MONUMENTA TIBETICA HISTORICA Abteilung III, Band 18 (2) MONUMENTA TIBETICA HISTORICA HERAUSGEGEBEN VON Dieter Schuh, Christoph Cüppers, Wang Yao, Karl-Heinz Everding und Peter Schwieger ___________________________________________________________________________ Abteilung III: DIPLOMATA, EPISTOLAE ET LEGES Herausgegeben von Dieter Schuh und Christoph Cüppers Band 18 (2) Dieter Schuh und Jörg Heimbel Beiträge zur politischen Geschichte von Spiti zwischen 1629 und 1842 und zur Geschichte der Sa-skya-pa-Schule im äußersten Westen des tibetischen Hochlandes: Rechtsdokumente aus dem Kloster Gog-mig (~ sTeng-rgyud) in Spiti 2. Teil: Beiträge von Jörg Heimbel 2019 IITBS GmbH International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies/Andiast Front cover: The monastery of Go mig lHun grub rtse mo, Spiti (2017). © Jörg Heimbel Back cover: Close-up of the outer wall of Go mig lHun grub rtse mo, Spiti (2017). © Jörg Heimbel ISBN 978-3-03809-136-3 Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es nicht gestattet, das Buch oder Teile daraus photomechanisch oder auf andere Weise zu vervielfältigen. © (IITBS) International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH, Andiast (Switzerland). Jörg Heimbel The Ngor Branch Monastery of Go mig (sTeng rgyud) in Spiti: Its Foundation and Place Within the Religious History of Western Tibet Table of Contents Introduction 1 Acknowledgement 2 1. Previous Research on Go mig (sTeng rgyud) Monastery 3 2. Accounts of the Foundation of Go mig and sTeng rgyud 7 3. Earliest Mentions of Go mig and sTeng rgyud 13 4. Go mig as a Branch Monastery of Mang spro 15 5. The Sa skya pa in the sPrin Valley 16 6. The Place of Go mig Within the History of the Sa skya School in FifteenthCentury Western Tibet 18 7. Early ’Bri gung Activity at Go mig 25 Endnotes 29 Illustrations 45 Bibliography 127 1 Introduction While pursuing my dissertation research on the life and times of Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po (1382–1456), the founder of Ngor Monastery in gTsang Province of Central Tibet (dBus gtsang), I became acquainted with the business manager (gnyer pa), Pad ma bsam grub, of Go mig (sTeng rgyud) Monastery, a branch of Ngor situated in Spiti (var. Pi ti, sPi ti, sPyi ti) Valley. When he told me about a box filled with old legal documents stored in the monastery, my interest was immediately awakened. A few years and several invitations later, I could finally visit the beautiful valley of Spiti in July 2017, in order to investigate those documents and to answer my monk friend’s repeated requests to research the history of the monastery he oversees. Go mig (sTeng rgyud) Monastery lies in the high mountain desert of Spiti Valley, a traditionally Buddhist region of the Indian western Himalayas with a many-sided and complicated history. At present, Spiti Valley belongs to the district of Lahaul and Spiti in the north-eastern part of the Indian State of Himachal Pradesh. With the Lahaul subdivision of the district to the north-west, the valley borders the Indian districts of Ladakh (State of Jammu and Kashmir), Kullu, and Kinnaur to its north, west, and south. To its east, there lies the international border with the Ngari Prefecture of the Tibet Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China. In and around Kaza (var. Kaze; dKar mdzes, Khar rtse, mKhar rtse), the headquarters of the Spiti sub-division of the district of Lahaul and Spiti, four different sites are associated with the complex history of Go mig (sTeng rgyud) Monastery. At two of these only vague traces or ruins remain, whereas at each of the other two a functioning monastery can be found. To complicate things further, the monastery is known by two different names, with several variants encountered in its legal documents—Go mig (var. Go dmig, Gog mig, Gog smig, or Gong mig) and sTeng rgyud (var. Tang rgyud, gTang rgyud, sTang rgyud, or bsTang rgyud)—which were used interchangeably. Both names are seemingly toponyms deriving from the places where the monastery was once located. Go mig possibly refers to a smaller locality where today an eponymous village can still be found,1 and which the legal documents record as one of the monastic estate villages (chos gzhis) whose households had to pay dues in grain (bon) to the monastery in financial support.2 Go mig, in turn, forms part of sTeng rgyud, “the Upper Mountain Range,” a larger high mountain area to the east above Kaza, where other monastic estate villages of Go mig were located as well.3 Except for these toponymderived names, however, the legal documents do not record any proper name for the monastery. To begin with, it seems reasonable to identify the different monasteries situated at each of those sites. Starting with the current situation, sTeng rgyud dgon lHun grub chos ’khor gling is the main monastery located in Kaza (Fig. 17). It was founded, in 1974, by Khang gsar mKhan chen Ngag dbang mkhyen brtse Thub bstan snying po (1913–1988), the seventy-third abbot of Ngor Monastery (tenures: 1945–1948 and 1957–1959). From 2005 to 2009, it was rebuilt and enlarged by the Khang gsar bla brang branch of Ngor based in India (Ngor ma dgon, Manduwala, Dehradun). When Khang gsar mKhan chen Rin po che settled in Spiti in 1961 after fleeing from Tibet, there was no Sa skya monastery in Kaza. The old monastery generally known as sTeng rgyud dgon lHun grub rtse mo was then located on top of a precipitous ridge directly to the east above Kaza, where Rin po che is said to have commissioned some renovations in the early 1960s. It was that site that was described in the accounts of the early pioneering explorers of the Western Himalayas (Figs. 3–7), as shall be introduced below. However, as a result of the Kinnaur earthquake of January 19, 1975, the water source of the monastery dried up and the community of monks was forced to relocate. Making use of the old building materials (such as stones and wooden beams), they began rebuilding their monastery some kilometres to the east in the vicinity of Go mig village in 1979 (Figs. 8–14). When sTeng rgyud was rebuilt, there already stood an old temple (lha khang) directly above Go mig village, which was a protector chapel (mgon khang). This temple is simply known as “Old Monastery” (dGon rnying) these days, but hardly anything is known about its history. However, that temple’s location at Go mig is apparently the source of the 2 monastery’s old designation as Go mig, which is statistically more commonly encountered in refer to the foundation and subsequent development of the monastery, nor do any other the legal documents than sTeng rgyud.4 Prior to the 1975 earthquake, the temple had already historiographical sources known to me provide such details. In the following pages my aim been renovated on behalf of Khang gsar mKhan chen Rin po che, and directly attached to its is thus to introduce what I was able to learn about the monastery on the basis of the few southern side, Rin po che had a small residence (bla brang) built for himself in the mid-1960s, existing textual references supplemented by local oral lore, as well as epigraphic and art which was later enlarged when the entire monastery relocated to Go mig. At the same time, historical evidence. attached to the temple’s northern side, he had a Kun rig lha khang built. However, due to its Acknowledgement poor structural condition, it was demolished to make room for a museum building in 2015 (Figs. 15–16). The fourth and last site associated with Go mig (sTeng rgyud) is located at a place called mNgon dga’ to the north-west of Kaza on the western bank of the Spiti River, some hundred meters south of the village of Rang rig. There, according to local oral lore, two monasteries once stood, one of them a Sa skya monastery, the antecedent of Go mig (sTeng rgyud).5 The box containing the legal documents is now kept in the rebuilt monastery at Go mig. It contains more than hundred documents written in Tibetan, Urdu, and Hindi. But since the documents in Urdu and Hindi are of more recent origin, I only photographed those in Tibetan, which amount to 83 documents.6 The majority of them are stored folded together with only three being bound at the top or side of the page and one being rolled up. Moreover, one document was provided for documentation by a senior monk of the monastery. The box holds, in addition, two small books (one bound at the top and the other on the left side) of religious nature. The content of both books is identical, each consisting of the same two texts. My present modest contribution to the publication of the legal documents is a preliminary exploration of the early history of Go mig (sTeng rgyud), sketching the position of the monastery’s foundation within the larger context of the Sa skya school’s activities in the farwestern regions of the Tibetan plateau during the fifteenth century. However, the major obstacle I faced was the paucity of textual sources on the monastery’s foundation and further development. The documents housed at Go mig, as their analysis by Dieter Schuh has shown, date no earlier than the seventeenth century, the earliest of which is a copy of a royal deed of the Ladakhi king Seng ge rnam rgyal executed in 1629.7 Moreover, the documents hardly I would like to express my gratitude to Pad ma bsam grub and the monks of Go mig (sTeng rgyud) Monastery for granting me permission to photograph the legal documents, as well as express my heartfelt thanks for their generous help and hospitality during my stay in Spiti. I also owe much gratitude to Ven. Blo gsal don grub for sharing photographs of the documents he had taken in Mang spro Monastery, Ladakh, India. I am also highly indebted to Dieter Schuh for making the publication of the documents possible. After hearing that I had succeeded in photographing them, he kindly suggested publishing them in a joint volume. I sincerely thank Dieter Schuh for regularly sharing the results of his scholarly work in editing, translating, and discussing the documents prior to their final publication. I am also very grateful to Yannick Laurent for his continued and generous exchange of ideas and precious references. Moreover, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to David Jackson and Christian Luczanits for their valuable remarks on an earlier draft of this essay. Finally, I am highly indebted to September Cowley and David Jackson for carefully proofreading my English. 3 1. Previous Research on Go mig (sTeng rgyud) Monastery The earliest mentions of the monastery in Western scholarly literature date to the first decades of the twentieth century, though British colonial officials and explorers on the latter’s behalf might have visited the site already during the nineteenth century—that is, both prior to and after the annexation of Spiti by British India in 1846.8 Those early mentions were made by the great explorers of the Western Himalayas: the German missionary historian of the Moravian church August Hermann Francke (1870–1930), the British administrative officer and orientalist Henry Lee Shuttleworth (1882–1960), and the pioneering Italian scholar of Tibetan studies Giuseppe Tucci (1894–1984). Brief historical notes about the monastery were also published by two further members of the Moravian church, Joseph Gergan (c. 1878–1946) and Friedrich A. Peter from Switzerland. In the following pages I shall summarise their contributions chronologically, supplemented by references to the monastery’s later mentions. this monastery can be seen peeping out of a world of rocks, a mchod-rten was built. I should have visited it, had we not been far too tired for such a climb in the evening after our arrival, as well as next morning.11 Henry Lee Shuttleworth (1882–1960) Unlike Francke, Henry Lee Shuttleworth was able to visit sTeng rgyud, as evidenced by a black and white photograph he took of the monastery in 1917 or 1918 (Fig. 7). In his role as an assistant commissioner of Kulu, he had undertaken three journeys to Spiti during the summers of 1917, 1918, and 1924.12 Unfortunately, however, he was not able to compile the research results of his explorations into a monograph, as Yannick Laurent has observed in a recent paper of Shuttleworth’s life: […], the British officer was determined to write a historical account of the Spiti Valley. His ambitious work was never completed and Shuttleworth’s unfinished manuscript is currently in the national library of the United Kingdom.13 August Hermann Francke (1870–1930) In the summer of 1909, commissioned by the Archaeological Survey of India, August Hermann Francke embarked on “an archæological tour in Indian Tibet,” as he explains, 9 surveying Kinnaur, Spiti, and Ladakh. Of his four-month long journey, he spent slightly less than a fortnight exploring the Spiti Valley (July 29–August 7).10 In the first of his two-volume report about his explorations published in 1914, Antiquities of Indian Tibet, Francke briefly introduces sTeng rgyud Monastery after having reached Kaze (i.e., Kaza, dKar mdzes) on August 2, 1909: In a side valley of Kaze, high up on the rocks, there is the bTang-rgyud or Saskya-gong-mig monastery which belongs to the Sa-skya-pa order of lamas. Although it has a certain fame on account of its antiquity, it is believed to be inferior to the Ki monastery. The Kaze monastery has as always been favoured by the Nonos of Spiti, one of whose members takes orders as a Sa-skya-pa lama, just as the kings of Ladakh have bestowed special favour on the ’aBrugpa order of Lamas. Gong-mig means ‘the upper eye,’ and at the place, where Moreover, important documents attesting Shuttleworth’s research activities—unpublished manuscripts, notes, translations, black and white prints of his explorations—are preserved in the British Library. 14 Among these prints, one would possibly succeed in locating the aforementioned, first-ever published photograph of sTeng rgyud Monastery, which appeared in the The Times of India Illustrated Weekly on April 14, 1920.15 In addition, though unsigned, Shuttleworth can also be found to be responsible for the caption accompanying this black and white photograph: A group of Sakya lamas before their isolated monastery at Tangyud in Spiti. The present menastery [sic] was founded in its almost inaccessible position some 2 centuries ago after the more exposed older building had been burnt down by the Tso-po, the Mongol followers of King Galdan Tsiang, who was dreaded for his bravery and cruelty throughout Tibet, and the sight of whose body is even now considered to inspire the beholder with some of his valour. The name of the builder of the present foundation is recorded as Lobsan 4 Chekep of Gongmig village in an old Tibetan book kept by the Head of the territory belonging to other sects; to the dGe lugs pa (pron. Ghelupà), that is to Establishment and shown to few outsiders. To the west the monastery looks say the yellow sect or reformed party founded by Tsoṅ K’a pa—the only one down on the Spiti valley. To the north-east it faces the sacred snowclad twin which we have met with hitherto—succeed in this zone of Kaze the Sa skya pa peaked mountain of Cho Cho Gang Milta, over 23,000 feet high. (pron. Sakiapà) so called from Saskya Paṅ c’en, who was the first to receive the 16 investiture of Tibet from the Mongolian dynasty, and who carried out a first Joseph Gergan (c. 1878–1946) reform in the heart of Lamaism. The history of the sect in Western Tibet, An important collaborator of both Francke and Shuttleworth was Joseph Gergan alias bSod according to some texts found by Tucci, seems to go back to the fourteenth nams tshe brtan Yo seb dGe rgan. Born in Ladakh as the son of a former Tibetan monk, century. Moravian mission. Besides writing about Christianity in Tibetan, Gergan produced a efforts of a community, diffuses its influence throughout the whole region and scholarly account of the history of Ladakh, the Bla dwags rgyal rabs ’chi med gter, in which he attracts to itself the laity of the villages which live under its spiritual protection. included a chapter on Spiti based on information he gathered during his visits to the valley Whilst remaining within the grand orbit of Lamaism, every sect follows its while serving for the Moravian mission in Kyelang, Lahul (1920–1926). Among his listing own particular style of mystic performances or of ritualism and bestows its of Spiti’s monasteries, he also records sTeng rgyud: “At sTeng rgyud, [there is] sTeng rgyud preference on this or that deity, on this or that master, according to its fancy; monks.” schools, except perhaps against the rÑiṅ ma pa (pron. Gninmapà), “the ancient Joseph Gergan was among the first two ordained Ladakhi ministers who served for the 17 dgon pa of the Sa skya pa, which is a branch monastery of Ma sro [and which has] eighty 18 The monastery, once constructed, by the liberality of a prince or by the joint but there exists not a shadow of intolerance or of animosity amongst the various ones”, because they have accepted and held in favour the beliefs left by the Giuseppe Tucci (1894–1984) Bonpo. But Padmasambhava is venerated and receives homage from every sect; To gather materials on the political, religious and artistic history of Western Tibet, Giuseppe and the people take no part in the antipathy of the monks for rival leaders, but Tucci embarked, from June to November 1933, on one of his several scientific expeditions to always show the same pious respect for all temples, all gods, and all priests, the Himalayas. For three weeks (July 01–22) the Tucci Scientific Expedition to Western 19 because they know how to live in a world in which there are moving, acting Tibet, as it was called, also explored the Spiti Valley, “in order to,” as Tucci explains, and interacting thousands of forces, with which, if disaster is to be avoided, it “complete and verify the conclusions reached by Francke.”20 In the entry for July 10 of the is necessary to keep oneself on good terms. published chronicle of the expedition, Secrets of Tibet, the following report is found about visiting sTeng rgyud Monastery: A short march to Kaze. On our left a path leads to Langja where, according to some information received at Kibar, there ought to be a Bonpo temple. The search made by Norbu, an intelligent and capable man, who in the evening returns wearily from his investigation, is negative in its result. We are in a In this village is the monastery of our Lama; here we feel somewhat as if we are at home. Under a burning hot sun, we begin the ascent leading to the monastery, which we glimpse through a cleft in the mountain, high above, on the living rock, perched there like a falcon’s nest. We mount slowly along this road, if such it can be called, stony and incredibly steep; one cannot take a single step without slipping and causing a fall of stones. At midday, very tired, 5 perhaps more because of the heat than the exertion, we halt at about a hundred they show that their family is derived from ancient rulers who administered the metres below the pass (41oo metres) to have lunch. district in the name of the Ladakh kings. of cheese and if we did not check him in time he would eat along with it all passages and deserted courtyards to the Lha k’aṅ which is at the highest point the tinfoil. A little because of the heat, a little because of the unaccustomed of the monastery; in its austere shade, seated