 'dus legs 'dren shing rta, in Collected Works, vol. 4 (nga). The
connection between these two works and the soul-redemption rituals described in his autobiography
remains to be investigated.
520
Parts of this section are from Hanung Kim, “Introduction to the New Publication of Sum pa Ye shes
dpal ’byor’s Collected Works.” Zangxue xuekan/ The Journal of Tibetology, forthcoming.
184
temporal influence. His written works spread much farther than the geographic area covered
during his teaching tours, and have, of course, outlived him and have been continuously
reprinted and republished up to recent years.521 Therefore, in measuring Sum pa Mkhan po’s
influence, it will be important to examine his writings and how they have been disseminated.
Before diving into the details of Sum pa Mkhan po’s writing, however, it is necessary to
first examine what Sum pa Mkhan po himself had in his mind when producing his writings. As
discussed in Introduction, Sum pa Mkhan po used seven thematic chapters to summarize his life
in the later part of SKRL. The sixth of those was “the way he worked for the benefit of Buddha’s
teachings and beings through four kinds of giving (sbyin pa bzhi).” There Sum pa Mkhan po
discusses each of the four kinds of giving in detail, namely giving the dharma (chos), material
wealth (zang zing), fearlessness (mi ’jigs pa), and love (byams pa). The first topic he places
within the category of giving the dharma is his acts of writing. In describing this act of giving, he
reveals the mindset he maintained from writing the first stroke to the completion of the
woodblock printing of his Collected Writings.
Sum pa Mkhan po lists composing chos spyod nor bu’i ’phreng ba in the wood-hare year
(1735) as his first act of writing.522 While discussing this, he maintains a self-deprecating attitude
similar to that assumed when discussing the writing of his autobiography.523 He says that he is
521
Of course, in the matter of immediacy, face-to-face teachings should have been much more effective
than teaching through writings. In addition, whereas writings are limited to people who are literate in
Tibetan language, face-to-face teachings can be geared to broader audiences.
522
This work is Rgyal ba’i gsung rab thams cad kyi man ngag gi snying po rnam par bsdus pa chos spyod
nor bu’i ’phreng ba, the work of the fifth volume (ca) of his Collected Works.
523
For Sum pa Mkhan po’s attitude for writing his autobiography, see Chapter III.
185
not of sufficiently high achievement to compose treatises (bstan ’chos524), as a result of which he
refers to his own works as “pseudo-treatises (bstan ’chos ltar snang).” However, Sum pa Mkhan
po does not assume total responsibility for not being up to the task; he says that language and the
aptitude of local people also hindered the original teachings of Buddha and other excellent
beings. He even complains of a lack of capable scribes for the work. Sum pa Mkhan po saw
these conditions as providing compelling reasons to write new works, because even though the
works of many former excellent beings already existed, it was necessary to provide new works
that could meet the needs of that inferior time and place on its level. Finally, Sum pa Mkhan po
links his works to the accumulation of virtue in general saying, “Following the Buddha’s words
produces more merit than any other offering” and “Composing bstan ’chos prolongs the power
of the Buddha and excellent beings more than building stūpas or temples.” As Sum pa puts it, his
wrriten works “benefit beings” and their defining characteristic is merely “the repetition of
words of the Buddha and excellent beings.” In other words, studying his works is as beneficial as
studying the words of the Buddha and excellent beings and his works are more valuable than
wealth. At the end of his discussion of his own work as an author, Sum pa wishes that his own
524
Bstan ’bcos may not be an orthography for the term meaning “treatise,” which commonly is rendered
as bstan chos or bstan bcos. However, the woodblock printing of Sum pa Mkhan po’s autobiography
keeps using bstan ’chos for the term. A quotation of analying the compound word bstan ’chos is given in
his Gsung ’bum dkar chag (1a):
/nyon mongs dgra rnams ma lus ’chos pa dang /
/ngan ’gro srid las skyob byed gang yin pa/
/’chos skyob yon tan phyir na bstan ’chos te/
/gnyis po ’di dag gzhan gyi lugs la med//
“Texts that refine every afflictive emotion—our enemies—
And protect us from the miserable existences are treatises,
Since they have these qualities of refinement and protection.
These two qualities cannot be found in other systems.”
Vasubandhu, Vyākhyāyukti
I followed the English translation of the verse by Lisa Stein and Ngawang Zangpo, Butön’s History of
Buddhism (Boston: Snow Lion, 2013), 41.
186
works will be a cause and condition for the happiness of beings, and concludes his discussion
with a poem in verse.525
An informative summary of each work in Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works is
provided in Appendix II below. There, I explicitly examine the topics and courses Sum pa
Mkhan po chose to provide to achieve his goal of benefiting Buddha’s teachings and beings.
4.2. Arrangement of Collected Works
Sum pa Mkhan po’s works cover a wide swath of the scholarship available to 18thcentury Amdo scholars. Although his autobiography tends to record more details of his study
based on monastic curricula or tantric protocols and tends to lack details regarding
extracurricular study of “Inner Topics”. The list of his Collected Works clearly shows that he
worked on a variety of “conventional” (tha snyad) topics and authored several works in that
genre after returning to Amdo. The fact that Sum pa Mkhan po arranged his Collected Works by
himself, according to his spectific intentions as shown in the final work of the entire collection,
the Catalogue (dkar chag), is also worthy of special consideration.526 The carefully considered
525
SKRL1 273b-279b ;SKRL2 707-22.
526
The term dkar chag has various subject matters and the scope of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Gsung ’bum dkar
chag here is also beyond the simple list of his works. To give an outline of Sum pa Mkhan po’s dkar
chag, of all 12 folios, 1a-5a: why and how the author has composed these treatises with many citations;
5a-8b: purpose and function of each treatise in each volume; 8b-9a: table of contents; 9a-11a: writing
treatises as an act of meritorious giving; 11a-12a: closing verses. For the general discussion of the term
dkar chag and its concept, see Dan Martin, “Tables of Contents (dKar chag), ” in Tibetan Literature:
Studies in Genre, ed. José Cabezón, (Ithaca: Snow Lion Press, 1996), 500-14, Dung dkar Blo bzang
’phrin las, Mkhas dbang dung dkar blo bsang ’phrin las kyi gsung 'bum: bod kyi dkar chag rig pa
(Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2004), and Ulrike Roesler, "Classifying Literature or Organizing
Knowledge? Some Considerations on Genre Classifications in Tibetan Literature," in Tibetan Literary
Genres, Texts, and Text Types, ed. J. Rheingans, (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 40-41.
187
arrangement of works in the catalogue demonstrates an 18th-century Amdo scholar’s opinion
regarding which set of stages a learner should follow.
In most cases a dkar chag was compiled by disciples after the author passed away, but
Sum pa Mkhan po penned his own dkar chag for the Collected Works.527 Following a very long
foreword sprinkled with copious citations that explain his decision to compose works despite
considering himself to be not that intelligent, he gives a rough introduction to the arrangement of
the works, before going into detail regarding each:
KA (the first volume) engenders faith in [the three] precious jewels from the
outset, so that one will [be able to] sincerely engage the Buddha’s teaching.
KHA (the second volume) contains the principal texts that one generally needs at
the beginning in order to study scripture based on one’s conviction after having
developed [faith]—like a précis needed prior to extensive study—so that one can
study to the point of full understanding the conduct that is shared in common, the
view, meditation, and such of the Mahāyāna, and the vast and profound paths and
fruits.
GA (the third volume) contains texts [that enable one] to practice, reflect, and
meditate on the inner meaning of what one has studied from the perspective of
sūtra.
NGA (the fourth volume) contains texts [that enable one] to study and practice
that inner meaning from the perspective of mantra.
CA and CHA (the fifth and sixth volumes) are two texts that condense the stages
of the practice of sūtra and tantra into a single day’s Dharma service.
JA (the seventh volume) [enables one] to care for others using conventional
sciences.
NYA (the eighth volume) [enables one] to teach and practice no matter what the
circumstances or sense pleasures may be, [explains] how even I established good
habits, and is ornamented at the end with a text of a rainmaking ritual for good
fortune and glory, along with the catalog.528
527
Although its writing year is verified in the autobiography’s appendix as shown in note 94 above, the
Catalogue does not have a colophon in which authorship information is usually provided. However, in it
we can find a number of passages of self-deprecating accounts that could not be written by others such as
his disciples, but be penned only by Sum pa Mkhan po himself.
528
Catalogue 5a-5b: (ka) bstan par snying thag pa nas 'jug phyir thog mar dkon mchog la dad pa bskyed
byed/ (kha) de skyes te yid ches kyi sgo nas lung la thos pa byed pa la dang po nyid du spyir mkho ba
dang| thos pa rgya chen byed pa la sngon du nye bar mkho ba'i bsdus don lta bu dang| thun mong gi
spyod pa dang theg pa chen po'i lta sgom sogs dang zab rgyas lam 'bras la go ba chags byed du thos pa
byed gzhung gi gtso bo/ (ga) thos pa byas pa'i nang don mdo phyogs la nyams len sems sgom byed
gzhung/ (nga) nang don sngags phyogs la thos pa byed cing nyams len bya ba'i gzhung/ (ca) (cha) mdo
sngags kyi nyams len gyi rim pa rnams nyin zhag gcig gi chos spyod du bsdus pa gnyis/ (ja) tha snyad rig
188
This passage, despite its succinctness, clearly shows that Sum pa Mkhan po intended a
specific arrangement of his works into volumes. At first one must kindle faith in the Buddha’s
teachings, after which, novices can cultivate an elementary level of knowledge based on that
faith. Following that, one must practice and meditate, first from the sūtra perspective and then
from the mantra perspective. The latter half of the collection begins with works dedicated to
religious services, and is followed by works on the use of conventional science to serve and care
for others. Ideal models for both the Dharma community and individual practitioners are
provided. Finally, a rainmaking ritual for the benefit of all closes out the Collected Works. In
sum, the first half of the collection is comprised of works dedicated to inspiring faith and taking
up the training, and the second half is comprised of works dedicated to benefitting others in
actual, measurable ways and to providing models for the ideal practice and practitioner. It seems
that this arrangement reflects the stages of Sum pa Mkhan po’s life experiences redarding his
own study and teaching, and by putting the topics of conventional and practical sciences such as
medicine, astrology and rites to avert natural disasters in the last phase of the stages, Sum pa
Mkhan po’s scholarship lived up to his hosts’ demand “to increase the illumination of the ten
fields of knowledge.”
5. Conclusion
This chapter has attempted to draw a map of Sum pa Mkhan po’s scholarly life by
tracking those activities relevant to his scholarship narrated in his autobiographies. His early
gnas la brten nas gzhan rjes su 'dzin byed/ (nya) gnas gang du kun spyod ji 'dras bshad sgrub bgyid pa
dang| ngos kyis kyang bag chags bzang po bzhag tshul dang| mjug bkra shis bde skyid kyi gzhi char 'bab
gzhung gis brgyan ba| kar chag bcas pa'o//
189
academic life fits the mold of traditional Tibetan academic culture, beginning with homelearning, followed by study at a local monastery, and then study at a central academic institution
in Lhasa. Although enthusiastic about his studies, Sum pa’s accounts indicate that he did not
strictly adhere to the normative curriculum at his residential college; instead he took chances to
learn outside topics of interest with many masters of the time. In light of his rejection of an
academic title in Amdo and his pursuit of outside studies, we can surmise that gaining an
academic title was not the primary motive driving his academic pursuits. In keeping with this
idea, Sum pa was primarily associated in his career with non-academic titles such as mkhan po or
Erdenipaṇḍita, although it is important to note that the latter title could be obtained only by those
who possessed a high degree of scholarly achievement.
Sum pa Mkhan po’s scholarship further developed in a unique direction after he returned
to his home region. His frequent contacts with people in Amdo and Inner Mongolia appeared to
have shaped a new set of interests centered around more practical knowledge that would be of
immediate use to those who invited him to teach. It is true that Sum pa Mkhan po was a religious
figure whose main interest was to promote Buddhist teachings. But to achieve that higher aim he
adapted the knowledge he had cultivated in his studies to meet the practical needs of his
nonacademic audiences. The overall course of Sum pa Mkhan po’s scholarly pursuits is reflected
neatly in the arrangement that he himself gave to his Collected Works. In sum, by developing the
traditional Tibetan scholarship he had received to meet the needs of his particular audiences in
that time and place, Sum pa Mkhan po was a key figure in the cultural movement of Amdo
Renaissance.
The way in which Sum pa Mkhan po came to forge a new academic direction for himself
and his audience was closely related to his teaching tour and travel from monastery to monastery.
190
In the final chapter I will examine the features of Sum pa Mkhan po’s inter-monastic activity
more closely.
191
Chapter Appendix I: A List of Thirty-three Teachers of Sum pa Mkhan po529
a. 4 [masters] who made [me] engaged in Buddha’s teaching (bstan par gzhug mdzad bzhi):
Paṇ chen blo bzang ye shes dpal bzang po/ /(Bya bral ba) 'dul 'dzin chen po Chos skyong rgya
mtsho'i dpal/ /(’Jam dbyangs bzhad wa shul) Ngag dbang brtson 'grus/ /(Chu bzang) blo
bzang bstan rgyan zhabs/
b. 3 [masters] who possess the three kindnesses (bka' drin gsum ldan gsum):
/(Khri chen) grub pa'i dbang phyug Ngag dbang mchog ldan zhabs/ /(Khri chen) bka' drin zla
med Nam mkha' bzang po'i dpal/ /(Tho'u kwan530) mtha' 'khob sgron me Ngag dbang chos rgya
mtsho/
c. 3 [masters] who are saviors and emanations ('gro 'dren sprul sku gsum):
/Rgyal sras Blo bzang ngag dbang 'jigs med dpal/ /(Rgya nag pa khri sbu lku531) yongs 'dzin
Blo bzang bstan pa'i nyi ma dang / /(Lcang skya rin po che) mkhas mchog Bstan pa'i sgron me
dpal bzang/
d. 3 vajra masters (rdo rje slob dpon gsum):
/(Dpa' rin) bshes gnyen chen po Ngag dbang bkra shis/ /(Mtshan gro) (Chi ka'i gong ba532)
mkhan chen Dge 'dun don grub dpal bzang po/ /(Tshi khu sngags ram533) gsang sngags sdong
po Blo bzang 'byung gnas/
e. 3 [masters] who are holers of the treasury of oral instiructions (man ngag mdzod 'dzin
gsum):
/(Zha mar pa) mdo rgyud mnga' bdag shes rab rgya mtsho dang / /(Ra kho) mkhas btsun bzang
'dzom Shes rab chos 'byor dpal/ /(Gro tshang brag) dbyangs can rjes bzung Shes rab bzang
po/
f. 6 [masters] who are incomparable excellent beings (mtshungs med dam pa drug):
/(Sngags pa bla ma) Blo bzang yar 'phel/ /(Bde chen pa) Smon lam dpal 'byor zhabs/ /(Chi
ca) Blo bzang kun dga'/ /(Rkong po pa) Dam chos rin chen dpal/ /(Sgo mang la mo) Ngag
dbang nam mkha'/ (Sem nyi sgo mang bla ma) Blo bzang dam chos/
g. 6 [masters] who exert meditation in whatever situation (gang thug sgom sbyar drug):
529
Sum pa Mkhan po mentioned 33 teachers, whose list can be found in SKRL1 262b; SKRL2 678-679.
The number of 33 for his lifetime teachers is also found in SKRS1 4a; SKRS2 13: de nas bzung ste da
lta’i bar du yongs ’dzin dngos su med yon 33 grangs lhag bsten pa. Parentheses are originally interlinear
notes in the xylograph copy.
530
Tho'u kwan is likely a mistake or different spelling of Thu’u bkwan.
531
Sbu lku is likely a mistake of sprul sku.
532
Chi ka is likely present-day Khri ka (Ch. Guide 贵德)
533
Tshi khu sngags ram is likely a mistake of Tshi kha sngags rams.
192
/(Blo gling mnga' ri pa) rje btsun Blo bzang sbyin pa/ /Rkong po pa/ /(Mnyam bzhag pa) Blo
bzang bkra shis /
/(Sum pa) Phun tshogs rnam rgyal zhabs/ /(Sgom pa chos rje) Blo bzang
chos 'dzin/
/(Bod pa lus sbyong tsam nyan) Rin chen phun tshogs rje/
h. 5 [masters] includig all up to teachers of letters (yi ge'i slob dpon yan chad kun):
/('Dan ma grub chen) ngag dbang bstan 'dzin / /(Ul shri slob chung ) blo gros rgya mtsho'i
zhabs/ /(Sngo mi ba) ye shes skal bzang/ /Nyi ma rgyal mtshan dpal/ /(Dge rgan) mdzub
khrid mdzad mkhas 'Jam dbyangs rgya mtsho/
193
Chapter Appendix II: Topics and Authorship Information of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected
Works
Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works is comprised of 68 works in 8 volumes. Some
works are divided into sub-topics.
Vol. 1 (ka)
1-1. ’Phags yul rgya nag chen po bod dang sog yul du dam pa’i chos byung tshul dpag bsam
ljon bzang (318 folios)
A history of Buddhism in India, Tibet, China, and Mongolia. According to its colophon (f. 317a),
composed in the earth-dragon year (1748) at Dgon lung monastery when he was 45 years old.
His two autobiographies corroborate that it was written in that year.534 M. Wulan points out that
some parts of the work—especially the history of Western Mongols—must have been added
after 1748, since it records events that happened as late as 1755.535 It seems that this work has
circulated as an independent work, and even a handwritten copy exits. Tōyō Bunko has a copy in
dbu med script.536
534
SKRL1 109r; SKRL2 285; SKRS1 19a; SKRS2 73. Interestingly, both autobiographies have Chos
’byung yongs ’dus ljon bzang as the title of the work.
535
M. Wulan, “Songbakanbu dui Ruyi baoshu shi de buzhuan,” Beifang minzu daxue xuebao, 90, no.6
(2009): 39-40. For the last event of these, Sum pa Mkhan po recorded Qing’s capture of Dawachi in 1755
(i.e., the wood-pig year) and the resultant end of the Zünghar Khanate (Dpag bsam ljon bzang, 309a: Dā
ba che rim par rgyal sar bsdad kyang / shing pha lor tā che rgya nag gong ma chen long rgyal pos rgya
sog dmag dpung chen po btang ste bzung ba nas jon gwar gyi o’i lod kyi rgyal rgyud chad/).
536
Tōyō Bunko Yamaguchi Collection Call No.348, Ref. No. 2608,’Phags yul rgya nag chen po bod
dang sog yul du dam pa'i chos ’byung tshul dpag bsam ljon bzang, folios 1a1-363b in dbu med.
According to Mibu Taishun 生台舜, this copy was presented to Kawaguchi Ekai by Chandra Das, who
published reproductions of parts of Dpag bsam ljon bzang in the early 20th century. Mibu assumes that
this was the master copy for Das’ reproduction. For this, see Mibu Taishun, “Yamaguchi korekushon ni
tsuite,” Nihon chibetto gakkai kaihō, vol. 2 (1955): 2. Upon my brief analysis of the copy at Tōyō Bunko
on June 2017, this 363-folio copy covers up to folio 244 of the original 317-folio woodblock printing. In
other words, the later 23% of the original work is missing in this Tōyō Bunko copy. Interestingly, the
194
Figure 15. Cover page of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Dpag bsam ljon bzang, a handwritten copy
preserved in Tōyō Bunko, Tōkyō, Japan. Photo courtesy of Tōyō Bunko.
Vol. 2 (kha)
2-1. Yi ge’i rnam bzhag rab gsal me long (5 folios)
A presentation of basic applications and operations of functional terms in the Tibetan language.
The time and place of composition is not provided in the colophon, but it may have been written
in the same year as the following work, since it is the root text (rtsa ba) on which the next one is
based.
2-2. Yi ge’i rnam bzhag rab gsal me long zhes bya ba’i mchan ’grel (9 folios)
An auto-commentary to the former work. According to its colophon, it was composed in the
water-pig year (1743) when Sum pa was 40 years old. No mention of writing this work is found
in his autobiographies. The Translation Bureau of Qinghai Provincial Government (Ch.
Qinghaisheng shengzhengfu fanyichu
海省省政府翻译处) preserves a handwritten dbu med
copy of this work under a different title, Dag yig rab gsal me long zhes bya ba mchan ’grel can.
copy has several notes in English on it, which could be Das’ handwriting. More research is necessary to
elucidate other aspects of this copy.
195
Figure 16. First page of Dag yig rab gsal me long zhes bya ba mchan ’grel can, a handwritten
copy of Yi ge’i rnam bzhag rab gsal me long zhes bya ba’i mchan ’grel, preserved in The
Translation Bureau of Qinghai Provincial Government, Xining, China. Photo taken by Hanung
Kim in January 2016.
2-3. Tshad ma sde bdun gyi snying nor dang grub mtha’i rnam bzhag nyung ’dus (19 folios)
A set of two works, namely, a compendium of Dharmakīrti’s Seven Treatises on Valid Cognition
and an exposition of philosophical schools. According to its colophon, it was composed in rnam
gnon year (i.e., the iron-dragon / 1760) when he was 57 years old. No mention of writing this
work is found in his autobiographies.
2-4. Gsung rab mdzod kyi sgo brgya ’byed pa’i lde mig (99 folios)
A compendium of the treasury of scriptures. According to its colophon, it was composed in the
wood-ox year (1745) when Sum pa was 42, a date that his two autobiographies corroborate.537
2-5. Dngos po brgyad don bdun cu’i grangs ’dren dpag bsam myu gu (9 folios)
A work on Seventy Topics of Abhisamayālaṅkāra. According to its colophon, it was composed
in the water-horse year (1762) when Sum pa was 59 years old. No mention of writing this work
is found in his autobiographies.
537
SKRL1 102b; SKRL2 267; SKRS1 18r; SKRS2 69.
196
2-6. Mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan gyi dka’ gnad kyi spyi don nyung bsdus blo gsar mgul rgyan
(99 folios)
A work on the difficult points of Abhisamayālaṅkāra. No colophon for this work is provided and
no mention of writing it is found in his autobiographies.
2-7. Dge ’dun nyi shu’i spyi don mdor bsdus (14 folios)
A work on Twenty Sangha, a section of the first chapter of Abhisamayālaṅkāra. No colophon for
this work provided and no mention of writing it is found in his autobiographies.
2-8. Dbu ma ’jug pa’i mtha’ dpyod nyung ’dus zla ’od (172 folios)
A compendium of analyses of Candrakīrti’s Madhyamakāvatāra. The colophon does not provide
the information on when it was written. No mention of writing this work is found in his
autobiographies.
2-9. Gsung rab rnams las bshad pa'i grangs 'dren 'ga' zhig bsdus pa me tog phreng spel (45
folios)
A compendium of various notes from scripture. According to its colophon, it was composed in
rnam ’phrang year (i.e., the earth-dog / 1778). The colophon also says Sum pa was 74 years old
when he wrote it (1777), but he should have been 75 years old in the rnam ’phrang year. It is
stated that he wrote it at Lung dkar Bkra shis rtse, but no mention of writing this work is found in
his autobiographies.
2-10. ’Dzam gling spyi bshad ngo mtshar gtam snyan (14 folios)
197
A work on the world geography. According to its colophon, it was composed at Bkra shis rtse in
the fire-bird year (1777) when Sum pa was 74 years old. No mention of writing this work is
found in his autobiographies.
2-11. Mtsho sngon gyi lo rgyus sogs bkod pa’i tshangs glu gsar snyan (19 folios)
A historical accounts of the Mtsho sngon region. According to its colophon, it was composed in
the fire-horse year (1786) when Sum pa was 83 years old. No mention of writing this work is
found in his autobiographies.
2-12. Bod yig klog tshul mdor bsdus me tog gsar ma’ai myu gu (3 folios)
A primer of Tibetan alphabets. According to its colophon, it was composed in the fire-horse year
(1787) when Sum pa was 84 years old. In the appendix to his autobiography, Sum pa Mkhan po
says he composed this work for young monks at Bshad sgrub gling.538 Its cover page has its
volume number as “kha 22,” which seems to be a mistake.
Vol. 3 (ga)
3-1. Bla ma'i rnal 'byor dngos grub bang mdzod (11 folios)
A work on guruyoga. According to its colophon, it was composed in the wood-mouse year
(1744) when Sum pa was 41 years old, which the two autobiographies corroborate.539
538
SKRL1 236b; SKRL2 616. For a brief discussion on this work in the context of growing interests in
language studies among 18th-century Amdo scholars, see Kurtis Schaeffer, “Tibetan Biography: growth
and criticism,” In Edition, éditions: l'écrit au Tibet, évolution et devenir, ed. A. Chayet, C.
ScherrerSchaub, F. Robin, and J.-L. Achard (München: Indus Verlag, 2010), 290.
539
SKRL1 102a; SKRL2 266; SKRS1 18r; SKRS2 69.
198
3-2. Paṇ chen rin po che blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan gyi bla ma mchod pa’i cho ga’i
ṭīkka skal ldan mgul rgyan (62 folios)
A commentary on the ritual of guru worshiping by Paṇ chen IV Blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan
(1570-1662). According to its colophon, it was composed at Srog mkhar Dga’ ldan chos rdzong
when Sum pa was 35 years old (1738).540 No mention of writing this work is found in his
autobiographies.
3-3. Bla med byang chub tu bgrod pa’i nye lam (43 folios)
A work of the shortcut to advance to unsurpassable enlightenment. According to its colophon, it
was composed in dkar po year (i.e., the earth-snake / 1749) when Sum pa was 46 years old. No
mention of writing this work is found in his autobiographies.
3-4. Zhi lhag zung ’brel gyi man ngag kun ’dus (144 folios)
A compendium of instructions on śamatha and vipaśyanā. According to its colophon, it was
composed in don ’grub year (i.e., the earth-sheep / 1739) at Srog mkhar Dga’ ldan chos rdzong
when Sum pa was 36 years old. No mention of writing this work is found in his autobiographies.
3-5. Thal ’gyur pa’i lugs kyi lta ba’i khrid yig cung zad rgyas tsam zhi bde’i zil dngar (36
folios)
A manual of instructions in the Prāsaṅgika view. The colophon does not provide the information
of the time of writing. No mention of writing this work is found in his autobiographies.
540
According to his autobiographies, Sum pa Mkhan po spent most time of the year in Beijing and left for
Dgon lung only on the 12th month. If this biographical account is correct, there should be a problem with
the time and place of authorship.
199
3-6. Dbu ma’i lta khrid ’bring po legs bshad zla zer (12 folios)
A manual of instructions in the Madhyamaka view. According to the colophon, it was written at
Bkra shis rtse, but information regarding when it was written is not given. No mention of writing
this work is found in his autobiographies.
3-7. Dbu ma’i lta khrid shin tu mdor bsdus blo gzhon rna rgyan (4 folios)
A short manual of instructions in the Madhyamaka view. According to the colophon, it was
written at Bkra shis rtse, but information regarding when it was written is not given. No mention
of writing this work is found in his autobiographies.
3-8. Shes rab snying po’i sgrub thabs las sbyang bcas pa mun sel sgron me (18 folios)
A work on the sādhana of Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya. According to its colophon, it was composed in
the water-sheep year (1763) when Sum pa was 46 years old. No mention of writing this work is
found in his autobiographies.
3-9. Gcod kyi sdom tshig mchan 'grel dang bcas pa kun mkhyen lam bzang (8 folios)
A concise summary of the Gcod practice with a commentary on it. According to its colophon, it
was composed in the water-monkey year (1752) when Sum pa was 49 years old. No mention of
writing this work is found in his autobiographies.541
541
According his autobiographies, Sum pa Mkhan po composed a work on the Gcod practice at the order
of his teacher Blo gros ’byung gnas in 1733. For this see SKRL1 70b-71a; SKRL2 183; SKRS1 12a;
SKRS2 47.
200
3-10. Mgur khu byug ngag snyan sogs (24 folios)
A work on different topics of spiritual songs. It is comprised in 7 sub-works (titles are found on
the margin of folios):
3-10-1 (folio 1a-9b3): mgur, no time given, at Bkra shis chos gling
3-10-2 (folio 9b3-11a6): bslab bya, no time given, at Dgon lung
3-10-3 (folio 11ab-12b5): no title, no time given, no place given
3-10-4 (folio 12b6-14a7): no title, no time given, no place given
3-10-5 (foilo 14b1-17b1): no title, iron-snake year (1761), no place given
3-10-6 (folio 17b2-21a3): chos (?), iron-snake year (1761), no place given
3-10-7 (folio 21a3-24a4): gzem, iron-snake year (1761), no place given
3-11. Thar ’dod skal ldan gyis gtan gyi mdun ma sgrub tshul gyi tho chung dge bskul glu
dbyangs (48 folios)
A work on the song for liberation. According to its colophon, it was composed in the iron-tiger
year (1770) when Sum pa was 67 years old. No mention of writing this work is found in his
autobiographies.
3-12. Blo sbyong don bdun ma zur ’debs dang bcas pa’i rtsa tshig rnams kyi mchan ’grel can
theg mchog zla tshes (16 folios)
A work of a supplement to the Seven Points of Mind Training and other commentaries to root
texts. According to its colophon, it was composed at Srog mkhar Dga’ ldan chos rdzong in the
water-pig year (1743) when Sum pa was 40 years old. No mention of writing this work is found
in his autobiographies.
201
Vol. 4 (nga)
4-1. Rgyud sde rgya mtsho’i gru gzings (72 folios)
An introduction to tantra-piṭaka. According to its colophon, it was composed in rnam byung year
(i.e., the earth-dragon / 1748) when Sum pa was 45 years old. No mention of writing this work is
found in his autobiographies.
4-2. Dpal rdo rje ’jigs byed lha bcu gsum pa’i ngag ’don mdor bsdus zung ’jug nye lam (16
folios)
A work on the sādhana of 13-deity Vajra-bhairava. According to its colophon, it was composed
in the iron-bird year (1741) when Sum pa was 38 years old. No mention of writing this work is
found in his autobiographies.
4-3. Tshe dpag med kyi sgo nas tshe ril sgrub tshul bdud rtsi’i rtshe rgyun (zhes bya ba sogs)
(18 folios)
This work is comprised in 6 separate works on rites on deities (titles are found on the margin of
folios):
4-3-1. (1a-4b1): on Amitāyus, wood-pig (1755), no place given
4-3-2. (4b1-8a4): on Vajra-bhairava, water-dragon (1772), at Dörben Kheükhed
4-3-3. (8b1-10a1): on Kālacakra maṇḍala, no time given, no place given
4-3-4. (10a1-12b5): on Kurukullā, water-snake (1773), no place given
4-3-5. (12v5-13r6): on Cakrasaṃvara, no time given, no place given
4-3-6. (13v1-18r7): on Cakrasaṃvara, no time given, no place given
202
4-4. Kun rig rnam par snang mdzad kyi cho ga dbang bcas shin tu mdor bsdus byang grol gser
zam (24 folios)
A work on the ritual of Vairocana. According to its colophon, it was composed in the earth-tiger
year (1758) when Sum pa was 45 years old. No mention of writing this work is found in his
autobiographies.
4-5. Bcom ldan ’das dam tshig gsum bkong ba’i rgyal po’i sgrub thabs dang de’i sgo nas
smyung bar gnas tshul gyi cho ga dge legs them skas (15 folios)
A work on the sādhana of Tris-mayavyuha-raja and its fasting method. According to its
colophon, it was composed at Lung dkar Bkra shis ’phel Bsam gtan gling in the fire-dog year
(1766) when Sum pa was 63 years old. No mention of writing this work is found in his
autobiographies.
4-6. ’Phags ma gdugs dkar po can gyi bsten bsgrub las tshogs bya tshul phun tshogs ’dod ’jo
(31 folios)
A work on the ritual on Sitātapatrā. No colophon for this work provided. In 1764, when Lcang
skya III visited Dgon lung, he requested Sum pa Mkhan po to compose a ritual text on
Sitātapatrā.542 However, it is not clear whether this is the product of that specific request.