on long cushions where the monks food, a little because of weariness, he has an attack of stomach trouble, and squat during religious services, we imbibe horrible tea, the worst we have ever cures himself by eating a kind of friable stone resembling lime which he had. We study the few pictures and explore the poor library, but even there we searches for amongst the rocks bordering the track. Having left the pass succeed in finding something interesting which the authority of our Lama gets having carefully removed the rind and the spiny leaves. Their rather bitter, very with our generous contribution to the convent and its few inhabitants. In the pleasant taste serves to allay our thirst, which is intense. evening down the steep descent to the camp.21 Escorted by the rejoicing chapter, we wend our way through narrow Even our Lama has reached the limit of his strength; we offer him a piece us permission to carry away. And then follow the usual dances, which close behind, we also follow his advice and nibble the stalks of the wood-thistle, after But the monastery is still far distant; after the pass comes an immense grassy plain at the height of more than 4ooo metres. Beyond that, on the extreme horizon, gigantic mountains. One understands why the monastery of Kaze is called “the outpost of the sect”, and we understand also why Francke says that he had no time to climb to the monastery during his brief stay in Kaze. The monastery is surrounded by lofty walls built on the verge of tremendous precipices. The massive walls, painted in stripes of white, red and black, and having a considerable slant, give to the gompà the appearance of a strong mediæval fortress. The hollow, solemn sound of copper trumpets sounded by the monks in honour of the Lama of the West, re-echoes from valley to valley. The whole chapter of the convent comes along the road to meet us, whilst under the walls other priests blow magnificent silver trumpets. Tired and breathless as we are, we have to adapt ourselves to the custom of every devout pilgrim and make the ritual circuit of an interminable little wall covered with stones, on which is cut the sacred formula of Avalokiteśvara. We are able to examine one by one and to photograph the votive inscriptions, almost all of the time of the king of Ladakh Ñi ma rnam rgyal; they are important because they preserve the name of certain Gagas, as they call the Nonos of Spiti, and The chronicle was written by Tucci based on the personal diary of Eugenio Ghersi (1904– 1997). Ghersi was a medical officer of the Royal Marine who had accompanied Tucci as physician and photographer on this and a subsequent expedition to Western Tibet (in 1935),22 and whom Tucci himself praised as “the best of companions and most helpful of collaborators; to him belongs all the credit for the magnificent photographic documentation.”23 Recently, the personal diary of Ghersi was published as part of a study undertaken by David Bellatalla, wherein we find Ghersi’s own description of the expedition’s visit to sTeng rgyud: At 8:30 we leave for the monastery that our Lama, hired by the caravan in Kibar, belongs to. Us, the Lama and two men begin the climb up a steep and rocky path, which makes the walk exhausting. At midday, we stop a few hundred metres away from the pass for a brief rest (the temperature is 55°). Our Lama breaks up some rocks and gulps down some small bits, assuring us that they are excellent for improving our breathing at this altitude. He offers us the core of savage thistles, a great thirst-quencher with a beneficial effect on breathing. 6 […] At 12 o’clock we cross the pass (4200 m), and after a short descent we reproduces the latter two scenes of the mask dance and shows the northern side of the arrive within sight of the monastery which looks like a medieval fortress; very monastic complex not as close-up, but as a distant shot (Figs. 3, 5–6).27 In addition, images red, blue and white stripes from top to bottom. Having reached less than 50 by the Luce National Institute based on film footage taken by Ghersi during the expedition.28 high walls built on the edge of intense cliff-faces. The walls are coloured with of the monastery appeared in the documentary film Nel Tibet occidentale, which was edited metres from the entrance of the monastery, our Lama advised Tucci that on our right there is a remarkably long Mani…a Mani is a small wall, about a F. A. Peter metre high and 50-100 cm wide. The length varies. All stones that are placed Friedrich A. Peter, a second-generation missionary of the Moravian church, “served in the on the high part are inscribed with prayers, and sometimes various religious Himalaya,” as mentioned by John Bray, “from 1898 to 1936.”29 To improve the spelling of stories. Occasionally, close to some monasteries, the Manis are composed of Tibetan place names as found on maps published by the Survey of India, Peter explains that, 108 Ciortens (Mc-od-rten in Tibetan). When it comes to crossing a Mani, During my stay in Ladakh and Lahul between 1930-40 in the service of the you must proceed with the Mani on your right. Moravian Church and on extended journeys to Nubra, Zangskar, Spiti and At the entrance, we are greeted very warmly by the Chansod, and the 18 Kunavar, I began to make a study of the names of the places I visited.30 monks of the monastery. From what they say, in the old days there were over In his paper “Glossary of Place Names in Western Tibet,” Peter added brief historical notes 200 monks. Surrounded by monks, we cross spacious courtyards and ample for each site he recorded, which partly seem to derive from Francke’s report: stairs to then reach a large room where we find tea and ciuly ready. After the tea, the monks leave to prepare a dance in Tucci’s honour. The dance is Kaze commendable, performed with a lot of effort, but certainly modest in Tib: Khar-rtse, mKhar rtse comparison to the one in Kyi. Tucci has not found any works of particular Map: Kaja interest in the libraries and chapels. Before leaving the monastery, Tucci set Village in Spiti on the north bank of the Spiti river. In a side valley is the down a discreet amount of rupee in front of that altar as a sign of devotion. At sunset we are already at camp. Sa-skya-pa monastery bTang-rgyud also known as Sa-skya-gong-mig. 24 Founded in the 14th century it was restored by King Nyi-ma-rnam-rgyal of For this visit, both entries in the chronicle and diary are accompanied by black and white photographs taken by Ghersi, which can also be found in a third study about the life and photographic documentation of Ghersi.25 The chronicle reproduces two and the diary three photographs of the monastery, as well as an additional sketch of its maṇi-wall and entrance. 26 The first photograph in both publications shows a close-up of the northern fortification of the monastic complex (Fig. 4) and the second an inner courtyard where, in front of a stūpa, a religious mask dance was performed by the monks in honour of the expedition. The diary adds as a third photograph another scene from that monastic dance. The third study Ladakh (c. 1705–1734). The imposing building is difficult to reach and seems now impoverished.31 After those early reports, hardly any subsequent research has addressed the monastery’s history in a substantial way, probably owing to the lack of written sources. Most later sources mentioned the monastery only in passing, when dealing with different aspects of the history of Spiti and the Tibetan Buddhist schools that were established there, and then they simply identified it as adhering to the Sa skya school. 32 Two notable exceptions were the contributions made by the Tibetan scholars bKra shis tshe ring and Blo gsal don grub. In his 7 brief historical account of dKyil Monastery (i.e., Nor bu dge ’phel), the historian bKra shis tshe ring, utilising the dGa’ ldan chos ’byung of sDe srid Sangs rgyas mtsho (1653–1705) along with local oral lore, briefly touched on the founding of sTeng rgyud when discussing the foundation of dKyil Monastery. 33 Similarly, while investigating the history of Mang spro Monastery in Ladakh on the basis of legal documents preserved there, the monk scholar Blo gsal don grub discussed the history of Go mig as a branch monastery of Mang spro. 34 Moreover, on the basis of the legal documents preserved at Go mig, I have seen two unpublished versions of a preliminary history of the monastery written by the Spitian monk Phurbu Tsering Bodh, respectively entitled sTeng rgyud dgon gyi lo rgyus mdor bsdus and sPi ti steng rgyud dgon gyi lo rgyus.35 In addition, a recent study in Tibetan of Ta po Monastery by Rāhula (alias dGe ’dun bsod nams) devotes one page to the recent history of sTeng rgyud when introducing various Buddhist sites of the Spiti Valley. 36 2. Accounts of the Foundation of Go mig and sTeng rgyud The earliest mention of the founding of Go mig is given by a monastic inventory register— the Newly Recorded Register: Treasury [Fulfilling] All Desires (Deb yig gsar bkod ’dod dgu’i bang mdzod). It is a copy of an earlier, incomplete inventory from 1722 with later additions, the terminus post quem of which is 1793. As an introduction to the listing of dues that the individual households of Go mig’s monastic estate villages (chos gzhis) had to pay to the monastery, as well as a listing of the pastures, mountain areas, and fields it owned, the register contains a brief historical introduction, beginning with: The one who clears away the darkness of sentient beings through insight and loving compassion, Mañjughoṣa, The supreme one prophesied by the Victorious One, the one with the name Kun dga’, The protectors of sentient beings of the degenerating age, the Sa skya pa, May their stainless teachings spread in [all] ten directions! As for this Sa [skya] monastery, a branch monastery of Ngor, called Gog mig, very early on [it] was newly built by mKhan chen Chos dpal bzang po. It was lovingly protected by King bKra shis rnam rgyal. Then it was lovingly protected by the Gu ge Dharma King and thereupon by the Dharma King of the [dGa’ ldan pho brang] Government dGa’ ldan tshe dbang dpal bzang po. Thereafter, the sussessively appearing Dharma kings such as the sPyi ti Jo chung lovingly protected the religious income bases of Gog mig. The original text of the great scroll about the religious income bases, bon grain dues, and landholding units, which are property retained in accordance with earlier practice, is as follows.37 The same passage, though with a different ending, is also found as part of a brief legal document housed at the Sa skya monastery of Mang spro in Ladakh, of which Go mig 8 became a branch monastery at one point. Within this document, it introduces the listing of Mang spro and sKyid mang along with their founders and was thus most likely destined for territories, pastures, and mountain areas belonging to Go mig.38 both of their monastic communities: Both passages identify Go mig as a branch monastery of Ngor E waṃ chos ldan, the main seat of the Ngor sub-school of the Sa skya tradition, which was founded in 1429 by Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po in the remote valley of Ngor, located about 30 kilometres southwest of bSam grub rtse (present-day gZhis ka rtse) in gTsang Province of Central Tibet (dBus gtsang).39 Ngor chen is also mentioned within those verses, namely as the one with the name element Kun dga’ who, according to tradition, was prophesied by the Buddha in the Kuśalamūlaparidharasūtra and Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra. 40 As the founder of Go mig, the passage introduces mKhan chen Chos dpal bzang po, whom I suggest we should identify as Gu ge Chos dpal bzang po, a personal disciple of Ngor chen, who not only wrote a versified biography of his master but also set down some of his master’s teachings in writing. Sangs rgyas phun tshogs (1649–1705), the twenty-fifth abbot of Ngor, lists in his biography of Ngor chen—a compilation of early Ngor chen biographies that he compiled into a single extensive account in 1688—Chos dpal bzang po among a group of Ngor chen’s disciples associated with the region of mNga’ ris. By introducing him specifically as Gu ge Chos dpal bzang, he clarifies his place of origin or main sphere of activity as Gu ge.41 That Chos dpal bzang po was indeed active in Gu ge is confirmed by the first supplement to the abbatial history of Ngor written by dPal ldan chos skyong (1702–1760), its thirtyfourth abbot. The biographical sketch of Tshul khrims lhun grub (1676–1730), thirty-second abbot of Ngor, relates that Tshul khrims lhun grub travelled, in 1711, “to the monastic seat of numerous scholar-adepts called Rab rgyas gling in sTod mNga’ ris, which had been founded by Chos dpal bzang po.” Rab rgyas gling was one of the largest Ngor branch 42 monasteries in mNga’ ris (Fig. 18), and until new sources prove otherwise, I propose ascribing its foundation to Gu ge Chos dpal bzang po as well.43 Moreover, Chos dpal bzang po was also active in the bordering kingdom of Ladakh, as recorded in an undated document on monastic discipline (bca’ yig) issued by Ngor and housed at Mang spro Monastery, where it was photographed by Dieter Schuh in 1975. As pointed out by Schuh, this document does not contain a publicatio, but mentions the monasteries of Ma gros dgon was founded by Drung pa rDo rje bzang po. bsKyid mangs dgon was founded by mKhan chen Chos dpal bzang po. Ever since rDo rje ’chang Kun dga’ bzang po, who had obtained the nectar of prophecy from the excellent vase of the mouth of the Victorious One himself, [we] should make efforts to study such [topics] as the previous venerable masters’ religious discipline, daily recitations, [and] ritual practices in line with the tradition of the Great Monastic Centre [i.e., Sa skya or Ngor].44 Based on this passage, Chos dpal bzang po can be identified as the founder of sKyid mang Monastery, which was located in south-eastern Ladakh near the western bank of the Indus. Like Go mig, sKyid mang became a branch of Mang spro as well. Returning to the foundation of Go mig, another legal document housed at the monastery is of great interest because it mentions a fifteenth-century Spitian master affiliated with Go mig. Like the aforementioned register, it consists of a listing of dues that the individual households of Go mig’s estate villages (chos gzhis) had to pay to the monastery. Based on internal evidence, the terminus ante quem for its writing is given by Dieter Schuh as 1727. It opens with a brief historical introduction: Oṃ swasti. The one who clears away the darkness of sentient beings through insight and loving compassion, Mañjughoṣa, The supreme one prophesied by the Victorious One, the one with the name Kun dga’, The protectors of sentient beings of the degenerating age, the Sa skya pa, May their stainless teachings spread in [all] ten directions! This monastery prophesied by Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po, Go dmig, was at first set foot upon by mKhan chen Rin chen bsod nams. Beginning with the Great Dharma King lHa chen bKra shis rnam rgyal, its religious income 9 bases [and] various kinds of bon grain dues— that is, its revenue for conducting Like Chos dpal bzang po, Rin chen bsod nams was thus personally linked with Ngor chen. religious ceremonies—were graciously taken care of with great love in The statement that he had set foot in Go mig first might possibly be understood in the sense succession by [his] descendants. The Gu ge Jo bDag po also graciously looked after [it] according to earlier practice. The Dharma King dGa’ ldan Tshe dbang graciously looked after [it] according to earlier practice as well. The list of the incoming bon grain dues is as follows.45 When compared, this passage differs slightly from the beginning of the register translated above. Instead of designating Go mig as a Ngor branch and identifying its founder as mKhan chen Chos dpal bzang po, it specifies the monastery as having been prophesied by Ngor chen. mKhan chen Rin chen bSod nams is introduced as the first master to have set foot in it. But unfortunately, hardly anything is known about this master. The only reference to him that I am aware of is found within the biography that Sangs rgyas phun tshogs wrote of Ngor chen. There he is mentioned as “mKhan po Rin bsod from Pi ti,” who was among a group of students on whom Ngor chen bestowed teachings in sPu rang, following the invitation of the king of Gu ge, Khri Nam mkha’i dbang po Phun tshogs lde (1409–1480), whose invitation reached Ngor chen during his second sojourn in Glo bo (Mustang) from 1436 to 1437: On this occasion of [Ngor chen’s] second-time [visit], bZhi sde pa Drung rNam rtse held talks with Gu ge King Khri Nam mkha’i dbang po. As a result, Gu ge’i mKhan chen Chos nyid seng ge, the religious master [and his] disciples, were dispatched to invite [Ngor chen]. Chos rje Rin po che [i.e., Ngor chen], the religious master [along with] about one hundred disciples, were invited to that he functioned as one of its first monastic heads. Whether or not Go mig was already founded when Ngor chen visited sPu rang remains pure speculation. But it is interesting to note that the opening verses of the document create a strong link with Ngor chen by claiming that he had prophesied (i.e., commissioned?) the monastery, though this cannot be confirmed based on his biography. In a shorter form, such a link is also found in a small booklet including two religious texts bound on the left side, entitled bKa’ sgo (Figs. 60–70). The first of its two untitled, unsigned and undated texts, a three-folio ritual invocation of protective deities, attributes the prophecy to Ngor Monastery, in general. Interestingly, within this context, the text provides the proper name of the monastery: “[…] Gong mig lHun grub rtse mo that was prophesied from Ngor E waṃ chos ldan […].”47 If both Chos dpal bzang po and Rin chen bsod nams were connected to the early history of Go mig, as the two aforementioned documents state, then the monastery’s foundation should be dated to the fifteenth century. But such a dating is difficult to reconcile with the earliest donor recorded in those documents, the Ladakhi king lHa chen bKra shis rnam rgyal. Based on the chronological listing of the donors, who also represent the successive sovereigns of Spiti, as well as on internal evidence outlined by Dieter Schuh for dating the registers, bKra shis rnam rgyal should be identified as the sixteenth-century king of Ladakh, and not as the eponymous eighteenth-century king of Purig. This identification hints at the fact that bKra shis rnam rgyal might have conquered Spiti in the first decades of the second half of Pu hrangs. [They] resided at rGyal de’u for three months. [Ngor chen] the sixteenth century, as mentioned by Luciano Petech using epigraphic evidence from the condensed family of [Vajra]pañjara on [masters] such as Bla ma sPrul sku ba Another inscription (F.185) commemorates repairs carried out by bKra-śis- bestowed empowerments such as of Kālacakra, Ḍākārṇava, [and] the and others from Gu ge, mKhan po Rin bsod from Pi ti, a few dge bshes from Ladakh, [and] many monastics along with [those from] Pu hrangs.46 monastic complex of Alchi: rnam-rgyal at A-lci and records victories against the Mon (perhaps the people of Kulu or Chamba), the Hor etc., and conquests in