4-7. Sku gsung thugs rten gyi thig rtsa mchan ‘grel can me tog ‘phreng mdzes (25 folios)
542
SKRL1 139a; SKRL2 360.
203
A drawing manual for receptacles of body, speech and mind. No complete colophon is given, but
an interlinear note indicates the earth-tiger year (1758). However, it is not clear whether this is
the actual year of composition.
4-8. Sa brtag slang sbyang gsum bum gter dang bcas pa’i lag len mdor bsdus utpal lhun po (8
folios)
A work of rituals of geomancy. According to its colophon, it was composed in don ’grub year
(i.e., the earth-sheep / 1739) when Sum pa was 36 years old. No mention of writing this work is
found in his autobiographies.
4-9. Dkyil ’khor gyi sa chog gi gar dang mchod gar gyi lag len ngo mtshar zlos gar (14 folios)
A work on ritual dances. According to its colophon, it was composed in the fire-ox year (1757)
when Sum pa was 54 years old. No mention of writing this work is found in his autobiographies.
4-10. Sku gsung thugs rten rab gnas bya tshul rgyas ’bring bsdus pa’i lag len cha lag dang
bcas pa dge legs byin ’bebs (62 folios)
A work on consecrations for receptacles of body, speech and mind. According to its colophon, it
was composed at Lung dkar Bkra shis ’phel Bsam gtan gling in the earth-ox year (1769) when
Sum pa was 66 years old. No mention of writing this work is found in his autobiographies.
4-11. Rgyud sde bzhi so so’i sbyin sreg gi lag len mdor bsdus dngos grub chu rgyun (49 folios)
204
A work on burnt offerings of four classes of tantra. According to its colophon, it was composed
at Srog mkhar Dga’ ldan chos rdzong in the earth-sheep year (1739) when Sum pa was 36 years
old. No mention of writing this work is found in his autobiographies.
4-12. Pur chog gi lag len phan bde’i gtam snyan (35 folios)
A work on funeral rituals. According to its colophon, it was composed in the earth-sheep year
(1739) when Sum pa was 36 years old. No mention of writing this work is found in his
autobiographies.
4-13. Bar do ’phrang sgrol gyi tshig ’grel nyung ’dus legs ’dren shing rta (11 folios)
A work on funeral rituals. According to its colophon, it was composed in the wood-pig year
(1755) when Sum pa was 52 years old. No mention of writing this work is found in his
autobiographies.
4-14. Bde ba can gyi smon lam dag zhing nye lam (2 folios)
A work on the prayer of Sukhāvatī. According to its colophon, it was composed at Srog mkhar
Dga’ ldan chos rdzong in the iron-bird year (1741) when Sum pa was 38 years old. No mention
of writing this work is found in his autobiographies.
4-15. Gtor chog las bzhi lhun grub (7 folios)
A work on gtor ma rituals. According to its colophon, it was composed at Srog mkhar Dga’ ldan
chos rdzong in rnga chen year (i.e., the water-dog / 1742) when Sum pa was 39 years old. No
mention of writing this work is found in his autobiographies.
205
4-16. Mgon po’i lha bzhi dril sgrub kyi man ngag ’dod dgu’i re skong dang / bsnyen sgrub las
gsum sogs kyi rnam bzhag mdor bsdus dngos grub ’dod ’jo gnyis (15 folios)
A work on the sādhana of Mahākāla and the presentation of protectors. The colophon does not
provide the information of the time of writing. No mention of writing this work is found in his
autobiographies
4-17. Gter bdag rgyal chen rnam thos sras la bsang gtor ’bul tshul rmugs ’dzin bang mdzod (8
folios)
This is a work on different topics of gtor ma rituals for Vaiśravaṇa. It is comprised in 5 subworks:
4-17-1 (folio 1a-4b7): earth-hare year (1759), no place given
4-17-2 (folio 4b7-5a7): no time given, at Dolon nor
4-17-3 (folio 5a7-6a5): no time given, at Srog mkhar
4-17-4 (folio 6b1-7b2): no title, earth-mouse year (1768), at Dgon lung
4-17-5 (foilo 7b3-8b7): no title, wood-sheep year (1775), no place given
4-18. Srung ba lnga sogs kyi sgo nas gdon bgegs kyi gnod ’tshe zlog bsrung bya tshul rin chen
go mtshon (28 folios)
A work on the protective rituals against evil spirits. According to its colophon, it was composed
at Lung dkar Bkra shis rtse in the fire-monkey year (1776) when Sum pa was 73 years old.
206
According to his autobiography, a similar work was produced as a woodblock-printing version in
1777.543
4-19. Gsung rab rnam dag chu’i dri ma sel byed nor bu ke ta ka (13 folios)
A work called the purifying gem for authenticity of scriptures. According to its colophon, it was
composed at Lung dkar Bkra shis rtse in the water-tiger year (1782) when Sum pa was 79 years
old. However, his autobiography says it was written in the iron-ox year (1781) and provides a
detailed account of the circumstances surrounding its writing.544
Vol. 5 (ca)
5-1. Rgyal ba’i gsung rab thams cad kyi man ngag gi snying po rnam par bsdus pa chos spyod
nor bu’i 'phreng ba (417 folios)
A work on dharma services. According to its colophon, it was composed at Srog mkhar Dga’
ldan chos rdzong in the wood-hare year (1735) when Sum pa was 32 years oldthirty-two. Sum pa
Mkhan po’s short autobiography provides a background of its writing.545
Vol. 6 (cha)
6-1. Chos spyod nyung ’dus skal bzang thar lam (405 folios)
543
SKRL1 182a; SKRL2 470.
544
SKRL1 218b-220a; SKRL2 569-572.
545
SKRS1 13a; SKRS2 51-52.
207
A work on dharma services. According to its colophon, it was composed in the water-monkey
year (1752) when Sum pa was 49 years old. No mention of writing this work is found in his
autobiographies.
Vol. 7 (ja)
7-1. Gso dpyad rgya mtsho’i snying nor mdor bsdus bdud rtsi’i chu rgyun (20 folios)
A work on the essentials of medical science. According to its colophon, it was composed at Lung
dkar hermitage in skyes bdag year (i.e., the iron-sheep / 1751) when Sum pa was 48 years old.
7-2. Gso dpyad bdud rtsi’i chu rgyun gyi cha lag las lag len nyung ’dus bdud rtsi zil dkar (47
folios)
A work on medical practices based on a commentary on the second of the Four Medical Tantras.
According to its colophon, it was composed at Lung dkar Bsam gtan gling in Angkir year (i.e.,
the water-monkey / 1752) when Sum pa was 49 years old. In the same year, Sum pa Mkhan po
studied the Four Medical Tantras under Nyi ma rgyal mtshan at Stag lung.546 However, no
mention of writing exactly this work is found in his autobiographies.
7-3. Gso ba rig pa’i man ngag shin tu nyung ’dus bdud rtsi thig pa (38 folios)
A brief instruction to the science of healing. According to its colophon, it was composed in the
water-sheep year (1763) when Sum pa was 60 years old. No mention of writing this work is
found in his autobiographies.
546
SKRL1 115a-115b; SKRL2 300-301; SKRS1 20b-21a; SKRS2 79-80.
208
7-4. Sman dpyad shin tu nyung bsdus bdud rtsi dga’ ston (7 folios)
A work on a summary of medical treatment. According to its colophon, it was composed when
Sum pa was 81 years old (1784). No mention of writing this work is found in his
autobiographies.
7-5. Gso dpyad bdud rtsi chu rgyun gyi cha lag gi nang tshan gyi sman so so’i mngon brjod
dang ngos ’dzin shel dkar me long (49 folios)
A work on materials of medicine based on a commentary on the second of the Four Medical
Tantras. The colophon does not say when this work was written, but identifies Dgon lung byams
pa gling as the place where Sum pa composed it. No mention of writing this work is found in his
autobiographies.
7-6. Skar nag rtsis kyi snying nor nyung ’dus kun gsal me long (70 folios)
A work on astrology. According to its colophon, it was composed in the earth-horse year (1784)
when Sum pa was 83 years old. 547 No mention of writing this work is found in his
autobiographies. The Translation Bureau of Qinghai Provincial Government preserves a
handwritten dbu med copy of this work with an indication of “mother text (ma gzhung)” as its
abbreviated title on the page margin.
547
Yum ba has 1754 as its writing year (Yum pa ed., Sum pa’i dge ldan rtsis gsar (Sichuan: Si khron mi
rigs dpe skrun khang, 2015), 14), but it is mentioned otherwise in the colophon.
209
Figure 17. Parts of Skar nag rtsis kyi snying nor nyung ’dus kun gsal me long preserved in The
Translation Bureau of Qinghai Provincial Government, Xining, China. Photo taken by Hanung
Kim in January 2016.
7-7. Rtsis kyi bstan ’chos kun gsal me long gi bu gzhung zla bsil rtsi sbyor dge ldan rtsis gsar
(96 folios)
A work on astrology. According to its colophon, it was composed in the wood-dog year (1754)
when Sum pa was 51 years old. No mention of writing this work is found in his
autobiographies. 548 The Translation Bureau of Qinghai Provincial Government preserves a
handwritten dbu med copy of this work.549
548
However, one account in the same year from his autobiographies has it that Sum pa Mkhan po had a
solution in his dream to the difficulties in some pictorial descriptions for compiling Dga’ ldan rtsis gsar.
For this see SKRL1 119a; SKRL2 310; SKRS1 21b; SKRS2 82.
549
In his introduction to the new typeset edition of Sum pa Mkhna po’s two astrological works (7-6 and
7-7), the editor Yum ba indicates that he has used some handwritten copies of these works. However, he
was not aware of the existence of these two handwritten copies preserved in The Translation Bureau of
Qinghai Provincial Government. For this, see Yum pa ed., Sum pa’i dge ldan rtsis gsar (Sichuan: Si
khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2015), 18.
210
Figure 18. Colorful first pages of Rtsis kyi bstan ’chos kun gsal me long gi bu gzhung zla bsil rtsi
sbyor dge ldan rtsis gsar preserved in The Translation Bureau of Qinghai Provincial
Government, Xining, China. Photo taken by Hanung Kim in January 2016.
7-8. Gge ldan rtsis gsar gyi sa ri ’bri tshul gnyid slong glu dbyangs (26 folios)
A work on astrology. According to its colophon, it was composed in the earth-bird year (1768)
when Sum pa was 65 years old. No mention of writing this work is found in his autobiographies.
7-9. O’u rod phyogs su dar ba’i lug gi sog pa la blta ba’i mo phywa sgyu ma’i lung ston (4
folios)
A work on the Oirat scapulimancy (i.e., the divination using sheep’s shoulder blades). There is
no colophon for this work. No mention of writing this work is found in his autobiographies.
7-10. Tshig rgyan nyung ’dus snyan ngag ’jug sgo (5 folios)
A work on poetry. According to its colophon, it was composed at Lung dkar Bkra shis rtse in the
fire-bird year (1777) when Sum pa was 74 years old. No mention of writing this work is found in
his autobiographies.
211
7-11. Snyan ngag me long las bshad pa’i rgyan rnams kyi dper brjod rgyu skar phreng mdzes
dang / ming mngon brjod nyung ’dus tsinta ma ṇi’i do shal (46 folios)
A work on different topics of poetic ornamentalization from Kāvyādarśa, nouns and synomyms,
and composition. It is comprised in 3 sub-works (titles are found on the margin of folios):
3-10-1 (folio 1a-32a6): snyan, fire-dragon year (1736),550 no place given
3-10-2 (folio 32b1-42a6): ming, wood-pig year (1755), no place given
3-10-3 (folio 42b1-46a): sdeb sbyor, no time given, no place given
7-12. Yig skur sogs kyi rnam bzhag blo gsar dga’ ston sgo ’byed (70 folios)
A work on letter writing. According to its colophon, it was composed in the water-sheep year
(1763) when Sum pa was 60 years old. No mention of writing this work is found in his
autobiographies.
7-13. Bla dpon ’ga’ zhig la bskur ba’i chab shog gtam snyan pi wang (22 folios)
A work on letter writing especially to lamas and officials. The colophon does not provide the
information of the time of writing. No mention of writing this work is found in his
autobiographies.
7-14. Zhu ba ’bul tshul lugs zung ’gug byed pi wang (16 folios)
A work on letter writing for petitions. The colophon does not provide the information of the time
of writing. No mention of writing this work is found in his autobiographies.
550
His autobiography mentions the composition of this work in 1736. See SKRL1 79b; SKRL2 207.
212
7-15. A small collection of circle diagrams (1 folio)
No title for his work is given.
Vol. 8 (nya)
8-1. Rgyal bstan gyi gzhi so sor thar pa’i bslab bya’i go rim mdor bsdus me tog rab bzhad (52
folios)
A work on the brief sequence of practicing prātimokṣa. According to its colophon, it was
composed in the wood-hare year (1735) when Sum pa was 32 years old. No mention of writing
this work is found in his autobiographies.
8-2. Dgon sde ’ga’ zhig gi bca’ yig blang dor snyan sgron (18 folios)
A work of regulations for monastic communities. According to its colophon, it was composed in
the fire-bird year (1777) when Sum pa was 74 years old. No mention of writing this work is
found in his autobiographies.
8-3. Sgrub sde ’ga’ zhig gi bca’ yig byung grol gser zam (15 folios)
A work of regulations for meditation communities. According to its colophon, it was composed
in the wood-sheep year (1775) when Sum pa was 72 years old. No mention of writing this work
is found in his autobiographies.
8-4. Nang don tha snyad rig gnas kyi gzhung gi ngogs gnas ’ga’ zhig dris pa’i lan phyogs gcig
tu bris pa rab dkar pa sangs (100 folios)
213
A compilation of 12 letters of questions and answers exchanged with other scholars. There is no
colophon for this work.
8-5. Mkhan po erte ni paṇḍitar grags pa’i spyod tshul brjod pa sgra ’dzin bcud len (294 folios)
Sum pa Mkhan po’s autobiography. For the time of its writing and structure, see the relevant
discussion in the introduction of this dissertation above.
8-6. Kha char ’beb bsrung sogs kyi gdams pa gnam sa’i mdzes rgyan (38 folios)
A work on protective rituals against natural calamities. According to its colophon, it was
composed in the earth-tiger year (1758) when Sum pa was 55 years old. No mention of writing
this work is found in his autobiographies.
8-7. Sum pa mkhan po jñānaśribhūti bas gzhung chen po du ma las btus pa rnam gyi dkar
chag dwangs mtsho’i gzugs brnyan (12 folios)
A catalogue of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works. The appendix part of his autobiography
indicates that this catalogue was composed in the fire-bird year (1777) when Sum pa was 74
years old.551
1 (ka). (318 folios / 635 pages) (1 work)
2 (kha). (507 folios / 1004 pages) (12 works)
3 (ga). (426 folios / 840 pages) (12 works)
4 (nga). (453 folios / 892 pages) (19 works)
5 (ca). (417 folios / 833 pages) (1 work)
6 (cha). (405 folios / 809 pages) (1 work)
7 (ja).
551
(517 folios / 1023 pages) (14+1 works)
SKRL1 275a; SKRL2 712.
214
8 (nya). (529 folios / 1052 pages) (7 works)
Total (3572 folios / 7088 pages) (67+1 works)
Note on Vol. 9 of Lokesh Chadra’s reproduction
9-1. Dpal rdo rje ’jigs byed chen po’i rim pa dang po’i nyams khrid thun mong ma yin pa’i
dngos grub kun ’byung (225 folios)
A work on the completion stage of Vajrabhairava. According to its colophon, it is not Sum pa
Mkhan po’s work; he was just one of the scholars consulted in the compilation of this work. It
was completed in the earth-bird year (1789) by the “old monk” (ban rgan) sngags ram pa chos
rje Blo bzang dbang rgyal.552
9-2. Bdud rtsi’i snying po yan lag brgyad pa gsang ba man ngag yon tan rgyud kyi lhan thabs
zug rngu’i tsha gdung sel ba’i kat+pū ra dus min ’chi zhags gcod pa’i ral gri
A supplementary work on medicine. It is comprised in 17 sub-works. 553 According to its
colophon, it was compiled in the earth-bird year (1789) by Sngags ram pa chos rje Blo bzang
dbang rgyal. It seems that this work is a compilation of diverse teachings and compositions by
Sum pa Mkhan po, not a work he himself composed. Nagao Gajin indicates the existence of this
work along with Collected Works at Üsütü juu near Hohhot.554
552
Thus, Lokesh Chandra wrongly introduced this work as Sum pa Mkhan po’s in his, Dpag-bsam-ljonbzaṅ of Sum-pa-mkhan-po Ye-śes-dpal-hbyor : part III, xxix; Materials for a History of Tibetan
Literature, Part II, 480; and Collected Works of Sum-pa-mkhan-po, volume 9, “Contents of Volume 9.”
De Jong followed Chandra, in de Jong, “ Sum-pa mkhan-po and His Works,” 211.
553
For the sub-title for each part, see Chandra, Collected Works of Sum-pa-mkhan-po, volume 9,
“Contents of Volume 9.”
554
Nagao, Mōko gakumondera, 318. Nevertheless, Nagao was not able to examine the work at the site.
215
9-3. Rgya gar pa’i lugs bstun rta dbyad dpal g.yang (5 folios)
A work on the horse examination of the Indian tradition. Its colophon attributes its authorship to
Sum pa Mkhan po, but no time or place is given. The Catalogue of Collected Works has an
abbreviated title of this work as an interlinear note below the volume nya (f.9a, line 4). However,
this work does not have the work number that is given to each work.
216
Chapter Appendix III: Current Preservation Sites of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works
It is meaningful to see how Sum pa Mkhan po’s works have been disseminated in subsequent
generations. However, it will take more time and effort to reach a fuller understantding of their
dissemination.555 Here I provide a table of the current possession information of his works.
place
insitution
Hohhot, Inner Inner Mongloia Library (内蒙
书馆)
Mongolia,
China
Chinese Academy of Social Science, Inner Monglia (内蒙 自
治 社会科学院)
Beijing, China
Library of the Cultural Palace of Nationalities(民族文 宫民族
书馆)
National Library of China (中
家 书馆)
type
Collected
Works
Collected
Works
copies
2+
Collected
Works
1
Collected
Works
Collected
Works
1
Collected
Works
Collected
Works
2-2, 2-10,
7-6, 7-7
1
Collected
Works
?
National Library of Mongolia (Монгол Улсын Үндэсний
Номын Сан)
Collected
Works
1
Gandantegchinlen Monastery (Гандантэгчинлэн хийд)
the Institute of Mongolian, Buddhist and Tibetan Studies (Институт
of монголоведения, буддологии и тибетологии)
?
Collected
Works
?
2
?
?
Gansu, China
Library of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Chinese
Academy of Social Sciences (中 社会科学院民族学与人类学
研究所 书馆)
Northwest University for Nationalities (西 民族大学)
Bla brang bkra shis 'khyil
Qinghai, China
Lhasa, Tibetan
Autonomous
Region, China
Ulaanbaatar,
Mongolia
The Translation Bureau of Qinghai Provincial Government (
海省政府翻译出)
Potala Library
Ulan-Ude,
Republic
Buryatia,
Russia
St. Petersburg, Saint
Petersburg
University
Russia
государственный университет)
555
(Санкт-Петербургский
1
2
1
1
The biggest difficulty for my tracing the dissemination of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works was a
lack of information on procurementl in libraries. Except for Inner Mongolia Library, most libraries and
archives do not have information on when and from where they procured Sum pa Mkhan po’s works.
This situation makes it very difficult to understand how Sum pa Mkhan po’s works had been circulated
before copies in the moredern form appeared.
217
(Table continued)
Kyoto, Japan
Library of Ōtani University (大谷大学図書館)
Tokyo, Japan
India
Tōyō Bunko (東洋文庫)
? (formerly in Raghu Vira’s collection?)
218
Collected
Works
1-1
?
1
1
Chapter V. Sum pa Mkhan po’s Connections to Monasteries and Buddhist
Followers
1. Introduction
In his recent study of Dgon lung byams pa gling, Brenton Sullivan begins his discussion
of the importance of this grand monastery with a critique of the anthropological concept of
“mass monasticism” proposed and articulated by Melvyn Goldstein. 556 Goldstein’s concept
originated with an attempt to explain why monks comprised such a large portion of the male
population, especially in pre-modern Tibet.557 By de-emphasizing the scholarly role of Tibetan
monasteries and focusing on the non-scholarly populations of monasteries, Goldstein concluded
that one function of Tibetan monasteries was to absorb and accommodate as much of the male
population as possible, whether or not they were willing or able to pursue an academic career in
Buddhist studies.558 As a result, even though Tibetan monasteries had a large male population, a
large portion of population was not the “ideal” group of renouncers, but men who were there to
556
Sullivan, “The Mother of All Monasteries,” 5-14.
557
This is where Sullivan somewhat misses the point of Goldstein’s primary aim of his work. By a close
examination of why Tibetan monasteries have had so large populations compared to other societies,
Goldstein tried to suggest the social function of Tibetan monasteries with their interactions with the lay
society (especially absorbing their populations), not to suggest the standard by which a monastery is
evaluated (either quality or quantity) as Sullivan takes it. Rather than Sullivan’s discussion, Nicholas
Sihlé’s introductory post in his blog shows what “mass monasticism” addresses in a better way. For this,
see Nicholas Sihlé, “Quasi-generalized, mostly temporary, monasticism among boys: An uncommon
form of Tibetan ‘mass monasticism’,” The Himalayas and Beyond, Last modified October 12, 2015.
http://himalayas.hypotheses.org/85.
558
Melvyn Goldstein, “Tibetan Buddhism and Mass Monasticism,” The Center for Research on Tibet,
n.d.,
https://case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanMonks/documents/Tibetan_Buddhism_and_Mass_Monasticism.pdf.
219
make a living. This explanation captures a certain reality of the monastic communities in Tibet,
although it gives a dismal picture of their true function.559
Sullivan aimed a series of criticisms at Goldstein’s assertion. First, Sullivan claims that
Goldstein gave too much weight to the quantitative element of such populations at the cost of
their qualitative aspects, as if the number of monks is the only barometer of a successful
monastery. Second, Goldstein’s negative description of the loose discipline within monasteries is
problematic, as monks’ everyday lives were mostly governed by a monastery’s code of
regulations (bca’ yig). But are Sullivan’s criticisms tenable?
If we examine the code of regulations, on paper a society governed by such rules might
look like a perfect world. However, when we examine the real-life experiences of Dgon lung
monastery, it is clear that the monastery was not a perfect world as prescribed by the code of
regulation. As a matter of fact, once one closely investigates Sum pa Mkhan po’s life
experiences with respect to Dgon lung monastery, one finds that the picture he provides is closer
to Goldstein’s than Sullivan’s. But the picture is not always as dismal as Goldstein would have it;
the dismal side was only a part of monastic life that Sum pa Mkhan po dealt with. This is where
the value of Sum pa Mkhan po’s autobiographies stands out. Sullivan’s critique of Goldstein’s
lopsided anthropological methodology also tends to focus on one side of how monasticism
559
This kind of negative portrayal of aspects of Tibetan culture has been a target of criticism even before
Sullivan’s work. Some hyper-nationalistic voices of exile Tibetans even call Goldstein an apologist for
Communist China and claim that his dismal depiction of old Tibetan society must have an intention that is
guided by Communist China. A case in point is Jamyang Norbu “BLACK ANNALS: Goldstein & The
Negation Of Tibetan History, Part I and II,” Shadow Tibet, July 19 & 27, 2008,
http://www.jamyangnorbu.com/blog/2008/07/19/black-annals-goldstein-the-negation-of-tibetan-historypart-i-tris/ and http://www.jamyangnorbu.com/blog/2008/07/27/black-annals-goldstein-the-negation-oftibetan-history-part-ii/. For Goldstein’s refutation to this, see “Goldstein's Response to Jamyang Norbu,”
Phayul, July 29, 2008, http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=22134.
220
worked. Using Sum pa Mkhan po’s accounts, we can reach a better picture of how this largescale monastery was maintained.
When it comes to connections between monasteries, however, I will base my discussion
on Sullivan’s take on the institutionalization and standardization of ritual. In his studies of Dgon
lung’s influences on its branch monasteries, Sullivan showed the importance of rituals to their
relationships.560 Sum pa Mkhan po’s biographies corroborate the significant function that rituals
played in inter-monastic relations. However, although Sullivan used Sum pa Mkhan po’s
accounts in his discussion, he did not fully consider Sum pa Mkhan po’s activities for his
argument. As we will see, the role of ritual was not limited to connections with Dgon lung
branch monasteries, but also functioned to build interactions with Mongolian Buddhist followers
in Inner Mongolia.
In this chapter I will investigate how Sum pa Mkhan po, in his role as abbot, developed
and maintained monastic and religious connections outside the monastery to describe how a
large-scale monastery such as Dgon lung was managed. In doing so, I will reveal the nature of
connections this lama had with monasteries and Buddhist followers in and out of the Amdo area.
2. Sum pa Mkhan po and Dgon lung Monastery
Among the monastic sites Sum pa Mkhan po had relationships with, Dgon lung byams pa
gling was the most important to him for two obvious reasons. First, it was the site where the Sum
pa incarnation residence (bla brang) was located and where Sum pa Mkhan po had been invited
and educated as an incarnate lama. Had it not been for Dgon lung, Sum pa Mkhan po might
560
Sullivan, “The Mother of All Monasteries,” 235-50.
221
never have enjoyed the status and influence he had throughout his life. Second, it was the center
from which Sum pa Mkhan po formed monastic connections during his lifetime in terms of both
its influence561 and its scale.562 Dgon lung’s authority went far beyond the boundary of Amdo, as
Sum pa Mkhan po’s record shows that the monastery had continuous interactions with Mongols
of the Alashan and Ordos areas in Inner Mongolia.563
However, Dgon lung was not always a favorable ground for Sum pa Mkhan po’s
activities. As seen in the Chapter II, conflicts with people in Dgon lung’s Sum pa residence
resulted in Sum pa Mkhan po’s withdrawal from the monastery and establishment of a separate
hermitage as his main practice site. Even when Sum pa Mkhan po was invited to take charge as
abbot of Dgon lung monastery, there were always people who opposed his abbacy. Despite their
strained relationship, however, Sum pa Mkhan po continued to play an important role in Dgon
lung’s management throughout his life.
561
Irrespective of his occasional non-cordial relationship with people at Dgon lung, Sum pa Mkhan po
regarded the monastery as a center of monasteries of the areas. For example, he mentioned “This
monastery called ‘Byams pa gling’ is the chief of the all the monasteries and meditation centers in the
regions of Dpa’ ris and Pho rod. [Also,] it is the great basis of teachings of Dge ldan pa and the place to
which the monasteries and meditation centers in the regions get magnetized” (SKRL1 108a; SKRL2
283…grwa sa byams pa gling 'di ni dpa' ri pho rod phyogs kyi dgon pa sgrub sde kun gyi gtso bo yin
zhing dge ldan pa'i bstan pa'i gzhi chen po dang phyogs 'di'i dgon pa sgrub sde dag gis chags 'jog byed
yul yin…). In Dpag bsam ljon bzang [History of Buddhism], Sum pa Mkhan po calls it “the center of Dpa’
ris, Dgon lung byams pa gling” (Dpag bsam ljon bzang, 224b: dpa’ ri dbus kyi dgon lung byams pa gling)
and, in its colophon too, Dgon lung was described as “the center of Greater Tibet” (317a: bod chen po’i
dbus kyi dgon lung byams pa gling).
562
In Dpag bsam ljon bzang, Sum pa Mkhan po provides explanatory lists of Dge lugs pa monasteries of
his time for each region providing the number of monks for each monastery as interlinear notes. In the
Amdo part (Dpag bsam ljon bzang, 220a-228a), Dgon lung was the second largest monastery in terms of
its monk population with 2,000 monks (ibid., 224b). The largest monastery in Amdo was the monastery at
Co ne with its number of 2,501(ibid., 222a: co ne’i mkhar nang gi dgon).
563
According to Sullivan, the monastery also had its connections in northeastern parts of Inner Mongolia
and even in Xinjiang. For this, see Sullivan, “The Mother of All Monasteries,” 36 and 259-62.
222
To open our investigation of Sum pa Mkhan po’s monasteries, in this section I will
discuss the various relationships—both the good ones and the uneasy ones—between the grand
Dgon lung monastery and one of its incarnate lamas, Sum pa Mkhan po. I will focus on Sum pa
Mkhan po’s tenures as Dgon lung’s abbot, because they exemplify Sum pa Mkhan po’s closest
involvement in Dgon lung’s affairs. Also, during each tenure Sum pa Mkhan po expressed in
writing his feelings about being the head of a grand monastery and described his management,
records which provide an insider’s view of the relationship between him and the monastery. We
will deal with these records in this section too.
Figure 19. Scenic view of the monastic complex of Dgon lung byams pa gling, a.k.a. Youningsi
佑寧 , in Huzhu Tu Autonomous County of Haidong District, Qinghai Province, China. Photo
taken by Hanung Kim, August 2016.
Sum pa Mkhan po served as abbot (khri pa) of Dgon lung monastery three times—the
highest frequency with which an individual lama occupied the abbacy throughout Dgon lung’s
223
history prior to the twentieth century.564 Sum pa Mkhan po’s three tenures covered twelve years
altogether. The first abbacy was as Dgon lung’s thirty-second abbot, for three years from 1746 to
1749; the second was as Dgon lung’s thirty-fifth abbot, for five years from 1756 to 1761; and the
third was as Dgon lung’s forty-second abbot, for four years from 1781 to 1785. Along with
these, Sum pa Mkhan po also acted as de facto abbot for two years from 1763 to 1764. The
relative inly detailed accounts of his three tenures as abbot of Dgon lung preserved his
autobiographies show that Sum pa Mkhan po assumed a variety of roles in the dynamics of the
monastery.
2.1. First Abbacy
Sum pa Mkhan po’s first abbacy of Dgon lung monastery began in the fire-tiger year
(1746) when he was forty-three. Earlier in the year, when he was at the Zhwa khog hermitage for
religious activities such as offering tantric empowerments (dbang), Dgon lung monastery
dispatched a messenger to request that Sum pa become abbot of Dgon lung monastery. It was a
critical time in Dgon lung’s history. The monastery had been reestablished in 1729 after the
destruction caused by Blo bzang bstan ’dzin’s rebellion (1723-1724), but under five successive
abbots beginning in 1729, Dgon lung seemed to continuously experience internal conflicts.565 It
564
According to Sullivan, Li kyā mkhan po Tshul khrims bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan served as Dgon lung’s
abbot for respective four times in the early twentieth century (Sullivan “The Mother of All Monasteries,”
355, note 1605). Sullivan explains that Sum pa Mkhan po served as Dgon lung’s abbot “for three full
(four-year) terms,” but it is not correct (ibid., 354-55). As seen below, each term has a different number of
years between 3 to 5.
565
For a brief summary of these five abbacies before Sum pa Mkhan po, see Gene Smith, Among Tibetan
Texts: History and Literature of the Himalayan Plateau (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2001), 167-69.
224
was probably due to this that Sum pa Mkhan po initially turned down the request in a long
letter.566 That letter is worthy of a closer examination for what it reveals of the situation.