Ru t’og and Spiti below, 10 Suru and Hem-babs (Dras) above, as far as Baltistan, Nubra and Zaṅs-dkar, since then is: Khri rtse ba Drung pa Thub pa bSod nams don grub, sGra mi all these countries becoming his subjects. rtag pa, Tshul khrims bkra shis, Pi ti Rang rig pa Mang thos rgya mtsho, rTa 48 The fact that there is a hundred-year gap between the two earliest known masters connected with Go mig and the monastery’s first recorded donor can presently not be explained convincingly. But one possibility could be that the donor of the monastic foundation is simply not mentioned in those two documents, and that royal patronage was granted from Gu ge, the kingdom to which Spiti is believed to have belonged at that time and whose king, despite his support for the proponents of Tsong kha pa’s teachings, also patronised the Sa skya school, as shall be explained below. Coming back to the foundation of Go mig, local oral lore has more to say about the monastic history, which can partly be corroborated by written evidence. To begin with the latter, sDe srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho (1653–1705) mentions in his history of the dGe lugs school, which he completed in 1698, the existence of a Sa skya monastery at mNgon dga’ (presently also known as Rong k/grong),49 a site located north-west of Kaza on the western bank of the Spiti River within the larger area known as Rang rig and to the south of the eponymous village. The sDe srid does this when presenting the history of the dGe lugs monastery of Nor bu dge ’phel at dKyil (Fig. 19) within his presentation of branch monasteries of Ta po. According to the sDe srid, both a dGe lugs and Sa skya monastery originally existed at mNgon dga’, but both had to move, for which he specifies no reason. The dGe lugs pa relocated to dKyil, he continues, where Shes rab blo gros founded Nor bu dge ’phel.50 With respect to the fate of the Sa skya monastery, the sDe srid remains silent, however: Its [i.e., rTa so chos sde (Ta po)] branches became the dGe [lugs] Monastery and Sa [skya] Monastery at mNgon dga’. However, both had to shift. mNgon dga’, at present, is monastic ruins, and the dGe lugs pa shifted to Nor bu dge ’phel, which was founded by Khri rtse Slob dpon Shes rab blo gros, the great [spiritual] son of Byangs sems Shes rab bzang po. The succession of lamas so pa bsTan pa rgya mtsho, Khu rig pa bSod nams rgya mtsho, sKyid sbar pa bZod pa rgya mtsho, bSod nams dpal ’byor, [and] presently Rang rig pa dGe legs rgyal mtshan. The mantra [seminary’s system] is the rGyud smad system. The monastic community has about sixty-nine [members].51 The link with a pre-existing monastery at mNgon gda’ prior to the founding of Nor bu dge ’phel at dKyil can also be gleaned from a passage found in the dGe lugs history of mKhar nag Lo tsā ba dPal ’byor rgya mtsho (fl. 16th/17th century), which served as one of the main sources for the sDe srid’s history. While listing the branches of Ta po, mKhar nag Lo tsā ba refers to the monastery by conflating both toponyms of where Nor bu dge ’phel had successively been located:52 In Pi thi, at first, Lo chen Rin chen bzang po founded rTa so chos sde, out of which dKyil chos sde mNgon dga’ evolved, and out which that [monastery] evolved that was founded by Sangs rgyas ’od zer. As for his younger brother, Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan, [he] was the incarnation of the Dharma Lord Tshul khrims chos kyi rgyal mtshan.53 mNgon dga’, as the sDe srid states, “at present, is monastic ruins.” Even nowadays some fleeting traces of these ruins, such as the remains of erstwhile walls (and a nearby cave),54 can be seen at the opposite ends on top of a small hill that is partly surrounded by the Ratang River, a small tributary of the Spiti River coming out of the Ratang Valley directly to its south-west,55 in the middle of which a small hydropower station was constructed (Figs. 20–22). In his recent history of Nor bu dge ’phel, by conflating local oral lore and the account of sDe srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtso,56 the Tibetan historian bKra shis tshe ring explains the following about the history of Go mig: 11 Moreover, there were two [monasteries] located at the site of present-day Rang contains such a reference, there survives a royal decree by a king of Ladakh that mentions a rig, a dGe [lugs] Monastery founded by Rang rig pa Sangs rgyas ’od zer and a “Gog mig Fortress” (gog mig mkhar) among the collection of legal documents of No no bSod Sa [skya] Monastery. After a short time, due to the hardships of not having nams dbang ’dus, which were studied by Dieter Schuh.60 According to Schuh, the decree was favourable conditions including fire, water, [and] wood, the two [monasteries], executed between 1765 and 1782, after an invasion of troops from Bashahr to Spiti, and it is the upper and lower monastery, Sa [skya] and dGe [lugs], had to shift to introduced by him as follows: another site individually. Therefore, even now monastic ruins can be seen at mNgon dga’. That Sa [skay] monastery was combined with an old monastery of Go mig lHun grub rtse mo by mKhan chen Chos dpal bzang po and transformed into sTeng dgon Chos ’khor gling. The dGe lugs pas of mNgon dga’ shifted to dKyil dgon Nor bu dge ’phel.57 In the present decree, King Tshe dbang rnam rgyal reports on the 30th day of the 4th month that he has learned of the attack from Bashahr and the successful defense of the castle of Go mig and promises a reward for the potential merits of the defenders. He informs that Ga ga bSod nams as a troop leader with three hundred musketeers (du bag) has set out from Leh to Spiti In this presentation, bKra shis tshe ring weaves together the individual strands of history by already before the beginning of the 5th month and urges them to defend the ascribing to Chos dpal bzang po the re-establishment of a monastery called sTeng dgon castle until the arrival of the troops from Leh.61 Chos ’khor gling by combining two older monasteries, that is, the one at mNgon dga’ with the previously existing one of Go mig lHun grub rtse mo, though he does not specify the location of the latter two. Moreover, local oral lore preserves another account regarding the existence of the protector chapel at Go mig and the erstwhile monastery at sTeng rgyud. According to this account, there once stood a monastery at Go mig (including a building called Bla brang dmar po and a large stūpa), which was destroyed by a Mongolian army. But due to the intervention of the Dharma protector Pañjaranātha, who clouded his protector chapel in fog, the army failed to destroy his chapel.58 Afterwards, their monastery in ruins, the monastic community relocated, settling in a fort (rdzong) located at sTeng rgyud. But when the statue of Pañjaranātha was moved to the new location, it became heavier and heavier on the way until finally it could not be carried anymore and was thus returned to the old protector chapel, becoming lighter and lighter while being carried back.59 Interestingly, this account identifies the original structure in which the monks settled at sTeng rgyud as having been a fort. Though none of the legal documents housed at Go mig A closer look at the pictures of the northern part of the monastic complex taken by Henry Lee Shuttleworth and Eugenio Ghersi show high fortified walls. Given that Spiti suffered from temporary invasions of looting forces from its neighbours between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, these fortifications were most likely built in response to defend the monastery.62 Rather than originally having been a fortress, the monastic complex served both as a shelter and stronghold for defence during those incursions, which is confirmed by local oral lore, and it might have thus been referred to as a fortress (mkhar) in the aforementioned royal decree. Moreover, the aforementioned brief historical note about sTeng rgyud by Shuttleworth refers to the destruction of the monastery: The present menastery [sic] was founded in its almost inaccessible position some 2 centuries ago after the more exposed older building had been burnt down by the Tso-po, the Mongol followers of King Galdan Tsiang, who was dreaded for his bravery and cruelty throughout Tibet, and the sight of whose body is even now considered to inspire the beholder with some of his valour. 12 The name of the builder of the present foundation is recorded as Lobsan history, Chos dpal bzang po, as its founder, and bSod nams rin chen, as a likely early monastic Chekep of Gongmig village in an old Tibetan book kept by the Head of the head. Establishment and shown to few outsiders. 63 The invading faction can most likely be identified as the Tibeto-Mongolian army of dGa’ ldan tshe dbang, the Mongolian military commander who, on behalf of the dGa’ ldan pho brang government, embarked upon a campaign of conquest in Western Tibet (mNga’ ris), waging war against Ladakh (1679–1684), as the result of which Ladakh and Spiti came under the rule of the dGa’ ldan pho brang government for more than two decades, until 1708/09.64 As explained by Dieter Schuh, the acquisition of Spiti’s administration by the dGa’ ldan pho brang government after the conclusion of the peace treaty of 1684 between Ladakh and the dGa’ ldan pho brang government was by no means problem-free. The monasteries of Spiti opposed newly introduced tax obligations from Tibet and the confiscation of fields of Go mig Monastery almost led to a rebellion of its monks.65 But since warlike operations of dGa’ ldan tshe dbang in Spiti or subsequent incursions by troops of the Western Tibetan administration are presently not known from any other textual sources, I can neither confirm Shuttleworth’s observation nor disprove it. However, given the fact that Mang spro Monastery houses a copy of a protective writ that dGa’ ldan tshe dbang executed for Go mig Monastery, and that he is recorded among the benefactors of Go mig in the aforementioned registers, it seems rather unlikely that dGa’ ldan tshe dbang was responsible for destroying Go mig. 66 Nevertheless, we should take note of the remark by Shuttleworth that Go mig was rebuilt after its destruction at a different site than the previous one and that there was a text, which might have actually been shown to him, recording the name of the person responsible for rebuilding the monastery, that is, “Lobsan Chekep” from the village of Go mig. In sum, the previous discussion has raised more questions about the foundation of Go mig Monastery than it has given answers. What is certain, however, is the fact that the monastery was linked with three different localities: mNgon dga’, Go mig, and sTeng rgyud. Moreover, two fifteenth-century disciples of Ngor chen are closely associated with its early 13 3. Earliest Mentions of Go mig and sTeng rgyud The earliest mentions of Go mig and sTeng rgyud are contained within legal documents dating to the seventeenth century, two centuries after the founding of the monastery in the fifteenth century, which I proposed above. Furthermore, references to Go mig are recorded in the autobiographies of Tāranātha (1575–1634) and dPal ldan chos skyong (1702–1760), the thirty-fourth abbot of Ngor. This section shall thus briefly introduce these references. The earliest known mention of Go mig dates to 1629 and is found within a composite manuscript consisting of certified copies of six legal documents issued by the successive Ladakhi kings Seng ge rnam rgyal, bDe ldan rnam rgyal, bDe legs rnam rgyal, and Nyi ma rnam rgyal, and the production of these copies is dated by Dieter Schuh to 1793. The first of the six documents was originally issued in 1629 by the Ladakhi king Seng ge rnam rgyal as a confirmation of existing legal rights (rgyab gnon) that had been granted by his father ’Jam dbyangs rnam rgyal (d. ca. 1616) to Me me Chos kyi blo gros, the then monastic head (dgon ’dzin) of Mang spro Monastery in Ladakh. Go mig is mentioned when the circumstances for issuing the confirmation are related (narratio): All lamas, masters, and monks of Mang spro and that what forms part of [its] religious income bases—that is, Gog mig, sKyid mang, [and] Pa char—in short, [all] that which is part of the religious income bases of Mang spro Monastery has been offered by my precious father to Me me Chos kyi blo gros.67 Chos kyi blo gros is given as number nine in the preceptorial line of Mang spro Monastery, as recorded in the list Mang spro dgon gyi bla brgyud by the Ladakhi scholar ’Jam dbyangs rgyal mtshan, a former monk of Mang spro.68 Chos kyi blo gros is said to have come to Ladakh from Tibet at about the time when the Ladakhi king ’Jam dbyangs rnam rgyal had been released from his captivity in Baltistan in the 1590s. Following a failed military intervention by that Ladakhi king in a local conflict in Purig, Ali Sher Khan, the king of Baltistan, had overrun Ladakh taking ’Jam dbyangs rnam rgyal hostage. The looting forces of Ali Sher Khan are said to have forced the local monks of Khri rtse and Mang spro to carry their spoils back to Baltistan, and the incumbent monastic head of Mang spro, Drung pa Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan, passed away en route. Moreover, since none of the monks made it back to Mang spro, the monastery fell into decline and lost its patrons and estates. But after ’Jam dbyangs rnam rgyal was reinstalled as king of Ladakh, he granted Chos kyi blo gros all previous legal rights and the latter began to renovate Mang spro.69 The second document is a reconfirmation of the continued maintenance of those rights as granted by ’Jam dbyangs rnam rgyal and Seng ge rnam rgyal to Mang spro Monastery. Furthermore, the confirmation mentions the continuity of the rights for Mang spro’s branch monasteries of Go mig and sKyid mang. The confirmation was issued in 1670 by the Ladakhi king bDe ldan rnam rgyal and his son (Mang spro houses an original version of this confirmation), and Go mig is mentioned within the narratio: [I] have recognised all the existing [rights] for the branch monasteries of Mang spro: as for Go mig in sPyi ti, all there is of the cultivated areas of fields and farms imposed with bon grain dues and of the monastic estate villages; as for sKyid mang, all there is of the fields and farms imposed with dpya dues, as well as taxes and the like.70 In comparison, the earliest mention of sTeng rgyud dates slightly later, to 1689, the time of the dGa’ ldan pho brang supremacy over Spiti, and can thus most likely be taken as the terminus ante quem for the relocation from Go mig to sTeng rgyud. It is found within a copy of a decree finalising both tax obligations and exemptions of Spiti monasteries. The decree was apparently issued by the Western Tibetan administration of sGar thog after, as Dieter Schuh explains, the monasteries of Spiti refused to pay new taxes demanded by the Western Tibetan administration; taxes which had not existed prior to the Tibetan occupation. Moreover, the monasteries also refused to pay the old taxes from before the takeover by the dGa’ ldan pho brang government. The present decree stipulated that while the newly 14 demanded taxes were unlawful, the old ones had to be paid. 71 The decree begins with hostage (bu gte) for some years (i.e., at least since 1624 or earlier), because he had become the outlining the circumstances leading to its issuing (narratio) and contains an enumeration of cause for a dispute with the ’Brug pa and dGe ldan pa schools. While at bSam ’grub rtse, the Spiti monasteries, including sTeng rgyud: Mar yul bDag po took monastic ordination from Tāranātha, who further remarks that his To you [members of] monasteries and branches along with [your] monastic estate villages upwards to rTa pho and downwards to Blo gsar—that is, rTa pho, Legs spel, dKyil, sPrin pa, [and] sTeng rgyud—of the region of Spiti that belongs to the Government [i.e., the dGa’ ldan pho brang], […].72 Another, entirely unrelated source mentioning Go mig is the autobiography of Tāranātha (1575–1634), which ends with events dating to 1633. For the year 1630, Tāranātha records therein that he had to despatch someone to preside over “the monastery called Go mig in Pi ti, a border region of Gu ge.”73 He further relates that he had to do so following the repeated wishes of Mar yul bDag po Ye shes dbang phyug. But since, as Tāranātha informs us, the 74 Jo bo bDag po of Gu ge needed to be contacted in that matter first, he did accordingly and received a positive reply for his undertaking. Unfortunately, in this episode, Tāranātha does not name the person he despatched to Go mig. Instead, he uses this episode to complain about the fact that even though he was the one counselling the gTsang kings (sde pa gtsang pa), adherents of the dGe lugs, ’Brug pa, and Ngor schools—counsellors of the rulers (sde srid) of the previous governments—were criticising him and holding him responsible for their own loss of influence under the present government of the gTsang kings.75 This brief episode is not only interesting for its mention of Go mig but also for its political implications. As it mentions the Jo bo bDag po of Gu ge (i.e., Khri Grags pa bkra shis lde?), it suggests that Spiti was by 1630 ruled from Gu ge, not long before the Ladakhi king Seng ge rnam rgyal conquered Gu ge in the early 1630s and Spiti fell under the jurisdiction of Ladakh. Moreover, a question arises who the aforementioned Mar yul bDag po Ye shes dbang phyug was. Earlier in his autobiography when relating about a visit to bSam ’grub rtse in 1626, Tāranātha identifies the Mar yul bDag po as the youngest son of the Ladakhi king ’Jam dbyangs rnam rgyal and reports that he had been staying at bSam ’grub rtse as a disciple would now be living at dPal Thar pa (bde chen rab brtan) gling.76 Later, after having both studied with and taken full monastic ordination from Tāranātha in 1630, the Mar yul bDag po desired to return to sTod (i.e., Ladakh?), but, as Tāranātha explains, was prevented from doing so by the government of the gTsang kings (sde srid gzhung) on the basis of flimsy pretexts.77 According to the Royal Succession of La dwags (La dwags rgyal rabs), ’Jam dbyangs rnam rgyal fathered four sons with two wives: Ngag dbang rnam rgyal and bsTan ’dzin rnam rgyal with his first wife Tshe ring rgyal mo (both excluded from the royal succession) and Seng ge rnam rgyal and Nor bu rnam rgyal with his second wife rGyal Kha thun.78 However, no son by the name of Ye shes dbang phyug is recorded. The Royal Succession of La dwags and other textual sources, such as the biography of sTag tshang Ras pa Ngag dbang rgya mtsho (1574– 1651), contain details to varying extents about the lives of three of those four sons, except for the one of bsTan ’dzin rnam rgyal, about whom “nothing is known,”79 as Petech put it. Thus, although it is an unlikely possibility, bsTan ’dzin rnam rgyal and Mar yul bDag po Ye shes dbang phyug could have been one and the same person. His latter name, Ye shes dbang phyug, could have then been his ordination name that he had received from Tāranātha. We know that also his brother, Ngag dbang rnam rgyal, became a monk taking ordination from sTag tshang Ras pa and thereby receiving the name ’Dzam gling grags pa.80 Moreover, a passage in the Royal Succession of La dwags suggests that both brothers visited the Central Tibetan provinces of dBus and gTsang making religious offerings to the Jo bo statue in Lhasa and at such monasteries as ’Bras spungs and Ra lung.81 However, further research will be needed to clarify these preliminary speculations, to explain the involvement of Ye shes dbang phyug in the aforementioned sectarian conflict and his interest in Go mig, and to look into any possible relation between his detention in bSam ’grub rtse and the troubled fraternal 15 4. Go mig as a Branch Monastery of Mang spro succession of his half-brothers Seng ge rnam rgyal (r. 1616–1623 and 1624–1642) and Nor bu rnam rgyal (r. 1623–1624) during those year. 82 The last mention of Go mig that I can introduce here also originates from a textual source from Central Tibet, though it dates more than a century later than Tāranātha’s work. It is found within the autobiography of dPal ldan chos skyong, the thirty-fourth abbot of Ngor, which includes eleven lists of predominantly Sa skya monasteries. One of these lists is a register of monasteries in Glo bo (Mustang), Nepal, Gu ge, and Ladakh that received from him a communal alms distribution to their monastic assembly along with offerings of votive butter lamps. The entry for Ladakh enumerates as the first three monasteries Mang spro dgon, sKyid mang dgon, and Go mig dgon.83 As illustrated by the two aforementioned confirmation letters of Seng ge rnam rgyal (1629) and bDe ldan rnam rgyal (1670), within the earliest existing legal documents issued by the successive Ladakhi kings during the seventeenth century, Go mig appears as a branch monastery (dgon g.yog, dgon lag)84 of Mang spro Shar gling chos ’khor in Ladakh,85 along with the latter’s other branch of sKyid mang Rin chen gling, 86 and all three are collectively addressed.87 Moreover, in legal documents directed only to Go mig, the monastery is given as a branch of Mang spro as well. For instance, Mang spro houses a copy of a protective writ for Go mig that was issued by dGa’ ldan tshe dbang, the aforementioned Mongolian military commander of the dGa’ ldan pho brang government in the war against Ladakh (1679–1684), wherein the monastery is referred to as “Go mig in sPyi ti, a branch monastery of Ma gro.”88 The confirmations of Seng ge rnam rgyal (1629) and bDe ldan rnam rgyal (1670) refer to legal rights of Mang spro and its branches that had originally been granted by the Ladakhi king ’Jam dbyangs rnam rgyal, who was the father of the former and grandfather of the latter, to Me me Chos kyi blo gros, the then monastic head (dgon ’dzin) of Mang spro. In addition, an earlier affiliation of Go mig as a branch is mentioned within another confirmation letter issued by the Ladakhi king bDe legs rnam rgyal in 1686, of which a certified copy is preserved at Go mig and an original version at Mang spro. Therein, Go mig’s affiliation with Mang spro is associated with the time of the monastery’s founding by Drung pa rDo rje dpal bzang po: Earlier, beginning from the time of Drung pa rDo rje dpal bzang po himself until the [end of] the aeon, the monastery of Ma dro together with its branches, as mentioned above,89 has been safeguarded by [our] superior forefathers in order to offer service for the teachings of the glorious Sa skya pa and to aim at supportive religious services for them.90 But due to the paucity of textual sources, as in the case of Go mig and sKyid mang, not much is known about the foundation of Mang spro or its founder, Drung pa rDo rje dpal bzang 16 po.91 The aforementioned document on monastic discipline (bca’ yig) issued by Ngor and housed at Mang spro is the only accessible text identifying the monastery’s founder, though it neither provides a date for its issuing nor a name of the issuing authority such as the name of the incumbent abbot of Ngor, who sent it, merely stating: “Ma gros dgon was founded by Drung pa rDo rje bzang po.”92 But reportedly Mang spro preserves a document referring to the Ladakhi king lHa chen Grags ’bum lde (r. ca. 1450–1490),93 as the donor of the founding of Mang spro by Drung pa rDo rje dpal bzang, a tantric master from Sa skya Monastery in Central Tibet. The latter was allegedly staying in a meditation cave called dGon mo che close to the site of the later foundation of Mang spro when Grags ’bum lde, as is also recorded in the Royal Succession of La dwags, commissioned a large-size stūpa, the so-called Te’u bKra shis ’od ’phro, at a site called Te’u gser po (“Small Yellow Hill”), because that site was inflicting harm on the region of Leh (Gle or Sle). The small hill was encapsulated by a structure that outwardly appeared as a stūpa but inwardly had a hundred chapels.94 For consecrating this stūpa, Grags ’bum lde is said to have invited Drung pa rDo rje bzang po. In return, the king patronised the foundation of the monastery that rDo rje bzang po wished to build and provided him both with a site at Mang spro and the material means for securing the monastery’s income.95 This foundation account makes it highly unlikely that Go mig was already conceived as a branch monastery of Mang spro at its inception. For me it seems more plausible that an originally independent foundation of Go mig first became a Mang spro branch with the conquest of Spiti by bKra shis rnam rgyal, the aforementioned king of Ladakh, during the second half of the sixteenth century. This assumption would also better justify the statement in the households’ register of Go mig’s monastic estate villages translated above that, beginning with bKra shis rnam rgyal, the basis of Go mig’s monastic income was taken care of by the latter’s descendants, that is, the kings of Ladakh. 5. The Sa skya pa in the sPrin Valley Among the documents preserved at Go mig Monastery, there is one that attests to the existence of a Sa skya monastery in the sPrin (or sPin) Valley of Spiti. Though not a legal document, it contains an account of the conversion of a further unspecified Sa skya institution into a rNying ma monastery —the unnamed author refers to the rNying ma school derogatorily as “degenerates” (snyigs ma)—and lists the heads of households of villages in sPrin who had to pay dues to an afterwards newly established Sa skya institution (the latter are excluded from the following translation): With respect to the religious income bases in sPin: Since former times, there existed the Sa skya’s own complete religious income bases and donors. In the meantime, sMan lha’i me me bKra shis tshe ring acted as a “Degenerate” (i.e., became a follower of the rNying ma school) and converted the monastic community to the “Degenerates.” dPon slob Kun dga’ bsam ’grub quarrelled with the sPin pa about that. Afterwards, Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan, the district prefect of Brag mkhar, decided a verdict at the bridge of Ling ti and divided [the benefice] in 3/5 and 2/5; three parts for the Sa skya pa and two parts for the “Degenerates.” In addition, to teach the monastic community the Dharma, Kun dga’ rnam rgyal, the personal servant of Kun dga’ bsam ’grub, together with bSam ’phel, a full monk of Bla ra, bKra shis, a full monk of Go mig, and bSod nams phun tshogs, a full monk of Yi khyim, resided equipped with kitchen facilities in Go ling Monastery, as it used to be, for about four years. Religious services for the living and the guiding of the dead were observed in Go mig Monastery.96 The only rNying ma monastery presently existing in sPrin and in Spiti as a whole is gSang sngags chos gling at Gung ri. As pointed out by Namgyal Henry, “we know that the tradition of Padma gling pa was established in the Pin Valley by a certain bKra shis tshe ring, born at the end of the 16th century, and who later became known by his religious name Byang chub bzang po.”97 The idea of identifying bKra shis tshe ring with the sMan lha’i me me bKra shis tshe ring from the document translated above immediately suggests itself; this would thus 17 make him responsible for the monastic conversion of a pre-existing Sa skya institution into was able to locate some remains, which made it seem likely that the temple fell victim to a gSang sngags chos gling. landslide.104 98 As shown by Dieter Schuh, we can identify dPon slob Kun dga’ bsam grub as a teacher of Go mig Monastery who was obviously so upset about the conversion and associated loss of benefice that the district prefect of Brag mkhar had to be approached to settle the matter. Kun dga’ bsam grub, for instance, is mentioned as Bla ma Kun dga’ bsam grub in registers recording legal documents of Go mig within the context of legal rights granted to him for the monasteries of Go mig and sPrin by bDe mchog rnam rgyal, the king of Zangs dkar.99 This observation is important for dating the conversion, for, as Schuh explains: “Since the division of Ladakh after the death of Seng ge rnam rgyal and the surrender of power over Zangs dkar and Spiti to bDe mchog rnam rgyal occurred in 1647, the events described in sTeng rgyud 68 should have taken place at the earliest after 1647.”100 The copy of another document preserved at Go mig helps to narrow down the conversion date even further. It is a copy of a decree originally issued to the officials of Spiti by a high official of the dGa’ ldan pho brang government in the Bla brang of mTho lding Monastery in the wood-ox year, that is, 1685. Within the narratio, the document names the religious affiliation of monasteries present in Spiti: “these monasteries of the three [religious schools] of sPyi ti, Sa [skya], dGe [lugs], and rNying ma.”101 We can therefore assume that by the time of issuing this decree the conversion had taken place. After the conversion, the remaining non-converted Sa skya monks apparently settled at “Go ling dgon,” where they were taught by four monks, including the personal servant of Kun dga’ bsam grub, who had been especially dispatched for this purpose (from Go mig?). The existence of a Sa skya monastic structure at Gu ling (i.e., Go ling) was confirmed by Henry on the basis of his field research. He explains that the Sa skya pa founded a small temple above Gu ling and below Bar, 102 which he was told had been abandoned at the beginning of the twentieth century. But he was able to locate the remains of its original structure at the site, which had been rebuilt into a hermitage by a local monk from Gu ling.103 According to local oral lore, Henry further notes that before building the temple at Gu ling, the Sa skya pa built a temple at a place called “Pika”—or “Phige” as my informant referred to it— in the vicinity of the village of dBen sa, a few kilometres south-east of Ti ling, where he 18 6. The Place of Go mig within the History of the Sa skya School in Fifteenth-Century Western Tibet The foundation of a Sa skya monastery of the Ngor branch in the far-western fringes of the Tibetan plateau can not be understood as a single, isolated event, but rather has to be understood as part of a larger network of monastic foundations established during the fifteenth century in Ladakh, Spiti, Gu ge, sPu rang, and Glo bo (Mustang), the stories of which foundations we are slowly able to begin weaving together. On the religious side, the major force behind the largest part of these foundations can conclusively be identified as Ngor chen Kun dga’ bzang po and his disciples, many of whom originated from mNga’ ris, who were patronised and economically supported in their endeavours by the kings of Ladakh, Glo bo, and Gu ge. Though a more detailed survey of fifteenth-century Sa skya foundations in Tibet’s Far-west, which were predominantly Ngor pa, remains to be performed, I shall here present a brief overview with the aim of clarifying the broader religio-political context in which the founding of Go mig occured.105 As I have shown in more detail elsewhere, Ngor chen made three journeys (1427–1428, 1436–1437, and 1447–1449) to Glo bo, a borderland principality in Lower Western Tibet (mNga’ ris smad), following repeated invitations from the region’s new rulers.106 With the consolidation of Glo bo as an independent kingdom under A ma dpal (1388–ca. 1456), the new ruling house of Glo bo distinguished itself as a religious patron of both Buddhism and Bon, promoting religion on a scale previously unseen in their domain. Under the patronage of A ma dpal and his son and heir, A mgon bzang po (1420–1482), Ngor chen was responsible for founding major monastic establishments in the domain of his wealthy donors. He refounded an old Vinaya seminary (’dul grwa) known as sTeng chen that later developed into the monastery of Thub bstan bshad sgrub dar rgyas gling, newly established the monastic complex of Brag dkar Theg chen dar rgyas gling, and restored the old rNam rgyal Chos sde which led to the founding of Thub bstan dar rgyas gling. He furnished these institutions with a monastic code, syllabus, tantric ritual system, and with his commissions of manuscript versions of the Buddhist canon, and ordained a large number of individuals into the local Buddhist order, including the king A ma dpal himself. Moreover, he introduced the custom of sending local monks from Glo bo to Sa skya for their scholastic examination (grwa skor) and having them visit other Sa skya monasteries in dBus and gTsang for further studies, and it became customary for the successors on Ngor chen’s abbatial throne to pay regular visits to Ngor’s branches in Glo bo at the invitation of the successive kings. As a result of this close bond, Glo bo became one of the Ngor tradition’s early strongholds. In comparison, Ngor chen’s founding of one monastery each in sPu rang and Gu ge is not as richly described in his biographies. Nevertheless, both foundations can be related to his three-month sojourn in sPu rang on the invitation of Nam mkha’i dbang po Phun tshogs lde, the king of Gu ge, which the latter extended during Ngor chen’s second stay in Glo bo from 1436 to 1437. Ngor chen’s biographer Sangs rgyas phun tshogs informs us about this sojourn as follows: On this occasion of [Ngor chen’s] second-time [visit], bZhi sde pa Drung rNam rtse held talks with Gu ge King Khri Nam mkha’i dbang po. As a result, Gu ge’i mKhan chen Chos nyid seng ge, the religious master [and his] disciples, were dispatched to invite [Ngor chen]. Chos rje Rin po che [i.e., Ngor chen], the religious master [along with] about one hundred disciples, were invited to Pu hrangs. [They] resided at rGyal de’u for three months. [Ngor chen] bestowed empowerments such as of Kālacakra, Ḍākārṇava, [and] the condensed family of [Vajra]pañjara on [masters] such as Bla ma sPrul sku ba and others from Gu ge, mKhan po Rin bsod from Pi ti, a few dge bshes from Ladakh, [and] many monastics along with [those from] Pu hrangs. At Nya rtse rig, [he] instituted the Kālacakra sgrub mchod [and] at bZhi sde, the sgrub mchod of Ḍākārṇava. [He] turned on a large scale the Wheel of Dharma [giving] expositions of such [works] as the Dvikalpa [i.e., the Hevajratantra], sByong rgyud [i.e., the Sarvadurgatipariśodhanatantra], [and] Dus ’khor ’grel chen [i.e., Kalkī Puṇḍarīka’s Vimalaprabhā]; [he], moreover, [granted] to many living beings the great generation of bodhicitta and [teachings on] mind training. The Gu ge King took pravrajyā monastic ordination, and [Ngor chen] newly established a large monastery. There also exists an outstanding chronology of 19 the Buddhist doctrine that [Ngor chen] made at that time. Offering [i.e., 1373] until the ox [year] [i.e., 1433] and three [more] years passed, during uncountable rows of butter lamps in front of the Kha char Jo bo, [he] prayed the fourth [year], in the male fire-dragon year [i.e., late 1436 or early 1437], sKyid grong. By calculating the time, 3,569 years passed since the Teacher had passed away for the flourishing of the Buddha’s doctrine. Likewise, [he] also did that at 107 According to this account, Ngor chen travelled with a large entourage to sPu rang where he took residence at rGyal de’u (or rGyal ti), a former capital of sPu rang and castle of their erstwhile kings, where he bestowed teachings on a gathering of monks from Ladakh, Spiti, Gu ge, and sPu rang. He also travelled locally to the monasteries of Nya rtse rig and bZhi sde, where he instituted sgrub mchod rituals, and gave further teachings. Moreover, he granted ordination to the king of Gu ge, founded an unnamed large monastery, and visited the temple of Kha char (or ’Khor chags). the Dharma King Khri Phun tshogs lde took pravrajyā monastic ordination. and this year of the present year falls on the [3,5]70th.” [Ngor chen] bestowed the empowerment of Kālacakra at Nya rtse rig, a monastery of Pu hrangs, bestowed the empowerment of bCom ldan ’das mkha’ ’gro rgya mtsho at bZhi sde, [another] monastery [of Pu hrangs], instituted the [offering of] rten gtor at Chos ’khor Khwa char, and performed an innumerable number of [novice-]monk and full-monk ordinations. More details about Ngor chen’s sPu rang sojourn can also be learned from the biography of Other sources related to the Sa skya school mention Ngor chen’s sPu rang sojourn. The Ngor chen’s attendant and biographer, Gu ge Paṇḍita Grags pa rgyal mtshan (1415–1486),109 second most detailed account is found within the autobiography of the princely monk scholar which was written by the latter’s disciple mNga’ ris bZhi sde pa ’Jam dbyangs Nam mkha’ Glo bo mKhan chen bSod nams lhun grub (1456–1532), which he wrote in about 1514. Glo brtan pa in 1488 at Ngor. According to this work, Gu ge Paṇḍita formed part of the inviting journeys to Glo bo. Within his presentation of Ngor chen’ second journey, he also records inviting party was already present in Glo bo when Ngor chen performed the consecration of Ngor chen’s sPu rang sojourn, also including the religious chronology (bstan rtsis) Ngor chen the monastery of Brag dkar Theg chen dar rgyas gling. During this consecration, Gu ge wrote when ordaining the Gu ge king at Kha char: Paṇḍita met for the first time with his future teacher Ngor chen and received from him his bo mKhan chen opens his autobiography with an extensive account of Ngor chen’s three Then, once again, Drung rNam rtse formed a connection [between Nam mkha’i dbang po and Ngor chen], which had persisted from the previous [visit], and the Dharma Lord travelled [to Kha char] to present offering lamps to the Three Jo bo Brothers of Pu hrangs. Concurring with that, also the Royal Divinity from Gu ge, the Venerable One, travelled [to Kha char] and took pravrajyā and upasaṃpadā monastic ordination. [Ngor chen] filled the [king’s] mind stream with the bodhisattva vow and numerous bestowals of empowerments and also beautified [him] with the ornament of the superior ascetic practice of a vidyādhara.108 At that time, [Ngor chen] also composed a chronology of the Buddha’s doctrine, explaining: […] Then, [when] one sixty-year cycle from the ox [year] party sent to Glo bo, and he served as the attendant of Drung Nam mkha’ rtse mo. This very first empowerment of the Sa skya tradition. During the winter of 1436–1437, Gu ge Paṇḍita also received the Lam ’bras, and afterwards he and the rest of the inviting party travelled back to sPu rang. Ngor chen is said to have followed a little later. At Kha char, as the biography briefly relates, Ngor chen then bestowed pravrajyā monastic ordination on the king of Gu ge and gave many teachings in sPu rang.110 One important detail of Ngor chen’s sPu rang sojourn was called into question by a contradictory account