Sum pa begins by expressing his regret over being treated unfairly as a candidate to head
the Tantric College at Dgon lung some years before.567 The Mkhan po likely mentions the affair
to imply that there was a faction within Dgon lung that would not be cooperative were he to
become abbot. Sum pa Mkhan po then points out that his former experience being the head of a
monastery was sufficiently glorious and “there is no guarantee that taking Dgon lung’s abbacy
would yield any greater religious or secular work or renown or fortune than those prior
experiences.”568 Sum pa also blames evil earth-owning spirits at the monastery for the on-going
discord between masters and disciples in the monastery. He also says that given the presence of
many hypocrites there, he was “afraid that the result of karma would be violated if my deeds
follows the stream of the crooked ditches of misdeeds of such kinds of people.”569 Then he
566
One might consider that Sum pa Mkhan po’s reluctance to take the abbacy is out of his general
characters of humbleness, conscious reflection on his own ego internalized by his pursuit of Buddha’s
teachings. However, this is not the case when he accepted the abbacies of other monastic sites.
Throughout his lifetime, Sum pa Mkhan po had served as abbots for six monasteries altogether. Except
for ’Bras yul skyid tshal and Dgon lung, Sum pa Mkhan po did not show any strong refusal to the
requests from monasteries. He was enthroned as abbots of following monasteries: Stong shags bkra shis
chos gling in 1733 and 1740; Se ra lung dgon in 1735 and 1740; Bshad sgrub dar rgyas gling in 1752; and
Zhwa dmar pra ti dgon in 1753.
567
For this situation, see note 427 above. Brenton Sullivan provides a partial English translation of the
episode and its background. See Sullivan, “The Mother of All Monasteries,” 355.
568
SKRL1 103a; SKRL2 268: dgon lung bla ma’i go sar bsdad pas de dag las lhag pa’i bstan srid kyi
bya ba dang grags ’byor ’ong rgyu gang yang ma mchis/ Sullivan again provides an English translation
of this part, but his rendering of this sentence takes it in a contrary sense: “Therefore, as for serving in the
position of abbot [bla ma] of Gönlung, there is absolutely no comparison between it [, on the one hand,]
and [, on the other hand,] the above [experiences] and the deeds [thereby] performed in behalf of the
Teachings and politics [bstan srid] as well as the influence thereby exerted” (Sullivan, “The Mother of
All Monasteries,” 356). From the context, and also for his purpose of decline, it is obvious that Sum pa
Mkhan po regards Dgon lung’s abbacy not as promising as other experiences that he had already had by
saying this sentence.
569
SKRL1 103r; SKRL2 269: de'i rigs kyi bya spyod yur ba 'khyog po dang bstun nas bdag gi bya byed
dal 'gro rgyu bar bgyis na las 'bras la 'gal bas 'jigs shing/
225
depreciates himself as incapable and inappropriate for such an important role. He concludes his
letter by saying that he worries that, after becoming the target of the monastic community’s
criticism and failing to live up to their high expectations, he would not even receive a prayer of
compassion when he dies.570
Brenton Sullivan takes this as evidence of a trend of deterioration at Dgon lung following
Blo bzang bstan ’dzin’s rebellion (1723-1724). But it is obvious that Sum pa Mkhan po had
already experienced similarly ostracizing attitudes, especially from members of Sum pa
residence, even before the rebellion. In other words, internal conflict must have been a chronic
problem at the monastery, rather than a new phenomenon of deterioration following the
monastery’s destruction. Sum pa Mkhan po’s later sudden change of mood and assumption of
the view that he cannot but accept deep engagement with the monastery shows that he himself
did not always see the monastery as a deteriorating community. Once Sum pa Mkhan po decided
to accept the appointment as abbot, the tone of his comments on Dgon lung changed and he
praised it with a number of analogies.
Sum pa Mkhan po was enthroned as abbot on the full moon day of the former 3rd month.
Once enthroned, Sum pa Mkhan po undertook both external and internal improvements at the
monastery. Above all, he found ways to improve the situation by managing the monastic
community according to tradition, and made decisions not by sole and arbitrary fiat, but through
discussion with the community. He lamented, however, that there were still some flatterers to be
avoided. Along with improvement of discipline, Sum pa Mkhan po also sponsored mural
paintings and the building of a balcony in the assembly hall. In the second year of his abbacy
(1747), Sum pa Mkhan po also revised Dgon lung’s recitation text according to the Dge lugs pa
570
The letter of decline is in SKRL1 102b-103b; SKRL2 267-70.
226
tradition, because Dgon lung was the model for all the monasteries in Dpa’ ris and Pho rod areas.
The abbacy did not restrain Sum pa Mkhan po’s travel activities; he made trips to monasteries
such as Stag lung, Zhwa dmar, and Matisi upon invitations during this abbacy. However, Sum pa
Mkhan po returned to Dgon lung by the end of each year and presided over the Smon lam prayer
festivals, teaching Jātaka stories.571 Starting in the third year of his abbacy (1748), Sum pa
Mkhan po began to insist that he resign the abbacy, but only followed through after Lcang skya’s
visit to Dgon lung was completed at the end of the fourth year of his abbacy (1749).
More than anything else, Sum pa Mkhan po’s biggest contribution as abbot during this
first tenure was to forge a connection with Lcang skya III Rol pa’i rdo rje by inviting him to
Dgon lung. He had tried to invite Lcang skya from Beijing at the beginning of his abbacy, but
Lcang skya only finally made the trip in the last year of Sum pa Mkhan po’s tenure. Late in the
first year of the tenure (1746), Sum pa Mkhan po had sent an invitation letter to Lcang skya in
Beijing, to which he received a favorable reply. Lcang skya arrived to Dgon lung in the summer
of the earth-snake year (1749), and gave many offerings and teachings there. During this visit
Lcang skya gave Sum pa Khenpo the title “Erideni paṇḍita” and the two formed a very cordial
relationship that lasted for the rest of their lives. Even though Sum pa Mkhan po was not active
on the main stage of the Qing dynasty, he was surely well aware of Lcang skya’s important role
in Qing politics, and could therefore leverage Lcang skya’s connection to Dgon lung as a means
of promoting its development during his abbacy.
571
Abbot’s sermon on Ārya Śūra's Jātakamālā (skyes rabs 'phreng ba) seemed to have been a custom
during the new year's Great Prayer Festival (smon lam) not only at Dgon lung monastery, but also at other
large-scale monasteries from earlier times. For example, the 2nd Dalai Lama Dge ’dun rgya mtsho (14751542) also taught his Jātaka discourse during the Great Prayer Festival in the iron-ox year (1541). For
this, see Glenn Mullin, The Fourteen Dalai Lamas (Santa Fe: Clear Light Publishers, 2001), 115. My
thanks go to Andy Francis for providing this reference.
227
2.2. Second Abbacy
Sum pa Mkhan po’s second abbacy began in the fire-bird year (1756). As was the case
with his first term, he was asked to assume the abbacy by the residents of Dgon lung. Again, he
initially declined the request. But at the repeat insistence of the monastic community, Sum pa
Mkhan po finally relented, agreed to serve, and was enthroned on the 6th day of the 8th month of
the year. During his second tenure, Sum pa Mkhan po also worked to improve both external and
internal features of the monastery. For example, he invited the Yongzheng bstan ’gyur572 to Sum
pa residence, and commissioned some statues for the monastery’s temples.
One of biggest events during this tenure was Sum pa Mkhan po’s presidency over the
Kālacakra empowerment (dbang) at Dgon lung.573 This must have been a huge event for the
monastery, as Sum pa Mkhan po records that more than ten thousand clergy and laity were in
attendance. Another important activity during this second abbacy was the offering of a large
donation to Central Tibet. The offering was prepared in 1757 and sent in 1758 with a party led
by Sum pa Mkhan po’s protégé Sum pa biligtu chos rje Blo bzang dge legs. During this abbacy
Sum pa Mkhan po also continued his extra-monastic activities, the major events among which
were the establishment of Bkra shis rtse in Lung dkar and a journey to the Yu gur land and
Suzhou, the estate of Upper Kokonor’s chieftain Po shog thu, Sku ’bum monastery, and Thang
ring in present Minhe 民和 County. On later journeys that he made to these places during his
second tenure as abbot, his return point was always Bkra shis rtse rather than Dgon lung. This
suggests the possibility that Sum pa Mkhan po had a less than warm relationship with the people
572
For this Yongzheng bstan ’gyur, see Beanjamin Nourse, “Canons in Context: A History of the Tibetan
Buddhist Canon in the Eighteenth Century” (PhD diss., Univerisity of Virginia, 2014), 99-101.
573
SKRL1 126a-126b; SKRL2 328-29.
228
at Dgon lung in the latter half of his second abbacy. After continuous calls for his resignation,
Sum pa Mkhan po stepped down from the abbacy in the iron-snake year (1761).
After telling the tale of his second abbacy, Sum pa Mkhan po writes a long reflection and
evaluation of his own performance.574 First, he says that he accepted the abbacy not as an honor,
but as an uncontrollable result of the power of previously accumulated bad karma. Then he
describes his method for maintenance of proper monastic discipline. First, he tried to rein in the
lax discipline of the monastery by more closely following monastic codes for behavior (sgrigs
lam). But he also sought to avoided an overly strict application of the code that would punish
perpetrators too harshly, citing the aphorism, “Wine is delicious, but too much is poison. Mother
is kind, but angered she is an enemy.”575 Taking this balanced position, Sum pa Mkhan po duly
managed the discipline of the monastery under the monastic regulatory (bca’ yig) norms. But no
matter how well he managed things, others attempted to hinder Sum pa Mkhan po’s management
of the monastery. Eventually, however, during Sum pa Mkhan po’s tenure as abbot of Dgon lung,
discipline became quite well managed and the monastery straightened up enough to be known as
the second Sgo mang College. In retrospect, Sum pa Mkhan po evaluated his own abbacy as
diligent in works and generous in spending. None of the four root-downfalls (rtsa ba’i ltung ba
bzhi)576 occurred and none of his monks used alcohol or tobacco under his watch. The estates of
the monastery grew prosperous and its caretakers grew righteous and had no difficulty doing
their jobs. Even natural disasters decreased. As a result, farmers on the estates, village people,
574
SKRL1 130a-134a; SKRL2 337-48.
575
SKRL1 130a; SKRL2 338-49: zhim po chang yin kyang mang na drug yin/ byams po ma yin kyang
sdang na dgra yin/
576
Four root-downfalls are killing, stealing, lying, and sexual misconducts. See Zhang et al., Bod rgya
tshig mdzod chen mo, 2210.
229
and nomads also grew prosperous. It was a time of flourishing for the monks too: 600 full
ordinations took place and more than 2,000 intermediate renunciates were admitted to Dgon lung
during this period.
Just as was the case with his first term, Sum pa Mkhan po began his second term with a
certain level of disorder, which he was able to then resolve. This information challenges the
picture of a monastery in decline painted by Brenton Sullivan, who used parts of Sum pa Mkhan
po’s accounts of his first two terms as abbot to make his argument. By omitting those parts of
Sum pa’s account that describe the restoration of the monastery and by arbitrarily appropriating
portions of Sum pa Mkhan po’s autobiography, Sullivan runs the risk of distorting facts. The
problems Sum pa Mkhan po struggled with were part of a perennial set of issues rather than
evidence of a new deterioration of the monastery as it was losing its prior glory. Sum pa Mkhan
po was a seasoned problem-solver and rose to the task whenever the monastery experienced
hardship.Upon reconsideration, we can see that at the end of his reflection and evaluation, Sum
pa Mkhan po praised himself for what was, in the end, a successful abbacy. The fact that a
promising young leader, Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma, assumed the abbacy after
Sum pa Mkhan po shows that Dgon lung was on a track toward revival and development.
2.3. De facto Abbacy and its transition to Lcang skya
After Sum pa Mkhan po had set Dgon lung’s management on the right track and
entrusted it to one of the most qualified men of his time, he couldn’t just passively stand by and
watch when management of the monastery started to go off the rails again. Although Sum pa
Mkhan po was physically distant from Dgon lung following his second abbacy, he must have
230
still had some hand in its management. It happened that by the water-sheep year (1763), Dgon
lung’s abbacy was virtually vacant because then-abbot ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa II Dkon
mchog ’jigs med dbang po had neglected monastic affairs.577 Under those circumstances, Sum pa
Mkhan po took up the role and became the de facto abbot for some time.578 The following year
(1764), Sum pa Mkhan po made ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa resign the abbacy and requested Lcang
skya, who was visiting Dgon lung at that time, to take the position.579 As I have mentioned in
Chapter II, this incident suggests something about the relationship between Dgon lung and Bla
brang bkra shis ’khyil. As regards Sum pa Mkhan po’s role in the management of Dgon lung
monastery, even when he wasn’t the abbot, it also demonstrates the influence and discretion he
exercised in the general administration of the monastery. As it turned out, Lcang skya was not in
a position to take on the abbacy of Dgon lung, because he had just departed for Beijing less than
a month after his enthronement ceremony at Dgon lung monastery.580
577
It is not clear how and why Thu’u bkwan III’s abbacy came to an end within less than two years. Is it
because he was too young (25 year old)? For more details of ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’s negligence of
Dgon lung’s abbacy, see Chapter II, 96.
578
SKRL1 136b-137a; SKRL2 354: nyi mar grags pa'o chu lug lor 'jam dbyangs bzhad pa'i sprul sku
dgon lung khri pa mdzad kyang dge bskos la mtshan nyid cung zad smra myong yang shun brjes khar 'o
ma song 'dra'i gnyis bskos nas bkra shis 'khyil di thegs te lo gcig la 'dir ma bzhugs pa'i skabs su bdag
gdan sa pa min yang dgon pa'i la rgya ling gis bor ma phod par spyi don lus pa med par ngos kyis bsgrub
cing /
579
Other sources, such as Thu’u bkwan Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma’s Dgon lung dkar chag or The
Biography of Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo je, do not reveal the tension inside of this transition of Dgon lung’s
abbacy. In the latter, it is simply mentioned, “Assuming the burden of the Dgon lung abbacy was made
available by the venerable ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa incarnation rin po che ” (1989: 472: rje ‘jam dbyang
bzhad pa sprul pa’i sku rin po che nas dgon lung gi khri khur ’jog pa gnang ste). To make the matter
worse, the Chinese translation of Lcang skya’s biography rendered it with a wrong context, giving an
impression that ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa suggested Lcang kya to take the position (Thu’u bkwan III,
Zhangjia guoshi Ruobiduoji zhuan trans. Chen Qingying et al. (Beijing: Minzu chuban she, 2007 [1988]),
222). Wang Xiangyun, in her dissertation on Lcang skya III, followed the problematic context of the
Chinese translation and says, “He (i.e., ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa) suggested that lCang-skya Khutugtu
assume his position” (Wang. “Tibetan Buddhism at the Court of Qing,” 170).
580
Lcang skya was enthroned on the 16th day of the 4th month, but he left for Beijing on the 11th day of the
5th month. According to Thu’u bkwan III’s Dgon lung dkar chag, Lcang skya entrusted the abbacy to his
231
2.4. Third Abbacy
Sum pa Mkhan po’s third abbacy of Dgon lung monastery ran from the iron-ox year
(1781) to the wood-snake year (1785). In the years prior to this tenure, the monastery must have
been in decline due to administrative mismanagement. Discipline at the monastery had
deteriorated and the monastic estates had also experienced some bad harvests.581 Given this
situation, in the early 1780s the highest authorities of Dgon lung must have been anxious to find
a suitable abbot, because they sent numerous requests to Sum pa Mkhan po, despite his repeated
demurrals. Sum pa Mkhan po gave three reasons for declining their repeated requests: first, he
should have been given the current abbacy anyway because Lcang skya had ordered it. But the
people of Dgon lung ignored Lcang skya’s message and treated Sum pa like “a predator
prowling the edge of town” (grong mtha’i gcan gzan ’khyam pos sprun du bgyis). Second, the
current abbot had achieved much and Sum pa Mkhan po did not want to “sweep away the
footprints the former had made” (rkang rjes phyag mas ma bsubs). Third, Sum pa Mkhan po was
already seventy-eight years old and insisted that the work required was too great a burden for
such an old and frail man. These points likely indicate that there remained a group of people
regent called Jasak Bla ma Bskal bzang lha dbang. Lcang skya finally sent a resignation letter in 1769.
For this see Thu’u bkwan III, Dgon lung dkar chag, 133.
581
SKRL1 217a; SKRL2 564: khri ba snga ma la la'i ring la rang don kho na tsam lhur len pa las grwa
sa'i bsgrigs lam ni sgrogs med pa'i rta rgod dam rag med pa'i chu klung shugs drag ltar gang 'dod du gu
yangs la btang bas/ dgon 'di'i blo ldan rnams sems skyo ba dang gzhan pas 'phya ba'i gnas su gyur
cing / mchod gzhi'i phyugs dang lo tog lo du mar nyams nas ci bya gdol med du gyur ba'i dus ngan
bskal ngan lo nyes byung 'dug.
232
within Dgon lung’s power structure who resisted Lcang skya and Sum pa’s authority, even
though both were elderly and experienced figures.582
However, given the insistent requests, Sum pa Mkhan po finally agreed to serve as abbot
a third time and was enthroned on the 17th day of the 8th month of the iron-ox year (1781). He
began to repair the situation by restoring discipline, which led to, among many other
improvements, the development of the scholarly atmosphere to a higher level. Sum pa Mkhan po
considered the promotion of the conventional sciences (tha snyad) as a topic of study to be a
significant achievement, because he enumerates the growing numbers of students in each topic in
his accounts.583 Over time, Sum pa Mkhan po succeeded in restoring the monastery to its former
prominence.
It is also worth noting that the sponsors of the annual Smon lam prayer festival during his
third tenure were all from Mongolia: people from Alashan sponsored the festival in the watertiger year (1782), Mongols of Dörben Kheükhed, Ordos’ Üüshin, and Tumed from Greater
Mongol (hor chen) sponsored it in the water-hare year (1783), Alashan and Dörben Kheükhed
sponsored it in the wood-dragon year (1784), and the wang of Ordos sponsored it in the woodsnake year (1785). Sum pa Mkhan po did not provide a list of sponsors for prior Smon lam
events over which he had presided as abbot. The fact that he does so here suggests that he had
developed an important patron-priest relationship with Mongols of Inner Mongolia after
582
In this year, Lcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje was 65 years old and Sum pa Mkhan po was 78 years old.
583
To be specific, there were more than 50 students for grammar, poetry and metrics, more than 40 for
medicine, and more than 30 for astrology. SKRL1 217a-217b; SKRL2 565: chos gwa nas mtshan nyid
pas nang don rig gnas kyi nang gi mdo phyogs su deng sang po ti lngar grags pa la thos rtsod mdzad pa
dang / tha snyad rig gnas las kyang sgra dang sum rtags dang snyan ngag sdeb sbyor slob mkhan bcu
phrag lnga lhag dang / gso dpyad sbyang mkhan sum cu lhag brgal ba dang / skar rtsis kyi sa ris 'bri
ba dang 'byung rtsis kyi rde'u 'grem pa'ang thig yon grengs lhag byung la/ de rnams la kho bas dpe
mkhyud ma dmigs par rang gis gang shes bstan pas/ slob mkhan gang dang gang gis rig gnas de dang
de la shes ming tsam min par gzugs 'dzin gyi sgo phyes pa lta bur gyur ba la 'phyang mo nyug mi dgos
snyam/.
233
traveling there in his sixties and seventies.584 This situation requires further study, but even at
this stage, one thing is obvious: the relationship between Dgon lung and Inner Mongolians was
not just one-way—the monastery influencing Mongolian Buddhist followers—but went two
ways and involved a patron-priest relationship through which Mongolians influenced the
monastery in some ways.
2.5. Conclusions drawn from Sum pa’s Dgon lung abbacies
We can draw some conclusions from the three terms Sum pa Mkhan po spent in the Dgon
lung abbacy. First, while managing the monastery, Sum pa Mkhan po focused more on
promoting study and reviving monastic discipline than he did on giving tantric initiations. The
only empowerment he offered as abbot was the Kālacakra tantra empowerment, which was a
very different approach from the diverse tantric empowerments he had given while traveling. As
far as scholarship in the monastery was concerned, we can note that he promoted conventional
topics (tha snyad) of study alongside Buddhist studies (nang don) during his abbacies. Second,
Sum pa Mkhan po also secured Mongol sponsorship for major events held during his abbacy of
Dgon lung. In this way, he cultivated not only a personal relationship with Mongols, but forged a
patron-priest relationship with Dgon lung at the center. Dgon lung monastery continued to
develop in this direction after Sum pa Mkhan po, but he was the one who initiated and promoted
this trend. Third, over the entire period of forty years in which Sum pa intermittently held the
post, there always existed a faction that opposed his work. He explained their interference as
584
Sullivan mentions one of Mongolian sponsorships for Smon lam Festival in 1783, but does not point
out that this was a new phenomenon after Sum pa Mkhan po’s extensive activities in Mongolia in his
sixties and seventies. See Sullivan, “The Mother of All Monastery,” 242.
234
being the result of bad geomancy or accumulated karma, but Sum pa Mkhan po overcame the
obstacles it presented every time and succeeded in causing the monastery to prosper. There were
always been ups and downs in Dgon lung’s long history, but at least the story of Sum pa Mkhan
po’s abbacy has a happy ending.
Sum pa Mkhan po’s experiences in Dgon lung abbacy demonstrate the special
relationship he had with Dgon lung. Dgon lung shaped the direction of Sum pa Khenpo’s work
while Sum pa Mkhan po, in turn, shaped the history of Dgon lung. His stance as both an insider
and an outsider gives us a glimpse into the unique relationship between himself and the
monastery, which also tells us something of the cultural development that was happening in
Amdo during his time.
3. Monasteries in Amdo
Throughout his life, Sum pa Mkhan po formed connections with many monasteries in the
Amdo area besides Dgon lung. Most of his travels around Amdo involved one monastery or
another, such that he regularly traveled to various monasteries to fulfill their requests for a visit.
As a result, his autobiographies are full of stories of visits to monasteries and of the relationships
they had with Sum pa Khenpo. Examining Sum pa Mkhan po’s activities at such monasteries
provides us an exemplar of the type of relationship that developed between an incarnate lama
from a grand-scale monastery and its branch monasteries. An examination of this nature will also
give us some insight into the inner dynamics of monasteries in Amdo that were increasing in
number at the time, as explained in Chapter I.
235
The relationships that Sum pa Mkhan po had with monastic sites can be roughly divided
into two categories, depending on his level of engagement with the sites: 1. Sites where Sum pa
Mkhan po maintained a continuous relationship in his capacity as founder, abbot, sponsor, or
prolonged resident for practice or teaching; 2. Sites that Sum pa Mkhan po visited only once,
primarily as a simple visitor rather than as a teacher. Given the importance of the former
category, I will deal with it in detail, and then supply a list of those monasteries for which the
relationship falls within the latter category at the end of this section.
Figure 20. Amdo monastic sites Sum pa Mkhan po had connections with.
3.1. Sites that Sum pa Mkhan po established or served as abbot/sponsor
a. Lung dkar hermitages (Bkra shis rtse & two more hermitages)
236
As discussed in Chapter II, ’Bo khog’s Lung dkar is located in present Qihangou 祁汉沟
in Baoku 宝库 Township of Datong ⼤通 County in Xining District, Qinghai, China. Lung dkar
is seventy-three kilometers northwest of Dgon lung monastery as the crow flies. Sum pa Mkhan
po has it that the foundation of the site was laid out by Bzang skor Dpal ldan ’od zer.585 The
hermitages of Lung dkar was taken over by Sum pa Khenpo, and eventually became his main
residence. In the wood-bird year (1744), when Sum pa Mkhan po stayed in a monastery called
Pho shog tu, he established a hermitage called Bsam gtan gling586 in the “right”587 direction of
Pho shog tu. However, this hermitage was not used by Sum pa Mkhan po that much after 1744.
His biographies show that after that period of travel he returned to Dgon lung monastery for a
while and did not visit the site for more than ten years. Sum pa Mkhan po didn’t establish Bkra
shis rtse hermitage at Lung dkar until 1757. The establishment of Bkra shis rtse completed the
three-hermitage complex at Lung dkar.
585
Dpag bsam ljon bzang 226a. “Bzang skor” is listed as one of minor incarnate lineages at Dgon lung
monastery (Per nyi ma ’dzin, Zur rgyan g.yas ’khyil dung gi sgra dbyangs,125). Bzang skor incarnation
lineage must have been active in the ’Bo khog area, as nearby Tha yan chi chung ba dga’ ldan rin chen
gling was also established by one of former Bzang skor incarnates, Kun dga’ bzang po. For this, see Brag
mgon pa, Mdo smad chos ’byung, 107.
586
The name Bsam gtan gling for the hermitage established in 1744 is only mentioned in the short
autobiography (18a; p69). Other sources—including Sum pa Mkhan po’s own ones—call the site “Bkra
shis rte’i ri khrod bsam gtan gling.” It seems three hermitages are all located in the same location and Bra
shis rtse and Bsam gtan gling are parts of hermitage complex. In his Gsung ’bum, a part of Lung dkar also
called Bkra shis ’phel. All in all, Sum pa Mkhan po established three hermitages at Lung dkar, but he
does not specify the name for each hermitage and sometimes their names are combined together as if they
indicate just one place.
587
It seems that the “right” direction means west as facing south in the Mongolian tradition. Due to this
statement of the direction, it is highly probable that “Pho shog tu monastery” was none other than Tha yan
chi chung ba dga’ ldan rin chen gling, because both Dpag bsam ljon bzang and Mdo smad chos ’byung
have Lung dkar right after Tha yan chi with an expression, “on the right of it” (de’i g.yas kyi/ g.yas ngos).
For this see Sum pa Mkhan po, Dpag bsam ljon bzang, 226a and Brag dgon pa, Mdo smad chos ’byung,
107.
237
Figure 21. View of remains of Lung dkar hermitage in present-day Baoku Township of Datong
County, Qinghai. This large-scale hermitage became Sum pa Mkhan po’s main residence in his
later life. Photo taken by Hanung Kim, May 2017.
Sum pa Mkhan po regarded Lung dkar hermitage as a place where he could be
unburdened by public or private matters, and where he could enjoy fortune of happiness without
fatigue or suffering.588 This is why Sum pa Mkhan po chose Lung dkar as his main residence
later in life. This was also where he passed away in the end. We can say that Lung dkar
hermitage was the center of Sum pa Mkhan po’s intellectual activities, since it is the place most
frequently-mentioned as the location where he drafted works later included in his Collected
588
SKRL1 210b; SKRL2 547: gnas skabs su spyi sger gyi khur cung zad kyang med pas lus ngag gi ngal
ba dang sems kyi tshe 'di'i don ched kyi duHkha med par chos mthun gyi dga' bde'i dpal la ngoms pa med
par rol ba la sus kyang 'gran du med par rlom ste ci dgar skyid nyal bgyid bzhin gnas/
238
Works.589 So although he undertook most his activities at Dgon lung monastery and it was the
center from which he worked in his earlier years, after its establishment was completed in 1757,
Lung dkar hermitage—especially Bkra shis rtse—supplanted Dgon lung as Sum pa Mkhan po’s
center. Lung dkar hermitage’s scale did not seem small; it came to have its own assembly hall
and several monastic residential halls at its prosperous peak. One can see from its present-day
ruins that it must have been a large-scale hermitage complex, despite its location in the middle of
the mountains.
Sum pa Mkhan po’s establishment and development of Lung dkar hermitage meant that
he did not always have a strong attachment to Dgon lung, but was independently active on his
own terms. As we will see below, being free from Dgon lung enabled his contributions to the
development of other monastic sites in Amdo and his cultivation of connections to Mongolians.
b. Zhwa khog “new monastery” (dgon gsar) Bshad sgrub gling
Zhwa khog dgon gsar Bshad sgrub gling was the first monastic site that Sum pa Mkhan
po ever founded. Zhwa khog is the basin area of the Heilin River (Ch. Heilinhe ⿊林河) in
Datong County. Bshad sgrub gling was located near the upper regions of the river <that runs
through what is> currently known as Duolin Township (Ch. Duolinxiang 多林鄉). In the waterox year (1733), when Sum pa Mkhan po was only thirty, the people of Zhwa khog asked that he
establish a new meditation center. Sum pa Mkhan po tried to locate an appropriate place. When
589
In fact, it is difficult to say that Lung dkar dominated the place of compositions of Sum pa Mkhan po’s
works, because only 25 among total 67 works in his Collected Works provide specific place information
of their composition. However, among those 25, Lung dkar occupies 11 and Srog mkhar 9. Interestingly,
Dgon lung only has 3 works.
239
he saw a crow with white food in its mouth flying over a mountain, he regarded it as a sign of the
protector deity’s presence there. He took the place and purified it with both secret mantra and
sūtra methods (bkra shis gso sbyong), and constructed a hermitage building, naming it “Bshad
grub gling.”590 Sum pa Mkhan po states later “many Chinese people” (rgya mi mang po) called
the site Bde skyid dgon. An interlinear note related to this name reads “pheng ngan si (=Ch.
Ping’ansi 平安寺),” which means that the place and its geomantic condition were good and its
prosperity increased.
Zhwa khog became a frequent destination for Sum pa Khenpo po. He also occasionally
visited Bshad sgrub gling.591 When he visited Bshad sgrub gling in 1746 and 1754, Sum pa
Mkhan po offered empowerments, permission blessings, instructions and oral transmissions. He
also sponsored the building and consecration of the assembly hall and stūpas there in 1754 and
1779. Bshad sgrub gling was the last site Sum pa Mkhan po visited to teach outside of Lung dkar
before his death in 1787. The site was established as a small meditation center but it grew in later
times.592 Sum pa Mkhan po must have retained his authority at the monastic site, because he was
involved in its reformation, appointing disciplinarians (dge skos) when people in the monastery
informed him that this developing monastic site needed better regulatory control since it had
been expanded.593 The monastery fell under the administration of Sum pa residence at Dgon lung
monastery after Sum pa Mkhan po’s time and on.594
590
SKRL1 68b-69a; SKRL2 178.
591
After its establishment in 1733, Sum pa Mkhan po went there in 1746, 1751, 1754, 1779, and 1787.
592
According to Sum pa Mkhan po’s Dpag bsam ljon bzang, its monk population was 80.
593
SKRL1 236b; SKRL2 616.
594
Pu, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, 7.
240
Figure 22. View of the old site for Bshad sgrub gling at Zhwa khog, currently in Datong County,
Qinghai. The Chinese name of Ping’an si 安 is still in use for its place name although the
monastery complex was all destroyed during “Religious Reform” in 1958. The buildings in the
photo are storehouses newly built on the site. Photo taken by Hanung Kim, May 2017.
c. Srog mkhar sgrub sde Dga’ ldan chos rdzong
Dga’ ldan chos rdzong (Ch. Hongkasi 紅卡寺) is located in a mountainous area in the
eastern part of current Ledu 樂都 County. It was closely connected to Se ra lung Dga’ ldan dam
chos gling, such that Sum pa Mkhan po was invited to serve as its abbot in the wood-hare year
(1735). When Sum pa Mkhan po arrived in Se ra lung, people there595 donated to him monks’
595
The leader of these people was Te’i thung Mo’u tha ra’i gro’u kya zhu’u tshe gro’u ha ye (SKRL1
76a; SKRL2 197). Mo’u tha ra (> Ch. Maotala ⽑塔拉) seems one of subordinate tribes to Se ra lung
monastery, which can be found in Tianzhu zangzu zizhixian weiyuanhui, Tianzhu zangchuan fojiao
siyuan gaikuang (Tianzhu xian: Zhongguo renmin zhengzhi xieshang huiyi Tianzhu zangzu zizhixian
241
quarters in the “right” direction (i.e., east), which was only 8 kilometers west of Se ra lung
monastery. In the same year, when he was thirty-two years old, Sum pa Mkhan po established a
meditation center at the site and named it Srog mkhar sgrub sde Dga’ ldan chos rdzong. “Srog
mkhar” means “a castle [of] life”, a name it earned because people formerly took shelter in this
place on several occasions when war broke out. Lcang skya had also praised the location as a
good site.596
Srog mkhar Dga’ ldan chos rdzong was a site that Sum pa Mkha po frequently visited
during his life. He used it as his summer retreat site and many of his works were composed
there.597 Sum pa Mkhan po gave some teachings at the site in his later years, and on his last visit
in 1784, offered permission blessings and oral transmissions and established an assembly hall.