included within the Royal Succession of mNga’ ris (mNga’ ris rgyal rabs), a text that has been attributed by Roberto Vitali to Gu ge mKhan chen Ngag dbang grags pa and dated to 1497.111 Within this text, the ordination of the king of Gu ge is dated to his fourty-first year, which, according to the Tibetan tradition of calculating years, would have been 1449 (and not 1436/37), and, furthermore, no ordaining preceptor is specified: 20 “Thereafter, in [his] forty-first [year], [he] took the victory banner of liberation in front of tradition of g.Yag ston Sangs rgyas dpal (1348–1414). Among the monasteries established the Three Silver Brothers in Kha char. [He] was named lHa rJe btsun Shākya ’od.” by Ngor chen where that tradition was maintained, Shākya mchog ldan records rGyal byed 112 The political situation in sPu rang at the time of Ngor chen’s sojourn also requires further tshal in sPu rang and brGya gling thang in Gu ge and explains that the former was personally clarification. While for Petech “Purang was a dependence of gLo-bo,” Vitali has explained founded by Ngor chen and the latter merely founded following his instructions.116 Since Ngor that it “was only sometime after 1450 that Pu hrang again passed under the jurisdiction of chen was invited to sPu rang by Phun tshogs lde, we can assume that that Gu ge king himself Mustang […], for there is evidence that, up to that year, this region had not yet been retaken patronised both of these foundations. by Glo bo,” but was instead under the control of Gu ge.113 These shifting power relations Though almost nothing is known about the first of these two monasteries, rGyal byed may have also found expression on the religious scene, for Kha char lost its ’Bri gung tshal, except for some names of its early monastic heads and teachers,117 rGya gling thang works mention this shift in religious affiliation. The first is a history of Kha char Monastery east of rTsa pa rang.118 At Phyi dbang, one finds on top of a small ridge ruins of a fortress written by Ngag dbang bsod nams rgyal mtshan (b. 1830s, d. 1890s), the fifty-fifth abbot of (mkhar) of the kings of Gu ge,119 monastic ruins, and a large complex of caves spread out over Ngor, and the second a history of and guide to the holy places of Mt. Kailash and Lake the cliff face (Figs. 23–26). In the Royal Succession of mNga’ ris, as pointed out by Vitali, Phyi Manasarovar by bsTan ’dzin chos kyi blo gros (1868–1906), the thirty-fifth abbot of ’Bri dbang is given as the site where the dKar sag lha khang, considered one of the eight earliest gung. The former relates that A mgon bzang po, the king of Glo bo, commissioned a temples built in mNga’ ris during the time of Ye shes ’od (947-1019/24), was once located.120 embankment built. The latter explains that A mgon bzang po offered the temple to Ngor visited sPu rang, for Phun tshogs lde married Khri lcam rgyal mo, the daughter of a Ladakhi chen and that since then it was (and still is) held by the Sa skya school. king, at “Phyi wang” at age sixteen (= fifteen), that is, in 1424.121 affiliation and became a Ngor branch during the mid-15th century. Two nineteenth-century renovation of the “three receptacles” of Kha char and had, for the temple’s protection, a new 114 Though this shift was identified by the late Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po as Phyi dbang dgon, located to the north- The site, or most likely its fortress, was also still in use by the Gu ge royalty when Ngor chen in religious affiliation might have been influenced by political events, one should not ignore The original site of the foundation of Phyi dbang rGya gling thang, as Gu ge Tshe ring the fact that both the kings of Glo bo and Gu ge were patrons of Ngor chen and that thus rgyal po explains, was located on a large plain to the east of the royal fortress. But fearing that other factors could have played a role. One such factor, as pointed out by Petech, was the the monastery would be destroyed by flooding and landslides as a result of heavy rain during decline of ’Bri gung mthil, the mother monastery of the school in Central Tibet, only a where it stood the test of time until the Cultural Revolution.122 diminishing influence of the ’Bri gung school in mNga’ ris. Following the fifteenth-century the summer, it was later on moved to the top of the ridge and rebuilt next to the fortress, few ’Bri gung meditators came to Western Tibet, and the ones who did were unable to The fact that religious activity at Phyi dbang predated the founding of rGya gling thang maintain their local branches and hermitages, some of which were entrusted to members of is evidenced by mural paintings preserved in caves at the cliff face. In his report on the site, the ’Brug pa bKa’ brgyud school. Thomas J. Pritzker briefly introduces mural paintings he discovered in some of these caves: 115 Returning to Ngor chen’s founding of monasteries in Gu ge and sPu rang, the only known mention within his biography by Sangs rgyas phun tshogs states that while in sPu rang, Ngor chen founded a large monastery (chos sde chen po). The fact that he was also responsible for a foundation in Gu ge can be learned from a work by Ngor chen’s disciple Shākya mchog ldan (1428–1507), who identifies both foundations when discussing the spread of the Pramāṇa In spite of the large number of caves at Piyang, only two have early paintings and neither match the quality seen at Dungkar. In addition, the murals in Piyang have suffered from the elements. The most interesting early paintings belong to a cave whose original access was long ago lost to a landslide. Access 21 is now provided by a small tunnel along its side. Inside rows of painted the latter’s biography. Interestingly, all three of them originate from within a non-Sa skya Buddhas, although not particulary elegent, certainly reflect the style of the environment and can be associated with the Dwags po bKa’ brgyud school. two early sets of cave murals, but also a large cave and a few prayer rooms with ma and bKa’ brgyud schools. As a child, the Paṇḍita himself received his first bKa’ brgyud murals from around the sixteenth or seventeenth century. teachings from Bla ma dam pa Chos dpal ’dzin pa and rNying ma and ancestral teachings eleventh and twelfth centuries. […] Piyang’s paintings include not only the 123 Thanks to the documentation by Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po and other scholars, more and more images of these mural paintings are now becoming accessible. 124 Deciphering the iconographical programme and lineages of Sa skya masters depicted in two of those caves (nos. 32 and 34) will hopefully help in proposing a more precise date for the Sa skya (or more specific Ngor pa) presence at Phyi dbang (Figs. 27–30).125 From historiographical literature dealing with the fifteenth-century history of Gu ge, we can gain a brief glimpse of other Sa skya masters active in the area, many of whom can be linked to Ngor chen. An enumeration of such masters is provided by Zhang zhung ba bShes gnyen dPal ’byor bzang po (b. 1552) in his religious history of 1606, within the context of discussing branches of mTho lding:126 Labelling that which in essence was the Dharmic tradition of Lo tstsha ba [i.e., Rin chen bzang po] as Sa skya pa and ’Bri khungs, [mTho ling] was seized by the ’Bri khung pa in the intermediate period. Later, due to [masters] such as Bla ma sPrul sku Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan, mKhan po Chos dpal bzang po, Chos rje la mKhyen rab pa, mKhas pa’i dbang po rGyun bskul Paṇḍi ta Grags pa rgyal mtshan, and Ta ra ratṇa [i.e., sGrol ma rin chen?], also [monasteries] such as rGya gling thang, Rab rgyas gling, and Shī war were branches of mTho ling. 127 From among these five masters, three can presently be identified: Chos dpal bzang po, the The ancestors of Gu ge Paṇḍita are introduced as practitioners of teachings of the rNying from his father. At age eleven (= ten), in 1425, he went to bZhi sde and met with Chos rje Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan and his brother. There he took pravrajyā monastic ordination from Drung pa Nam mkha’ rtse mo as ordaining preceptor, and ’Dul ’dzin Nam mkha’ yon tan and dGe slong Nam mkha’ bsam gtan co-officiating. Among the teachings he received from his ordaining preceptor, some can be identified as belonging to the bKa’ brgyud school, such as texts (yig cha) of ’Bri gung Lo tstsha ba Maṇikaśrījñāna (1289–1363) and the reading authorisation for both a volume of Dwags po bKa’ ’brgyud masters’ biographies and the sixvolume collected works of ’Bri gung ’Jig rten mgon po (1143–1217). Likewise, from sPrul sku Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan, he received, among others, teachings on texts (yig cha) of ’Bri gung Lo tstsha ba and on works by ’Jig rten mgon po. Until his twentieth year (= nineteenth), in 1434, he studied under both of them and served as their attendant.129 The record of teachings received of Sa skya Lo tsā ba ’Jam dbyangs Kun dga’ bsod nams (1485–1533) records two lineages of bKa’ brgyud teachings that came into the Sa skya school via Maṇikaśrījñāna: the ritual permission for an outer sādhana (phyi sgrub) of Four-handed Ye shes mgon po (a form of the wrathful tantric deity Mahākāla) and an uncommon ritual permission for the secret sādhana (gsang sgrub) of Four-handed Ye shes mgon po. Both permissions were given by Maṇikaśrījñāna to sPrul sku Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan and successively transmitted to mKhas btsun Nam mkha’ rtse mo and Gu ge Paṇḍita.130 Thus, at a certain time, Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan studied under Maṇikaśrījñāna.131 This brief excursus about Gu ge Paṇḍita’s early religious training shows that bZhi sde and founder of Rab rgyas gling, sKyid mang, and Go mig; Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan;128 and Gu those masters from it were members of the bKa’ brgyud school, most likely ’Bri gung, which that we shall deal with next. Along with the aforementioned Drung pa Nam mkha’ rtse mo, mentioned above, diminished during the fifteenth century. ge Paṇḍita Grags pa rgyal mtshan, Ngor chen’s attendant and biographer. It is the latter two Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan is recorded among the first teachers of the young Gu ge Paṇḍita in had a strong presence in mNga’ ris since the early thirteenth century, but whose influence, as 22 Roberto Vitali has pointed out that bZhi sde was located in lower sPu rang south of sTag Vitali considers the possibility that Ngor chen’s foundation of rGyal byed tshal was actually la mkhar, a site where a major castle once stood and the earlier existence of a temple, the located at bZhi sde,140 but whether or not bZhi sde was rGyal byed tshal is a question that I this temple was granted by the king of Gu ge and sPu rang to Shes rab ’phel, the king’s third Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan and Nam mkha’ rtse mo can also be linked with a site in Gu ge, bZhi sde gTsug lag khang, is recorded. During the third quarter of the thirteenth century, cannot now answer. But with the invitation of Ngor the mKhar rdzong cave temple (rDzong gTsug lag khang or mKhar rdzong) in the valley of chen to sPu rang the bKa’ brgyud affiliation of bZhi sde seemingly changed, like that of ’Khor mKhar rtse, which is dominated by steep cliffs. Thanks to the explorations of Gu ge Tshe chags, which stands only a few kilometres downstream on the bank of the rMa bya kha ’bab ring rgyal po, a number of Buddhist cave sanctuaries were newly discovered in those cliffs (Karnali). and documented. 141 In a joint publication on mKhar rtse Valley with Christiane Papa- court chaplain of another bKa’ brgyud school, the Tshal pa. 132 According to Gu ge Paṇḍita’s biography, the Gu ge king Phun tshogs lde sent Nam mkha’ rtse mo to Glo bo to pass along to Ngor chen the king’s invitation to sPu rang, and Gu ge Paṇḍita accompanied his teacher as attendant. In Glo bo, Gu ge Paṇḍita received his very first Sa skya empowerment from Ngor chen, and apparently the inviting party, which included Nam mkha’ rtse mo, also took part in that teaching.133 Later, while in sPu rang, Bla ma sPrul sku ba (i.e., Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan) joined Ngor chen’s teachings, and Ngor chen also visited bZhi sde. 134 When Ngor chen was about to depart from sPu rang, he was requested by Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan to take care of the young Gu ge Paṇḍita and accept him as his attendant. Ngor chen agreed, and for the next seventeen years, Gu ge Paṇḍita acted as Ngor chen’s attendant and at times also as his ritual assistant. 135 His biography further mentions that he designed mural paintings at bZhi sde, some of which might be among the few surviving ones,136 and resided and taught at bZhi sde in the 1480s.137 It therefore seems justified to assume that in the wake of Ngor chen’s sPu rang sojourn bZhi sde was converted to the Ngor branch of the Sa skya school.138 The fact that bZhi sde was a Sa skya monastery is also confirmed by an annotation found in the Deb ther dmar po gsar ma of Paṇ chen bSod nams grags pa (1478–1554) written in 1538: Also, the dPal lHa btsan po of Gu ge took only the dGe ldan pas as [his] offering object and delighted [them] with riches. [He] left the Sa skya pa monasteries {such as rGya gling thang and bZhi sde} that were in [his] dominion unchanged.139 Kalantari, they introduce mKhar rdzong as follows: This cave, too, is possibly the only sanctuary within a large complex of caves (c. 30–40, each measuring c. 2 m x 3 m). Its name is derived from the castle whose remains have survived at the top of the cliff. While the religious programme with an emphasis on portraits of the teachers is comparable with that of the previously discussed cave, stylistic characteristics point to a later, 14th/15th-century date. Facing south, the cave is located fairly high up, at about 200 m from the bottom of the cliff, and is accessible through stairways cut into the rocks forming internal shafts. A courtyard is located in front of the main sanctuary. The cave is unique as it preserves a programme with the ceiling decorations intact. In contrast to the subdued colours and restricted palette in the earlier Bar rdzong cave temple, here intensive colours predominate, with generous use of dark red, dark blue pigments as well as gold […].142 As far as artistic attribution is concerned, the decorative programme of the mKhar rdzong cave represents a tradition which is among the most refined and technically sophisticated artistic expressions of Western Tibetan Buddhist art, displaying a remarkable virtuosity in the variation of themes and motifs. Many elements echo earlier styles associated with the kingdom of Purang Guge, e.g., the costumes of the deities and donors, the great interest in ornamental detail and the lavish use of gold. This style and the high quality of execution have affinities with the ‘renaissance phase’ of temples at Tholing and Tabo (one 23 example is the Golden Temple [gSer khang]), datable to the 15th century. For temple, where the murals contain depictions of Sa skya masters such as Sa chen Kun dga’ this high level of stylistic and technical sophistication remarkable financial snying po (1092–1158) and his two sons, Slob dpon bSod nams rtse mo (1142–1182) and rJe rdzong cave paintings, it can be assumed that they date to the 14th/15th Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan can also be identified as the “Bla ma sPrul sku ba” who is century, based on the lineage depiction of Sa skya pa (on the eastern) and ’Bri mentioned twice by Zhang zhung ba bShes gnyen dPal ’byor bzang po in his religious history gung pa on the northern wall. Stylistic affinities with Central Tibetan thangkas of 1606. His first mention, as translated above, provides his full name, Bla ma sPrul sku Nam and with Yuan-style ornamental types and textile designs of this period also mkha’ rgyal mtshan, when enumerating Sa skya lamas associated with Sa skya branch support this dating. monasteries of mTho lding. However, the second mention only gives his title, Bla ma sPrul resources must have been available. With regard to the dating of the mKhar btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan (1147–1216).148 143 The northern wall depicts a large-size portrait of two Tibetan Buddhist masters framed by a large maṇḍala on each side. These masters, on the basis of epigraphic evidence, were identified by Wang Ruilei as Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan and Nam mkha’ rtse mo, to whom this sanctuary was apparently devoted (Figs. 31–32).144 The uppermost rows on all four walls sku ba, within the context of relating the circumstances for inviting Ngag dbang grags pa, the disciple of Tsong kha pa responsible for introducing his master’s teachings in Gu ge. dPal ’byor bzang po, unable to resist making a sectarian critique of the Sa skya and ’Bri gung schools, reports: above the maṇḍalas on the eastern and western walls and protectors on the southern wall Later, after the Dharmic tradition of the Lotstsha ba [i.e., Rin chen bzang po] depict Indian and Tibetan lineage masters. A preliminary survey of the inscriptions of these had persisted at mTho gling for ninety years without distortion, there existed heterogeneous, including masters of the bKa’ brgyud school on the northern and western two [schools], Sa [skya] and ’Bri [gung], residing at [mTho] gling, the walls, some of whom can be identified as specifically ’Bri gung. Some belong to the Sa skya teachings degenerated [further]. Also, owing solely to [his] great conceit, Bla school: the lineage on the eastern wall includes Ngor chen, most likely as its last master. 