He referred to this site as located in “Lower Stong shag”. It seemed to have been a key site for
the chain of connection from present Ledu County of Qinghai to the lower reaches of ’Ju lag (Ch.
Datong) river in present western Yongdeng 永登 County and southwestern Tianzhu 天祝 County
in Gansu.
weiyuanhui, 2000), 166. As for “gro’u kya zhu’u tshe gro’u ha ye,” Dpag bsam ljon bzang (f. 226b) has a
slightly different wording “gro’u kya zhu tshe gro’u yen,” and the Chinese translation of Dpag bsam ljon
bzang (Pu et al., Songba fojiaoshi (Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe, 2013), 349) questionably renders it
as “Zhuojia xucai zhuangyuan 卓家续才庄园.” More research is needed to clarify what this passage
means.
596
SKRL1 76a-76b; SKRL2 197-98.
597
See note 589 above.
242
Figure 23. View of now unattended and tattered Srog mkhar monastery in Ledu County, Qinghai.
Photos taken by Hanung Kim, May 2017.
d. Se ra lung Dga’ ldan dam chos gling
Se ra lung Dga’ ldan dam chos gling (Ch. Xidasi 西⼤寺) is located on the western
riverbank area of the ’Jug lag (Ch. Datong) river, currently in the Sailalung Township (Ch.
Sailalungxiang 赛拉隆乡) in western Tianzhu County. Sum pa Mkhan po often refers to this
monastery as “Ser lung.” Se ra lung is one of the first Amdo monasteries to have requested him
to assume their abbacy—even earlier than Dgon lung. Sum pa Mkhan po must have been
satisfied with the natural environment of this monastery and Srog mkhar, because he provides a
243
long description of the wonders of the environs.598 Given their proximity, Sum pa Mkhan po
would occasionally visit Se ra lung and Srgo khar.
Sum pa Mkhan po served as abbot of the monastery twice (1735-1736 and 1740-1741).
During his first abbacy, Sum pa Mkhan po offered the empowerment of Vajramālā at the request
of the monks there. He was also involved in repair of the assembly hall in 1762. Although Sum
pa Mkhan po experienced some friction with the local headman (Tib. thu’u se <Ch. Tusi ⼟司) in
1776, he also offered instructions (khrid) and oral transmissions (lung) to 800 clergy and laity at
Se ra lung as an elderly lama in 1784. The monastery was under the administration of the Sum pa
residence of Dgon lung monastery after Sum pa Mkhan po’s time and on.599
598
SKRL1 76b-77b; SKRL2 198-201. After long description of the favorable environment for practicing,
Sum pa Mkhan po concludes the section with his regret that he had not had many chances to practice at
such great places for other business throughout his life.
599
Lang et al., Gansu zangchuan fojiao siyuan (Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe, 2014), 246.
244
Figure 24. View of newly built Se ra lung monastery in Tianzhu County, Gansu. Photos taken by
Hanung Kim, May 2017.
e. Dpa’ ris stong shag Bkra shis chos gling
Dpa’ ris stong shag Bkra shis chos gling (Ch. Yangguansi ⽺官寺) is located in the
middle of Ledu County, Qinghai. Along with Se ra lung Dga’ ldan dam chos gling, Dpa’ ris
stong shag Bkra shis chos gling was one of the first Amdo monasteries to request Sum pa Mkhan
po to assume their abbacy. Sum pa Mkhan po served as abbot of the monastery twice. The first
term was from 1733 to 1736, during which time Sum pa Mkhan po offered teachings to the
monastic community and built some objects of worship (rten) on the premises of the monastery.
The second term was from 1740 to 1741, during which time he provided good management and
discipline to the monastic community. It is interesting to note that these abbacies ran concurrent
to Sum pa Mkhan po’s abbacies at Se ra lung monastery. In 1735, Sum pa Mkhan po performed
his first rainmaking ritual at the request of this monastery.600
The monastery is 34 kilometers southeast of Dgon lung as the crow flies. Sources do not
agree with the year of establishment for this monastery.601 It was not a small-scale monastery, as
1,000 laity and monks gathered for Sum pa Mkhan po’s Mitra brgya tsha empowerment in 1734.
After the abovementioned activities, undertaken in his thirties, Sum pa Mkhan po held no
600
SKRL1 75a-76a; SKRL2 194-97.
601
Some claim that the monastery was established during the time of Yongle Emeperor (r. 1402-1424).
For this see Nian Zhihai and Bai Gengdeng, Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan mingjian (Lanzhou: Gansu
minzu chubanshe, 1993), 115 and BDRC G4534 “Founded 1413”. However, Pu Wencheng more
carefully assumes that its establishment year should be before mid-16th century with a basis of Xining fu
xin zhi’s records of plunder of the monastery in the time of Jiajing emperor (r. 1521-1567).
245
meaningful events in this monastery. His last direct connection with the monastery were brief
visits in 1784.
Figure 25. View of Dpa’ ris stong shag Bkra shis chos gling, a.k.a. Yangguansi 羊
County, Qinghai. Photo taken by Hanung Kim, May 2017.
, in Ledu
f. Stag lung dgon Dga’ ldan dam chos gling
Stag lung dgon (Ch. Dalongsi 達隆寺) is one of the farthest-flung Amdo monasteries that
had invited Sum pa Mkhan po on several occasions. The monastery is located in present-day
Songshan Township (Ch. Songshanzhen 松山镇) in eastern Tianzhu County, Gansu. It was not a
small-scale monastery, since Sum pa Mkhan po bestowed the Mitra brgya tsha empowerment on
2,000 clergy and laity when he first visited in 1746. When Sum pa Mkhan po made his second
visit to the monastery in 1752, he had a chance to study the Four Medical Tantras (Rgyud bzhi)
246
with Nyi ma rgyal mtshan, who was a disciple of one of the doctors to the 5th Dalai Lama. In
1765, when the monastery invited him, Sum pa Mkhan po also gave empowerment, blessings
(byin rlabs), permission blessings (rjes gnang), and oral transmissions (lung) to 1,000 people
every day while he stayed there. In early 1770, Stag lung’s sprul sku, on his deathbed, asked
Sum pa Mkhan po to preside over his funeral. Although Sum pa Mkhan po himself was ill at the
time, he went to Stag lung monastery and presided over the funeral. Later Stag lung became the
gateway to and from Mongolia (1772 and 1775).
Figure 26. View of Stag lung dgon Dga’ ldan dam chos gling (Ch. Dalongsi 達隆寺) in Tianzhu
County, Gansu. Photo taken by Hanung Kim, May 2017.
g. Pho rod Zhwa dmar pra ti dgon Dga’ ldan chos ’khor gling
247
Dga’ ldan chos ’khor gling (Ch. Nanchongsi 南冲寺 or Xiamasi 夏瑪寺) is located in
present-day Duoshi Township (Ch. Duoshixiang 朵
乡) in mid Tainzhu County. Sum pa
Mkhan po’s activities at this monastery coincided with his work at Stag lung monastery. He
visited this site for the first time at their invitation while on a visit to nearby Stag lung monastery
in 1746. Upon his arrival Sum pa Mkhan po gave empowerments and reading transmissions for
Bhairava, Amitāyus and the Eleven-faced One to 700 clergy and laity there. His second visit to
this site also coincided with a visit to Stag lung in 1752. This time the people at Zhwa dmar pra ti
dgon asked Sum pa Mkhan po to serve as their abbot. He was enthroned as abbot and maintained
discipline at the monastery for three years, but it seemed that he did not reside at the monastery
as abbot.602 In 1771, Sum pa Mkhan po visited Zhwa dmar pra ti dgon on the return journey from
Alashan to Dgon lung, and on that occasion bestowed the empowerments of Vairocana and the
Eleven-faced One.
602
SKRL1 115b; SKRL2 301.
248
Figure 27. View of Zhwa dmar pra ti dgon Dga’ ldan chos ’khor gling (Ch. Xiamasi 夏玛 or
Nnzhongsi 南冲寺) in Tianzhu County, Gansu. According to local people, the monastery
complex was much larger than the present scale before 1958. Photo taken by Hanung Kim, May
2017.
h. ’Dul ba dgon Bshad sgrub dar rgyas gling
’Dul ba dgon Bshad sgrub dar rgyas gling is located in the upper basin area of the Heilin
river in Datong County, Qinghai. It was the largest monastery in the Zhwa khog area, with a
religious community of 250 in Sum pa Mkhan po’s time. It even appeared on the list of late 17thcentury accounts of Dge lugs pa monasteries Baiḍūr ser po.603 The monastery was later known as
603
Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho has it as Dga’ ldan dam chos gling, and explains its monk population was
about 200 at his time. Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, Dga’ ldan chos ’byung baiḍūr ser po (Beijing: Krung go
bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1998 [1698]), 341 (no. 103).
249
Chi kya dgon (Ch. Qijiasi 祁家寺).604 In the water-monkey year (1752), monks from ’Dul ba
monastery asked Sum pa Mkhan po assume the abbacy to bless their place. Sum pa Mkhan po
accepted the appointment, but only served as an abbot for a short time, sponsoring repairs on
their assembly hall. In 1766, Sum pa Mkhan po took Bshad sgrub dar rgyas gling and Dgon
lung’s Byang chub gling as a basis of funds for Buddhist activities on behalf of his own
family.605 In 1787, on the last journey of his life, he visited ’Dul ba dgon at their invitation and
gave the empowerment of Vairocana to 500 clergy and laity.
i. Tha yan chi chung ba Dga’ ldan rin chen gling
Dga’ ldan rin chen gling (Ch. Zhangjiasi 張家寺) is very close to Lung dkar hermitage.
The incarnation lineage of its founder, Bzang skor, was a key factor in Sum pa Mkhan po’s
establishment of Lung dkar hermitage. This monastery was the first community to ask Sum pa
Mkhan po to bestow the Mitra brgya tsha empowerment on them in the water-ox year (1733),
when he was only thirty years old and had just come to the region from Central Tibet. This
monastery was also the first community to ask Sum pa Mkhan po to bestow the empowerment of
the Kālacakra tantra in the wood-dog year (1754). Sum pa Mkhan po recorded that there were
500 attendants, clergy and laity present on both occasions. Sum pa Mkhan po did not have any
direct involvement with this monastery later in his life. The only mention of the monastery
604
For this, see note 261 in Chapter II.
605
SKRL1 141b; SKRL2 366-67.
250
during that period is in relation to someone who performed a recovery-ritual when Sum pa
Mkhan po became sick in 1769.606
Figure 28. View of remains of Tha yan chi chung ba Dga’ ldan rin chen gling
(Ch. Zhangjiasi 张家寺) in Datong County, Qinghai. Most of the old monastic site is now used
as farmland by local Monguor people. Photo taken by Hanung Kim, May 2017.
j. Nom ci dgon Dga’ ldan bde chen gling
Nom ci monastery Dga’ ldan bde chen gling (Ch. Numuqisi 奴⽊⿑寺 or Longqusi ⿓曲
寺) is located in Zhwa khog. It is on record as quite a large-scale local monastery, with a
religious population of 200 during Sum pa Mkhan po’s time.607 Sum pa Mkhan po’s first visit to
606
SKRL1 148b; SKRL2 385.
607
For the number of its monk population, see Dpag bsam ljon bzang, 225b.
251
this monastery in 1749 was not as illustrious an affair as were his visits to other monasteries,
because he was invited on that occasion to a ceremony for a new assembly hall and murals that
had been sponsored by Sum pa residence. The second invitation came much later, in 1778. But
on that occasion, Sum pa Mkhan po could not make his way to the site because he had fallen
from a mule and was badly injured. The one meaningful visit Sum pa Mkhan po paid to the
monastery was the visit in 1787, a year before his death. The people of Nom ci monastery
arranged a long-life ceremony for Sum pa Mkhan po when he visited.
k. Other Amdo monasteries Sum pa Mkhan po occasionally visited
Sku ’bum byams pa gling: Sum pa Mkhan po visited Sku ’bum monastery several times
throughout his life (1711, 1717, 1735, 1761, 1779 and 1780). But his visits to this monastery
formed a relationshop quite different from those he had formed with the abovementioned
monasteries. He visited Sku ’bum mostly to learn from or meet with the higher lamas there,
rather than to give teachings or tantric initiations to people in the monastery. But Sum pa Mkhan
po must have maintained a certain level of academic connection with Sku ’bum monastery,
because he did give teachings on topics that included conventional sciences (tha snyad) to monks
from the monastery in the spring and summer of 1774.608
Rgyal sras hermitage (a.k.a. Byang chub gling or Sbas yul dkar po brag rdzong): Sum pa
Mkhan po mentioned this hermitage several times in his autobiographies. He used this place as a
refuge from the Sum pa residence conflict in 1732. But this place should be understood to have
been a part of Dgon lung monastery. This hermitage is important in the history of Sum pa Mkhan
608
SKRL1 164b-165a; SKRL2 426.
252
po’s teaching activities, since it was the first place in Amdo where he taught. The subject he
taught on that occasion was Byang chub lam rim, which set that teaching apart from his other
teaching activities around Amdo. It seems that this hermitage was replaced by Lung dkar during
Sum pa Mkhan po’s later life, since he barely mentions it after mentioning that it was undergoing
repairs in 1741.
Mchod rten thang: Located on the border between Huzhu and Tianzhu Counties, Mchod rten
thang monastery (Ch. Tiantangsi 天堂寺) was on the path to Tianzhu and Inner Mongolia from
Dgon lung monastery. Sum pa Mkhan po visited Mchod rten thang monastery several times, but
these were only passing events. Sum pa Mkhan po also once taught topics regarding Lam rim in
this monastery.
3.2. Sites where Sum pa Mkhan po visited but were less significant in forming connections
monasteries
Gong ba brag dkar me long gling
Lā mo bde chen Chos ’khor gling (Ch. Deqinsi
德千 )
Gong ba grwa tshang Thos bsam dar rgyas
gling (Ch. Gongbasi 贡巴 )
Gro tshang lha khang Gau tam sde dge rgyas
(Ch. Qutansi 瞿昙 )
Brug lung dga’ ldan bshad sgrub gling (Ch.
Longgousi 龙沟 )
Te’i thung’s Nyu su me temple
Chu bzang Dga’ ldan mi ’gyur gling (Ch.
Quezangsi 却藏 )
Len hwa the Dga' ldan gnas bcu 'phel rgyas
(Ch. Lianhuataisi 莲花台 )
Gser tog dgon Mkhas btsun dar rgyas gling
(Ch. Xiakousi 峡
)
Gser khog dgon dga' ldan dam chos gling (Ch.
Guanghuisi 广惠 )
Lo kya hun (Ch. Luojiadong 罗家洞)
Byam pa ‘bum gling (Ch. Binglingsi 炳灵 )
Dga’ ldan bshad sgrub gling (Ch. Longhesi 龙
)
Mā yang dgon Bkra shis chos gling (Ch. 马营
)
visiting year
1707
1732
activities
received teachings
received teachings
1732
received teachings
1734
received teachings
1734
offering Vajramālā empwerment to 800
1748
1761
consecration of Gtsug lag khang
1761
donation and teaching (chos sbyin)
1762
consecraton of Gser tog srul sku’s reliquary
1764
escorted Lcang skya
1769
1769
1769
worshipping Bde mchog
1784
offering Avalokiteśvara empowerment to
1,000 people
offering empowerments to monks
253
3.3. Conclusion for Amdo Monasteries
There are a few points we should attend regarding Sum pa Mkhan po’s travels to Amdo
monasteries. First, most visits to these places conspicuously recorded Sum pa Mkhan po’s
bestowal of tantric initiations, which we can take as an indication og the important role that
tantric initiations played in forging monastic connections in eighteenth-century Amdo.
Transmission of standardized tantric practices would have been a good means of connecting the
regional authority—no matter the central monastery or the incarnate lama from it—to branch
monasteries. Also, tantric initiations were undertaken not only by monastic but by lay
communities as well, a broader accommodation and subitist impression that might have led
itinerant lamas to adopt tantric initiations as their preferred teaching tools. This might also be
why Sum pa Mkhan po was careful to record this aspect of his work whenever making a new
connection with a monastic community.
Second, the geographical area that Sum pa Mkhan po covered was not that extensive, and
was mostly limited to three main areas: Datong, Ledu, and Tainzhu counties. This tells us
something of the map of monastic powers in the Amdo area at the time, which was drawn by
large-scale monasteries in competition with each other. Despite making early connections with
the places beyond the Tsong chu river, Sum pa Mkhan po did not exert an influence there,
leaving Mang ra, Khri kha, and Tsan tsha untouched, not to mention Bla brang bkra shis 'khyil
and Rong bo dgon chen. This may have been due to the growing influence of those monasteries
in the areas south of the Tsong chu river. The presence of such a southern boundary, however,
may have contributed to the expansion of Sum pa Mkhan po’s influence in a different direction,
namely, eastwardly toward Inner Mongolia.
254
4. Sum pa Mkhan po’s extra-Amdo connections
Sum pa Mkhan po’s connections with people and monasteries outside of the Amdo area
were as significant and frequent as his connections within Amdo. These connections are
important because they show the spread of Amdo culture beyond its borders. Details of Sum pa
Mkhan po’s activities and their range tell us something og the developmental of the Amdo
Renaissance in which Sum pa Mkhan po played many active parts.
The areas involved were as follows: Inner Mongolia (Alashan, Ordos, Höhhot, Ulanqab,
and Dolon Nor), Mt. Wutai, Beijing, and Northern Gansu (Yugur, Suzhou, and Ganzhou) areas.
Figure 29. Main sites of Sum pa Mkhan po’s travels. Red circles are extra-Amdo sites, and blue
ones are Amdo sites as seen in Figure 11 above.
255
4.1. Inner Mongolia
4.1.1. Alashan Left Banner
The Alashan area is the western-most part of present-day Inner Mongolia that was on the
path to Mt. Wutai and Beijing from Amdo.609 The people who inhabitated the Alashan area at
that time were the Khoshud Mongols and their ethnic background might have formed the closer
connection with Sum pa Mkhan po.610 When he traveled to Beijing for the first time in 1737,
Sum pa Mkhan po recorded that he passed through Bā yan ho tho (<Mo. Bayankhot), the
administrative center of the Alashan Left Banner.611 However, it seems that Sum pa Mkhan po
made no special contact with Alashan people at that time. It was not until 1750 when Sum pa
Mkhan po had a meaningful interaction with Alashan people. On his way to Mt. Wutai in 1750,
Sum pa Mkhan po stopped by the Alashan area. As beile Blo bzang rdo rje and gong Dkon
mchog skyabs612 had pleaded for relief from the drought plaguing their land, Sum pa Mkhan po
performed a rainmaking ritual, and rain successfully fell. On the way from Mt. Wutai back to
609
There has been no extensive study on the Alashan history or its polity written in English so far. For a
recent full-scale Chinese work on Alashan’s history and society, see Qi Guang, Daqing diguo shiqi
Menggu de zhengzhi yu shehui (Shanghai: Fudan daxue chubanshe, 2013).
610
In the late 17th century, the Khoshud Oirat Mongols who remained in Zhungharia (now in northern
Xinjiang) deserted to the Qing dynasty to avoid oppression of Zünghar’s Galdan Boshogtu Khan. Qing
bestowed them the Alashan area as their new pastoral territory. For this, see Atwood, Encyclopieda, 310.
611
SKRL1 88a; SKRL2 207. In 1742 Sum pa Mkhan po had his second Beijing trip, but he did not
provide the itinerary up to Beijing.
This Blo bzang rdo rje (>Ch. Luobuzang Duo’erji 羅⼘藏多爾濟) inherited the title of jasag doroi
beile since 1739. Later he was promoted to a doroi junwang in 1757, and again promoted to hoshoi
qinwang in 1765. Dkon mchog skyabs (>Ch. Gunchu Ke 袞楚克) inhereted the title of fuguo gong since
1737. Later he was promoted to Zhenfuo gong in 1759. For these, see Bao Wenhan et al., ed., Menggu hui
bu wanggong biaozhuan, diyiji (Höhhot: Neimenggu daxue chubanshe, 1998 [1795]), 102-3. As we will
see, Sum pa Mkhan po had a close relationship with this qinwang in his later times.
612
256
Dgon lung, a group of people led by the Alashan beile welcomed Sum pa Mkhan po. This was
the first direct contact that Sum pa Khenpo records with the Alashan people.613
It was not until 1771 that Sum pa Mkhan po had another chance to provide a service for
Alashan people. In 1771, Alashan’s chietians tusalagchi614 Tshe dbang rdo rje and Mer gen tha’i
rje spyan, who were subordinates of the qinwang Blo bzang rdo rje, invited Sum pa Mkhan po to
perform some death rituals for the redemption of the soul.615
Eventually in 1773, the qingwang Blo bzang rdo rje himself extended an invitation to
Sum pa Khenpo. Sum pa Mkhan po arrived in the head-camp of the banner616 and successfully
performed a rainmaking ritual. Then Sum pa Mkhan po bestowed the empowerment of
Kurukullā (Rig byed ma)617 on the qinwang and gave other oral transmissions to the qinwang’s
wife, who was the daughter of the sixteenth son of the Kangxi emperor. Then upon the
qinwang’s request, Sum pa Mkhan po sought a place to build a shrine for ancestors on the
foothill of the Mt. Alashan. Sum pa Mkhan po also gave empowerments of Bhiarava and ElevenFaced Avalokiteśvara to 700 clergy and laity in addition to the qinwang. Finally Sum pa Mkhan
po provided medical treatment to the Alashan people and returned to his own hermitage with the
613
SKRL1 114b; SKRL2 299.
614
The literal meaning of the Mongolian term tusalagchi is “assistant” (Lessing, Mongolian-English
Dictionary, 845). In the banner system, it usually means “administrator” (Atwood, Encyclopedia,
passim).
615
SKRL1 153b; SKRL2 397. It is not clear who the deceased were for this ritual.
616
Sum pa Mkhan po uses the Tibetan term “ru thog" to indicate the head-camp of the banner. The same
usages are seen in SKRL1 113b; SKRL2 296 and SKRL1 116b; SKRL2 304.
617
For the goddess Kurukullā, see Miranda Shaw, Buddhist Goddesses of India (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2006), 432-47.
257
satisfaction of having fully achieved what he had planned to do. During this water-snake year,
Sum pa Mkhan po’s account is replete with descriptions of activities in the Alashan area.618
This relationship must have been very cordial, because the Alashan qinwang and his
officials regularly invited Sum pa Mkhan po, and every year, for six consecutive years thereafter,
he visited Alashan in one way or another. During his visit in 1774, Sum pa Mkhan po created a
torma of a protector for an obstacle-clearing ritual (rim gro) and performed a peaceful fire puja
(zhi ba'i sbyin sreg) for an Alashan tusalagchi. Many nobles welcomed Sum pa Mkhan po when
he arrived at Alashan qinwang’s ya men,619 and the qinwang earnestly asked him to write his
own biography. 620 In 1776, the Alashan people again invited Sum pa Mkhan po, and he
performed a rainmaking ritual and bestowed initiations (lung, khrid, dbang and rjes gnang) on
local degree-holding monks. At the request of Alashan nobles such as the qingwang and his wife,
Sum pa Mkhan po also presented a Sde dge bstan ’gyur to the Alashan people. During his travels
around the Ordos area in 1777, Sum pa Mkhan po again received an invitation from Alashan and
performed a rainmaking ritual upon arriving there. He soon left for Qanggin, but before long a
messenger of Alashan caught up to him and informed him that the qinwang’s wife had died. He
went to Alashan again and attended her funeral where he performed the soul-redemption ritual.
In 1778, at the invitation of Alashan qinwang, Sum pa Mkhan po went there and gave the
618
SKRL1 162b-164b; SKRL2 420-25. Along with descriptive accounts of what he did during his time in
Alashan, Sum pa Mkhan po also provides eulogies for Alashan’s scenery and the Oirat Mongols who
inhabited the area.
“Ya men (<Ch. yamen 衙⾨)” is the administrative office in traditional China and in this case seemed
to refer to qinwang Blo bzang rdo rje’s office. However, Alashan Left Banner’s center has a monastery
called Yamen süme (Ch. Yamenmiao 衙⾨廟, a.k.a. Yanfusi 延福寺), named such because of its close
relationship with the qinwang of the banner. It is more likely that Sum pa Mkhan po referred to qinwang’s
office in this case, but it is also possible that he had a meeting with Alashan people in the monastery.
619
620
SKRL1 165b; SKRL2 428. Sum pa Mkhan po had it that this is one of main motivations for writing of
his autobiography.
258
qinwang the permission blessing of Victorious One with Uṣṇīṣa (Skt. Uṣṇīṣavijayā; Tib. gtsug
tor rnam rgyal ma). After traveling to Ordos and Bayannuur, Sum pa Mkhan po retuned to
Alashan. There he was involved in the restoration of one monastery. In 1781 and 1785, Sum pa
Mkhan po visited Alashan at the qinwang’s invitation. As discussed above, the Alashan qinwang
sponsored Dgon lung’s Smon lam Prayer Festivals during Sum pa Mkhan po’s abbacy.
It is noteworthy that Sum pa Mkhan po’s activities didn’t differ very much from those he
undertook when visiting other Amdo monasteries in the earlier period of his career. Rainmaking
and funerary rituals and tantric initiations, such as empowerments and oral transmissions, were
the primary concerns for both Alashan people and Sum pa Mkhan po.
4.1.2. Ordos, Höhhot and Dörben Kheükhed
Ordos is a dry plateau south of the grand bend in the Yellow River in present-day Inner
Mongolia.621 Sum pa Mkhan po’s travel activities in the area were related to six banners (Ejen
Khoroo, Jasag, Dalad, Qanggin, Üüshin, and Jüüngar) among seven Ordos banners.622 Due to
their proximity, his activities in Ordos were connected to Höhhot (mkhar sngon) and the Dörben
Kheükhed Banner in the Ulanqab League. Similar to Alashan, Sum pa Mkhan po only began to
621
For more details of Ordos, see George Cressey, “The Ordos Desert of Inner Mongolia,” Journal of the
Scientific Laboratories 28, (October 1933): 155-248; Antoine Mostaert, “Ordosica,” Bulletin of the
Catholic University of Peking 9 (1934): 1–96 and “Matériaux ethnographiques relatifs aux Mongols
ordos,” Central Asiatic Journal 2 (1956): 242–294; Hong Jiang, The Ordos Plateau of China: An
Endangered Environment (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 1999); and Atwood, Encyclopedia,
427-28.
622
Ordos was known as the Yeke Juu League comprising seven banners (Ejen Khoroo, Jasag, Dalad,
Qanggin, Üüshin, Jüüngar, and Otog) in Qing times.
259
develop his relationship with the people of Ordos, Höhhot and Dörben Kheükhed during the
second half of his life. Nevertheless, his interactions with these areas were deep and extensive.
In 1750, on his way to Mt. Wutai, Sum pa Mkhan po moved on to Ordos after he visited
Alashan. He arrived at the head-camp of the wang ’Jam dbyang’s banner623 and was treated well
there. On the way from Mt. Wutai back to Dgon lung monastery, Sum pa Mkhan po was again
welcomed by Ordos people such as the wang ’Jam dbyang and gong Tshe brtan nor bu.624 Along
with these highest chieftains, some religious figures asked Sum pa Mkhan po to give them the
empowerment of Kālacakra tantra, so he offered the empowerment to 500 clergy and laity.
In late 1752 Sum pa Mkhan po arrived at the head-camp of the Dalad Banner upon the
invitation from beise Rnam rgyal rdo rje.625 Sum pa Mkhan po spent New Year’s Day in the
banner and gave teachings on the topics of Buddhist studies (mtsan nyid and bsdus grwa) and
conventional sciences (sgra, gso ba, snyan ngag, sdeb sbyo, and rtsis). In the second month, Sum
pa Mkhan po gave the Mitra brgya tsha empowerment to 5,000 clergy and laity there. He also
suggested miscellaneous things, such as building a cairn and a player flag and reciting a maṇī for
a demon who was thrown to Yellow River on a false charge. Then Sum pa Mkhan po offered the
This is the Ejen Khoroo Banner (>Ch. Yijin Huoluoqi 伊⾦霍洛旗) a.k.a. Ordos Left Wing Middle
Banner (Ch. E’erduosi Zuoyizhongqi 鄂爾多斯左翼中旗) where the junwang’s seat was located. It is
also famous for the site of the Mausoleum of Genghis Khan. However, Sum pa Mkhan po does not
provide the name of this banner in his accounts. ’Jam dbyangs (>Ch. Zhamuyang 扎木揚) inherited the
title of jasag doroi junwang in 1728. He was degraded to beile in 1733, but reinstated to junwang in 1736.
For a detailed of his biography see Bao, Wanggong biaozhuan, 49 and Veronika Veit, “The Ordos
Banners According to the Iledkel Šastir of 1795,” in Antoine Mostaert (1881-1971), C.I.C.M. Missionary
and Scholar, ed. Klaus Sagaster (Louvain, Belgium: Ferdinand Verbiest Foundation, K.U. Leuven, 1999),
191.
623
624
Tshe brtan nor bu (>Ch. Sebuteng Nuo’erbu 色布騰諾爾布) inherited the title of fuguo gong in 1728.
See Bao, Wanggong biaozhuan, 50.
625
Rnam rgyal rdo rje (>Ch. Namuzhale Duo’erji 納木扎勒多爾濟) inherited the title of gusan beise in
1740. See Bao, Wanggong biaozhuan, 53 and Veit, “The Ordos Banners,” 200.
260
oral transmission of Four Interwoven Commentaries on the Guhyasamāja Tantra (dpal gsang
ba ’dus pa’i ’grel ba bzhi sbrags pa)626 to 500 students at Bkra shis chos gling of Dalad.627 His
activity also covered the basin area of the Yellow River, since he praised the region that was also
called Po ro tho ho’i of the great bend.628 When Sum pa Mkhan po departed to Dgon lung
monastery on the 7th month of the year, he brought many monks from Ordos to Dgon lung on
this return trip.
There was a hiatus of more than 10 years in Sum pa Mkhan po’s contact with Ordos. In
1767, when Sum pa Mkhan po was on his way back from his second visit to Mt. Wutai, he
visited Mongolian regions again, visiting Tumed629 to give some empowerments there. Then he
moved to Dalad’s Bkra shis chos gling to offer a variety of tantric initiations to monks and
sponsors there.630 After that, Sum pa Mkhan po briefly visited Höhhot’s Cha har Ti yan chi’s
temple631 to provide medical help to his disciples and then moved to Dörben Kheükhed to cure
an epidemic rampant among many people. Then he moved back to Ordos and from the place of
626
This is a Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa’s work.
This Bkra shis chos gling (>Mo. Rasi coiling süme; Ch. Rexiquanlingmiao 熱希全岭廟) is not to be
confused with Dpa’ ris stong shag Bkra shis chos gling in present Ledu County, Qinghai.
627
628
Po ro tho ho’i is Bugutu Quta (Baotou)?
629
There are two Tumed banners, and currently the Tumed Left Banner is a part of the Höhhot Prefectural
City area and the Tumed Right Banner is a part of Baotou Prefectural City area. It is not clear exactly in
which banner Sum pa Mkhan po offered the empowerment.
630
Sum pa Mkhan po specifies the list of topics of initiations: 1. empowerments of Guhyasamaja,
Cakrasaṃvara (lu drik dang lha lnga?), Avalokiteśvara’s secret sadhana; 2. a permission blessing of
Mitra lha drug; 3. oral transmissions of Khrid chen brgyad and so forth.
This must be Caqar blama juu (Ch. Qingyuansi 慶緣寺), a part of Üsütü juu (Ch. Wusutuzhao 烏素圖
召) located in the outskirts of Höhhot. The founder and its main incarnation of Caqar blama juu held the
name Caqar Diyanchi.
631
261
gong Mgon skyabs rdo rje632 went to Emchi chos rje dgon pa633 and offered some empowerments
and oral transmissions. Then he arrived at beile Tshe dbang dpal ’byor634 of Qanggin’s place,
where he offered some permission blessings and performed rituals at shrines. Later that year he
returned to Dgon lung.
In 1771, when he returned to Dgon lung from his trip to Alashan, beise Bstan pa dar
rgyas635 of Dalad again invited Sum pa Mkhan po. Many nobles, such as wang Tshe ring rdo
rje’s son Dharmasiddhi and jasag taiji Dbang rgyal tshe brtan rdo rje, welcomed him when he
arrived there.636 Sum pa Mkhan po advised them to strive for virtue and offered some tantric
initiations. He also presided over the soul redemption ritual for recently deceased wang’s uncle.
Sum pa Mkhan po visited Dalad again on the first month of the next year (1772) and
offered recitation of blessing of 84 mahāsiddhas to 500 clergy and laity. He then moved to
Dörben Kheükhed, passing through Tumed of the Höhhot area. While staying in Dörben
632
The only gong in the Ordos region in 1767 (Qianlong 32) was Bstan ’dzin rdo rje, who inherited the
title of fuguo gong in 1764 (Bao, Wanggong biaozhuan, 50 and Veit, “The Ordos Banners,” 192). It is not
clear if this Mgon skyabs rdo rje was same as Bstan ’dzin rdo rje.
633
Unidentified.
634
Tshe dbang dpal ’byor (>Ch. Qiwang Banzhu’er 齊旺班珠爾) inherited the title of jasag gusan beise
in 1717. Later he was degraded to fuguo gong in 1733, but soon reinstated as beise. In 1754, he was
promoted to doroi beile due to his support for Qing’s campaign against Dawaci. See Bao, Wanggong
biaozhuan, 51 and Veit, “The Ordos Banners,” 195.
635
Bstan pa dar rgyas (>Ch. Danba Da’erji 丹巴達爾濟) inherited the title of jasag gusan beise in 1765.
See Bao, Wanggong biaozhuan, 52 and Veit, “The Ordos Banners,” 197. Veit has his name as
Dambadorji, but it is a mistake of Dambadarji.
636
Tshe ring rdo rje (>Ch. Cheling Duo’erji 車凌多爾濟) inherited the title of jasag doroi junwang from
his father ’Jam dbyangs mentioned in note 66 above. Dharmasiddhi (>Ch. Da’ermazidi 達爾瑪咱第) later
inherited the junwang title in 1781. For these, see Bao, Wanggong biaozhuan, 49 and Veit, “The Ordos
Banners,” 191. Dbang rgyal tshe brtan rdo rje (>Ch. Wangzhale Chebudeng Duo’erji 旺扎勒車布登多爾
濟) inherited the title of jasag yideng taiji in 1762. For this, see Bao, Wanggong biaozhuan, 53 and Veit,
“The Ordos Banners,” 201.
262
Kheükhed for some months, Sum pa Mkhan po offered empowerments of Bhairava, Vairocana,
Amitāyus, Sitatapatra, and Eleven-Faced Avalokiteśvara to 1,000 clergy and laity. He also
bestowed a permission blessing for Mitra lha drug and some reading transmissions. Upon news
of the impending death of Dörben Kheükhed’s wang Rab brtan rdo rje,637 he went to the wang’s
deathbed and performed the soul-redemption ritual for him. After the ritual, he offered
empowerments and permission blessings to people, including one of wang’s sons, Bkra shis
yar ’phel.638 Then he visited some monasteries and temples there.639 On the 5th month of the
same year, Sum pa Mkhan po moved to Dolon Nor and met with Lcang skya III. Then he went
back to Dörben Kheükhed. On the way to Ordos he bestowed empowerments and permission
blessings and also provided medical help to many people. Passing through Ordos and Alashan,
he returned to Dgon lung.
On the first month in 1775, from Alashan he moved to Ordos and visited Ca rag’s temple
Bkra shos chos mdzod640 and offered some permission blessings to the monastic community
there. A messenger from wang Tshe ring641 came with news that the wang was sick, so he went
there to provide medical treatment for him. In the 3rd month he moved to Üüshin beise Phyag
637
Rab brtan rdo rje (>Ch. Alabutan Duo’erji 阿喇布坦爾濟) inherited the title of jasag doroi darhan
zhuoliketu junwang in 1710. See Bao, Wanggong biaozhuan, 42.
638
Bkra shis yar ’phel (>Ch. Lashi Yamupile 喇什 木丕勒) inherited the title of jasag doroi darhan
zhuoliketu junwang in 1771, after his elder brother, Tshe ring dbang rgyal died in the same year when he
interited his father’s title. See Bao, Wanggong biaozhuan, 42.
639
SKRL1 156b; SKRL2 405: Bkra shis phan bde gling, Hal ha erderi thoyon chos rje Dga’ ldan
bstan ’dzin’s monastery, Bde ldan dgon and so forth. I have not been able to identify them.
640
Unidentified.
641
This is wang Tshe ring rdo rje. See note 636 above.
263
rdor skyabs’s place,
642
prepared a colored-sand maṇḍala, and bestowed a series of
empowerments of the Kālacakra tantra to 700 laity and monks there. In the next month, he
moved to jasag taiji’s place,643 prepared the maṇḍala, and bestowed the empowerment of the
Kālacakra tantra to 700 people. After this, Sum pa Mkhan po offered permission blessings and
oral transmissions at Sman ram pa Ngag dbang lung bstan emchi’s shrine,644 consecrated a
Bka’ ’gyur and the assembly hall, and improved the academic activities at Bhsad sgru bstan pa
dar rgyas gling.645 Then he moved to Mt. Wutai. After his visit to Mt. Wutai, Sum pa Mkhan po
went back to Ordos, arriving at a place called ’Du khang,646 where he gave some teachings to the
crowd at the Smon lam festival in the 6th month.647 He then attended the longevity practice for
wang Tshe ring. He also performed the rainmaking ritual there. After that he arrived in the
Jüüngar Banner and was welcomed by beise Rnam rgyal rdo rje648 and others. Many monks also
welcomed him at Bkra shis mi ’gyur gling with many presents, so he also offered the
empowerment and permission blessing of Cakrasaṃvara and satisfied them with many oral
transmissions. Then from Cha har ti yan chi monastery Tumed sngags rams pa chos rje and
642
Phyag rdor skyabs (>Ch. Shake Duo’er Zhabu 沙克都爾扎布) inherited the title of jasag gusan beise
in 1773. See Bao, Wanggong biaozhuan, 52 and Veit, “The Ordos Banners,” 199.
643
Unidentified. Jasag Banner which was one of 7 Banners of Yeke Juu?
644
Unidentified.
645
Unidentified.
646
Unidentified.
647
It is not clear what this “Smon lam on the 6th month” was. In Lhasa, there was the Curd Feast (zho
ston) on the 6th month. For this see Hugh Richardson, Ceremonies of the Lhasa Year (London: Sherinda
Publications, 1993), 99-102. However, it is not clear whether Sum pa Mkhan po indicated the Curd Feast
by this “Smon lam on the 6th month.” Professor Gray Tuttle suggested that this might be a Maitreya
festival and the smon lam was just to be connected to the future Buddha. More research is needed.
648
Rnam rgyal rdo rje (>Ch. Namuzhale Duo’erji 納木扎勒多爾濟) inherited the title of jasag gusan
beise in 1740. See Bao, Wanggong biaozhuan, 53 and Veit, “The Ordos Banners,” 200.
264
Dörben Kheükhed ha bang mai rin649 sent a messenger to invite Sum pa Mkhan po to perform
the empowerment of the Kālacakra tantra there. He went there in the 8th month and gave the
empowerment to 2,000 lamas and Tumed Mongol chieftains, and gave many monks the dge
slong and dge tshul vows. A messenger from Dörben Kheükhed’s wang650 and his people again
arrived, so Sum pa Mkhan po went there. Passing through Dalad, he moved to Qanggin beise Ho
shou’u chi Bkra shis dar rgyas’s place651 and offered some teachings. He then traveled to
Alashan and finally back to Dgon lung.
In 1777, Qanggin’s Erdeni Mergen Ho sho chi beise Bkra shis dar rgyas sent a messenger
bearing an invitation letter to ask Sum pa Mkhan po to perform a ritual to relieve the drought.
After some activities at Alashan, Sum pa arrived in Qanggin on the 7th month and successfully
performed the rainmaking ritual there. Rejoicing, everyone wanted him to stay longer in Qanggin,
but a messenger arrived from Alashan with news of the qinwang wife’s death, so he left for
Alashan. Many Ordos chieftains sent invitations to Sum pa Khenpo as he was en route to
Alashan, but he was unavailable.
In 1778, the Ordos wang, beise, and jasag, and Alashan qinwang again invited him,
saying “We have to request many empowerments, oral transmissions, permission blessings, and
teachings.”652 After visiting Alashan, he moved to Qanggin of Ordos and offered empowerments
and permission blessings of Bhiarava to people headed by beise Bkra shis dar rgyas. Then he
moved to (tā)wang Tshe ring rdo rje’s place. Then he moved to Üüshin and bestowed permission
649
It is not clear what “ha bang mai rin” means here.
650
This is Bkra shis yar ’phel in note 638 above.
651
Bkra shis dar rgyas (>Ch. Lashi Da’erji 啦什達爾濟) inherited the title of jasag gusan beise in 1772.
See Bao, Wanggong biaozhuan, 51 and Veit, “The Ordos Banners,” 195.
652
SKRL1 187a; SKRL2 483: nged tshos dbang rje gnang khrid mang po zhu dgos.
265
blessings on hundreds of laity and monks. There, he presided over the Smon lam of the 6th
[month?]653 and taught many clergy and laity. Then he went back to (tā)wang Tshe ring rdo rje’s
place and did the longevity practice for wang as a leader of 1,500 people, and offered the
empowerment of Sitatapatra to 2,000 clergy and laity. In 27th day on the 6th month Sum pa
Mkhan po departed and went to Alashan after passing through Qanggin, finally returning to
Lung dkar Bkra shis rtse.
In 1780, Qinggin’s beise sent a messenger with an invitation to ask Sum pa Mkhan po to
teach topics of conventional sciences (tha snyad),654 and Sum pa arrived in Qanggin in the 9th
month. As requested, he taught topics of conventional science to monks there and learning
flourished in the region. While there, news came of wang Tshe ring rdo rje’s illness, so he went
to the wang’s place. Despite the performance of healing rituals and prescription of medicines, the
wang passed away. Sum pa Mkhan po performed the soul-redemption ritual for him. Then jasag
Dbang rgyal tshe brtan rdo rje655 sent a messenger and horses, so he went to his place and gave
teachings. After that Üüshin’s chieftain Bu yan thu656 and others invited him, so he went and
gave them teachings. He then visited Jo bo temple again657 and in 1781 enjoyed a festival there.
Then he went to Qanggin and moved to Alashan.
653
See note 647 above.
654
For the translation of the letter of this request, see the introduction part of Chapter IV.
655
For him, see above note 18.
656
Bu yan thu (>Ch. Buyandai 布延泰) inherited the title of jasag gusan beise in 1778. See Bao,
Wanggong biaozhuan, 52 and Veit, “The Ordos Banners,” 199.
657
Sum pa Mkhan po visited this temple in 1775.
266
In 1785, after a couple of years of repeated petitioning from Ho lo sha’s qinwang Dbang
chen dpal ’bar,658 Ordos’ qinwang Ratnasidhi,659 and the (ta)beise of Dalad and the beise of
Qanggin, Sum pa Mkhan po set out for their region in the 3rd month. Along the way, when he
had come to a place called Sho ling zi,660 however, he fell off his horse and broke his shoulder.
Due to the injury, he returned home. This turned out to have been Sum pa Mkhan po’s last trip to
Mongolia.
In this way, Sum pa Mkhan po’s interactions with Mongols grew more and more frequent.
Apart from Sum pa Mkhan po’s travels to visit Mongolia, Mongols also came to Sum pa Mkhan
po—when he resided at Dgon lung and Lung dkar in particular—for a variety of purposes. The
following is a list of recorded Mongol visits to or support of Sum pa Mkhan po:
•
In 1783 Dörben Kheükhed, Üüshin, and Tumed sponsored the Smon lam at Dgon
lung.
•
In 1784 Dörben Kheükhed and Alashan sponsored the Smon lam at Dgon lung.
•
In 1785 Ordos wang Dharma siddhi and Üüshin’s So’u ha thun661 sponsored the
Smon lam at Dgon lung.
Dbang chen dpal ’bar (>Ch. Wangqinbanba’er 旺沁班巴爾) inherited the title of jasag hoshoui
qinwang in 1783. Ho lo shan might be from Helanshan 賀蘭⼭, the Chinese name for Alashan. It is
noteworthy that Sum pa Mkhan po had kept calling the same banner “Alasha (Tib. A la sha)” but called it
Ho lo shan only in this case.
658
659
Unidentified. Probably the same person with Dharmasiddhi in note 632 above? There was no
(jun)wang other than Dharmasiddhi in that time at Ordos.
660
Unidentified.
661
Ha thun is probably from the Mongolian term khatun, meaning “lady, queen, princess.” For this see
Lessing, Mongolian-English Dictionary, 946. So’u seems a familiy name but unidentified.
267
•
In 1786 the nangso and mergen of Dörben Kheükhed offered a long-life ceremony
and requested a prayer text for Sde dge bstan ‘gyur and bka’ byur, which Sum pa then
composed.
•
In 1788 Höhhot’s Tumed sent Sum pa Mkhan po’s disciple Grags pa don grub and
arranged a long-life ceremony and silver maṇḍala, and offered a clean xylograph
copy of his 8 vols’ Collected Works.
4.2. Yugur, Suzhou and Ganzhou
Another region with which Sum pa Mkhan po maintained connections was to the north,
even though he visited there many times fewer than he did Mongolian areas. He first visited the
area in 1747 when he traveled to Mati ⾺蹄 monastery in the Sunan 肅南 region in northern
Gansu at their invitation. There, Sum pa Mkhan po gave the empowerment of Vajra Garland and
donated many offerings.
In 1760, due to the continuous invitation of Mdong nag monastery, he set out from Lung
dkar to the region of Yu gur people. He successively visited Stag rna monastery (dgon), Rta mgo
monastic college (grwa tshang), Smag chu monastery, Be ran hermitage (ri khrod), and Lung
skya hermitage. At each site he gave many presents and blessings to clergy and laity. He also
gave empowerments, permission blessings, instructions and oral transmissions according to their
wishes. Then he arrived at a small monastery in Mdong nag’ called Chos ’khor gling and
bestowed the empowerment of Vajra Garland on 500 clergy and laity. After that, Sum pa Mkhan
po moved to the Suzhou city (Ch. Suzhoucheng 肅州城) and Mdong nag ’jam dbyangs dgon
chen tshogs bsags gling. There he prepared a sand maṇḍala and bestowed the empowerment of
268
Kālacakra tantra on 500 clergy and laity. On the road he provided many teachings to people,
arriving in Ganzhou 甘州 in the end. After paying a visit to Sa skya pandita’s remains there,
Sum pa Mkhan po provided medical help to Torghut beile Blo bzang dar rgyas,662 who was very
sick. The beile recovered due to Sum pa Mkhan po’s treatment, and rewarded him with valuables.
Then Sum pa Mkhan po returned to Lung dkar.
Giving the Kālacakra tantra and Vajra Garland empowerments was Sum pa Mkhan po’s
most significant achievement on that first visit to the area. Having provided medical aid to the
beile resulted in the development of a strong connection with him and two years later (1762) the
belie strongly requested that Sum pa Mkhan po to come to Ganzhou again. On that subsequent
trip, Sum pa Mkkhan po gave many empowerments, oral transmissions, and permission blessings
to the chieftain, and again provided medical aid in return for the material donations he had made
to Sum pa. Following that, he moved on to 7 tribes of Yu gur and 3 squares (kha) of Mdung nag,
where he provided both teachings and medical aid.
His last visit to Yu gur region was in 1770. The eastern Yu gur taiji Dar han and others
dispatched an invitation, so Sum pa Mkhan po left Lung dkar for Yu gur. On that visit, he first
performed the rainmaking ritual, and then gave teachings and initiations to many high officials
and religious figures.
These connections with Yugur, Ganzhou, and Suzhou indicate that Sum pa Mkhan po
performed activities like those he had done on his travels in other areas, emphasizing tantric
initiations, offering medical aid, and performing rainmaking rituals.
Blo bzang dar rgyas (>Ch. Luobuzang Da’erzha 羅布藏達爾扎) inherited the title of doroi beile in
1740. In 1753, he was bestowed with the title jasag. He died in 1767. See Bao, Wanggong biaozhuan,
125.
662
269
4.3. Beijing, Dolonor and Mt. Wutai
Given the period in which he lived, in the middle of so-called “High Qing” era, Sum pa
Mkhan po’s activities were influenced by the cosmopolitan Qing. Yet his activities were less
conspicuous than other high figures at Dgon lung such as Lcang skya and Thu’u bkwan in terms
of having direct relationship with the Qing court.663 Sum pa Mkhan po visited Beijing three times
(1737, 1742 and 1755). The two earlier visits were at the invitation of the Qianlong emperor.664
Even on those two occasions, Sum pa Mkhan po made no great contribution to the Qing’s
promotion of Tibetan Buddhism. As seen in Chapter II, both visits were adversely affected and
cut short by Sum pa Mkhan po’s illness. On his first visit to Beijing, Sum pa Mkhan po even
experienced some friction with imperial family members, including Prince Guo. Although no
noticeable achievement stands out among his activities at Beijing, Sum pa Mkhan po maintained
his respect for the emperor as the Cakravartin ruler who exercised control of the land from
westertn Tibet’s Mnga’ ris to the eastern ocean of Mahācina (Great China).665
Sum pa Mkhan po’s activities at Dolon Nor were even more limited. His two visits to the
site (1737 and 1772) both happened out of necessity, rather than as part of the imperial project to
build a religious center on the borders of the Mongolian grassland. He first visited to recuperate
from illness while visiting Beijing. He was involved in Galdan Siretü Qutugtu’s works and
663
For Lcang skya III’s relationship with the Qing court, see Wang Xiangyun, “The Qing Court's Tibet
Connection: Lcang skya Rol pa'i rdo rje and the Qianlong Emperor.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies
vol. 60, no. 1 (Jun., 2000): 125-163. For Thu’u bkwan III’s, see Ko zhul Grags pa ’byung gnas et al.,
Gangs can mkhas grub rim byon ming mdzod (Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe, 1992), 798-800.
664
As seen in Chapter II, his third visit to Beijing (1755) was due to Lcang skya’s eye disease.
665
SKRL1 192a; SKRL2 496: stod kyi mnga' ris dang byang gi ho thon ha sag bu rud dang bar gyi o rod
mon gwal dang smad kyi ma hā tsi na'i 'dzin ma'i khyon rab tu yangs pa'i yul gru dang ljongs dang grong
dang grong khyer mtha' dag la bsod nams stobs kyis 'khor los mang; bsgyur ba'i gnam bskos gong ma
khyen lung chos rgyal chen po.
270
performed some divinations for himself there. Sum pa Mkhan po made his second visit to Dolon
Nor during a trip to Dörben Kheükhed, for the purpose of meeting with Lcang skya, who gave
him teachings there.
Mt. Wutai meant a lot to Sum pa Mkhan po, for it had traditionally been a holy site for
Tibetans.666 He visited the mountain three times (1750, 1767 and 1775), and left a relatively long
account of his visit on each occasion, despite the fact that his stays were actually short.667
Regarding his first stay in 1750, Sum pa Mkhan po gives a laudatory description of the place,
lists the offerings he made at each place he visited, and then describes a mysterious light he and
his retinue witnessed in the night. Although Sum pa Mkhan po wanted to stay longer, he had to
leave because some of his retinue were sickened by the water.668 Regarding his second visit in
666
For recent contributions to understanding of broad topics of the relationship between Mt. Wutai and
Tibet, see 11 articles in the issue 7 of Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies (2011).
For the specific connection between Mongols and the site, see Isabelle Charleux, Nomads on Pilgrimage:
Mongols on Wutaishan (China), 1800-1940 (Leiden: Brill, 2015). When Sum pa Mkhan po became
gravely ill while his second visit to Beijing, he even said that he would like to die in Mt. Wutai instead in
Beijing. (SKRL1 101b; SKRL2 264: de dus shi na ri bo rtse lngar dge bsams nas).
667
Sum pa Mkhan po did not spend much time for his each visit to Mt. Wutai. 1750’s first visit only
lasted one week (7th mo./26th d.-8th mo./3rd d.); 1767’s second, less than one month (former 7th mo./15th d.latter 7th mo./7th d.); 1775’s third, around one month (4th mo./10th d.-sometime on 5th mo.). Despite
advancement of using original sources, wrong information on Sum pa Mkhan po’s visit to Mt. Wutai has
still been circulating among recent scholarship. While introducing Sum pa Mkhan po as one of Mt.
Wutai-related authors from the 18th century, Kurtis Schaeffer states, “In recounting the second of three
trips to Five-Peaked Mountain in 1772, he [Sum pa Mkhan po] described his impressions of the site in a
brief seven-verse poem” (Kurtis Schaeffer, “Tibetan Poetry on Wutai Shan,” Journal of the International
Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 6 (December 2011): 220). However, 1772 (the water-dragon year) was
not the year when Sum pa Mkhan po visited Mt. Wutai, but the year when he met with Lcang skya III at
Dolon Nor and the latter suggested Sum pa Mkhan po to meet again in the following year at Mt. Wutai.
The actual meeting at Mt. Wutai happened three years later in 1775. The verse-poem Schaeffer quoted
(ibid.) is also found among the account of 1775 (SKRL166a-175a; SKRL2 429-51 covers the waterdragon year; the verse-poem can be found in SKRL1 171b; SKRL2 443). Therefore, it should be “the
third of three trips,” not “the second of three trips” as Schaeffer has it. When quoting Schaeffer’s work,
Isabelle Charleux states, “[Sum pa Mkhan po] spent three years on Wutaishan in the 1740s” (Charleux,
Nomads on pilgrimage, 151). However, Schaeffer does not mention this information, and it is simply
wrong since Sum pa Mkhan po’s first visit was in 1750.
668
SKRL1 113b-114b; SKRL2 296-299. Sum pa Mkhan po provides a list of 36 temples (lha khang) he
visited during this first trip to Mt. Wutai. The list has not been studied by previous studies. I have not had
271
1767, Sum pa Mkhan po mostly talks about meeting with Lcang skya III Rol pa’i rdo rje and
praises him, especially the latter’s help to overcome “ego-clinging” (nga ’dzin). No other details
of the site or interactions with others are mentioned in the record of his second visit.669 His
account of the third visit in 1775 is the longest. He begins with a very brief account of the
Buddhist world geography and brings up Mt. Wutai as one of the sacred places in it, providing
some canonical sources to support this assertion.670 Then Sum pa Mkhan po describes his
activities, such as arriving and staying at Shouningsi 壽寧寺 (> shu nying si), meeting a
mysterious Chinese monk who had a wooden fish and its stick, and witnessing many miracles
connected to bodhisattvas and deities. He then introduces some stūpas and Buddha statues along
with their legends. During this visit, Sum pa Mkhan po had a chance to teach some Mongolian
monastic communities on site. He also participated in the building of a stūpa, worshiping, and
making offerings. Sum pa Mkhan po finally met with Lcang skya III there, consulting him
specifically to find a new incarnation of Sum pa zhabs drung. The account of this visit ends with
a laudatory verse-poem.671
It is noteworthy that Sum pa Mkhan po’s visits to Mt. Wutai had little to do with the
imperial presence at the site. He mentions nothing related to the emperor in any way on his first
enough time to thoroughly compare the list with other primary sources or information from previous
studies on Mt. Wutai.
669
SKRL1 143b-144b; SKRL2 370-372.
670
SKRL1 168a-168b; SKRL 434-435: mdo lang kar gshegs pa las/ rgya'i yul du rgyal po dbyig gi
snying po zhes pa lo lnga brgya thub pa de'i yul du/ byang chub sems dpa' 'od po che| |'jam pa'i
dbyangs ni 'od chen po/ mngon sum de yi yul dag na/ byis pa'i gzugs kyis bzhugs pa yi/ /zhes dang
/ gzungs rin po che mdzod las/ nga mya ngan las 'das pa'i 'og tu gling 'di'i byang shar mtshams kyi
ma hA tsi na'i yul grur dpal ri bo rtse mo lnga ldan zhes bya ba'i gnas su 'phags pa 'jam pa'i dbyangs rtag
tu gnas shing gdul bya dpag tu med pa chos kyi tshim par mdzad pa dang / zhes sogs mdo du ma las
lung gis zin pa'i gnas yin pas/
671
SKRL1 168a-1671; SKRL 434-443.
272
visit, although Qianlong visited the site in the same year.672 Neither of his later visits reveal any
direct involvement with the Qing’s promotion of religions there either.673 All in all, although
Sum pa Mkhan po visited Mt. Wutai when Qing imperial presence also reached its peak, his
visits should be understood as personal pilgrimages rather than acts of participation in Qing or
Gelug cosmopolitanism. In the same vein, these visits were for his personal fulfillment rather
than to make connections with people or institutions at the site.
4.4. Conclusion regarding extra-Amdo areas
There are three points we can make here: first, Sum pa Mkhan po was invited by the
highest Mongolian political leaders—or at least religious figures subordinate to them—whenever
he traveled to Mongolian or Yugur territories. This shows that the 18th-century revival of
Buddhism among the Mongols happened in the names of their most prominent political figures,
who were all endorsed and registered by the Qing court as their highest authority. That is why
the titles and names in Sum pa Mkhan po’s accounts correspond perfectly to the contemporary
Qing registration of the titles and ranks of Mongols, such as Menggu hui fu wanggong biaozhuan.
For this reason, we can say that Sum pa Mkhan po’s religious activities in these areas happened
672
Qianlong visited Mt. Wutai altogether six times (in 1746, 1750, 1761, 1781, 1786 and 1792). For this
and other Qing emperors’ visits to Mt. Wutai, see Charleux, Nomads on pilgrimage, 119-22. For a new
perspective on Qing Imperial visits to the site, see Natalie Köhle, “Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to
Wutai Shan? Patronage, Pilgrimage, and the Place of Tibetan Buddhism at the Early Qing Court,” Late
Imperial China 29, no. 1 (June 2008), 73-119.
673
Again, Charleux includes Sum pa Mhan po as one of key figures who mediated encounters between
Tibeto-Mongol and Chinese Buddhists at Mt. Wutai, especially with their multilingual abilities (Charleux,
Nomads on Pilgrimage, 155). However, let alone doubt of Sum pa Mkhan po’s fluency in Chinese, his
autobiography does not mention any direct contact with Chinese/Manchu religious nor lay figures during
his visits to Mt. Wutai.
273
within the larger framework of Qing Empire, although no direct presence of Qing authority is
found in his accounts.
Second, what Sum pa Mkhan po mainly offered people in these areas in his capacity as a
religious master were tantric initiations, such as empowerments (dbang), oral transmissions
(lung), permission blessings (rjes gnang), and instructions (khrid). His performance of rituals of
rainmaking and soul-redemption also fell within his role as a religious figure. Similarly, his
teaching activities of topics of conventional sciences (tha snyad) is in line with the former two
cases. The reason Sum pa Mkhan po had been sought out was that he carried a reputation for
ability because he was known, not only as a master of Buddhist studies, but also as an
embodiment of conventional studies as well. The two pillars that buttressed hic connections to
these extra-Amdo areas were demand for these religious activities and supply by such a capable
master.
Third, Sum pa Mkhan po maintained his centrality and his reputation by continuously
returning to his own monastery or hermitage in Amdo. In so doing he could give the impression
that he was bringing something from the cultural center to these frontier areas. He could have
been a resident monk somewhere in Inner Mongolia, but he neither abandoned his basis at Amdo
nor regarded Inner Mongolia as his new home. Sum pa Mkhan po returned home at least once
after completing each round of his trip. In this way, he was always an “Amdo” lama, who could
propagate aspects of Amdo Renaissance to outside worlds.
5. Conclusion
274
Sum pa Mkhan po’s abbacies at Dgon lung monastery were plagued by troublemakers
who obstructed his steering of Dgon lung in the direction he considered ideal. This observation
seems to corroborate Goldstein’s concept of mass monasticism, in which a large portion of
monks were not ideal followers of the Buddha, but residents who simply lived their lives.
However, Sum pa Mkhan po’s earlier experiences indicate that these were not just hodge-podge
groups of monks, but people from clan-based powerhouses. This is probably why such people
could retain their influence in the monastery. Otherwise Mongol-sponsored Central Tibeteducated leaders of the monastery would have dominated such simple hodge-podge groups.
Although the attempt to manage discipline in the monastery was led by leaders like Sum pa
Mkhan po, those who wielded perennial, clan-based power did not lose their vigor. We can see
this competition between local power and new idealists as historical up-and-downs, and not
necessarily as a sign of the decline of ideal monasticism.
Sum pa Mkhan po’s forging of connections outside of Dgon lung had its own trajectory.
First of all, he built connections to Amdo monasteries relatively early in his career. However, the
range of connections was not that broad and included just a small number of monasteries in
Datong, Ledu, and Tianzhu. An uneasy relationship with the people of Dgon lung finally
compelled him to locate another residence aside from his incarnation residence in the monastery,
leading to Lung dkar becoming his primary residence since the middle years of his career. Along
with this change, Sum pa Mkhan po also came to have greater engagement with Mongolian
people in Alashan, Ordos, Höhhot, and Dörben Kheükhed.
The connections that Sum pa Mkhan po had formed share some common features. His
first visits to new places mostly involved tantric initiations or rituals of rainmaking and soulredemption. But the more he visited a site, the more diverse his interactions there grew with
275
monastic and lay communities, even to the point of assuming abbacies, repairing temples, and
reforming discipline. His connections to extra-Amdo entities were more evenly distributed
throughout his career, but were more concentrated in his later years.
As the map in the Figure 29 shows, geographically his traveling range was quite
extensive. However, according to his records, the sites where Sum pa Mkhan po had a deeper
level of interactions were mostly the central Inner Mongolia area, such as Alashan Left Banner,
Ordors Banners, Höhhot and Dörben Kheükhed Banner, rather than Beijing, Mt. Wutai or Dolon
Nor, the sites of substantial Qing imperial presence.
276
Conclusion
In his eighty-five years of life, Sum pa Mkhan po was born into a new environment of
cultural development, brought up as a brilliant young scholar who was equipped with both
Tibetan and local traditions, and finally blossomed into a preacher who was capable not only of
promotion of Buddha’s teachings but also of propagation of aspects of the new cultural
development in Amdo. This study has been an attempt to trace the trajectory of Sum pa Mkhan
po’s renaissance life.
In doing so, first I employed the “big data” approach in which I used statistical data to see
the historical tendency of how the different elements of cultural development—incarnation
institution, production of literature, and establishment of monasteries—launched their unique
trajectories through time and space. All the data indicate the growing importance of northeastern
Tibet—also known as Amdo—in the development of Tibetan culture from the 18th century. Each
of these elements needed to be analyzed in qualitative ways as well, and I used Sum pa Mkhan
po’s two autobiographies for that purpose. Incarnation lineages, as discussed and described in his
autobiographies, demonstrate the process of the Amdo people’s adapting to the new system, as
well as the growing dominance of the Mongolian people in that process. Sum pa Mkhan po’s
accounts also stand for a new development in an intellectual aspect, as they evince that the
“conventional sciences” began to be equally well received with the “inner topics” (i.e., Buddhist
studies) by the Amdo and Mongolian people. In terms of the monastic and laity connections, his
biographies demonstrate the importance of sharing common rites such as empowerments (dbang)
or liturgical rituals (cho ga) as the links among the communities, rather than any strict top-down
management of regulations or their emulations in the hierarchy of communities. These
277
discoveries not only supplemented my quantitative study, but also expanded certain arguments of
the previous scholarship in the field.