145 ma sPrul sku ba offered the Dharma to the Gu ge bDag po. [He] gave Though the iconography, lineage structure and the proper identification of individual masters teachings that amounted to no teachings at all because of [their unsystematic] awaits an in-depth study, one can hardly overlook, for instance, that dGe lugs masters except order. Based on the fact that there did not spread a good [Dharmic] system of affiliation of Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan and Nam mkha’ rtse mo have been depicted among King Phun tshogs lde was not pleased. Therefore, [he] thought: “In general, numerous lineage masters. having thought about the [Buddha’s] teachings, the Bla ma, uncle and nephew, masters, as provided in a recent paper of Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po, shows that they are rather Tsong kha pa seem to be missing. It is interesting to note that both ’Bri gung and Sa skya 146 only remnants of the [Buddha’s] teachings. With the respective lamas of the a lama explaining [the Dharma] and a disciple listening [to it], the Dharma The mKhar rtse Valley is home to two more Sa skya-related sites that await further study. invited from India the Protector Atiśa, who was like a wish-fulling jewel. In The first is the monastery of mKhar rtse (Jo bo) Og dkar phug, another cave complex, which particular, they dispatched the Lotstsha ba, father and sons, to the Noble Land. houses the famous Avalokiteśvara statue considered to have been the one brought back from Later, having come to Gu ge together with paṇḍitas, [they] extensively taught the monastery changed its affiliation to the Ngor tradition during the fifteenth century. [it] was established in such a way.” [He then] had in [his] mind [the following Moreover, it became a branch of Phyi dbang.147 The second site is the Brag rdzong cave idea]: “Having heard of the qualities and praises of rGyal ba Tsong kha pa, Kashmir by Lo tsā ba Rin chen bzang po (958–1055). As Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po explains, the holy Dharma. This tradition [of teaching the Dharma] was adopted and 24 father and sons, [we] should now invite that lama who is like a second Buddha This passage by mKhar nag Lo tsā ba served as the model for the presentation in the dGe to the Glorious [Field] of Merit [i.e., Gu ge]. In case he himself will not come lugs history of sDe srid Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, who also states: “At that time, there resided his chief disciples.” Even though [they] were unable to invite the Victorious Those accounts from seventeenth-century dGe lugs histories remember Nam mkha’ rgyal One, father and sons, [they] succeeded in inviting Paṇ chen Ngag dbang grags mtshan as a Sa skya master and attest to his patronage through the king of Gu ge, though pa, in accord with a prophecy made by rJe Tsong kha pa, and [the former] they give his alleged inability in giving proper teachings as the trigger for inviting Ngag dbang made the bKa’ gdams teachings flourish. Thereupon, rJe Ngag dbang grags pa grags pa to Gu ge.152 Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of this essay to further explore the […] settled at mTho gling.149 historical circumstances of Ngag dbang grags pa’s invitation to and activities in Gu ge—for because of [his] deeds for the teachings [elsewhere], [we] should invite one of Moreover, Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan should be identified as the “Sa skya pa’i dge bshes chen po sPrul sku” who is mentioned by mKhar nag Lo tsā ba dPal ’byor rgya mtsho in his dGe lugs history within the similar context of presenting the invitation of Ngag dbang grags pa: [The fame of Ngag dbang grags pa] came to the ears of the three brothers, that is, Gu ge bDag po bKra shis ’od lde, Khri rNam rgyal ’od, and Shākya ’od. Thus, desiring to listen to the Dharma, [they] dispatched [someone] to invite [him]. mKhas pa Ngag dbang grags pa said: “As for the king, if [he] desires to listen to the Dharma, it will be possible if [he] exhibits the proper conduct for listening to the Dharma such as [he] has to give up the Three Pot[-like] Faults while sitting on a low cushion [and] that [he] must rely on the Six Notions. If [it] is not like that, [it] will not be beneficial.” At that time, there resided the sPrul sku, a great dge bshes of the Sa skya pa, who was thus told about Ngag dbang grags pa’s explanations. [He] said: “The fact that that is necessary for listening to the Dharma was explained in authoritative works.” When asked, “Well then, why don’t you do like that?” [he] replied: “Because [I] fear that the king will not be pleased.” Thinking that [one] has to act in that way for listening to the Dharma, [the king] invited Chos rje Ngag dbang grags pa. [He] received the Dharma [and] appointed [him] as abbot of mTho ling and Blos tang. Owing to that, the Dharma tradition of rJe Rin po che was established.150 the sPrul sku ba, a dge bshes of the Sa skya pa, at the place of the king.”151 which a firm date has yet to be established—and any possible relation to the activities of Ngor chen and his disciples in mNga’ ris.153 Nevertheless, it can be observed that with the resurgence of the kingdom of Gu ge under rNam rgyal lde and his son Phun tshogs lde, the royal family originally followed an even- handed approach in their religious patronage, including members of the bKa’ brgyud, Sa skya, and nascent dGe lugs schools. The activities of Ngor chen and his local disciples in Gu ge and sPu hrang serve as a good example for this, though over time the dGe lugs pa would establish themselves as the dominating school in mNga’ ris, partly due to the increased support their proponents received from the royalty of Gu ge. In this context, it should be noted that Vitali has pointed out that some of the aforementioned Ngor affiliated Sa skya monasteries became branches of mTho lding, the implication of which still awaits further clarification. But since they were able to preserve their Ngor affiliation, Vitali concludes that “this seems to indicate that the authority of Tho.ling went beyond sectarian affiliation.”154 Among the lists of mTho lding branches introduced by Vitali, we find Phyi dbang rGya gling thang, Rab rgyas gling, and mKhar rtse, to which one can add Shī war from dPal ’byor bzang po’s listing.155 In sum, the foundation of Go mig in Spiti fits very well in the overall picture of the fifteenth-century monastic foundations and conversions by Ngor chen and his group of local disciples in mNga’ ris. Among them, Chos dpal bzang po was responsible for founding Rab rgyas gling in Gu ge, sKyid mang in Ladakh, and Go mig in Spiti.156 My current knowledge does not allow me to give details about the patrons of his monastic foundations, but we could 25 expect to find them locally, that is, among members of the devout royalty of Ladakh and Gu ge, the latter who were generally assumed to have ruled Spiti during the fifteenth century. 7. Early ’Bri gung Activity at Go mig Only a few hundred meters south of Go mig there are remains of a hermitage situated on a cliff in a small gorge or ravine known as Khyim chung lung pa (Figs. 33–35).157 The site preserves, among other things, some heavily damaged mural paintings that can most likely be attributed to the ’Bri gung school and dated to the thirteenth or fourteenth century (Figs. 36–50).158 This suggests that there were once ’Bri gung anchorites in Spiti dwelling in Go mig before the fifteenth-century takeover of the site by the Sa skya pa. Their presence here would not be unlikely in view of the history of the ’Bri gung school which spread widely in far-western Tibet. Beginning with the arrival of three successive waves of meditator monks at Mt. Kailash dispatched by ’Jig rten mgon po in 1191, 1208, and 1215, the ’Bri gung pa, with the support of local rulers, established a strong presence in those regions—including sPu rang, Sle mi, Ladakh, Zangs dkar, and Khu nu—during the thirteenth century.159 The fact that yogis were dwelling in hermitages in Spiti by the early thirteenth century is also recorded in the biography of the ’Brug pa bKa’ ’brgyud master rGod tshang pa mGon po rdo rje (1189–1258), whose pilgrimage led him through Spiti in 1216 or 1217 on his way to Jālandhara. 160 Moreover, as his example suggests, the Spiti Valley might have been visited regularly by Tibetan yogis and pilgrims who were on their way from western Tibet to tantric sites in nearby north-west India.161 Although this ruined hermitage deserves an in-depth art historical study and still awaits professional photographic documentation, I shall briefly introduce it here as part of Go mig’s history. The original layout of the hermitage is difficult to reconstruct because of its poor state of preservation. But built along the cliff and below some overhanging rocks, there may have once been a larger structure occupying the first third of the western cliff face, as suggested by the remains of a bricked wall along the edge of the cliff, followed by individual meditation cells.162 The face of the rock enclosed by that larger structure was painted with murals, as were both side walls. For unknown reasons, however, this structure fell into ruin and was replaced by a much smaller building, as presently found.163 26 This small building contains two rooms. The first is a small empty room with no paintings (3) A standing deity with traces of blue colour on his skin embracing a consort with that is entered through the western side wall and leads via an opening into the larger second two hands folded behind her back, with right leg extended straight and left leg room to the east, where the murals are found. However, due to the way this smaller building bent, and attended by a pair of standing bodhisattvas in three-quarter profile. was constructed, it excluded the far right of the eastern section of the mural on the painted The central deity is flanked by twelve four-armed retinue deities, which are rock face. In addition, the complete original eastern side wall was excluded when this new arranged in two columns to his right and left, with six deities in each. The central structure was built (Fig. 35). No traces of the murals on the rock face remain of that section, deity might be the two-armed form of Cakrasaṃvara with consort (Fig. 44). not even of its plaster, and the paintings on the remains of the eastern side wall have nearly (4) A maṇḍala dedicated to Vajrayoginī or Vajravārāhī, as evident from the completely faded; only traces of a depiction of a maṇḍala can be found (Fig. 36). triangular form inserted into the centre of the maṇḍala. The central deity is The original western side wall was included in the new building as a partition between surrounded by a circle of eight smaller-sized deities, and the maṇḍala flanked by both rooms. But an opening was created to allow direct access from the first to the second ten retinue deities, which are arranged in two columns to its right and left, with room, thereby destroying a large maṇḍala painted on the inner surface of the original western five deities in each. The two ends of the scarve draped around the main deity’s side wall. Given the high level of damage to the mural paintings—in many places the original schoulders are recognisable, as are her legs in dancing posture: she stands on her colouring is completely gone and only the lines painted for outlining individual figures and flexed left leg with the right leg raised and bent (Fig. 45). some colour notations remain—it seems reasonable to assume that after the original structure (5) A maṇḍala with a central deity with consort surrounded by a circle of six smaller- had fallen into ruin, the murals were exposed to the forces of nature for some time before the sized deities. The central deity might be the four-armed form of Avalokiteśvara small building was constructed around them, perhaps to protect them from further damage. known as Jinasāgara. The maṇḍala is flanked by ten retinue figures, which are This interpretation would fit if the hermitage had been revitalised at a later period.164 arranged in two columns to his right and left, with five figures in each (Fig. 46). As far as I could discern, the iconographical programme of the paintings on the rock face The maṇḍala is not completely visible because it is there that the eastern wall of is divided into five rectangular panels that depict main figures against a blue background. From the viewer’s left to right those figures are: the new smaller building was attached to the rock face. Whereas the minor figures of each panel are arranged in registers (apparently containing four (1) Vajradhara with two standing bodhisattvas in three-quarter profile and flanked deities each below the lotus pedestal) and columns around each main image, the register by what appear to be depictions of ten great adepts (mahāsiddha), which are above depicts a lineage of teachers that can be expected to continue through all five panels. arranged in two columns to his right and left, with five adepts in each (Fig. 42). This lineage was once inscribed, but I could only spot traces of two inscriptions (Figs. 49– (2) A maṇḍala with a central deity who is accompanied by a consort sitting on his 50).165 right and who is surrounded by a circle of eight smaller-sized deities. The The mural remains on the western side wall reveal fragments of a large maṇḍala most maṇḍala is flanked by ten retinue deities, which are arranged in two columns to likely dedicated to Cakrasaṃvara. This is suggested by the diamond-shaped areas of three (of its right and left, with five deities in each (Fig. 43). four?) visible concentric circles surrounding the central deity and also by their colours, as well 27 as that of the deities depicted therein in union with consorts (from outer to inner circle these such as the lineage above and the deities in the columns to the right and left and below the are: white, red, and blue) (Fig. 47). Parts of the maṇḍala were destroyed, as mentioned above, central image of each panel—should also ideally be identified. But that may prove impossible when the smaller building was built. Next to the maṇḍala is a large depiction of a Tibetan hierarch with white complexion in three-quarter profile looking to our left towards the maṇḍala and flanked by a pair of bodhisattvas standing in three-quarter profile (Fig. 48). He is seated on a lotus throne and his hands are joined in front of his chest evidently in Dharma-teaching gesture (dharmacakramudrā). Parts of the backrest of his throne can be made out (including one of the mythical ornamental animals), as well as his head and body nimbuses, the latter partly covered by the attending bodhisattvas. Above him, fragments of another smaller master can be seen. The remains of the original eastern side wall that was excluded from the new building shows traces of a maṇḍala depiction. The portrayal of the Tibetan hierarch flanked by a pair of bodhisattvas can be considered one compositional element that may permit us to attribute the murals to the ’Bri gung school. As explained by Christian Luczanits, “beyond the Drigung School paintings, standing bodhisattvas flanking a hierarch are rare,” 166 though not exclusive to it. Among other characteristic features of early ’Bri gung painting, Luczanits points out that it “frequently features the triple jewel prominently, most obviously on the cloth in the center of the throne.” 167 This decorative motif appears once in this spot (Fig. 54). Among the three maṇḍala depictions on the rock face, the first two are placed upon a lotus throne, and the second maṇḍala depiction features a flaming triple jewel in the middle of the cloth draped over the centre of the throne base. The third maṇḍala rests on top of undulating lotus vines sprouting out of a vase that stands upon a crossed vajra, which is described by Luczanits as another characteristic of early ’Bri gung art (Fig. 55). 168 In addition, provided that the standing deity with consort can be identified as Cakrasaṃvara (Fig. 44), this would suggest a further connection to ’Bri gung because the earliest ’Bri gung thangkas with footprints of the school’s founder, ’Jig rten mgon po, are centred on the two-arm form of Cakrasaṃvara with consort, who might have been the principal yi dam deity in early depictions.169 For a more decisive attribution, other elements— given the poor state of preservation of the murals. Another piece of evidence hinting at an early connection to ’Bri gung at Go mig can be found among the collection of about twenty-five traditional thangka paintings preserved by the monastery. By far the oldest work among the monastic thangka collection is a damaged painting of a ’Bri gung hierarch painted in a local Western Tibetan shar ris style that is datable to about 1300 (Fig. 51).170 Although the thangka as a portable object does not necessarily have to originate from Go mig, I shall briefly introduce it for the sake of completeness.171 At the centre of the painting, two main figures are portrayed (Fig. 52). On our left, we find a chubby Tibetan hierarch performing the teaching gesture and looking towards the second major figure on his left, four-armed Ṣaḍakṣara Avalokiteśvara, who is shown with a sitting pair of attending deities, both partially turned towards him. On his right, there is twoarmed yellow Maṇidhara, holding a jewel in his left hand. To the left of Avalokiteśvara is four-armed Ṣaḍakṣarī. She is white in colour, with one pair of hands folded before her and the other right hand holding a rosary and the other left the stem of a white lotus, just like Avalokiteśvara.172 Both major figures are seated on a lotus throne—the former with a throne base featuring a pair of lions—with differing elements ornamenting their respective backrests, and both are surrounded by body nimbuses consisting of rainbows, and are portrayed against a red background decorated with scrollwork. Both above and below, there are two rows of secondary figures (Figs. 53–56). In the uppermost register are eight buddhas, the Seven Medicine Buddhas (sman bla mched bdun), with Bhaiṣajyaguru shown last, and Śākyamuni. Starting on the left and descending to the right, the second upper register portrays Vajradhara and seven lineage gurus, which, though not inscribed, are partly identifiable by their distinct iconography and apparently represent the beginning of the standard ’Bri gung lineage: 1. Vajradhara 2. Tilopa (10th/11th century) 3. Nāropa (10th/11th century) 28 4. Mar pa Lo tsā ba Chos kyi blo gros (11th century) stylistic features present here (e.g., the tricolour hemline of the hierarch’s robe or the crown 5. Mi la ras pa (11th/12th century) and ornamentation of Avalokiteśvara), which were beyond the scope of this essay. 6. sGam po pa bSod nams rin chen (1079–1153) 7. Phag mo gru pa rDo rje rgyal po (1110–1170) 8. ’Bri gung sKyob pa ’Jig rten mgon po (1143–1217) The Tibetan hierarch portrayed as the central figure could thus be identified as a direct disciple of ’Jig rten mgon po, the founder of the ’Bri gung school. The upper bottom register shows eight deities from the viewer’s left to right: the Lords of the Three Families (rigs gsum mgon po), that is, Avalokiteśvara, Mañjuśrī, and Vajrapāṇi, an unidentified figure wearing armour and holding a vase in both hands in front of his chest, black and yellow Jambhala, Vasudhārā, and Amitāyus. The lower bottom register depicts the Four Great Kings (Chaturmahārāja or Chaturmahārājikādeva), two on each side (Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Vaiśravaṇa on the viewer’s left, and Virūpākṣa and Virūḍhaka on the viewer’s right), flanking Four-armed and Raven-headed Mahākāla on the left and the Tibetan sponsor-disciple (sādhaka), next to his symbolic offerings, on the right. This monk most likely was a disciple of the depicted hierarch and can be considered the commissioning patron of the painting. When it comes to identifying ’Bri gung hierarchs after ’Jig rten mgon po, as discussed by Luczanits, there are three potential lineages: (1) the abbots of ’Bri gung mthil Monastery in central Tibet, (2) the head lamas (rdor ’dzin) of the hermitages around Mt. Kailash and Lake Manasarovar beginning with Ghu ya sgang pa (1184–1243), and (3) a western Tibetan lineage starting with Ri khrod dbang phyug Seng ge ye shes (1181–1252).173 Given the likely western Himalayan origin of the thangka painting, the portrayed hierarch might be assumed to represent one of the latter two. Supposing that the painting was commissioned either during the latter part of the depicted hierarch’s life or shortly after his passing away, a dating to within the thirteenth century could be proposed on the basis of the lineage analysis. However, as I was informed by Christian Luczanits, this dating would be too early for the painting on stylistic grounds. More research is thus needed to further illuminate the identity of the portrayed hierarch, his relation with Ṣaḍakṣara Avalokiteśvara, and the specific 29 Endnotes According to local oral lore, the name Go mig derives from the Tibetan word rgod mig, 13 Laurent 2017b: 13. 