I will conclude this dissertation with the future research subjects that have been derived
from my current study on Sum pa Mkhan po but have not been delved into due to limits of time
and space. First, the cultural phenomenon had a close relationship with the political development
and social environment of that time, as we consider this part of Central Eurasia in the framework
of Qing cosmopolitanism or “Pax Manjurica,” which accelerated both safer and more frequent
cultural exchanges between people. Johan Elverskog is a leading scholar who has discussed Qing
cosmopolitanism. In his discussion of Qing cosmopolitanism and Mt. Wutai, Elverskog takes
Sum pa Mkhan po as one of “the Mongol intelligentsia from Amdo” who represent a feature of
Qing cosmopolitanism as players from marginal areas.674 As shown in the account of Mt. Wutai
in Chapter V, however, we cannot simply take Sum pa Mkhan po as one of the interlocutors
among multi-ethnic interactions since his account does not address such a role at Mt. Wutai or
anywhere else. Nevertheless, this silence does not necessarily mean the absence of his other
functions in cosmopolitanism, and the question about Sum pa Mkhan po’s role in the
cosmopolitan Qing is still tenable, even based on Elverskog’s thematic suggestions: commodity
and astro-medicine.675 Sum pa Mkhan po’s life account has plenty of goods-exchange events,
such as giving and receiving donations. Many of such accounts are detailed enough to provide
674
Johan Elverskog, “Wutai Shan, Qing Cosmopolitanism, and the Mongols.” Journal of the
International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 6 (December 2011): 255. Elverskog took this from
Matthew Kapstein’s work on Sum pa Mkhan po’s ’Dzam gling spyi bzhad (Kapstein, “Just Where on
Jambudvīpa Are We?,” 343 and note 21 in 353). In the meantime, whereas Kapstein specifies that they
were Monguors, Elverskog maintains that Lcang skya, Thu’u bkwan and Sum pa were Mongols. Of
course, Elverskog is right when it comes only to Sum pa Mkhan po. For a broader perspective of Qing
(and Chinese) cosmopolitanism, see Elverskog, “China and the New Cosmopolitanism.” Sino-Platonic
Papers 223 (February 2013): 1-30.
675
For these thematic suggestions, see Elverskog, “Wutai Shan, Qing Comsmopolitanism, and the
Mongols,” 256-61.
278
exact material aspect for goods, so it can be studied in the frame of commodity cosmopolitanism
in Qing. Also, while Sum pa Mkhan po’s autobiographies do not provide details of his
contribution to the development of Mongolian astrology and medicine, his works of the fields676
instead need to be compared with the development of the topics in Alashan and Ordos areas,
where Sum pa Mkhan po had been active in his later times in particular. The benefits of Pax
Manjurica to Sum pa Mkhan po in terms of physical movements also deserve more attention,
since we have not had enough accounts that show how much change was made in terms of
transportation for travelers themselves or goods-epistle exchanges since the Qing’s conquering
of the region. Sum pa Mkhan po’s detailed accounts of his travels can be a good source for
understanding of this important aspect in Qing history.
Second, Sum pa Mkhan po’s life account also can offer some sources for understanding
the economic development of the time. As mentioned in Chapter I, Karl Ryavec recently made a
short account of the significance of the influx of silver and new crops for Amdo’s growing
importance.677 As for silver influx into Tibet, the only a small number of scholars attempted to
deal with the subject. Among others, Luce Boulnois’ work was one of the earlist studies of the
topic,678 and Elliot Sperling also touched the issue, although his focus was mostly on the Ming
shilu 明 實 錄 records of silver influx from China to Tibet. 679 Sum pa Mkhan po’s
676
For the medicine, we have 5 works (the 1st-5th works in vol. 7 (ja) of Collected Works); For the
astrology, 3 works (the 6th-8th works in vol. 7 (ja) of Collected Works) from Collected Works.
677
See Chapter I, 37-38.
678 Luce Boulnois, Poudre d'or et monnaies d'argent au Tibet (Paris: Editions du Centre national de la
recherche scientifique, 1983). I thank Professor Gray Tuttle for providing me this reference.
679
Elliot Sperling, “Some Preliminary Remarks on Influx of New World Silver into Tibet
during China’s ‘Silver Century’(1550-1650),” The Tibet Journal 34, no. 3&4/ 35, no. 1&2 (2009 and
2010): 299-312.
279
autobiographies provide some relevant information on the silver economy of the time. For
example, the donations to high lamas after Sum pa Mkhan po’s funeral have detailed lists of
goods, and, interestingly, values of the goods are measured with the unit of silver tael (dngul
srang). In addition, the silver ingots (dngul dkar srangs) themselves were also used as a material
for donation.680 Not only the silver influx but also the general development of the economy of
the time needs more understanding. Especially, as Chapter V shows, the change of sponsor
groups to Alashan and Ordos Mongols might indicate a certain level of transformation and
development in Mongols’ pastoral economy of the time. Numbers of people who gathered at
Sum pa Mkhan po’s each time he visited to the area also can relate an aspect of economic
growth—or decline—of those areas, since a carefully handled numerical analysis can show the
changes of population of a given area.681
Thirdly, this brings us to another related topic of climatology and ecology in Sum pa
Mkhan po’s time. Despite the above-mentioned economic prosperity of the Mongolian people,
Sum pa Mkhan po’s autobiographies have many records of natural calamities that directly
affected agricultural and pastoral productivity. One such calamity was drought, and Sum pa
Mkhan po was a widely sought-for figure for the rainmaking rituals to ameliorate the situation,
as seen in Chapters IV and V. Further comparison of these records with other relevant sources
for local natural disasters should be undertaken, putting them in the broader context of translocal climate trends of the time. Another possibility of ecology-related research is that of Sum pa
680
For these lists of donations, see SKRL1 254b-255b; SKLR2 659-62.
681
Along with these, Sum pa Mkhan po’s information on monk populations in monasteries of his time is
also an invaluable source for further studies. Along with his autobiographies, Dpag bsam ljon bzang also
provides a large amount of information on monk populations for each monastic site as interlinear notes
when he discusses Dge lugs pa monasteries all around culturally Tibetan areas. For this see Sum pa
Mkhan po, Dpag bsam ljon bzang, ff. 190b-228a. This mid-18th–century data show different focus and
updated information from Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho’s famous Dga’ ldan chos ’byung baiḍūr ser po.
280
Mkhan po’s detailed descriptions of the flora and fauna in some of his hermitages and traveling
areas.682 Identifying these animals and plants and the synchronic and diachronic comparison of
these with other relevant ecological information will let us better understand aspects of
environments in which people of the eighteenth century such as Sum pa Mkhan po lived. It can
also be related to studies of herbal and animal-based medicines, which was included in Sum pa
Mkhan po’s expertise as one of his works from Collected Works testifies.683
In sum, Sum pa Mkhan po’s works and life experiences are open assets for a variety of
further research topics. It is my hope that my dissertation study could be a small stepping stone
to acknowledge and make good use of this great resource: Sum pa Mkhan po, the renaissance
man from Amdo.
682
For example, for Lung dkar’s natural environment see SKRL1 120b-122b; SKLR2 314-19. For
Alashan’s natural environment, SKRL1 163a-163b; SKLR2 421-22. For Dörben Kheükhed’s natural
environment, SKRL1 174a; SKLR2 448-49. For a similar but much longer description of Amdo’s natural
environment, see Sum pa Mkhan po, Mtsho sngon gyi lo rgyus, ff. 10b-14a.
683
It is the 5th work in vol. 7 (ja) of his Collected Works.
281
Appendices
Appendix I: Comparative Table of Contents Between the Xylograph and the New
Publication of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Collected Works
vol. #
of new
edition
[work # in new
vol.] xylograph
vol. # & work #
1
2
3
4
[1] 8.5
[1] 1.1
[1] 1.1
[1] 2.12
[2] 2.1
[3] 2.2
[4] 7.10
[5] 3.10
[6] 7.11
[7] 7.11
[8] 2.10
[9] 2.9
[10] 4.19
[11] 7.13
[12] 7.14
[1] 7.11
[2] 7.12
[3] 2.11
[4] 8.7
[5] 3.11
[6] 3.12
[1] 8.4
[2] 2.4
[1] 3.3
[2] 2.3
5
6
7
8
9
10
[3] 2.5
[4] 2.7
[5] 3.5
[6] 3.6
[7] 3.7
[8] 8.1
[1] 2.6
[2] 8.2
[3] 8.3
[4] 3.2
[1] 2.8
[2] 3.8
[3] 4.2
[1] 3.4
Topics of Works684
Autobiography (long version)
History of Buddhism (part 1 of 1.1)
History of Buddhism (part 2 of 1.1)
Primer of Tibetan alphabets
Presentation of functional terms in Tibetan language
Auto-commentary on the work 2.1
Poetics
Topics of spiritual songs (7 sub–works)
Poetic ornaments, synonyms and composition (part 1 of 7.11)
Poetic ornaments, synonyms and composition (part 3 of 7.11)
World geography
Compendium of various notes from scriptures
Purifying gem for authenticity of scriptures
Epistles to lamas and high officials
Petition letters
Poetic ornaments, synonyms and composition (part 2 of 7.11)
Epistles
Annals of Kokonor
Catalogue of Collected Works
Songs for liberation
Supplement to the Seven Points of Mind Training
Letters of questions and answers
Compendium of the treasury of scriptures
Shortcut to advance to unsurpassable enlightenment
Compendia of the Seven Treatises on Valid Cognition and
philosophical schools
Seventy Topics of Abhisamayālaṅkāra
Twenty Saṅgha of Abhisamayālaṅkāra
Manual of instructions in the Prāsaṅgika view
Manual of instructions in the Madhyamaka view
Short manual of instructions in the Madhyamaka view
Brief sequence of practicing prātimokṣa
Difficult points of Abhisamayālaṅkāra
Regulations for monastic communities
Regulations for meditation communities
Commentary on the on the ritual of guru worshiping of the Paṇ
chen bla ma Chos kyi rgyal mtshan
Compendium of analyses of Madhyamakāvatāra
Sādhana of Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya
Sādhana of 13-deity Vajra-bhairava
Compendium of instructions on śamatha and vipaśyanā
684
xylograph ff. #
for divided
works
(1r-190r7)
(190r7-317r)
(1r-32r6)
(42v1-46r)
(32v1-42r6)
For rendering of topics, I have consulted catalogues in volumes of Collected Works of Sum-Pa-MkhanPo (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1975-1979 (9 vols.)) and Nagao Gajin, 1947:
318-341.
282
(Table continued)
11
[1] 5.1
12
[1] 5.1
13
[1] 6.1
14
[1] 6.1
15
[1] 4.1
[2] (9.1)
[3] 4.5
16
[1] 4.6
[2] 4.10
[3] 4.11
[4] 4.14
[5] 4.13
[6] 4.7
[7] 4.9
[8] 4.16
17
[1] not in works
[2] 3.1
[3] 3.9
[4] 4.3
[5] 4.3
[6] 4.3
[7] 4.3
[8] 4.3
[9] 4.3
[10] 4.12
[11] (9.3)
[12] 4.8
[13] 4.17
[14] 4.17
[15] 4.17
[16] 4.17
[17] 4.17
[18] 4.15
[19] 4.18
[20] 7.9
[21] 8.6
18
[1] (9.2)
19
[1] 7.1
[2] 7.5
[3] 7.2
[4] 7.3
[5] 7.4
20
[1] 7.6
[2] 7.7
[3] 7.8
[4] 7.8
total 82 works /
4.4 & 7.15
missing
Work on dharma services (part 1 of 5.1)
Work on dharma services (part 2 of 5.1)
Work on dharma services (part 1 of 6.1)
Work on dharma services (part 2 of 6.1)
Introduction to Tantra-piṭaka
Utpanna-krama of Vajra-bhairava
Sādhana of Tris-mayavyuha-raja and its fasting method
Ritual on Sitātapatrā
Consecrations for receptacles of body, speech and mind
Burnt offerings of four classes of tantra
Prayer of Sukhāvatī
Funeral rituals
Drawing manual for receptacles of body, speech and mind
Ritual dances
Sādhana of Mahākāla and presentation of protectors
Autobiography (short version)
Guru-yoga
Concise summary of the gcod practice with a commentary on it
Rituals of Amitāyus (part 1 of 4.3)
Rituals of Vajra-bhiarava (part 2 of 4.3)
Rituals of Kālacakra maṇḍala (part 3 of 4.3)
Rituals of Kurukullā (part 4 of 4.3)
Rituals of Cakrasaṃvara (part 5 of 4.3)
Rituals of Cakrasaṃvara (part 6 of 4.3)
Funeral rituals
Examination of horses
Rituals of geomancy
Torma rituals of Vaiśravaṇa (part 1 of 4.17)
Torma rituals of Vaiśravaṇa (part 3 of 4.17)
Torma rituals of Vaiśravaṇa (part 4 of 4.17)
Torma rituals of Vaiśravaṇa (part 5 of 4.17)
Torma rituals of Vaiśravaṇa (part 2 of 4.17)
Torma rituals
Protective rituals against evil spirits
Oirat divination using sheep shoulder blades
Protective rituals against natural calamities
Medicine
Essentials of medical science
Materials of medicine
Medical practices
Brief instruction to the science of healing
Summary of medical treatment
Astrology
Astrology
Astrology (part 1 of 7.8)
Astrology (part 2 of 7.8)
283
(1r-203r6)
(203r6-417r)
(1r-224v6)
(224v6-405r)
(1r-4v1)
(4v1-8r4)
(8v-10r1)
(10r1-12v5)
(12v5-13r6)
(13v1-18r7)
(1r-4v7)
(5r7-6r5)
(7v3-8v7)
(6v1-7v2)
(4v7-5r7)
(1r-15r)
(16r-26v)
Appendix II: Comparative Table of Years, Ages, and Corresponding Folio/Page Numbers
Between the Xylograph and the 2001 Edition of Sum pa Mkhan po’s Longer
Autobiography
year
shing sprel (1704)
shing bya (1705) &
me khyi (1706)
me phag (1707)
sa byi (1708) & sa
glang (1709)
lcags stag (1710)
lcags yol (1711)
chu ’brug (1712)
chu sbrul (1713)
shing rta (1714)
shing lug (1715)
me sprel (1716)
me bya (1717)
sa khyi (1718) & sa
phag (1719)
lcags byi (1720)
lcags glang (1721)
chu stag (1722)
chu yos (1723)
shing ’brug (1724)
shing sbrul (1725)
me rta (1726)
me lug (1727)
sa sprel (1728)
sa bya (1729)
lcags khyi (1730)
lcags phag (1731)
chu byi (1732)
chu glang (1733)
shing stag (1734)
shing yos (1735)
me ’brug (1736)
me sprul (1737)
sa rta (1738)
sa lug (1739)
lcags sprel (1740)
lcags bya (1741)
chu khyi (1742)
chu phag (1743)
shing byi (1744)
shing glang (1745)
me stag (1746)
me yos (1747)
sa ’brug (1748)
sa sbrul (1749)
lcags rta (1750)
age
(Tib)
1
2&3
folio(page)
4
5&6
11v(p28):1
11v(p28)-15r(p38)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15&1
6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
15r(p38)-16r(p40)
16r(p40)-18r(p45)
18r(p45)-19v(p49)
19v(p49)-20v(p52)
20v(p52)-21v(p54)
21v(p54)-23v(p60)
23v(p60)-24r(p60)
24r(p60)-24r(p61)
24r(p61)-28v(p73)
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
67r(p173)-70r(p181)
70r(p181)-73v(p189)
73v(p189)-78r(p202)
78r(p202)-79v(p207)
79v(p207)-82r(p213)
82r(p213)-83r(p215)
83r(p215)-95r(p247)
95r(p247)-96r(p250)
96r(p250)-101r(p263)
101r(p263)-101v(p264)
101v(p264)-102r(p266)
102r(p266)-102v(p267)
102v(p267)-102v(p267)
102v(p267)-106v(p277)
106v(p277)-108v(p284)
108v(p284)-109r(p285)
109r(p285)-113r(p295)
113r(p295)-114v(p300)
lcags lug (1751)
chu sprel (1752)
chu bya (1753)
shing khyi (1754)
shing phag (1755)
me byi (1756)
me glang (1757)
sa stag (1758)
sa yos (1759)
lcags ’brug (1760)
lcags sbrul (1761)
chu rta (1762)
chu lug (1763)
shing sprel (1764)
shing bya (1765)
me khyi (1766)
me phag (1767)
sa byi (1768)
sa glang (1769)
lcags stag (1770)
lcags yos (1771)
chu ’brug (1772)
(again chu ’brug
(1772))
chu sprul (1773)
shing rta (1774)
shing lug (1775)
me sprel (1776)
me bya (1777)
sa skyi (1778)
sa phag (1779)
lcags byi (1780)
(lcags byi (1780)
continued)
lcags glang (1781)
chu stag (1782)
chu yos (1783)
shing ’brug (1784)
shing sbrul (1785)
me rta (1786)
me lug (1787)
sa sprel (1788)
(same year, at dawn
on 1 m./26 d.)
10r(p25)-10v(p26)
10v(p26)-11v(p28)
28v(p73)-29v(p75)
29v(p75)-29v(p75)
29v(p75)-29v(p76)
29v(p76)-35v(p92)
35v(p92)-37r(p95)
37r(p95)-42r(p108)
42r(p108)-42v(p110)
42v(p110)-52v(p135)
52v(p135)-58r(p147)
58r(p147)-58v(p152)
58v(p152)-59v(p153)
59v(p153)-62v(p161)
62v(p161)-67r(p173)
284
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
114v(p300)-115r(p300)
115r(p300)-116v(p304)
116v(p304)-118r(p307)
118r(p307)-119v(p311)
119v(p311)-120r(p313)
120r(p313)-120v(p313)
120v(p313)-124v(p324)
124v(p324)-126r(p328)
126r(p328)-126v(p329)
126v(p329)-128r(p333)
128r(p333)-134r(p348)
134r(p348)-137r(p354)
137r(p354)-137v(p356)
137v(p356)-139v(p360)
139v(p360)-141r(p364)
141r(p364)-143r(p370)
143r(p370)-144v(p374)
144v(p374)-146r(p378)
146r(p378)-149v(p387)
149v(p387)-153v(p396)
153v(p396)-155r(p401)
155r(p401)-161v(p417)
161v(p417)-162v(p420)
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
162v(p420)-164v(p426)
164v(p426)-166r(p429)
166r(p429)-175r(p451)
175r(p451)-182r(p470)
182r(p470)-187r(p482)
187r(p482)-190v(p492)
190v(p492)-197r(p510)
197r(p510)-198r(p512)
198r(p512)-209r(p543)
78
79
80
81
82(?)
(83)
84
85
(pass
ing
away
)
209r(p543)-216v(p563)
216v(p563)-220r(p573)
220r(p573)-227r(p591)
227r(p591)-228r(p594)
228r(p594)-229v(p599)
229v(p599)-236v(p616)
236v(p616)-238v(p622)
238v(p622)-240v(p627)
240v(p627)-243r(p632)
Bibliography
Primary Sources
I. Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ’byor’s Works and Translations
Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ʾbyor. Collected Works of Sum-Pa-Mkhan-Po. New Delhi:
International Academy of Indian Culture, 1975-1979 (9 vols.).
———. Sum pa paṇḍita Ye shes dpal ’byor gyi gsung ’bum [Collected Woks of Sum pa paṇḍita
Ye shes dpal ’byor] Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 2015 (20 vols.).
———. Pag Sam Jon Zang: part I, history of the rise, progress and downfall of Buddhism in
India; part II, history of Tibet from early times to 1745. edited by Sarat Chandra Das.
Calcutta: the Presidency jail Press, 1908 (a reproduction of a part of vol. 1 of Collected
Works, Dpag bzam ljon bzang).
———. Dpag-bsam-ljon-bzaṅ of Sum-pa-mkhan-po Ye-śes-dpal-hbyor : part III, containing a
history of Buddhism in China and Mongolia, preceded by the reḥu-mig or chronological
tables. edited by Lokesh Chandra. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture,
1959 (a reproduction of a part of vol. 1 of Collected Works, Dpag bzam ljon bzang).
———. Chos ’byung Dpag bsam ljon bzang. Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1992
(a typeset version of vol. 1 of Collected Works, Dpag bzam ljon bzang).
———. Yixibanjue Fojiaoshi 益西班觉 教史. Translated by Qinggele and Mo Baozhu.
Hohhot: Neimenggu renmin chubanshe, 1993 (a Mongolian translation of vol. 1 of Collected
Works, Dpag bzam ljon bzang).
———. .Galbarvas Mod [Wishfulfilling Tree]. Translated by Besud Perenlei Nyamochir,
Ulaanbaatar: Amžiltyn Garc, 2017 (a Mongolian translation of vol. 1 of Collected Works,
Dpag bzam ljon bzang).
———. Ruyi Baoshu shi 如意 树史. Translated by Pu Wencheng and Cai Rang. Lanzhou:
Gansu Minzu Chubanshe, 1994 (a Chinese translation of vol. 1 of Collected Works, Dpag
bzam ljon bzang).
———. Songba Fojiaoshi 松巴 教史. Translated by Pu Wencheng and Cai Rang. Lanzhou:
Gansu Minzu Chubanshe, 2013 (a Chinese translation of vol. 1 of Collected Works, Dpag
bzam ljon bzang).
———. The Chronology of Tibet according to the Reʾu-Mig of Sum-Pa Mkhan-Po. Patna: Bihar
Research Society, 1991 (an English translation of a part of vol. 1 of Collected Works, Dpag
bzam ljon bzang).
———. “The Annals of Kokonor.” In Vaidūrya-ser-po: a history of the Dge-lugs-pa
monasteries of Tibet, Part 2. Edited by Lokesh Chandra, 425-458. New Delhi: International
285
Academy of Indian culture, 1960 (a handwritten reproduction of the 11th work from vol. 2 of
Collected Works, Mtsho sngon gyi lo rgyus).
———. Mtsho sngon lo rgyus tshangs glu gsar snyan. Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun
khang, 1982 (a typeset version of the 11th work from vol. 2 of Collected Works, Mtsho sngon
gyi lo rgyus).
———. “Istoriia Kukunora.” In Izbrannye statʹi: Chernaia tetrad’: materialy k biografii :
“Istoriia Kukunora” Sumpy Kenpo. Translated by Dandaron, Bidia Dandarovich, 561-622.
Sankt-Peterburg: Evraziia, 2006 [1972] (a Russian translation of a part of the 11th work from
vol. 2 of Collected Works, Mtsho sngon gyi lo rgyus).
———. The Annals of Kokonor. Translated by Ho-chin Yang. Bloomington: Indiana University,
1969 (an English translation of a part of the 11th work from vol. 2 of Collected Works, Mtsho
sngon gyi lo rgyus).
———. “Qinghaishi 海史.” Translated by Huang Hao. Xibei minzu wencong (1983-3): 155170; (1984-1): 244-267; (1984-2): 258-277 (a Chinese translation the 11th work from vol. 2
of Collected Works, Mtsho sngon gyi lo rgyus).
———. “Qinghai lishi 海历史.” Translated by Xie Jian and Xie Wei. Qinghai minzu xueyuan
xuebao (1983-4): 34-45; (1984-1): 42-52 (a Chinese translation of the 11th work from vol. 2
of Collected Works, Mtsho sngon gyi lo rgyus).
———. “ʼDzam gling spyi bshad.” In 'Dzam gling rgyas bshad dang 'dzam gling spyi bshad.
Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1986 (a reproduction in cursive script of the
10th work from vol. 2 of Collected Works, ’Dzam gling spyi bshad).
———. “’Dzam gling spyi bshad.” In ʼDzam gliṅ spyi bśad daṅ rgyas bśad ces pa bźugs so.
Lhasa: Bod ljongs Bod yig dpe snying dpe skrun khang, 2011 (a typeset version of the 10th
work from vol. 2 of Collected Works, ’Dzam gling spyi bshad).
———. Gso rig gsung rtsom phyogs bsgrigs. Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang,
1994 (a typeset version of the works on medicine from vol. 7 of Collected Works).
———. Sum pa’i sman yig phyogs bsgrigs. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2007 (a typeset
version of the works on medicine from vol. 7 of Collected Works).
———. Gso ba rig pa’i man ngag shin tu nyung ‘dus bdud rtsi’i thigs pa. Chengdu: Si khron mi
dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2015 (a typeset version of the works on medicine from vol. 7 of
Collected Works).
———. Paṇḍita Sum pa Ye shes dpal ’byor mchog gi spyod tshul brjod pa sgra ’dzin bcud len.
Beijing: Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 2001 (a typeset version of the 5th work
from vol. 8 of Collected Works, Sgra ’dzin bcud len [Autobiography of Sum pa Mkhan po]).
———. Sumba Khambu Isibaljor no namtar. Translated by Yang Buren, Aotegen Bilige and
Wang Xiaoqin. Hohhot: Neimenggu renmin chubanshe, 2015 (a Mongolian translation of the
286
5th work from vol. 8 of Collected Works, Sgra ’dzin bcud len [Autobiography of Sum pa
Mkhan po]).
———. Sum pa ye shes dpal ’byor gyi rnam thar nyid kyis mdzad pa. Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs
dpe skrun khang, 1997 (a typeset version of the handwritten manuscript of Sum pa Mkhan
po’s shorter autobiography).
———. Su̇mbė Ishbalzhiryn ȯȯriĭn namtar orshvoĭ. Translated by Urianhaj Tèrbish. Ulaanbaatar:
Soëmbo Printing KhKhK, 2011 (a Mongolian translation of the handwritten manuscript of
Sum pa Mkhan po’s shorter autobiography).
———. Yixibanjuezhuan 益西班觉自传. Translated by Urianhaj Tèrbish. Beijing: Minzu
chubanshe, 2017 (a Mongolian translation of the handwritten manuscript of Sum pa Mkhan
po’s shorter autobiography).
———. Contents of Two Classical Hippological Treatises. Edited by Lokesh Chandra. New
Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1964. (a handwritten reproduction of Sum
pa Mkhan po’s work on horse examination)
———. Sum pa’i dge ldan rtsis gsar. Edited by Yum pa. Sichuan: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun
khang, 2015 (a typeset version of the works on astrology from vol. 7 of Collected Works).
ʼJam dbyangs bzhad pa Ngag dbang brtson ʼgrus, and Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ʼbyor.
Tibetan Chronological Tables of ʼJam-Dbyaṅs-Bźad-Pa and Sum-Pa Mkhan-Po. Sarnath,
Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1993 (an English translation of a part
of volume I of Collected Works, Dpag bzam ljon bzang).
II. Other Primary Sources
Anonymous (?). Chos sde chen po dgon lung dga’ ldan byams pa gling gi mkhan rabs byon tshul
sogs rim par bsgrigs pa pad+ma dkar po’i ‘phreng mdzes [Succession of Abbots of Dgon
lung monastery]. Unfinished Manuscript at Dgon lung monastery. [Dgon lung?], [1958?].
Blo bzang ye shes, and Dpal ldan ye shes. Paṇ chen sku phreng lnga pa Blo bzang ye shes kyi
rnam thar [Biography of the 5th Panchen Lama Blo bzang ye shes]. Beijing: Krung goʼi bod
rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2014 (2 vols.).
Chos ’phel (?). Dgon lung gdan rabs gser ri’i ’phreng ba [Succession of Abbots of Dgon lung
monastery]. Manuscript at Dgon lung monastery. [Dgon lung?], [1902].
Deng Chengwei et al. Xiningfu xuzhi 西宁府续志 [Continued Gazetteer of Xining prefecture].
Xining: Qinghai renmin chubanshe, 1985 [1938].
Dharmatāla. Dharmatala’s Annals of Buddhism. New Delhi : Sharada Rani, 1975.
———. Rosary of white lotuses: being the clear account of how the precious teaching of Buddha
appeared and spread in the great Hor country. Translated by Piotr Klafkowski. Wiesbaden:
O. Harrassowitz, 1987 (English translation of Dharmatala’s Annals of Buddhism).
287
Dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas, Brag dgon zhabs drung. Mdo smad chos ʼbyung [History of
Buddhism of Mdo smad]. Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1982.
———. The Ocean Annals of Amdo: Yul mdo smad kyi ljongs su Thub bstan rin po che ji ltar
dar ba’i tshul gsal bar brjod pa deb ther rgya mtsho. New Delhi : Sharada Rani, 1975-1977.
(3 volumes)
———. Anduo zhengjiao shi 安多政教史 [History of Religion and Politics of Amdo].
Translated by Wu Jun et al. Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe, 1989 (Chinese translation of
Mdo smad chos ʼbyung).
———. Rje bla ma srid zhiʼi gtsug rgyan paṇ chen thams cad mkhyen pa Blo bzang dpal ldan ye
shes dpal bzang poʼi zhal snga nas kyi rnam par thar pa nyi maʼi ʼod zer [Biography of the
6th Panchen Lama Dpal ldan ye shes]. Beijing: Krung goʼi bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2002
(2 vols.).
Dkon mchog ʼjigs med dbang po. Kun mkhyen ʼJam dbyangs bzhad paʼi rnam thar [Biography
of the first ʼJam dbyangs bzhad pa, Ngag dbang brtson ʼgrus]. Lanzhou: Kan suʼu mi rigs dpe
skrun khang, 1987.
Dpal mang paṇḍita Dkon mchog rgyal mtshan. Bla brang bkra shis ’khyil gyi gdan rabs lha’i
rnga chen [History of Labrang monastery]. Lanzhou: Kan su'u mi rigs dpe skrun khang,
1987.
———. Labulengsi zhi 拉卜楞 志 [History of Labrang monastery]. Translated by
Nuowugengzhi Maqin. Lanzhou: Gansu renmin chubanshe, 1997 (Chinese translation of Bla
brang bkra shis ’khyil gyi gdan rabs lha’i rnga chen).
———. Rgya bod hor sog gi lo rgyus nyung ngur brjod pa byis pa ’bab stegs [Brief history of
China, Tibet and Mongol]. Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1990.
———. Han Meng Zang shilue 汉蒙藏史略 [Brief history of China, Tibet and Mongol].
Translated by Gongba cairang. Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 1988 (Chinese translation
of Rgya bod hor sog gi lo rgyus nyung ngur brjod pa byis pa ’bab stegs).
Duo zang et al. Youningsi zhi: San zhong 佑宁 志 : 种 [Histories of Gönlung monastery:
Three sets]. Xining: Qinghai renmin chubanshe, 1990.
Gser tog Blo bzang tshul khrims rgya mtsho. Sku ’bum gdan rabs [Succession of Abbots of
Kumbum monastery]. Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1982.
Gu shri dkaʾ bcu che ʾphel. History of Buddhism in Mongolia. New Delhi: Sharada Rani, 1981.
———. Hor gyi chos ’byung [History of Buddhism in Mongolia]. Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs
dpe skrun khang, 1993.
———. Mōko ramakyōshi 蒙
喇嘛教史 [History of Buddhism in Mongolia]. Translated by
288
Gaimushō chōsabu, Tōkyō: Seikatsusha, 1940 (Japanese translation of Hor gyi chos ’byung).
Gu Zucheng et al. ed. Qing shilu Zangzu shiliao 清 录藏族史料 [Veritable Records regarding
Tibetans of Qing Dynasty]. Edited by Gu Zucheng et al. Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe,
1982 (10 vols.).
Gung thang Bstan pa’i sgron me. Thu’u bkwan chos kyi nyi ma’i rtogs brjod pad+ma dkar po
[Biography of Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma]. Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs dpe
skrun khang, 1992. (2 vols.)
———. Kun mkhyen ʼJam dbyangs bzhad pa sku phreng gnyis pa rje ʼJigs med dbang poʼi rnam
thar [Biography of the second ʼJam dbyangs bzhad pa, ʼJigs med dbang po]. Lanzhou: Kan
suʼu mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1990.
Mindai Seizō shiryō : Min jitsuroku shō 明 西藏史料 : 明 錄抄 [Materials for History of
Tibet of Ming Dynasty: Copies of Veritable Records of Ming Dynasty]. Kyōto: Man-Mō
Shiryō Kankōkai, 1959.
Ming shilu Zangzu shiliao 明 录藏族史料 [Veritable Records regarding Tibetans of Ming
Dynasty]. Edited by Gu Zucheng et al. Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe, 1982 (3 vols.).
Ngag dbang blo bzang chos ldan, Lcang skya II. Rje btsun bla ma ngag dbang blo bzang chos
ldan dpal bzang po'i rnam thar dad pa'i rol mtsho [Autobiography of Lcang skya II]. In
Gsung ’bum. vol. 5 (ca):9-87. Lhasa: Zhol par khang chen mo, [1713]
———. Rnam thar bka’ rtsom. In Gsung ’bum [Autobiography of Lcang skya II]. vol. 2 (kha).
Beijing: s.n., [1713]
Ngag dbang brtson ’grus, ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa I. ’Jigs byed chos ’byung [History of
Bhairava]. Lhasa: Xizang zangwen guji chubanshe, 2013 [1714] (2 vols.).
Ngag dbang mkhyen rab rgya mtsho, Wang V. Chos sde chen po dgon lung byams pa gling gi
gdan rabs rten dang brten par bcas pa’i dkar chag ched du brjod pa gdangs snyan chos kyi
gaṇḍi [Succession of Abbots of Dgon lung monastery]. Manuscript at Dgon lung monastery.
[Dgon lung?], [1932].
Per nyi ma ’dzin, Bshad sgrub bstan pa’i ‘byung gnas chos sde chen po Dgon lung byams pa
gling gi gdan rabs zur rgyan g.yas ‘khyil dung gi sgra dbyangs [Succession of Abbots of
Dgon lung monastery]. Unpublished manuscript, 2007.
Qi Yunshi. Huangchao fanbu yaolüe 皇朝藩部要略 [An Outline of the Frontier Clans of the
Imperial Dynasty]. circa 1846.
Skal bzang rgya mtsho, Dalai Lama VII. “Khri chen sprul sku blo bzang bstan pa'i nyi ma dpal
bzang po'i rnam par thar pa dpyod ldan yid dbang 'gugs pa'i pho nya [Biography of Galdan
Siretü qutugtu].” In Gsung ’bum, vol.10, 328-430.
Thu’u bkwan Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma. Collected Works of Thuʾu-Bkwan Blo-Bzang-Chos289
Kyi-Nyi-Ma. Delhi: Ngawang Gelek Demo, 1969.
———. Dgon lung byams pa gling gi dkar chag [History of Dgon lung monastery]. In Gsung
’bum, vol. 2, 647-788. 71 folio dbu can xylograph. Lhasa: Zhol par khang gsar pa, 2000. ; see
tbrc.org W21507.
———. Bshad sgrub bstan paʼi ʼbyung gnas chos sde chen po Dgon lung byams pa gling gi dkar
chag dpyod ldan yid dbang ʼgugs paʼi pho nya [History of Gönlung monastery]. Xining:
Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang 1988.
———. Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje’i rnam thar [Birography of Lcang skya III]. Lanzhou: Kan
su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1989.
———. Zhangjia guoshi Ruobiduoji zhuan 章嘉 师若必多 传 [Birography of Lcang skya
III]. Translated by Chen Qingying and Ma Lianlong. Beijing: Minzu chubanshe, 1988
(Chinese translation of Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje’i rnam thar).
Yang Yingju. Xining fu xinzhi 西宁府新志 [New Gazetteer of Xining prefecture]. Xining:
Qinghai renmin chubanshe, 1988 [1762].
III. Secondary Sources
Ahmad, Zahiruddin. Sino-Tibetan Relations in the Seventeenth Century. Roma, Istituto italiano
per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1970.
Ahua Awanghuadan. “Beijing diqu suocun Zangzu lidai gaoseng xianzhe wenji jieti mulu 京
地 所存藏族历 高僧 哲文 解题目录 [Annotated Catalogue of Tibetan Collected
Works Preserved in Beijing].” Zhongguo zangxue 102 (2012): 81–106.
Akester, Matthew. Jamyang Khyentsé Wangpo's Guide to Central Tibet. Chicago: Serinda
Publications, 2016.
Angqing Caidan. “Songba Yixibanjue shengqing ji qi xueshu chengjiu kaozheng 松巴·益西班
觉生 及其学术成就考证 [An investigation of the life and academic achievement of Sum
pa Ye shes dpal ʾbyor].” Journal of Medicine & Pharmacy of Chinese Minorities 6 (2008):
64-67.
Anonymus. Qianlong neifu yutu 乾隆 府輿圖 (a.k.a. Qingdai yitong ditu 清 一統地圖).
Yangmingshan: Guofang yanjiuyuan and Zhonghua dadian bianyinhui, 1966 [1760].
Antoine Mostaert. “Matériaux ethnographiques relatifs aux Mongols Ordos.” Central Asiatic
Journal 2 (1956): 242–294.
Antoine Mostaert. “Ordosica.” Bulletin of the Catholic University of Peking 9 (1934): 1–96.
Arnold, Edward. ed. As Long as Space Endures : Essays on the Kalacakra Tantra in Honor of
H.H. the Dalai Lama. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 2009.
290
Atwood, Christopher. Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire. New York: Facts on
File, Inc., 2004.
Bao Wenhan et al. ed. Menggu Hui bu wanggong biaozhuan, diyiji 蒙 回部王公表傳 第一辑
[The Tabled and Textual Biographies of Mongolian and Muslim Nobles, vol. 1 ]. Hohhot:
Neimenggu daxue chubanshe, 1998 [1795].
Bira, Shagdaryn. Mongolian historical literature of the XVII-XIX centuries Written in Tibetan.
Translated by Stanley N. Frye. Bloomington, Ind.: Mongolian Society [and] Tibet Society,
1970.
———. “Songbakanbu Yixibanjue zhuzuo zhong de lishi dili tongming 松巴堪布益西班觉著
中的历史地理
” [Historical and geographical common terms from works by Sum pa
mkhan po Ye shes dpal ʾbyor]. Mongolian Studies Information 3 (1997): 5-8.
———. Mongolian historical writing from 1200 to 1700. Translated by John Richard Krueger.
Bellingham, Wash.: Western Washington University, 2002.
Blo bzang bstan pa rgya mtsho and Dge 'dun bstan pa dar rgyas. Rje thar shul dge 'dun chos
skyong rgya mtsho'i rnam thar [Biographyof Thar shul Dge ‘dun chos skyong rgya mtsho].
Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1994.
Blo bzang rgya mtsho. Memoirs of a Tibetan Lama. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 1998.
Bod rang skyong ljongs rig dngos do dam u yon lhan khang gi po ta la rig dngos srung skyob do
dam so'o. Po ta lar bzhugs pa'i dge lugs gsung 'bum gyi dkar chag [Catalogue of Dge lung pa
Collecte Works Preserved in Potala Palace]. Lhasa: bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang,
1990.
Bogin, Benjamin. “The Life of Yol mo Bstan 'dzin nor bu- A critical edition, translation, and
study of the memoirs of a seventeenth-century Tibetan Buddhist lama.” Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Michigan, 2005.
Bol, Peter. “GIS, Prosopography and History.” Annals of GIS 18 (1), (2012): 3–15. Accessed
March 31, 2016. doi:10.1080/19475683.2011.647077.
Boulnois, Luce. Poudre d'or et monnaies d'argent au Tibet. Paris: Editions du Centre national de
la recherche scientifique, 1983.
Bstan pa bstan 'dzin. Chos sde chen po dpal ldan 'bras spungs bkra shis sgo mang grwa tshang
gi chos 'byung dung g.yas su 'khyil ba'i sgra dbyangs [History of Sgo mang College].
Mundgod, distt. North Kanara, Karnataka : Dpal ldan 'bras spungs bkra shis sgo mang dpe
mdzod khang, 2003 (2 vols.); Also see tbrc.org W28810.
Btsan po IV Bstan ‘dzin ‘phrin las. ’Dzam gling rgyas bshad [Account of World Geography].
Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2009.
291
Bu ston Rin chen grub. The History of Buddhism (Chos-ḥbyung). Translated by Eugène
Obermiller. Heidelberg, In kommission bei O. Harrassowitz, 1931-32 (2 vols.).
’Brug thar (Zhou tha), Gansu Zangzu buluo de shehui yu lishi yanjiu 甘肃藏族部落的社会与历
史研究 [Study of Society and History of Tibetan Tribes in Gansu]. Lanzhou: Gansu minzu
chubanshe, 1996.
’Brug thar (Zhou tha), Mdo smad byang shar gyi bod kyi tsho bas hog pa’i lo rgyus dang rig
gnas bcas par dpyad pa [Study of Society and History of Tibetan Tribes in Gansu]. Beijing:
Minzu chubanshe, 2002.
Cabezón, José Ignacio. “Tibetan Gothic: Panofsky’s Thesis in the Tibetan Cultural Milieu.” In
Scholasticism, edited by José Ignacio Cabezón, 141-158. Albany: State University of New
York Press, 1998.
———. “Authorship and Literary Production in Classical Buddhist Tibet.” In Changing Minds:
Contributions to the Study of Buddhism and Tibet in Honor of Jeffrey Hopkins, edited by Guy
Newland, 233-63. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 2001.
———. “On Tulku Lineages.” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 38 (February 2017): 1-28.
Cabezón, José Ignacio et al. Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion,
1996.
Cabezon, Jose Ignacio, ed. Tibetan Ritual. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Cai Zhichun. “Songbakanbu Yixibanjue yu Qinghaishi pingjia 松巴堪布益西班觉与 海史评
价 [An evaluation of Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ʾbyor and Qinghaishi].” Journal of
Qinghai Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) 1 (1985): 104-107.
Cairen Bali. “Songbakanbu Yixibanjue’er jiashu yu chushengdi kao 松巴堪布益西觉 家属与
出生地考 [A study of the family and birthplace of Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ʾbyor].”
Journal of Qinghai Nationalities Institute 3 (1997): 15-22.
Chab spel Tshe brtan phun tshogs et al. Zangzu Wenxueshi 藏族文学史 [History of Tibetan
Literature]. Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe, 1994 (2 vols.).
Chandra, Lokesh. Materials for a History of Tibetan literature. New Delhi: International
Academy of Indian Culture, 1963 (3 vols.).
———. Eminent Tibetan Polymaths of Mongolia. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian
Culture, 1961.
Charleux, Isabelle. Temples et monastères de Mongolie-Intérieure. Archéologie et histoire de
l’art 23. Paris: Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques: Institut national
d’histoire de l’art, 2006.
292
———. Nomads on Pilgrimage: Mongols on Wutaishan (China), 1800-1940. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Chen Qingying et al. Beijing Zangchuan fojiao siyuan 京藏传 教 院 [Tibetan Buddhist
Monasteries in Beijing]. Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe, 2014.
Chen Qingying et al. Zhongguo Zangzu buluo 中
Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe, 1990.
藏族部落 [Tibetan Tribes of China]. Beijing:
Chen Qingying et al., Zangzu buluo zhidu yanjiu 藏族部落制度研究 [Study of Tibetan Tribes].
Beijing (?): Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe, 1995. (2002 reprint?)
Chen Qingying, and Zhang Ziling. “Dui Songbakanbu ji qi Ruyi Baoshushi de yanjiu 松巴堪
布及其如意 树史的研究 [A study of Sum pa mkhan po and his Ruyi Baoshushi].” In
Jinian Liu Shengqi xiansheng bainian danchen ji Zangzu lishi renhua lunji [Centennial
anniversary of the birth of Mr. Liu Shengqi with papers on Tibetan history and culture], 248258. Beijing: Zhongguo Zangxue chubanshe 2008.
Chen, Song. “Why Humanists Should Fall in Love with ‘Big Data,’ and How?” Dissertation
Reviews, March 15. 2016. Accessed April 30, 2016.
http://dissertationreviews.org/archives/13643.
Cuevas, Bryan. “Some Reflections on the Periodization of Tibetan History.” Revue d’Etudes
Tibétaines, 10 (2006): 44–55.
Dalai Lama XIV Bstan ’dzin rgya mtsho. My Land and My People: The Original Autobiography
of His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet. New York: Warner Books, 1997.
Dalate Qi shizhi zhengbian bangongshi. Dalate Qi zhi 达拉特旗志 [Gazetter of Dalad Banner].
Hohhot: Yuanfang chubanshe, 2006.
Dandaron, Bidija D. Opisanie tibetskich rukopisej i ksilografov Burjatskogo Kompleksnogo
Nauchno-Issledovatelʹskogo Instituta 2. 2. Moskva: Izdat. Vostoch. Lit., 1965.
Danqu et al. Xizang zangchuan fojiao siyuan 西藏藏传
in Tibet]. Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe, 2013.
教
院 [Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries
Das, Sarat Chandra. “Life of Sum-pa Khan-po, also styled Yeśes-Dpal-hbyor, the author of the
Reḥmig (Chronological Table).” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, No. II (1889): 3784.
———. A Tibetan-English Dictionary with Sanskrit Synonyms. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat
Book Depot, 1902.
Datong Huizu Tuzu zizhixian diming bangongshi. Datong Huizu Tuzu Zizhixian diming zhi 大通
回族土族自治县地 志 [Gazetteer of Tatong Hui and Tu Autonomous County]. Datong
Huizu Tuzu Zizhixian : Datong Huizu Tuzu Zizhixian diming bangongshi, 1986.
293
Davidson, Ronald M. Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture.
New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.
de Jong, J. W. “Sum-Pa Mkhan-Po (1704-1788) and His Works.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic
Studies 27, no. 3-4 (1967): 208-16.
De Mengkebate’er. “Songbakanbu Yixibanjue’er ji qi zhuzuo 松巴堪布益西班觉 及其著
[Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ʾbyor and his writings].” Northwest Minorities Research 2
(1991): 126-133.
Deng Jianxin. Zhangjia hutuketu yanjiu 章嘉呼 克
Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe, 2010.
研究 [Study on Lcang skya qutuqtu].
Dhondub, Yangdon et al. Monastic and Lay Traditions in North-eastern Tibet. Boston and
Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Dkon mchog ’jigs med dbang po, ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa II. Kun mkyen ’Jam dbyangs bzhad
pa’i rnam thar [Biography of ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa]. Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe,
1987.
Dreyfus, Georges B. J. The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist
Monk. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.
Du Wanyan et al. Zhongguo zhengzhizhidu tongshi 中 政治制度通史[General History of
Political Institutions of China]. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 1996, vol.9 (Ming period).
Dung dkar Blo bzang ’phrin las. Dung dkar tshigs mdzod chen mo [The grand encyclopedia of
Dung dkar]. Beijing: Krung go’i Bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2002.
———. Mkhas dbang dung dkar blo bsang ’phrin las kyi gsung 'bum: bod kyi dkar chag rig pa
[Collected Works of Dung dkar Blo bzang ’phrin las]. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang,
2004.
Dungkar Lobzang Tinley and Sangye T. Naga. “Development of the Monastic Education System
in Tibet.” The Tibet Journal, vol.18, no.4 (winter 1993): 3-48.
Eimer, Helmut and David Germano, ed. The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism. Leiden and
Boston: Brill, 2002.
Ekvall, Robert B. Gateway to Tibet: the Kansu-Tibetan Border. Harrisburg, Pa.: Christian
Publications, 1938.
———. Cultural Relations on the Kansu-Tibetan Border. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1939.
Ellingson, Ter. “Tibetan Monastic Constitutions: The Bca’-yig.” In Reflections on Tibetan
Culture: Essays in Memory of Turrell V. Wylie, edited by Lawrence Epstein, 205-30.
Lewiston, N.Y.: E. Mellen Press, 1990.
294
Elliott, Mark C. The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial
China. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001.
Elverskog, Johan. The Jewel Translucent Sūtra: Altan Khan and the Mongols in the Sixteenth
Century. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
———. Our Great Qing: the Mongols, Buddhism and the State in Late Imperial China.
Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2006.
———. “Wutai Shan, Qing Cosmopolitanism, and the Mongols.” Journal of the International
Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 6 (December 2011): 243-74.
———. “China and the New Cosmopolitanism.” Sino-Platonic Papers 223 (February 2013): 130.
Erdenibayar. “Yizhu ping Songba kanbu shilun zhuzuo erzhong 译注评松巴堪布诗论著
[Annotated translation and evaluation of two treatises on poetry by Sum pa mkhan po].”
Ph.D. dissertation, Inner Mongolia University, 2002.
种
———. “Sumpa Khenpo Ishibaljur: A Great Figure in Mongolian and Tibetan Cultures.” In The
Mongolia-Tibet Interface, edited by U. Bulag and H. Diemberger, 303-314. Leiden; Boston:
Brill, 2007.
Everding, Karl-Heinz. Die Präexistenzen der lCaṅ skya Qutuqtus: Untersuchungen zur
Konstruktion und historischen Entwicklung einer lamaistischen Existenzenlinie. Wiesbaden:
O. Harrassowitz, 1988.
Farquhar, David. “The Ch'ing Administration of Mongolia.” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard
University, 1960.
Ferrari, Alfonsa. Mk’yen brtse’s Guide to the Holy Places of Central Tibet. Roma: Istituto
Italiano per il medio ed estremo oriente, 1958.
FitzHerbert, Solomon George. “On the Tibetan Ge-Sar Epic in the Late 18th Century: Sum-Pa
Mkhan-Po’s Letters to the 6th Paṇ-Chen Lama.” Études Mongoles et Sibériennes,
centrasiatiques et tibétaines 46 (2015): 2-17.
Fletcher, Joseph F. “Ch’ing Inner Asia, c. 1800,” and “The Heyday of the Ch’ing Order in
Mongolia, Sinkiang, and Tibet.” In The Cambridge History of China, vol. 10, part 1, edited
by John K. Fairbank, 35-106 and 351-408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Gansu sheng Tianzhu zangzu zizhixian zang yuyan wenzi gongzuo bangongshi. Huarui diming
wenhua tanyuan 华锐地 文
源 [Investigation of origins of place names and culture in
Hwari area]. Xining: Qinghai minzu chubanshe, 2016.
George Cressey, “The Ordos Desert of Inner Mongolia,” Journal of the Scientific Laboratories
28, (October 1933).
295
Geshe Lhundup Sopa et al. Peacock in the Poison Grove: Two Buddhist Texts on Training the
Mind: the Wheel Weapon (mtshon chaʼkhor lo) & the Poison-destroying Peacock (rma bya
dug ʼjoms) attributed to Dharmarakṣita. Boston: Wisdom Publications 2001.
Gold, Jonathan. The Dharma’s Gatekeepers: Sakya Paṇḍita on Buddhist Scholarship in Tibet.
Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007.
Gombojab. “Mongγulčud-un Töbed Kele-ber Jokiyaγsan Jokiyal-un JüiI.” Studia Mongolica
Instituti Linguae et Litterarum Comiteti Scientiarum et Educationos Altae 28 (1959): 1-40.
Grags pa et al. Bod kyi bstan bcos khag cig gi mtshan byang dri med shel dkar phreng ba
[Catalogue of Bla brang bkra shis ’khyil]. Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang.
1985.
Gruschke, Andreas. The Cultural Monuments of Tibet's Outer Provinces: Amdo. Bangkok: White
Lotus Press, 2001 (2 vols.).
Gui Rong. “Songbakanbu Yixibanjue ji qi Fojiaoshi 松巴堪布益西班觉及其 教史 [Sum pa
mkhan po Ye shes dpal ʾbyor and his History of Buddhism].” Mongolian Studies Information
2 (1993): 32-33.
Gung gu Rgyal mtshan bzang po. Gung gu Rgyal mtshan bzang po’i gsung ‘bum [Collected
Works of Gung gu Rgyal mtshan bzang po]. Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang,
2007.
Gyatso, Janet. “Moments of Tibetan Modernity: Methods and Assumptions.” In Mapping the
Modern in Tibet: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the International Association for
Tibetan Studies, Königswinter, edited by Gray Tuttle, 9-54. Andiast, Switzerland:
International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH, 2011.
———. Apparitions of the Self: The Secret Autobiographies of a Tibetan Visionary. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1998.
Gyurme Dorje. Tibet Handbook. Bath: Footprint, 2009.
Gyurme Dorje et al. Jokhang: Tibet's Most Sacred Buddhist Temple. London: Edition Hansjorg
Mayer, 2010.
ʼGos lo tsā ba gzhon nu dpal. The Blue Annals. Translated by George Roerich. Calcutta: Royal
Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1949-53. (2 vols.)
Hahn, Michael. “Cry for Help: The Unidentified Stanzas of Nāgārjuna's Prajñādaṇḍa.” Archiv
Orientální, Quarterly Journal of African and Asian Studies 71 (2003): 517-540.
Han Rulin. “Qinghai Youningsi ji qi mingseng (Zhangjia, Tuguan, Songba) 海佑宁 及其
僧 [Youning monastery of Qinghai and its eminent clerics (Lcang skya, Thu’u bkwan, Sum
296
pa)].” In Qiongluji, edited by Liu Bohan, 390-415. Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe,
1982 [1944].
Hong Jiang, The Ordos Plateau of China: An Endangered Environment (Tokyo: United Nations
University Press, 1999);
Hor gtsang ʼjigs med. Mdo smad lo rgyus chen mo [Comprehensive History of Mdo smad].
Dharamsala: Bod kyi dpe mdzod khanng, 2009. (6 vols.)
Hua Jainben. “Songba Yixibanjue ji qi yixue xueshu sixiang chutan 松巴·益西班觉及其 学
学术思想初
[A preliminary study of Sum pa Ye shes dpal ʾbyor and his apprehension of
medical science].” Journal of Medicine and Pharmacy of Chinese Minorities 7 (2013): 6566.
Huber, Toni. The Cult of Pure Crystal Mountain: Popular Pilgrimage and Visionary Landscape
in Southeast Tibet. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Huber, Toni, ed. Amdo Tibetans in Transition: Society and Culture in the Post-Mao Era. Leiden;
Boston: Brill, 2002.
Hucker, Charles O. A Dictionary of Official Titles In Imperial China. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1985.
Hummel, Arthur W. et al. Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing period (1644-1912). Washington:
United States Government Printing Office, 1943-44. (2 vols.)
Ikejiri, Yōko. Shinchō zenki no Chibetto Bukkyō seisaku: jasaku rama seido no seiritsu to tenkai
清朝前期の
ッ
教政策 : 扎薩克喇嘛制度の成立と展開 [Policy for Tibetan
Buddhism in Early Qing: establishment and development of Jasak Lama system]. Tokyo:
Kyūko Shoin, 2013.
Illich, Marina. “Selections from the Life of a Tibetan Buddhist Polymath: Chankya Rolpai Dorje
(Lcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje), 1717-1786.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 2006.
Ishihama, Yumiko. “The Process by which the Gusi Khan Family lost the Royal Authority of
Tibet: A reconsideration of the rebellion of Blo bzang bstan ‘dzin.” Toyo Gakuho 69.3-4
(1988): 151-171.
———. Chibetto Bukkyō sekai no rekishiteki kenkyū
ッ 仏教世界の歴史的研究
[Historical Studies of Tibetan Buddhist World]. Shohan. Tōkyō: Tōhō Shoten, 2001.
———. Shinchō to Chibetto Bukkyo : bosatsu to natta Kenryutei 清朝と
ッ 仏教:菩薩
と
た乾隆帝 [The Qing Dynasty and Tibetan Buddhism: Emperor Qianlong who
became a bodhisattva]. Tōkyō: Waseda Daigaku Shuppanbu, 2011.
297
Jackson, David. “A Reviver of Sa-skya-pa Scriptual Studies,” In Les Habitants du toit du monde:
études recueillies en hommage à Alexander W. Macdonald. Nanterre: Société d'ethnologie,
1997.
Jacoby, Sarah. Love and Liberation: Autobiographical Writings of the Tibetan Buddhist
Visionary Sera Khandro. New York: Columbia University Press, 2014.
Jagchid, Sechin. Menggu yu Xizang lishi guanxi zhi yanjiu 蒙 與西藏歷史關係 研究 [A
study of historical relations between Mongol and Tibet]. Taibei : Zheng zhong shu ju, 1978.
Jiguang Wang. Anduo Zangqu tusi jiazupu jilu yanjiu 安多藏 土司家族谱辑录硏究 [A Study
on Compilation of Family Genealogies of Amdo Tibetan Chieftains]. Beijing: Minzu
chubanshe, 2000.
Jo, Sokhyo. “Topics on the History of Tibetan Astronomy with a Focus on Background
Knowledge of Eclipse Calculations in the 18th Century.” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard
University, 2016.
Kämpfe, Hans-Rainer. Die soziale Rolle des zweiten Pekinger Lčaṅ Skya-Qutuqtu Rol Pa’i Rdo
Rǰe (1717-1786). Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 1974.
———. Ñi Ma’i ’Od Zer: Die Biographie Des 2. Pekinger lČaṅ Skya - Qutuqtu Rol Pa”i Rdo
rJ̌e (1717-1786). Bonn: VGH Wiss.-Verl., 1976.
Kan lho'i lo rgyus dpyad gzhi'i yig rigs. Kan lho'i bod brgyud nang bstan dgon sde so so'i lo
rgyus mdor bsdus [Brief Histories of Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries in Kanlho]. Lanzhou:
Kan lho'i lo rgyus dpyad gzhi'i yig rigs cus, 1991-1995 (3 vols.).
Kapstein, Matthew ed. Buddhism Between Tibet and China. Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications,
2009.
Kapstein, Matthew. “The Purificatory Gem and Its Cleansing: a late Tibetan polemical
discussion of apocryphal texts.” History of Religions 28/3 (1989): 217-244.
———. The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation, and Memory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2000.
———. “The Indian Literary Identity in Tibet.” In Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions
from South Asia, edited by Sheldon Pollock, 747-802. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 2003.
———. The Tibetans. Oxford: Blackwell Publications, 2006.
———. “Textualizing the Icon: The Three Deities of Longevity in Art and Ritual,” In Tibetan
and Himalayan Healing: An Anthology for Anthony Aris, edited by Charles Ramble, 383403. Kathmandu: Vajra, 2014.
———. “Just where on Jambudvīpa are we?: New geographical knowledge and old
298
cosmological schemes in eighteenth-century Tibet.” In Forms of Knowledge in Early Modern
Asia: Explorations in the Intellectual History of India and Tibet 1500-1800, edited by
Sheldon Pollock, 336-364. Durham NC: Duke University Press, 2011.
Kim, Hanung. “Sum-pa Ye-shes-dpal-‘byor and the Civil War of Eighteenth Century Tibet: a
preliminary essay on Ye-shes-dpal-‘byor’s many roles in Tibetan civilization.” In Current
Issues and Progress in Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Third International Seminar of
Young Tibetologists, edited by Takeuchi Tsuguhito et al., 165-182. Kobe: Kobe City
University of Foreign Studies, 2013.
———. “Amdo, Collected Works (gSung ’bum) and Prosopography.” Revue d’Etudes
Tibétaines 37, (December 2016): 162-77.
———. “Introduction to the New Publication of Sum pa Ye shes dpal ’byor’s Collected Works.”
Zangxue xuekan/The Journal of Tibetology, forthcoming.
Kimiaki, Tanaka. Mitrayogin’s 108 Maṇḍalas: An Image Database. Kathmandu: Vajra
Publications, 2013.
Klong rdol bla ma Ngag dbang blo bzang. Klong rdol bla ma Ngag dbang blo bzang gi gsung
’bum [Collected Works of Klong rdol bla ma Ngag dbang blo bzang]. Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod
yig dpe snying spe skrun khang, 1991 (2 vols.).
Ko zhul Grags pa ’byung gnas et al. Gangs can mkhas grub rim byon ming mdzod [Dictionary of
biographical sketches of prominent Tibetan scholars]. Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe,
1992.
Köhle, Natalie. “Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan? Patronage, Pilgrimage, and
the Place of Tibetan Buddhism at the Early Qing Court.” Late Imperial China 29, no. 1 (June
2008), 73-119.
Kolmaš, Josef. “Tibetan Sources.” In Essays on the Sources for Chinese History. edited by D.
Leslie et al., 129-140. Canberra: Australian National Univ. Press, 1973.
Kusunoki Yoshimichi. “Kōki tei no sokkin, Shannan doruji no sōshū 康煕帝の側近, ャン
ン=
の奏摺” [Memorials by Shangnan Dorji, a Kangxi’s close associate]. Rekishi
jinruigaku n34 (2006-3): 202-167.
Lang Jianlan and Wang Qian. Gansu zangchuan fojiao siyuan 甘肃藏传 教 院 [Tibetan
Buddhist Monasteries in Gansu]. Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe, 2014.
Lawrence Epstein et al. Khams pa Histories: Visions of People, Place and Authority. Leiden and
Boston: Brill, 2002.
Lcang skya III Rol pa’i rdo rje. Srid zhiʼi gtsug rgyan skyabs mgon rdo rje ʼchang Lcang skya
Rol paʼi rdo rje zhal snga nas kyi gsung ʼbum [Collected Works of Lcang skya III]. Lhasa :
Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2015. (8 vols.)
299
Lce nag tshang hūṃ chen and Ye shes ’od zer sgrol ma. Reb kong sngags mang gi lo rgyus
phyogs bsgrigs [History of Rebkong Tantric Practitioners Community]. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe
skrun khang, 2004.
Lempert, Michael. Discipline and Debate: The Language of Violence in a Tibetan Buddhist
Monastery. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012.
Lessing, Ferdinand D. Mongolian-English Dictionary. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1960.
Lhag pa chos ʼphel, Bod kyi rtsom rig lo rgyus [History of Tibetan Literature]. Beijing: Mi rigs
Dpe skrun khang, 2006- (by now 2 vols).
Lipman, J. Neaman. “The Border World of Gansu, 1895-1935.” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford
University, 1981.
Lisa Stein and Ngawang Zangpo. Butön’s History of Buddhism. Boston: Snow Lion, 2013.
Liu Chao, and Ma Wentao. “Shixi Zangwen shiji Ruyi Baoshushi suo jizai Menggu shixi de
shiliao jiazhi 试析藏文史籍 如意 树史 所记载蒙 世系的史料价值 [Preliminary
analysis of the historical value of the Mongolian genealogy recorded in a Tibetan source,
Ruyi Baoshushi].” Journal of Puyang Vocational and Technical College 22.4 (2009): 32-33.
Liu Jishun ed., Guanghuisi zhi 广惠
renmin chubanshe, 2008.
志 [Gazetteer of Gser khog Monastery]. Xining: Qinghai
M. Wulan. “Songbakanbu dui Ruyi baoshu shi de buzhuan 松巴堪布对 如意宝树史 的补撰
[Sum pa Mkhan po’s supplement to his History of Buddhism].” Beifang minzu daxue xuebao,
90, no.6 (2009): 39-40.
Makransky, John J. Buddhahood Embodied: Sources of Controversy in India and Tibet. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press, 1997.
Martin, Dan. “Bonpo Canons and Jesuit Cannons.” The Tibet Journal 15.2 (1990): 3-28.
———. “Tables of Contents (dKar chag). ” In Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre, edited by
José I. Cabezón, 500-514. Ithaca: Snow Lion Press, 1996.
———. Tibetan Histories: A Bibliography of Tibetan-Language Historical Works. London:
Serindia Publications, 1997.