14 See Laurent 2017b: 13. 15 See Laurent 2017b: 1–2. 16 The Times of India Illustrated Weekly, April 14, 1920, p. 19. see also the respective entries (Gong-mig and Tang-rgyud) of the index in Schuh 2016: 277, 17 282. On Joseph Gergan and his activities, see Bray 1994. On the Spiti chapter by Gergan, see de Rossi Filibeck 1999. 1 referring to the eye of a vulture. 2 See sTeng rgyud 2, 83, and 84 and the edition, translation, and discussion by Dieter Schuh in Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, 215–267. On the administrative division of Spiti and the related taxation system, see Schuh 2016: 13–92. For references to Go mig and sTeng rgyud, 3 See the discussion by Dieter Schuh in Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, x. 4 See the discussion by Dieter Schuh in Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, ix. 5 For some of these details and the life of Khang gsar mKhan chen Rin po che after he settled in Spiti, see ’Jam dbyangs shes rab, Ngag dbang mkhyen brtse’i rnam thar (pp. 57.5–63.6). On the new monastery in Kaza, see also Rāhula, Ta po (p. 146.4–8). Most of the information was provided orally by Pad ma bsam grub after discussions with the senior monks (bla rgan) of the monastery. 18 bSod nams tshe brtan, Bla dwags rgyal rabs ’chi med gter (p. 328.8–9): steng rgyud na ma sro’i dgon g.yog yin pa’i sa skya pa’i steng rgyud dgon pa grwa pa 80|. 19 See Tucci and Ghersi 1935: ix. On Tucci’s expedition of 1933, see, for instance, Klimburg- Salter 1990, Klimburg-Salter 2015: 43–46, Nalesini 2008: 82–91, and Nalesini 2011: 17–22, 27. 20 Tucci and Ghersi 1935: x. 21 Tucci and Ghersi 1935: 41–44. Tucci must have also learned about the existence of Go 6 See the list of all documents in Schuh and Heimbel 2019, vol. 1, 307–381. mig because on a map published in The Temples of Western Tibet and their Artistic Symbolism, 7 See sTeng rgyud 1a and the edition, translation, and discussion by Dieter Schuh in Schuh he records two Sa skya monasteries, Kaze (i.e., sTeng rgyud) and Komi (i.e., Go mig); see and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, 1–18. 8 See Laurent (forthcoming). 9 Francke 1914: v. On aspects of the life of August Hermann Francke, see Bray 2008 and Bray 2015. 10 See Francke 1914: vii. 11 Francke 1914: 44–45. 12 See Laurent 2017b: 12. Tucci 1988 (Map of diffusion of sects). 22 On Ghersi and his photographic documentation, see Bellatalla, Gemignani, and Rossi 2008, Klimburg-Salter and Bellatalla 1997, Nalesini 2008: 87–94, 98–99, 102–103, 108, and Nalesini 2011: 21–22, 27. On the photographic archive of Tucci, see Klimburg-Salter 1991, Nalesini 1994, and Nalesini 2015. 23 Tucci and Ghersi 1935: xiv. 30 37 24 Bellatalla 2018: 78. For some issues with the typed text of the diary for dating the part quoted above, some further comments, and differences to the published chronicle (Secrets of Tibet), see Bellatalla 2018: 76–81. 25 See Bellatalla, Gemignani, and Rossi 2008. 26 See Tucci and Ghersi 1935: facing p. 42 and Bellatalla 2018: 81–83. 27 See Bellatalla, Gemignani, and Rossi 2008: 98, 101, 111. 28 See Bellatalla 2018: 10, 80–81 and Nalesini 2015: 64. For the section on sTeng rgyud, see minutes 14:00–15:49 of Nel Tibet occidentale at: https://patrimonio.archivioluce.com/luceweb/detail/IL3000087327/1/nel-tibet-occidentale-primo-secondo-e-terzo-tempo.html (accessed 11.02.2019). 29 Bray 2015: 150. 30 Peter 1975: 5. 31 Peter 1975: 14. 32 See, for instance, Petech 1977: 82–83, Tobdan 1992: 313, Tsering and Ishimura 2012: 8, Laurent 2014: 132, Jahoda 2015: 195, Schuh 2016: 92, 205–207, and Laurent 2017a: 237, 246. 33 See bKra shis tshe ring, dKyil dgon nor bu dge ’phel gyi byung ba brjod pa (pp. 35.15–36.12). Some of these findings are also mentioned by Laurent 2013: 133, n. 1. 34 See Blo gsal don grub, La dwags su bskyod pa’i zin tho (pp. 20.7–24.4). 35 Another brief history in Tibetan by Pad ma rdo rje appeared online: Pad ma rdo rje, “sPi ti dkar mdzes dpal sa skya dgon pa’i ngo sprod rags bsdus,” The Bhoti For Himalayas, December 28, 2010, http://bhoti.blogspot.com/2010/12/blog-post_9814.html (accessed 11.02.2019). 36 Rāhula, Ta po (p. 146). sTeng rgyud 83 (fol. 7a1–5): mkhyen brtse [= brtses] ’gro ba’i mun bsel [= sel] ’jams [= ’jam] pa’i dbyangs| rgyal po’i [= bas] lung bstan kun dga’i mtshan can mchog| snying [= snyigs] dus ’gro ba’i skyabs mgon sa skya ba’i [= pa’i]| bstan pa dri med phyogs bcur rgyas gyur cig| sa dgon ngor gyi dgon lhag [= lag] gog mig zer ba ’di ni| snga mo rang ni mkhan chen chos dpal bzang po’i [= pos] gsar bzhangs [= bzhengs] mdzad pa la| rgyal po bkra shis rnams [= rnam] rgyal gyis thugs brtse bas skyangs [= bskyangs]| de nas gu ge chos rgyal| de nas gzhung chos rgyal dga’ ldan mtshe [= tshe] dbang dpal bzang pos brtse bas skyangs [= bskyangs]| de nas spyi ti jo chung sogs chos rgyal rim pa ltar du byon pa rnams kyis| gog mig mchod bzhis [= gzhi] ’di rnams la thugs brtse bas skyangs [= bskyangs] nas| sngar rgyun ltar ’jags gnas gnang ba’i mchod bzhi [= gzhi] bon sa skang [= rkang] rnams kyis [= kyi] dril chen ma yig ’di ltar ro|. See also sTeng rgyud 82, 83, and the edition, translation, and discussion by Dieter Schuh in Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, xxiii, 11–14, 92, 203, 215–267. Another possibility might be to correct skang to khang and then read bon sa khang in the sense of bon zhing dang bon khang (i.e., fields and farms imposed with bon grain dues). My translation of chos gzhi as religious income bases (religiöse Einkommensgrundlagen) and chos gzhis as monastic estates (Klostergüter) or monastic estate villages (Klosterdörfer) follows the explanations of these terms by Dieter Schuh; see Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, 216. 38 See Mang spro 71 (fol. 1a1–4): mkhyen brtse [= brtses] ’gro ba’i mun bsel [= sel] ’jam pa’i dbyangs| rgyal ba’i [= bas] lung bstan kun dga’i mtshan can mchog| snyigs dus ’gro ba’i skyabs mgon sa skya pa’i| bstan pa dri med phyogs bcur rgyas gyur cig|| sa dgon ngor gyi dgon lhag [= lag] gog mig zer ba ’di ni snga mo rang ni mkhan chen chos dpal bzang po’i [= pos] gsar bzhengs mdzad pa la [one syllable unclear] rgyal po bkra shis rnam rgyal gyis thugs brtse bas skyangs [= bskyangs]| de nas gu ge chos rgyal| de nas gzhung chos rgyal dga’ ldan tshe dbang dpal bzang pos brtse bas skyangs [= bskyangs]| de nas spyi ti jo chung sogs chos rgyal rim ltar du byon pa rnams kyis gog mig mchod gzhis [= gzhi] ’di rnams la thugs brtse […]. For Mang spro 71, see Figs. 74–79. See sTeng rgyud 84 for another document listing territories, pastures, and mountain areas belonging to Go mig and its discussion and comparison to sTeng rgyud 83 by Dieter Schuh in Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, 237–246. 31 132–137, Dokument XLVIII and Schuh and Phukhang 1979: 64–66, Dokument XLVIII. 39 On the life and times of Ngor chen, see Heimbel 2017. 40 On these prophecies, see Heimbel 2017: 69–71. 45 41 See Heimbel 2017: 51, 58–61, 429. For arguments against the identification of Gu ge Chos ’jam] pa’i dbyangs|| brgyal [= rgyal] bas lung bstan dkun [= kun] dga’i mtshan bcan [= can] mchog|| dpal bzang po as Bla chen Chos dpal bzang po (1371–1439), see Heimbel 2017: 60–61. 42 dPal ldan chos skyong, Ngor gyi gdan rabs kha skong (p. 549.1): stod mnga’ ris rab rgyas gling zhes chos dpal bzang pos btab pa| mkhas grub du ma’i gdan sa der […]. 43 On some aspects of the history of Rab rgyas gling, see Tshe ring rgyal po, mNga’ ris chos ’byung (pp. 238–240). Cf. mNga’ ris srid gros mi rigs chos lugs rig gnas lo rgyus u lhan, sTod mnga’ ris dgon sde khag gi dkar chag (vol. 1, pp. 185–190), where the foundation, most likely based on local oral lore, is ascribed to Ngor chen and dated prior to the latter’s founding of Ngor in 1429. However, I am not aware of any traditional written source making such a statement. For the location of Rab rgyas gling, see Ryavec 2015: 119 (Rabgyeling). Rab rgyas gling was visited by Tucci and Ghersi in August 1933. For their description, see Tucci and Ghersi 1935: 120–128. On the entry from Ghersi’s diary, see Bellatalla 2018: 169–173. For pictures of Rab rgyas gling and its murals, see Bellatalla 2018: 171, Bellatalla, Gemignani, and Rossi 2008: 113, and Tucci and Ghersi 1935: plates between pp. 118–127. For the section on Rab rgyas gling from the documentary film shot by Ghersi, Nel Tibet occidentale, see minutes 29:32–30:45 at: https://patrimonio.archivioluce.com/luce-web/detail/IL300008 7327/1/nel-tibet-occidentale-primo-secondo-e-terzo-tempo.html (accessed 11.02.2019). Ghersi must have taken numerous photographs that have not yet been published. In his diary, Ghersi states (Bellatalla 2018: 171): “We return to camp with ample photographic documentation.” In his discussion of Ghersi’s diary entry, Bellatalla 2018: 173 remarks: “The photographic documentation collected by Ghersi on this day is magnificent, to say the least.” 44 Mang spro 19 (ll. 20–22): ma gros dgon drung pa rdo rje bzang po [= pos] btab| bskyid mangs dgon mkhan chen chos dpal bzang po [= pos] btab nas rgyal ba nyid kyi zhal gyi bum bzang pa las lung bstan gyi bdud rtsi’i rnyed pa rdo rje [add: ’chang] kun dga’ bzang po nas zung [= bzung] rje btsun gong ma’i chos sgrig rgyu [= rgyun?] ’don phyag len sogs la grwa sa chen po’i lugs bzhin gyis thos pa la ’bad par bya zhing|. For Mang spro 19, see Figs. 71–73. See also Schuh 1976: 25, With reference to Schuh, both foundations were also mentioned by Petech 1977: 170. sTeng rgyud 2 (ll. 1–6): oṃ swa sti|| mkhyen brtse [= brtses] ’gro ba’i mun gsel [= sel] ’jams [= snyigs dus ’gro ba’i skyabs mgon sa skya pa’i|| bstan pa gri [= dri] med phyogs bcur rgyas gyur cig|| ngor chen kun dga’ dga’ [= dga’] bzang po’i [= pos] lung bstan pa’i dgon pa go dmig ’dis [= ’di]|| thog mar mkhan chen rin chen bsod rnams [= nams] kyis zhabs bcags pa’i|| chos bzhi [= gzhi] bon rigs rnams dge rgyun la|| chos rgyal chen po bla [= lha] chen bkra shis rnam rgyal nas bzung bdung [= gdung] rgyud rim pa bzhin du thugs rtse [= brtse] ba chen pos bka’ drin skyangs [= bskyangs]|| gu ge byo [= jo] bdag pos kyang sngar brgyun [= rgyun] bzhin bka’ drin skyangs [= bskyangs]|| chos rgyal dga’ ldan tshe dbang gis kyang sngar brgyun [= rgyun] bzhin bka’ drin skyangs [= bskyangs] pa’i|| bon ’babs [= ’bab] pa’i mtho [= tho] yig ’di bzhin la||. See also sTeng rgyud 2 and the edition, translation, and discussion by Dieter Schuh in Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, 14, 173, 215–237, 288, 292, 298, 300, 302. 46 Sangs rgyas phun tshogs, Ngor chen gyi rnam thar (p. 539.2–4): lan bar ma’i skabs ’dir bzhi sde pa drung nam rtses| gu ge rgyal po khri nam mkha’i dbang po dang bka’ bgros te| gu ge’i mkhan chen chos nyid seng ge dpon slob rnams gdan ’dren par brdzangs| chos rje rin po che dpon slob brgya tsam zhig pu hrangs su spyan drangs| rgyal de’ur zla ba gsum gyi bar bzhugs| gu ge nas bla ma sprul sku ba sogs dang| pi ti nas mkhan po rin bsod| mar yul pa’i dge bshes ’ga’ sogs pu hrangs dang bcas pa’i dge ’dun mang po la| dus ’khor mkha’ ’gro rgya mtsho gur rigs bsdus sogs kyi dbang gnang|. On Ngor chen’s second visit to Glo bo, see Heimbel 2017: 290–299. 47 bKa’ sgo (fols. 1b1–2a4): na mo ran na rtsa kra ya| drin chen rtsa ba dang rgyud [= brgyud] par bces [= bcas] pa’i dpal ldan bla ma dam pa rnams dang yi dam rgyud bde [= sde] bzhi’i lha tshogs mkha’ ’gro chos skyong srung ma’i dang bces [= bcas] pa dang| khyed [= khyad] par du dpal rdo rje ’jigs byed phyogs bcu phyi [= ’chi] bdag las kyi shin [= gshin] rje ’khor dang bces [= bcas] pa dang| khyed [= khyad] par du dpal mgon chos skyong ba’i srung ma gdong bzhi pa yum chen sring bzhi dang| gzhan yang ’jig rten dang las mi ’das pa’i lha tshogs yul lha bzhi [= gzhi] bdag rnams la dmod 32 52 col [= bcol] zhi ba phrin las bcol pa na| ngor e waṃ chos ldan nas lung rtan [= bstan] pa’i| gong mig lhun grub rtse mo’i phyi nang bar gsum gyi|. For the bKa’ sgo, see Figs. 60–70. 48 Petech 1977: 30. The inscription is reproduced, transliterated, and partly translated in Snellgrove and Skorupski 1980: 121–122, 140–142, 149. For the relevant part, see Snellgrove and Skorupski 1980: 140–142: “mi dbang gong ma bkra shis rnam rgyal la lus ngag yid gsum gus pas phyag ’tshal lo // bod yul bsod nams stobs las legs (8) ’khrungs pa’i // spyan ras gzigs dbang sbrul pa’i rgyal po khyed // kun gyi gtsug tu khur bas skyid pa’i nyi ma shar // bkra shis rnam rgyal rtag tu rgyal ’gyur cig // e ma ho // mon kha (9) hor la sogs ba dgra rnam tul // ru ’dog sbi ti man cad // su ru hem ’pab kyen cad // nang ’gong nub ra bzang skar tshun cad nga ris nga yog // cas //” (cited without hyphenation points and given in italics). See also Snellgrove and Skorupski 1979: 82–84. The fact that Spiti was controlled by Ladakh during the second half of the sixteenth century is evident from an inscription at Ta po, which records Spiti as part of the domain of the Ladakhi king Tshe dbang rnam rgyal, the nephew of bKra shis rnam rgyal who ruled Ladakh after the latter; see Laurent (forthcoming). On bKra shis rnam rgyal and Tshe dbang rnam rgyal, see Petech 1977: 25–32. 49 This site is called Rang grang in sTeng rgyud 81 (l. 2); see Schuh and Heimbel 2019, vol. 1, 275, 276–277 (Abbildungen 237–238), 381. 50 Shes rab blo gros was a disciple of the Ladakhi Byang sems Shes rab bzang po, one of the six disciples of Tsong kha pa who spread their master’s teachings in the borderlands of the Tibetan plateau. On Shes rab bzang po, see Vitali 2000: 82–84 and Vitali 2012a: 211–214. 51 Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, dGa’ ldan chos ’byung (vol. 2, pp. 40.5–41.1): de’i lag mngon dgar dge dgon dang sa dgon gnyis chags kyang gnyis ka spo dgos pa’i mngon dga’ da lta dgon ro dang dge lugs pa rnams byang sems shes rab bzang po’i bu chen khri se [= rtse] slob dpon shes rab blo gros kyis btab pas [= pa’i] nor bu dge ’phel du spos| bla rabs de nas khri se [= rtse] ba drung pa thub pa bsod nams don grub| sgra mi rtag pa| tshul khrims bkra shis| pi ti rang rig pa mang thos rgya mtsho| rta so pa bstan pa rgya mtsho| khu rig pa bsod nams rgya mtsho| skyid sbar pa bzod pa rgya mtsho| bsod nams dpal ’byor| da lta rang rig pa dge legs rgyal mtshan| sngags rgyud smad lugs| dge ’dun drug cu re dgu skor|. On the dGe lugs monasteries in mNga’ ris from the history of mKhar nag Lo tsā ba, see Vitali 2012a: 60–74 and passim. On mKhar nag Lo tsā ba and the dating of his work to about 1618, see Vitali 2012a: 5–15, 60–62. 53 dPal ’byor rgya mtsho, dGa’ ldan chos ’byung (fol. 87a3–4): pi thir| sngon lo chen rin chen bzang pos rta so chos sde btab| de las mched pa’i dkyil chos sde mngon dga’ dang| de las mched pa sangs rgyas ’od zer gyis btab| de’i gcung po blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan ni| chos rje tshul khrims chos kyi rgyal mtshan pa’i sku’i skye ba’o||. The foundation by Sangs rgyas ’od zer can be identified as La go spal at Brag mkhar; see Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, dGa’ ldan chos ’byung (vol. 2, p. 41.3): la go spal ni rang rig pa sangs rgyas ’od zer gyis btab[|]. On the history of La go spal and its dating to the early seventeenth century, see Laurent (forthcoming). 54 This cave is called A ma jo mo’i phug. According to local oral lore, this name is connected to a story about a nun (jo mo) who gave birth to her child in this cave. This child was Grub thob Rang rig ras pa Kun dga’ blo gros (1619–1683), a yogi of the ’Brug pa bKa’ brgyud school, who is said to have meditated in this cave. 55 The original spelling of the name of both river and valley can be assumed as Rang grang, as recorded in sTeng rgyud 81 (l. 2); see n. 49. 56 bKra shis tshe ring, dKyil dgon nor bu dge ’phel gyi byung ba brjod pa (p. 35.15–17): gnyis pa dgon pa’i sngon gyi byung rabs brjod par bya ba la| dkyil dgon pa’i chags rabs dang bla rabs sogs kyi yig rnying da bar mig lam du ma gyur kyang bgres po’i ngag rgyun dang| dge ldan chos ’byung bai ser ltar na|. 57 bKra shis tshe ring, dKyil dgon nor bu dge ’phel gyi byung ba brjod pa (p. 36.1–7): yang da lta’i rang rig sa char rang rig pa sangs rgyas ’od zer gyis phyag btab pa’i mngon dgar dge dgon dang sa dgon gnyis chags| ring por ma thogs par sa gnas der me chu shing sogs mthun rkyen ’dzoms min gyi dka’ ngal la brten| dgon gong ’og sa dge gnyis sa gnas gzhan du so sor spo dgos byung stabs mngon dgar da lta’ang dgon shul mjal rgyu yod| sa dgon de bzhin mkhan chen chos dpal bzang pos go mig lhun grub rtse mo’i dgon rnying zhig dang bsgril nas steng dgon chos ’khor gling zhes par bsgyur| mngon dga’i dge lugs pa rnams dkyil dgon nor bu dge ’phel du spos|. 33 65 58 This statue of Pañjaranātha can most likely be identified as the principle religious support (rten gtso) of Go mig, as recorded in the aforementioned inventory registers. See sTeng rgyud 82 (fol. 6a2–3): bla brang gi gtso yod tho la| sten [= rten] gyi gtso bo gur gyi mgon po’i sku shin du [= tu] gzi rjid [= brjid] dang ldan pa(?) tso [= gtso] ’khor gsum|; and sTeng rgyud 83 (fol. 4a1– 2): spyi ti gog mig bla brang gi sten [= rten] mchod sogs yod tho la| rten gyis [= gyi] gtso bo’i [= bo] gur gyi mgon po’i sku shin du [= tu] gzi brjed [= brjid] che thog tshad longs pa gcig|. For the respective folios, see Schuh and Heimbel 2019, vol. 1, 252 (Abbildung 203), 257 (Abbildung 213). 59 According to local oral lore, this chapel was renovated by a certain “To lo ba” from Zangs dkar during the first half of the twentieth century. This person can be identified as Me me To lo ba mentioned as a benefactor (sbyin bdag, yon bdag) of Go mig within an undated deed of donation (sTeng rgyud 22), wherein his donation to Go mig is explained by the fact that his parents had already acted as benefactors of the Sa skya school; see Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, 310, 319 (Abbildung 271). 60 See Schuh 2016. 61 See Schuh 2016: 207. Translated from the German by Jörg Heimbel. For the edition and translation of the decree, see Schuh 2016: 207. See also Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, xxvii. 62 For a brief overview of some of these invasions and related references, see Tobdan 1992: 314–316. On some of these invasions, see also Schuh 2016: 1, 103, 205–207 and Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, xxi, xxvii, 78, 103, 148. According to some reports, the monasteries of dKyil and Ta po suffered from such incursions; see Wilson 1841: vol. 2, 62–66 and Hutton 1840: 494, respectively. 63 The Times of India Illustrated Weekly, April 14, 1920, p. 19. 64 On dGa’ ldan tshe dbang and the war with Ladakh including references to previous research, see Emmer 2007 and Jinpa 2015. See also Schuh 2016: 103–107 and Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, xxi–xxii, 25–45, 89–97, 103–109, 119–136, 147ff. On these developments, a protective writ executed by dGa’ ldan tshe dbang for Go mig Monastery, and arguments against any negative repercussions from the dGa’ ldan pho brang against the Sa skya pa, see Schuh 2016: 107 and Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, xxi–xxii, 89–92, 147–166, 171–183, 246, 267–268. 66 See n. 65. 