McKay, Alex ed. Tibet and Her Neighbours: A History. London: Edition Hansjörg Mayer, 2003.
Mi nyag mgon po. Gangs can mkhas dbang rim byon gyi rnam thar mdor bsdus [Biograpihcal
sketches of eminent Tibetan scholars]. Beijing: Krung go'i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang,
1996-2000 (2 vols.).
300
Mi rigs dpe mdzod khang. Mi rigs dpe mdzod khang gi dpe tho las gsung 'bum skor gyi dkar
chag shes bya'i gter mdzod: Zangwen dainji mulu 藏文典籍目录 [Catalogue of Collected
Works in Library of Cultural Palace for Nationalities]. Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun
khang, 1984-1997 (3 vols.).
———. Po ta la'i gsung 'bum dkar chag [Catalogue of Collected Works in Potala Palace].
Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2013.
Miaozhou. Mengzang fojiaoshi 蒙藏 教史 [History of Mongolia-Tibetan Buddhism].
Yangzhou: Jiangsu guangling guji keyinshe, 1993 [1935].
Mibu Taishun. “Kawaguchi korekushon ni tsuite 河口 ク ョン 就いて [About
Kawaguschi Collection].” Nihon chibetto gakkai kaihō. Vol. 2 (1955): 1-3.
Miller, Robert James. Monasteries and Culture Change in Inner Mongolia. Wiesbaden: O.
Harrassowitz, 1959.
Mills, Martin A. Identity, Ritual and State in Tibetan Buddhism: The Foundations of Authority in
Gelukpa Monasticism. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003.
Mullin, Glenn. The Fourteen Dalai Lamas. Santa Fe: Clear Light Publishers, 2001.
Nagao Gajin. Mōko gakumondera 蒙
Zenkoku Shobō, 1947.
学問
[Mongolian Academic Monasteries]. Kyōto:
Nakane, Chie, ed. Labrang: A Study in the Field by Li An-che. Tokyo: University of Tokyo,
Institute of Oriental Culture, 1982.
Naquin, Susan. Shantung Rebellion: The Wang Lun Uprising of 1774. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1981.
Nebesky-Wojkowitz, René de. Oracles and Demons of Tibet: The Cult and Iconography of the
Tibetan Protective Deities. The Hague: Mouton, 1956.
Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho, Dalai Lama V. The Illusive Play: The Autobiography of the
Fifth Dalai Lama. Translated by Samten G. Karmay. Chicago: Serindia Publications, 2014.
Nian Zhihai and Bai Gengdeng. Qinghai Zangchuan fojiao siyuan mingjian 海藏传 敎 院
明鉴 [Clear Mirror for Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries in Qinghai]. Lanzhou: Gansu minzu
chubanshe, 1993.
Nietupski, Paul Kocot. “The ‘Reverend Chinese’ (Gyanakpa tsang) at Labrang Monastery.” In
Buddhism Between Tibet and China, edited by Matthew Kapstein, 181-213. Boston: Wisdom
Publications, 2009.
———. Labrang Monastery: A Tibetan Buddhist Community on the Inner Asian Borderlands,
1709-1958. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2010.
301
Nor chen Kun dga’ bzang po The Works of Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo. Kathmandu: Sachen
International, 2005 (4 vols.).
Nourse, Benjamin J. “Canons in Context: A History of the Tibetan Buddhist Canon in the
Eighteenth Century.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univerisity of Virginia, 2014.
Obermiller, Eugéne. Analysis of the Abhisamayālaṃkāra. London : Luzac & Co., 1933-1936. (2
vols.)
Oidtmann, Max G. “Between Patron and Priest: Amdo Tibet Under Qing Rule, 1792-1911.”
Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 2014.
Onoda, Shunzo. “bsDus grwa Literature.” In Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre, edited by José
I. Cabezón, 187-201. Ithaca: Snow Lion Press, 1996.
Otani University. Ōtani Daigaku Toshokan shozō Chibetto bunken mokuroku sakuin 大谷大学
図書館所蔵西蔵文献目錄索引 [Catalogue of Tibetan Works Kept in Otani University
Library]. Kyoto: Otani University Library, 1973.
Oyunbilig, Borjigidai. “The Hoshuud Polity in Khökhnuur (Kokonor).” Inner Aisa 4 (2002):
181-96.
———. Menggu shi gangyao 蒙
renmin chubanshe, 2006.
史纲要 [Outline of History of Mongols]. Hohhot: Neimenggu
———. “1705 nian Xizang shibian de zhenxiang 1705 西藏 变的真像 [Real aspect of
Tibet incident in 1705]”. Zhongguo zangxue 3 (2008): 82-91.
———. “17 shiji Weilate gebu youmudi yanjiu 17世纪卫拉特各部游牧地研究 [A research of
the nomadic areas of Weilate tribe in the 17th century]”. Xiyu yanjiu 1 (2010): 35-51.
———. “17 shiji Weilate gebu youmudi yanjiu-xu 17世纪卫拉特各部游牧地研究 续 [A
research of the nomadic areas of Weilate tribe in the 17th century-continued]”. Xiyu yanjiu 2
(2010): 63-68.
Per nyi ma ’dzin, Bshad sgrub bstan pa’i ’byung gnas chos sde chen po Dgon lung byams pa
gling gi gdan rabs zur rgyan g.yas ’khyil dung gi sgra dbyangs [Succession of Abbots of
Gönlung monastery]. Unpublished manuscript, 2007.
Perdue, Peter C. China Marches West : the Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia. Cambridge,
Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005.
Petech, Luciano. “Notes on Tibetan History of the 18th Century.” T’oung Pao 52 (1966): 261–
292.
———. China and Tibet in the Early 18th Century: History of the Establishment of Chinese
Protectorate in Tibet. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972.
302
Pha bong kha pa Byams pa bstan ʾdzin ʾphrin las rgya mtsho, Meditation on Vajrabhairava.
Dharamsala, India: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1990.
Prebish, Charles. Buddhist Monastic Discipline: the Sanskrit Prātimoksa Sūtras of the
Mahāsāmghikas and Mūlasarvāstivādins. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2010.
Pu Wencheng. Gan Qing Zangchuan fojiao siyuan 甘 藏传 教 院 [Tibetan Buddhist
Monasteries in Gansu and Qinghai]. Xining: Qinghai renmin chubanshe, 1990.
———. Qinghai fojiao shi 海
renmin chubanshe, 2001.
敎史 [History of Buddhism in Qinghai]. Xining: Qinghai
———. Qinghai Zang chuan fo jiao si yuan 青海藏传佛教寺院 [Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries
in Qinghai]. Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe, 2013.
Pubaev, Rigbi Eshievich. "Pagsam-chzhonsan"--pamiatnik Tibetskoĭ istoriografii XVIII veka.
Novosibirsk: Izd-vo "Nauka," Sibirskoe otdelenie, 1981.
———. “Buddhist Cosmology as Described in the Historical Work of Sum-Pa mKhan-Po
Entitled the ‘Tree of Contemplation.’” The Tibet Journal 6, no. 2 (1981): 53.
———. “Data on the History of the Mongols in the ‘dPag-bSam 1Jon-bZang’ by Sum-Pa
Mkhan-Po.” The Tibet Journal 6, no. 4 (1981): 37.
———. “The Historical Treatise ‘dPag-Bsam lJon-Bzang’ by Sum-Pa Mkhan-Po (1704-1788).
Pecularities in the Text and Their Interpretation in Translation.” The Tibet Journal 6, no. 1
(1981): 14.
———. Pagsam-dzhonsan: istoriia i khronologiia Tibeta. Novosibirsk: “Nauka,” Sibirskoe
otdelenie, 1991.
Qi Guang. Daqing diguo shiqi Menggu de zhengzhi yu shehui : yi Alashan Heshuote bu yanjiu
wei zhongxin ⼤清帝国时期蒙古的政治与社会 : 以阿拉善和硕特部研究为中⼼ [Politics
and Society of Mongols in Qing Times]. Shanghai: Fudan daxue chubanshe, 2013.
Qian Shifu ed. Qingdai zhiguan nianbiao 清 職
表 [Almanac of official appointments in
Qing dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1980. (4 vols.)
Qin Yongzhang. Qianlong huangdi yu Zhangjia guoshi 乾隆皇帝与章嘉 师 [Qianlong
Emperor and National Preceptor Lcang skya]. Xining: Qinghai renmin chubanshe, 2008.
Qinghaisheng zhi bian zuan wei yuan hui. Qinghai li shi ji yao 海历史紀要 [Summary of
Qinghai History]. Xining: Qinghai renmin chubanshe 1987.
Qinghaisheng bianjizu, Qinghai tuzu shehui lishi diaocha 海土族社会历史调查 [Survey of
Qinghai Monguor Society and History]. Xining: Qinghai renmin chubanshe, 1985.
303
Qu dan et al. Xizang zang chuan fo jiao si yuan 西藏藏传 教 院 [Tibetan Buddhist
Monasteries in the Tibetan Autonomous Region]. Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe, 2014.
Rdo rje rin chen et al. Krung goʼi Bod brgyud nang dgon dkar chag las Kan suʼu glegs bam [List
of Gansu Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries]. Lanzhou: Kan suʼu mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2009.
Rdor phrug et al. Krung go’i bod brgyud nang dgon dkar chag las kan su’u glegs bam [Gansu
volume of the catalogue of Chinese Tibetan Buddhist monasteries]. Lanzhou: Gansu minzu
chubanshe, 2009.
Reb gong rdo rje mkhar et al. Bod kyi rtsom rig lo rgyus [History of Tibetan Literature]. Lhasa:
Bod ljongs mi dmang dpe skrun khang, 2009- (by now 3 volumes).
Ren Yuehai. Duolun huizongsi 多伦汇
chubanshe, 2005.
[Huizong Monastery of Dolonor]. Beijing: Minzu
Richardson, Hugh. Ceremonies of the Lhasa Year. London: Sherinda Publications, 1993.
Ridding, C. Mary. “Pag Sam Jon Zang [Dpag Bsam Ljon Bzaṅ.] Part I: History of the Rise,
Progress, and Downfall of Buddhism in India. Part II: History of Tibet from Early Times to
1745 A.d. By Sumpa Khan-Po Yeśe Pal Jor. [Sum-Pa Mkhan-Po Ye śes Dpal Hbyor.]
Edited, with an Analytical List of Contents in English, by Śrī Sarat Chandra Das. Calcutta,
1908.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland 41, no. 02 (1909):
521–24.
Rin chen sgrol ma (Ren qing zhuo ma). “Lo gyus dang ’brel nas mdo smad nang so’i skor rags
tsam gleng ba [A brief historical discussion on Mdo smad nangso].” Mtsho sngon mi rigs
slob chen rig deb 16 (2011.1): 35-49.
Rin chen sgrol ma (Ren qing zhuo ma). “Tanxi zangzu chuantong guanzhi nangsuo de lishi
yanbian 析藏族传统 职囊索的历史演变 [Preliminary Study on History of Tibetan
Official Position nangso].” Zhongguo Zangxue 122 (2016. 1): 125-131.
Roesler, Ulrike. “Classifying Literature or Organizing Knowledge? Some Considerations on
Genre Classifications in Tibetan Literature.” In Tibetan Literary Genres, Texts, and Text
Types, edited by J. Rheingans, 29-53. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Rongzeng Kezhjiacuo. “Libei lamou cahan nuomenhan hutukehu (xiarong kabu) zhuanlüe
历辈拉莫察汗诺门汗呼 克 (夏茸 布)传略 [Brief biographies of successive Lā mo
Cagan Nomunhan khutuγtus (zhabs drung dkar po)].” Xizang yanjiu (1994.1): 88-94.
Rudelson, Justin Jon. Oasis Identities: Uyghur Nationalism Along China's Silk Road. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1997.
Ruegg, David Seyfort. Ordre spirituel et ordre temporel dans la pensée bouddhique de l'Inde et
du Tibet. Paris: Collège de France, 1995.
Ryavec, Karl E. A Historical Atlas of Tibet. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.
304
Sadhukhan, Sanjit Kumar. “The Life of Sum-Pa Mkhan-Po (1704-1788), The Celebrated Author
of dPag-Bsam Ljon-Bzan.” In Bulletin of Tibetology, 12-15. Gangtok, Sikkim: Namgyal
Institute of Tibetology, 2012.
Sagaster, Klaus. Ṅag dbaṅ blo bzaṅ chos ldan (1642-1714): Leben und historische Bedeutung
des 1. (Pekinger) lČaṅ skya khutukhtu dargestellt an Hand seiner mongolischen Biographie
Subud Erike und anderer Quellen. Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 1960.
———. Subud Erike: ein Rosenkranz aus Perlen; dei Biographie des 1. Pekinger l Can skya
Khutukhtu Nag dban blo bzan c’os ldan. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967.
Samten Karmay. “Mountain Cults and National Identity.” In Resistance and Reform in Tibet,
edited by Robert Barnett, 112-120. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1994.
Sangs rgyas rin chen. “Lā mo bde chen dgon pa’i sku phyag gser khri rin po che’i sku phreng rim
byon gyi lo rgyus mdo bsdus ngo sprod zhu ba” [Introduction to brief history of the
reincarnations of the Gser khri rin po che of Lāmo Dechen monastery]. Mdo smad zhib ’jug 1
(1999): 108-118.
Śāntideva. The Bodhicaryāvatāra. Translated by Kate Crosby and Andrew Skilton. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1995.
Satō, Hisashi. “ Chibetto bunken no shiryō deki kachi 西藏文献の史料的價値( & ) [An
Examination of Tibetan Writings as Historical Sources].” (part I & II) Tōyōshi kenkyū 10.6
(1950): 58-66; 11.2 (1951): 51-62.
———. “ Robuzan danjin no hanran ni tsuite
ン ン ンの反乱
Revolt of Blo bzan bstan hdsin].” Shirin 55.6 (1972): 1-32.
いて [On the
———. “ Kinsei seikai sho buraku no kigen 近世 海諸部落の起源( & ) [Rise and Progress
of the Qing-hai Nomad Tribes].” (part I & II) Tōyōshi kenkyū, 32.1 (1973): 78-106; 32.2
(1973): 61-88.
———. Chibetto rekishi chiri kenkyū
ッ
of Tibet]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1978.
歴史地理研究 [Studies on Historical Geography
———. “ Daisandai tarai rama to arudahan no kaiken ni tsuite 第三代 ライラマとア
ン
ハンの會見
いて [On the Meeting of the Third Dalai Lama and Altan qan].” Tōyōshi
kenkyū, 42.3 (1983): 79-109.
———. “The Origins and Development of the Study of Tibetan History in Japan.” Acta Asiatica
64 (1993): 81-120.
Schaeffer, Kurtis. “Printing of the Words of the Master: Tibetan editorial practice in the
Collected Works of ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo re I (1648-1721).” Acta Orientalia 60
(1999): 159-177.
305
———. The Culture of the Book in Tibet. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009.
———. “Tibetan Biography: Growth and Criticism.” In Edition, éditions: l'écrit au Tibet,
évolution et devenir, edited by A. Chayet, C. ScherrerSchaub, F. Robin, and J.-L. Achard,
263–306. München: Indus Verlag, 2010.
———. “New scholarship in Tibet, 1650-1700.” In Forms of Knowledge in Early Modern Asia:
Explorations in the Intellectual History of India and Tibet, 1500-1800, edited by Sheldon
Pollock, 291-310. Durham [N.C.]: Duke University Press, 2011.
———. “Tibetan Poetry on Wutai Shan.” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan
Studies, no. 6 (December 2011): 215-42.
Schram, Louis M. J. The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Frontier. Edited by Kevin Stuart.
Xining: Plateau Publications, 2006 [1954, 1957 and 1961].
Schwieger, Peter. The Dalai Lama and the Emperor of China: A Political History of the Tibetan
Institution of Reincarnation. New York: Columbia University Press, 2014.
Sde srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho. Dga’ ldan chos ’byung baiḍūr ser po [History of Dge lugs pa
school: Yellow Beryl]. Beijing: krung go bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1998 [1698]
Shaw, Miranda. Buddhist Goddesses of India. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.
Silk, Jonathan A. ed. Wisdom, Compassion, and the Search for Understanding: the Buddhist
Studies Legacy of Gadjin M. Nagao. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2000.
Skal bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan, Shing bza’ V. La mo gser khri hu thog thu’i sku phreng gi lo
rgyus dang a chung gnam rdzong gi lo rgyus bcas [History of Galdan Siretü qutugtus of
Lāmo dechen monastery]. [Xining?]: Srid gros mtsho sngon zhing chen rma kho bod rigs
rang skyong khul u yon lhan khang, 1990.
Smith, E. Gene. Among Tibetan Texts: History and Literature of the Himalayan Plateau. Edited
by Kurtis Schaeffer. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2001.
Smith, Stewart. The Monasteries of Amdo: A Comprehensive Guide to the Monaseries of the
Amdo Region of Tibet. United States: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2013.
Snellgrove, David. Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists and Their Tibetan Successors.
London: Serindia Publications, 1987.
Sobisch, Jan-Ulrich. Three-vow Theories in Tibetan Buddhism: A Comparative Study of Major
Traditions from the Twelfth through Nineteenth Centuries. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert
Verlag, 2002.
Sperling, Elliot H. “A Note on the Chi-kya Tribe and the Two Qi Clans in Amdo.” In Les
Habitants du toit du monde: études recueillies en hommage à Alexander W. Macdonald,
edited by Samten Gyaltsen Karmay and Philippe Sagant, 111-124. Nanterre: Société
306
d’ethnologie, 1997.
———. “Notes on the Early History of Gro-tshang Rdo-rje-'change and Its Relations with the
Ming Court.” Lungta 14 (2000): 77-87.
———. “Some Preliminary Remarks on Influx of New World Silver into Tibet
during China’s ‘Silver Century’(1550-1650).” The Tibet Journal 34, no. 3&4/ 35, no. 1&2
(2009 and 2010): 299-312.
Spitz, Lewis. The Renaissance and Reformation Movements. St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House,
1971 (2 vols.).
Stein, Rolf Alfred. Les Tribus Anciennes des Marches Sino-tibétaines : Légendes, Classifications
et Histoire. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1961.
Su Faxiang, “Yunli yu Zangchuan fojiao 允礼与藏传 教 [Prince Yunli and Tibetan
Buddhism],” Zhongguo zangxue 85 (2009): 195-201.
Sujata, Victoria. Tibetan Songs of Realization: Echoes from a Seventeenth-century Scholar and
Siddha in Amdo. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005.
Sullivan, Brenton T. “The Mother of All Monasteries: Gonlung Jampa Ling and the rise of mega
monasteries in northeastern Tibet.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Virginia, 2013.
Sweet, Michael J. “Jesus the World Protector: eighteenth-century Gelukpa historians view
‘Christianity.’” Buddhist-Christian Studies 26, no. 1 (2006): 173–78.
Tarab Tulku. A Brief History of Tibetan Academic Degrees in Buddhist Philosophy. Copenhagen:
NIAS Publishing, 2000.
Thomas, Frederick W. Tibetan Literary Texts and Documents Concerning Chinese Turkestan,
Part I: Literary Texts. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1935.
Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma. The Crystal Mirror of Philosophical Systems: a
Tibetan study of Asian Religious Thought. Translated by Roger Jackson. Boston: Wisdom
Publicatiaons, 2009.
Thurman, Robert et al. The Life and Teachings of Tsong-khapa. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan
Works & Archives, 1982.
Tianzhu zangzu zizhixian weiyuanhui. Tianzhu zangchuan fojiao siyuan gaikuang 天祝藏传
教 院概况 [General overview of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in Hwari]. Tianzhu xian:
Zhongguo renmin zhengzhi xieshang huiyi Tianzhu zangzu zizhixian weiyuanhui, 2000.
Tongbo Tudengjiancan. Budala Gong guanzang Gelupai dianji mulu 布达拉宫馆藏格鲁派典籍
目录 [Catalogue of Gelugpa works preserved in Potala Palace]. Beijing: Minzu chubanshe,
2013.
307
Tshe tan zhabs drung. Bya khyung gdan rabs [Succession of abbotship of Bya khyung
monastery]. Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1984.
Tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa. Tsong Khapa's Speech of Gold in the Essence of True
Eloquence: Reason and Enlightenment in the Central Philosophy of Tibet. Translated by
Robert Thurman. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984.
Tucci, Giuseppe. Tibetan Painted Scrolls. Roma: Libreria dello Stato, 1949 (3 vols.).
Tuttle, Gray. “Local History in A mdo: The Tsong kha Range (ri rgyud).” Asian Highlands
Perspectives 6 (2010): 23-97.
———. “Challenging Central Tibet’s Dominance of History: The Oceanic Book, A 19th-century
Politico-religious Geographic Hisotry.” In Mapping the Modern in Tibet: Proceedings of the
Eleventh Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Königswinter, edited
by Gray Tuttle, 135-172. Andiast, Switzerland: International Institute for Tibetan and
Buddhist Studies GmbH, 2011.
———. “Building up the Dge lugs pa Base in A mdo: The Roles of Lhasa, Beijing and Local
Agency.” Zangxue xuekan 7 (2011): 126-40.
———. “An Unknown Tradition of Han Chinese Conversion to Tibetan Buddhism: Han
Chinese Incarnate Lamas and Parishioners of Tibetan Buddhist Temples in Amdo.” Zangxue
xuekan 9 (2014): 274-98.
———. “Pattern Recognition: Tracking the Spread of the Incarnation Institution through Time
and across History,” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 38 (2017): 29–64.
Ulan, M. “Songbakanbu dui Ruyi Baoshushi de buzhuan 松巴堪布 如意 树史的补撰 [Sum
pa mkhan po’s complementary writings for Ruyi Baoshushi]”. Journal of Beifang Ethnic
University (Philosophy and Social Science) 6 (2009): 39-40.
Uradyn Erden Bulag & Hildegard Diemberger. ed. The Mongolia-Tibet interface: Opening New
Research Terrains in Inner Asia : Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the International
Association for Tibetan Studies, Oxford, 2003. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Uspensky, Vladimir L. Prince Yunli (1697-1738): Manchu Statesman and Tibetan Buddhist.
Tokyo: Institute for the study of languages and cultures of Asia and Africa, 1997.
van der Kuijp, Leonard. “Tibetan Historiography.” In Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre,
edited by José I. Cabezón, 39-56. Ithaca: Snow Lion Press, 1996.
———. “The Dalai Lamas and the Origins of the Reincarnate Lamas.” In The Dalai Lamas: A
Visual History, edited by Martin Brauen, 15-31. Chicago : Serindia Publications, 2005.
308
———. “Tibetan Buddhism Meets Protestant Christianity: A Memorandum of Conversations of
Mā yang Paṇḍita with Cecil H. Polhill near Xining, Qinghai, on January 14-16, 1890.”
Historical and Philological Studies of China's Western Regions, no. 8 (2015), 443-482.
Van Schaik, Sam. Tibet: A History. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2011.
Veit, Veronika. “The Ordos Banners According to the Iledkel Šastir of 1795.” In Antoine
Mostaert (1881-1971), C.I.C.M. Missionary and Scholar, edited by Klaus Sagaster, 185-204.
Louvain, Belgium: Ferdinand Verbiest Foundation, K.U. Leuven, 1999.
Verboven, Koenraad, Myriam Carlier, and Jan Dumolyn. “A Short Manual to the Art of
Prosopography.” Unit for Prosopographical Research, 2007. Accessed March 31, 2016.
https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/376535.
Vostrikov, Andrei. “Some Corrections and Critical Remarks on Dr. Johan van Manen’s
Contribution to the Bibliography of Tibet.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 8
(1935-7): 51-76.
———. Tibetan Historical Literature. Calcutta: Past & Present, 1970 [1962].
Wakamatsu Hiroshi, “Galdan Siregetu Qutugtu kou: Shindai no chūkyō futokutō kenkyū
カ
ン
ウー
ク ウ考 [A Study of the Galdan siregetü qutuγtu],” Toyoshi
Kenkyu 33.2 (1974): 1-33.
Wang Furen and Chen Qingying. Mengzang minzu guanxi shilüe 蒙藏民族 系史略 [Brief
history of relations between Mongolian and Tibetan people]. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui
kexue chubanshe, 1985.
Wang Qing. “Souji minzu wenxian jishi 搜 民族文献记 [Record of Collecting Materials in
Minority Languages].” In Neimenggu tushuguan jianguan sanshiwu zhounian jinian wenji 内
蒙
书馆建馆 十五周 纪念文 , edited by Neimeng tushuguan guanqing bangongshi,
43-46. Hohhot: Neimenggu ribao, 1985.
Wang, Xiangyun. “Tibetan Buddhism at the Court of Qing: The Life and Work of lCang-Skya
Rol- Pa’i-Rdo-Rje, 1717-86.” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1995.
———. “The Qing Court's Tibet Connection: Lcang skya Rol pa'i rdo rje and the Qianlong
Emperor.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies vol. 60, no. 1 (Jun., 2000): 125-163.
Wangqian duanzhi et al., “Saban yu Liangzhou sida fosi 薩班與涼州四大
[Sa skya paṇḍita
and the four great Buddhist temples of Liangzhou].” Xizang yanjiu huixun 15 (1993): 9-14.
Willis, Janice D. Enlightened Beings: Life Stories from the Ganden Oral Tradition. Boston:
Wisdom Publications, 1995.
309
Wu jun. “Lun anmuduo zangqu de zhengjiao heyizhi tongzhi 论安木多藏 的政教 一制统治
[Discussion on the theocratic rule in the Amdo Tibetan area]”. Qinghai minzu xueyuan
xuebao (shehui kexue ban) (1982-3): 17-29.
Wu Jun. “Qinghai Lishi pingjia 海历史评价 [Evaluation of Qinghai Lishi]”. Journal of
Qinghai Nationalities Institute no.4 (1983): 46-52.
Wushenqizhi bianzuan weiyuanhui. Wushenqizhi 审旗志 [Gazetteer of Üüshin banner].
Hohhot: Neimenggu renmin chubanshe, 2001.
Wylie, Turrell V. The Geography of Tibet According to the ’Dzam-gling-rgyas-bshad. Roma:
Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1962.
———. “Reincarnation: a political innovation in Tibetan Buddhism.” In Proceedings of the
Csoma de Kőrös Memorial Symposium: held at Mátrafüred, Hungary, 24-30 September,
1976, edited by Louis Ligeti, 579-586. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1978.
Xu Changju. “Qinghaishi yu Anduo Zhengjiashi zhong de Heshuote Menggu lishi jishu zhi
bijiiao 海史与安多政教史中的和 特蒙 历史记述 比较 [A comparison of historical
accounts of Khoshut Monggols from Qinghaishi and Anduo Zhengjiashi]”. Journal of
Beifang University of Nationalities (Philosophy and Social Science) 3 (2012): 34-38.
———. Di er shi tu gaun a wang qu ji jia cuo zhuan yanjiu 第 世土观阿旺曲 嘉措传
研究 [A Study Of The Biography of Thu’u bkwan II Ngag dbang chos kyi rgya mtsho].
Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe, 2014.
Yamaguchi Zuihō. “Katsubutsu ni tsuite 活仏
いて [About incarnate Buddha].” In
Hotoke no kenkyū: Tamaki Kōshirō Hakushi kanreki kinen ronshū の硏究 :
玉城康四郎博 還暦記念論 , 285-302. Tōkyō : Shunjūsha, 1977.
———. “ Gojitsuhan no chibetto shihaini ataru keii 顧実汗の
ッ 支配 至る経緯 [The
Circumstances that culminated in Gushi han’s Hegemony in Tibet].” In Iwai Hakushi koki
kinen tenseki ronshū, 741-73, Tōkyō, Iwai Hakushi Koki Kinen Jigyōkai, 1963.
Yang, Eveline. “Tracing the Chol kha gsum: Reexamining a Sa skya-Yuan Period
Administrative Geography,” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 37 (2016): 551–568.
Yang, Ho-chin 楊和瑨. “Songba kanbu ji qisuozhuzhi Qinghaiji 松巴堪布及其所著
海記
[Sum pa mkhan po and his work, the Annals of Kokonor].” In Xizang fojiao jiaoyi lunji 西藏
佛教教義論 vol. I, edited by Zhang Mantao, 321-334. Taibei: Dasheng wenhua
chubanshe, 1979.
Yi, Jongbok. “Monastic Pedagogy on Emptiness in the Geluk Sect of Tibetan Buddhism:
Intellectual History and Analysis of Topics Concerning Ignorance According to SvātantrikaMādhyamika in Monastic Textbooks by Jamyang Shaypa.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Virginia, 2013.
310
Yingcong Dai. The Sichuan Frontier and Tibet: Imperial Strategy in the Early Qing. Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 2009.
Yixi Lamu. “Zangwen guji wenji wenxian ji qi baohu yanjiu xianzhuang zongshu 藏文 籍文献
及其保护研究现状总述 [A summary of current status of Tibetan collected works and their
study and preservation].” Minzu minzu wenhua 12 (2014): 93-97.
Yoeli-Tlalim, R. “Tibetan Medical Astrology.” In Astro-Medicine. Astrology and Medicine, East
and West, edited by A. Akasoy et al. (Firenze: Sismel Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2008), 223-236.
Yongdan, Lobsang. “Tibet charts the world: Bstan po no mon han’s The Detailed Description of
the World, An early major scientific work in Tibet.” In Mapping the Modern in Tibet:
Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies,
Königswinter, edited by Gray Tuttle, 73-134. Andiast, Switzerland: International Institute for
Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH, 2011.
Zangchuan fojiao huofo zhuanshi zhidu yanjiu ziliao xuanbian bianzhuan weiyuanhui.
Zangchuan fojiao huofo zhuanshi zhidu yanjiu ziliao xuanbian
藏传 教活 转世制度研究资料 编. Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe, 2014.
Zhang Yisun et al. Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo [Tibetan-Chinese dictionary]. Beijing: Minzu
chunabshe, 1985 (2 vols.).
Zhang Yuxin. Qing zhengfu yu Lama jiao: Fu Qingdai Lama jiao beikelu 清政府与喇嘛教: 附
清 喇嘛教碑刻录 [Qing government and Tibetan Buddhism: inscriptions of Tibetan
Buddhism in Qing as an appendix]. Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe, 1988.
Zhang Ziling. “Lun Zangwen shiji Ruyi Baoshushi de wenxian jiazhi 论藏文史籍 如意 树史
的文献价值 [A study of Tibetan Buddhist historical literature, Dpag bsam ljon bzang].”
Journal of Tibet Nationalities Institute (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) 32.6 (2011):
13-21.
———. “Cong Gushi Han de jiazu xitonh kan Luobozang Danjin de fan Qing yu shibai 固始
汗的家族系统看罗卜藏丹津的反清与失 [Study on Lobzang Tenzin’s rebellion against
Qing and its failure through Gushri Khan’s genealogy].” Heilongjiang minzu congkan 5
(2013): 120-124.
Zhao Yuntian ed. Qianlongchao neifu chaoben ‘Lifanyuan zeli’ 乾隆朝内府抄 《理藩院则例
[Precedents of the Court of Colonial Affairs]. Beijing: Zhongguo Zangxue chubanshe,
2006.
Zhongguo Zangxue yanjiu zhongxin zongjiao yanjiusuo ed. Zangchuan fojiao huofo zhuanshi
zhidu yanjiu lunwenji 藏传 教活 转世制度研究论文 [Studies on the Incarnation
Institution of Tibetan Buddhism]. Beijing: Zhongguo Zangxue chubanshe, 2007.
311
Zhou Runnian and Liu Hongji. Zhongguo Zangzu siyuan jiaoyu 中囯藏族 院敎育 [Tibetan
monastic education in China]. Lanzhou: Gansu jiaoyu chubanshe, 1998.
Zla ba tshe ring. La mo bde chen chos ’khor gling gi lo rgyus [A History of Lāmo dechen
chökhorling monastery]. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2014.
312