67 sTeng rgyud 1a (ll. 17–18): mang spro’i mgon [= dgon] pa’i| bla ma slob dpon| gra [= grwa] rigs kun dang| chos bzhi [= gzhi] ’phyar rtogs [= char gtogs]| gog mig| skyid mang| pa char| ’dor [= mdor] na mang spro’i mgon [= dgon] pa’i chos bzhi [= gzhi] ru rtogs [= gtogs] pa rnams| yab rin po che’i [= ches] me me chos kyi blo gros la phul ’dug pas|. For sTeng rgyud 1, 1a, and the edition, translation, and discussion by Dieter Schuh, see Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, vii, xxi, 1– 18. 68 See Jam dbyangs rgyal mtshan, Mang spro dgon pa (p. 119). 69 For this account, see Jam dbyangs rgyal mtshan, Mang spro dgon thub bstan sha gling chos ’khor (pp. 450.16–451.20), Mang spro dgon pa (pp. 46.6–48.6), and Mang spro dgon gyi chags rabs (pp. 7.14–9.17). On Ali Sher Khan and his invasion of Ladakh, see Schuh 2011: 410–414. On the later demise of Mang spro during the war with Tibet, see Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, 89–92 and the documents referred to there. 70 sTeng rgyud 1b (ll. 21–23): […] mang spro’i dgon g.yog spyi ti go mig rtog rtse [= tog tse] gar rgyab bon zhing bon khang chos bzhi [= gzhis] gang yod| skyid mang spya [= dpya] zhing spya [= dpya] khang khral sogs de rnams gang yod thugs la brtags [= btags] pa yin|. For sTeng rgyud 1b and the edition, translation, and discussion by Dieter Schuh, see Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, vii, xxi, 18–25. For the original version of sTeng rgyud 1b housed at Mang spro (Mang spro 34) and its discussion by Dieter Schuh, see Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, 18–25. Some technical terms, such as tog tse gar rgyab, have been translated in line with Dieter Schuh’s translation. 71 See the discussion by Dieter Schuh in Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, xxi–xxii, 147–148. 34 72 sTeng rgyud 4 (ll. 1–2): spyi ti khul gzhung khongs| rta pho| legs spel| dkyil| sprin pa steng rgyud bcas| rta pho yan dang blo gsar man gi dgon ma lag chos gzhis dang bcas pa khyod mtshor [= tshor]|. For sTeng rgyud 4 and the edition, translation, and discussion by Dieter Schuh, see Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, 155–166. 73 See Tāranātha, Rang rnam (vol. 2, p. 187.10–13): […] gu ge’i yul mtha’ pi ta’i [= ti’i] go mig zer ba’i dgon pa de ’dzin mkhan cig gtong dgos par byung|. 74 Tāranātha refers to Ye shes dbang phyug here merely as Mar yul bDag po; see Tāranātha, Rang rnam (vol. 2, p. 187.4). However, earlier in his autobiography, he gives his full name as Mar yul bDag po Ye shes dbang phyug; see Tāranātha, Rang rnam (vol. 2, p. 183.19–20). to David Jackson for sharing the eleven lists of monasteries he extracted from dPal ldan chos skyong’s autobiography. 84 Within the legal documents, the terms dgon g.yog and dgon lag are apparently used synonymously. More research is needed to calrify whether they express different levels of dependency. 85 Variant spellings of Mang spro are given within the legal documents: Ma gro, Ma gros, Ma dro, Ma dros, and Ma spro. The proper name of the monastery varies as well: Shar gling chos ’khor or Chos ’khor shar gling. On the naming of the monastery and the spelling Chos ’khor sha/shwa gling, see Blo gsal don grub, La dwags su bskyod pa’i zin tho (p. 26). See also ’Jam dbyangs rgyal mtshan, Mang spro dgon thub bstan sha gling chos ’khor (pp. 449.16–450.3) 75 See Tāranātha, Rang rnam (vol. 2, pp. 187.4–188.6). and ’Jam dbyangs rgyal mtshan, Mang spro dgon pa (pp. 44.12–45.6). 76 See Tāranātha, Rang rnam (vol. 2, pp. 137.20–138.4). Though Tāranātha does in this 86 context not specify the name of the youngest son of ’Jam dbyangs rnam rgyal, he can most likely be identified as the aforementioned Ye shes dbang phyug. 77 See Tāranātha, Rang rnam (vol. 2, pp. 183.19–184.3, 187.5–10). 78 See the La dwags rgyal rabs (pp. 38.23–25, 39.8–9, 39.13–14). bSod nams tshe brtan, Bla dwangs rgyal rabs (pp. 357.20–358.3) mentions that, according to the Ched brjod of a further unspecified book, ’Jam dbyangs rnam rgyal took a third wife called Zi ra ga tun. 79 Petech 1977: 55. 80 See Kun dga’ lhun grub, sTag tshang ras pa’i rnam thar (fol. 33b1–2) and Petech 1977: 55. 81 See the La dwags rgyal rabs (p. 39.14–16). 82 On the fraternal succession, see Kun dga’ lhun grub, sTag tshang ras pa’i rnam thar (fol. 31a1–4) and Petech 1977: 40–41. The reign of Seng ge rnam rgyal and Nor bu rnam rgyal is given according to Petech 1977: 171. 83 See dPal ldan chos skyong, Rang rnam (vol. 1, pp. 384.4–385.6): ma debs [= deb] la gsal bzhin gyi| glo bo| bal po| gu ge| la dwags phyogs kyi dgon sde rnams la mang ’gyed dkar me bcas kyi tho la| […] la dwags phyogs la mang spro dgon| skyid mang dgon| go mig dgon| […]. I am grateful Rin chen gling is given as the proper name of sKyid mang (var. sKyid mal, bsKyid mangs) in both inventory registers of Go mig; see sTeng rgyud 82 (fol. 4a2) and sTeng rgyud 83 (fol. 2b3). For the respective folios, see Schuh and Heimbel 2019, vol. 1, 250 (Abbildung 199), 255 (Abbildung 210). On other branches of Mang spro (dByibs dgu’i gur mgon/dByi gu and Gle’i/Sle Gur mgon), see ’Jam dbyangs rgyal mtshan, Mang spro dgon thub bstan sha gling chos ’khor (pp. 481.6–482.1), ’Jam dbyangs rgyal mtshan, Mang spro dgon pa (pp. 115.9–117.7), and Blo gsal don grub, La dwags su bskyod pa’i zin tho (pp. 24.5– 26.8). 87 See, for instance, sTeng rgyud 1c (l. 25) and Mang spro 35 (ll. 2–3), the former a certified copy and the latter the original confirmation letter issued by bDe legs rnam rgyal in 1686: bye brag tu mang spro’i dgon dang| dgon g.yog skyid mal spyi ti’i gog mig gnyis kyi dgon g.yog bcas mdor [sTeng rgyud 1c: ’dor] na dgon de gsum gyis [= gyi] nang du gtogs pa rnams dang|; and sTeng rgyud 1d (ll. 6–7) and Mang spro 2 (ll. 6–7), the former a certified copy and the letter the original confirmation letter issued by Nyi ma rnam rgyal in 1699: mang spro dgon dang| dgon de lag skyid mal gog mig gnyis bcas dgon de gsum g.yog bcas […]. For sTeng rgyud 1c, Mang spro 35, sTeng rgyud 1d, Mang spro 2, and the edition, translation, and discussion by Dieter Schuh, see Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, xxi, 1–14, 25–45. 35 94 88 Mang spro 58 (ll. 2): ma gro’i mgon lhag [= dgon lag] spyi ti go mig zer ba de tsho’i […]. For Mang spro 58 and the edition, translation, and discussion by Dieter Schuh, see Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, xxi, 89–92, 25–45. 89 In the publicatio, Mang spro and its branches are mentioned as: “In particular, the monastery of Mang spro together with branches, that is, the branches of the two [monasteries of] sKyid mal [and] Gog mig in sPyi ti; in short, those who belong to the three monasteries;” see sTeng rgyud 1c (l. 25) and Mang spro 35 (ll. 2–3): bye brag tu mang spro’i dgon dang| dgon g.yog skyid mal spyi ti’i gog mig gnyis kyi dgon g.yog bcas mdor [sTeng rgyud 1c: ’dor] na dgon de gsum gyis [= gyi] nang du gtogs pa rnams dang|. 90 sTeng rgyud 1c (ll. 27–28) and Mang spro 35 (ll. 5–7): ma dro’i dgon g.yog bcas gong gsal bzhin sngar yab mes gong ma’i [= mas] drung pa rdo rje dpal bzang po de nyid nas bzung bskal pa’i bar dpal ldan sa skya par bstan pa’i sri [sTeng rgyud 1c: srid] zhu’i ched dang| ’di kha’i sku rim du dmigs nas bka’ drin bskyangs ’dug kyang […]. For sTeng rgyud 1c, Mang spro 35, and the edition, translation, and discussion by Dieter Schuh, see Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, xxi, 25– 34. 91 The title of rDo rje dpal bzang, drung pa, deserves more research. According to Petech 1977: 25, n. 1, it was an “ecclesiastical title” in Western Tibet. In a list of the successive monastic heads of Mang spro, the first eight are all recorded with this title; the first, rDo rje dpal bzang, is even recorded as drung chen; see ’Jam dbyangs rgyal mtshan, Mang spro dgon pa (p. 119). According to bSod nams tshe brtan, Bla dwags rgyal rabs (p. 358.8–11), the court chaplain (dbu bla) of the Ladakhi king ’Jam dbyangs rnam rgyal was the Sa skya pa Drung pa of Mang spro during the first part of his life, before he took the ’Bri gung master rJe Dhar ma and the ’Brug pa master sTag tshang ras pa successively as his chaplains. 92 Mang spro 19 (l. 20): ma gros dgon drung pa rdo rje bzang po [= pos] btab|. For Mang spro 19, see Figs. 71–73. See also Schuh 1976: 25, 132–137, Dokument XLVIII and Schuh and Phukhang 1979: 64–66, Dokument XLVIII. 93 See Jamspal 1997: 141–144 and Lo Bue 2007: 184, n. 21. See the La dwags rgyal rabs (p. 36.18–24), bSod nams tshe brtan, Bla dwags rgyal rabs (pp. 343.11–344.2), Francke 1914: 80, and Snellgrove and Skorupski 1979: 82. On Grags ’bum lde, see Petech 1977: 20–23, 167 and Vitali 1996: 515–518. 95 This account was repeatedly published in histories of Mang spro written in various length by ’Jam dbyangs rgyal mtshan; see ’Jam dbyangs rgyal mtshan, Mang spro dgon thub bstan sha gling chos ’khor (pp. 449.3–450.3), Mang spro dgon pa (pp. 43.9–45.6), dPal sa skya’i lam ’bras la dwags su dar rgyas byung tshul (p. 26., col. 1, l. 2–19), and Mang spro dgon gyi chags rabs (pp. 4.7–6.18). But it is only in his latest publication from 2014 that he refers to the existence of that document; see ’Jam dbyangs rgyal mtshan, Mang spro dgon gyi chags rabs (p. 4.7–10): ’on kyang mang spro dgon pa thub bstan sha gling chos ’khor ’di chos rgyal grags pa ’bum ldes sbyin bdag mdzad nas bzhengs yod pa’i skor mang spror yod pa’i yig cha zhig gi nang du gsal|. For the history of Mang spro written based on legal documents preserved there, see Blo gsal don grub, La dwags su bskyod pa’i zin tho. He did not, however, succeed in locating such a document; see Blo gsal don grub, La dwags su bskyod pa’i zin tho (p. 19, n. 3): mtshan nyid slob dpon ’jam dbyangs rgyal mtshan gyis chos rgyal grags pa ’bum ldes mchod rten bzhengs pa’i rab gnas su bla ma drung pa rdo rje spyan drangs tshul ’khod pa’i bka’ shog zhig mang spro dgon na ’dug ces gsungs kyang bdag la ma rnyed|. The works by ’Jam dbyangs rgyal mtshan are most likely the source for the foundation account as given by bsTan pa dbang phyug, Mang spro dgon thub bstan shwa gling chos ’khor gling gi lo rgyus (pp. 54–55). Jam ’dbyangs rgyal mtshan also claims— dPal sa skya’i lam ’bras la dwags su dar rgyas byung tshul (p. 26., col. 1, l. 16–19), Mang spro dgon thub bstan sha gling chos ’khor (p. 481.1–3), and Mang spro dgon pa (p. 115.3–6)—that prior to founding Mang spro, Drung pa rDo rje bzang po founded sKyid mang, and adds in his paper on the Lam ’bras in Ladakh that he even founded Go mig. ’Jam dbyangs rgyal mtshan further claims—Mang spro dgon pa (p. 45.7–12) and Mang spro dgon gyi chags rabs (p. 5.11–15)—that it was Grags ’bum lde who had already granted monastic estates from Spiti (including Go mig) to Mang spro. As sources for his Mang spro history, Jam ’dbyangs rgyal mtshan—Mang spro dgon thub bstan sha gling chos ’khor (p. 482.7–15) and Mang spro dgon pa (pp. 117.14–118.9)—refers to oral lore (gna’ mi’i ngag rgyun), documents on monastic discipline (bca’ yig) from Sa skya and Ngor (gdan sa chen po dag), legal documents (bka’ shog) 36 99 issued by the Ladakhi kings, and catalogues (dkar chag) of Mang spro. He also mentions that he wrote the first publication together with Klu lding mKhan chen Rin po che ’Jam dbyangs bstan pa’i nyi ma (b. 1931), and the second as an expansion of a work by Rin po che, who was the seventy-fifth abbot of Ngor (tenure: 1954–1957) and who resided at Mang spro from the late 1960s to the late 1970s. On the depiction of a Sa skya lineage in the mid-fifteenthcentury Gu ru lha khang at Phyi dbang in Ladakh, see Lo Bue 2007: 180–181, 186 and Vitali 1996: 97. 96 sTeng rgyud 68 (ll. 1–6): spin chos bzhi [= gzhi] skor la| sngon thog nas sa skya rang gi chos bzhi [= gzhi] dang bsnyin [= sbyin] bdag kha tshang yin ’dug| par [= bar] skabs su sman lha’i me me bkra shis tshe ring snyigs ma byas nas gra(?) brgyun [= grwa rgyun] brnams [= rnams] bsnyigs [= snyigs] ma la bsgyur ’dug| de thog tu(?) dpon bslob [= slob] kun dga’ bsam ’grub nas spin pa dang thab brtsod [= ’thab rtsod] byas nas ling brti [= ti] zam pa ru brang [= brag] mkhar mkhar dpon nang kha rgyal tshan [= nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan?] nas khrims mchod [= gcod] byas nas| snga sum [= lnga gsum] snga nyis [= lnga gnyis] la dgos [= bgos] nas| khag sum [= gsum] sa skya pa la khag nyis [= gnyis] snyigs ma la| de thog du [= tu] go ling mgon [= dgon] pa ru go mig nas dpon bslob [=slob] kun dga’ bsam ’grub gyi [= kyi] kho rang gi phyag ’yog(?) [= g.yog] kun rnam rgyal [= kun dga’ rnam rgyal?]| bla ra’i dge long [= slong] bsam ’phel| go mig dge long [= slong] bkra shis| yi khyim dge long [= slong] bsod rnam [= nams] phun tshogs dang byas [=bcas] gra brgyun [= grwa rgyun] rnams la chos bslab par dang bcas(?) thab rtsang [= tshang] dang byas [= bcas]| lo bzhi tsam See sTeng rgyud 82 (fol. 5a6–b1): yang bde mchog gi gog smig spin bcas kyis [= kyi] chos gzhi la snyed ’tshar [= snyad ’tsher] med pa’i bla ma kun dga’ bsam grub la gnang ba’i phyag rgya gcig|; and sTeng rgyud 83 (fol. 3b1–2): yang bde mchog gi gog mig spin bcas kyis [= kyi] chos bzhi [= gzhi] la snyed tsher [= snyad ’tsher] med pa’i bla ma kun dga’ sam ’grub [= bsam grub] la gnang ba’i phyag rgya gicg|. For other related mentions of Kun dga’ bsam grub, see Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, 12. For sTeng rgyud 82, 83, and the edition, translation, and discussion by Dieter Schuh, see Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, 11–14, 215–246. 100 Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, 203. Translated from the German by Jörg Heimbel. 101 sTeng rgyud 5 (l. 3): spyi ti sa dge snying [= rnying] gsum gyi dgon ’di pa’i|. For sTeng rgyud 5 and the edition, translation, and discussion by Dieter Schuh, see Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, 147–155. Another copy of this decree was photographed by Yannick Laurent at the dGe lugs monastery of La go spal at Brag mkhar; see Laurent (forthcoming, BmK03). 102 For the location of Gu ling and Bar, see Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, 201, Abbildung 164 (Gu-ling and Bar). 103 See Henry 2016: 216. 104 See Henry 2016: 214–216. For the location of Ti ling and dBen sa, see Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, 201, Abbildung 164 (Ti-ling and Ensa). For the location of Pika, see Schuh 2016: 19, Abbildung 18a (Phika). For maps of Sa skya monasteries in mNga’ ris, see Tshe ring rgyal po, mNga’ ris chos ’byung gyi par [= bar] gong ltar du gnas ’dug| son po’i sku rim dang shin po’i lam ston rnams go mig mgon 105 and discussion by Dieter Schuh, see Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, xxiii, 11–14, 92, 203, rgyal po informed me that all of the Sa skya monasteries he listed in his mNga’ ris chos ’byung [= dgon] du mkhyong [= ’khyong] ba myong|. For sTeng rgyud 68 and the edition, translation, 201–214. (three maps on the first pages) and Tucci 1988 (Map of diffusion of sects). Gu ge Tshe ring belong to the Ngor tradition (lHa sa, October 14, 2011). 97 Henry 2017: 283. 106 See Heimbel 2017: 271–343. 98 Cf. Peter 1975: 21, who makes mention of two rNying ma monasteries in sPrin, though 107 Sangs rgyas phun tshogs, Ngor chen gyi rnam thar (p. 539.2–4): lan bar ma’i skabs ’dir bzhi without providing any names. However, bSod nams tshe brtan, Bla dwags rgyal rabs ’chi med gter (p. 328.10), mentions only the rNying ma monastery at Gung ri: pin gyi gung ring na rnying ma’i pin dgon pa bya ba na grwa pa brgya tham pa|. sde pa drung nam rtses| gu ge rgyal po khri nam mkha’i dbang po dang bka’ bgros te| gu ge’i mkhan chen chos nyid seng ge dpon slob rnams gdan ’dren par brdzangs| chos rje rin po che dpon slob brgya 37 tsam zhig pu hrangs su spyan drangs| rgyal de’ur zla ba gsum gyi bar bzhugs| gu ge nas bla ma sprul sku ba sogs dang| pi ti nas mkhan po rin bsod| mar yul pa’i dge bshes ’ga’ sogs pu hrangs dang bcas pa’i dge ’dun mang po la| dus ’khor mkha’ ’gro rgya mtsho gur rigs bsdus sogs kyi dbang gnang| nya rtse rig tu dus ’khor sgrub mchod| bzhi sde ru mkha’ ’gro rgya mtsho’i sgrub mchod btsugs| brtag gnyis| sbyong rgyud| dus ’khor ’grel chen sogs kyi bshad bka’| gzhan yang ’gro ba mang po la sems bskyed chen po blo sbyong sogs chos ’khor rgya chen po bskor| gu ge rgyal po rab tu byung zhing chos sde chen po gsar du btsugs| de’i tshe bstan rtsis khyad par can mdzad pa’ang yod do|| kha char jo bo’i drung du mar me’i phreng ba grangs med pa phul nas sangs rgyas kyi bstan pa dar ba’i smon lam mdzad| skyid grong du yang de ltar mdzad do||. 108 bSod nams lhun grub, Rang rnam (pp. 118.1–119.6): de nas yang drung nam rtse bas| snga [= sngar] ’khyud yod pa’i mtshams sbyor byas te| chos rje’i drung nas pu hrangs kyi jo bo mched gsum la dkar me ’bul ba [add: la] phebs| de dang sgo bstun te gu ge nas kyi lha| rje btsun pa yang phebs nas| rab tu byung zhing bsnyen pa [= par] rdzogs| byang chub sems dpa’i sdom pa dang dbang bskur ba du mas thugs ltams te| rig pa ’dzin pa’i brtul zhugs mchog gi rgyan gyis kyang mdzes par mdzad do|| de’i dus su sangs rgyas kyi bstan pa’i rtsis kyang mdzad de| […] de nas glang nas glang gi bar| drug bcu bskor gcig dang lo gsum ’gro ba bzhi pa’i steng me pho ’brug gi lo la| chos kyi rgyal po khri phun tshogs lde rab tu byung ba’i tshe rtsis pas| ston pa mya ngan las ’das nas lo sum stong lnga brgya dang drug bcu re dgu song nas| da lo’i lo ’di bdun bcu pa’i steng na yod pa yin no zhes gsung zhing| pu hrangs kyi dgon pa nya rtse rig tu| dus kyi ’khor lo’i dbang bskur ba dang| dgon pa bzhi sder bcom ldan ’das mkha’ ’gro rgya mtsho’i dbang bskur ba dang| chos ’khor khwa char du rten gtor ’dzugs pa dang| rab tu byung ba dang bsnyen par rdzogs pa’i tshogs grangs med pa sgrub par mdzad|. 109 On Gu ge Paṇḍita, see Heimbel 2017: 51–57, passim, van der Kuijp 2013, and van der Kuijp 2015. 110 See ’Jam dbyangs Nam mkha’ brtan pa, Gu ge paṇḍita’i rnam thar (fol. 3a2–b3). 111 See Vitali 1996: 89–96. For a criticism of Vitali’s attribution and dating, see van der Kuijp 2015: 342–345. 112 Vitali 1996: 84.19–85.2: de nas zhe gcig pa la kha char du dngul sku mched gsum gyi drung du| thar pa’i rgyal mtshan bzhes| lha rje btsun shākya ’od du mtshan gsol|. See also Vitali 2012a: 134– 136. Given the fact that with the exception of the account by Glo bo mKhan chen, the Gu ge king is said to have only taken pravrajyā monastic ordination, which normally refers to taking śrāmaṇera novice-monk ordination, I am wondering whether his taking of the “victory banner of liberation” might be a reference to his bhikṣu full-monk ordination. 113 Petech 1997: 244 and Vitali 2012b: 163. See also Vitali 1996: 520–523. As pointed out by van der Kuijp 2015: 357, Gu ge Paṇḍita met A mgon bzang po on his way to Glo bo when the latter was leading an army against Gu ge, an event that should be dated to the 1450s; see ’Jam dbyangs Nam mkha’ brtan pa, Gu ge paṇḍi ta’i rnam thar (fol. 9a2–3). For about 1482, the Paṇḍita’s biography reports renewed fighting when an army of Glo bo led by sDe pa A seng rdo rje brtan pa invaded Gu ge and Gu ge Paṇḍita was invited to Glo bo; see ’Jam dbyangs Nam mkha’ brtan pa, Gu ge paṇḍi ta’i rnam thar (fol. 13b1–3). 114 Ngag dbang bsod nams rgyal mtshan, Jo bo sku mched gsum gyi lo rgyus (fol. 11a5–b1): de rjes su chos rgyal a mgon bzang pos bstan ’gro’i bde skyid la dgongs te rten gsum la nyams gso dang| chu la rags rgyags [= rgyag] dgos pa’i bka’ lung [two syllables illegible; add: bstsal zhing]| chu rags rgyang grags rdo rje rab brtan zhes da lta’ang yod pa ’di lags|; and bsTan ’dzin chos kyi blo gros, Ti se’i gnas bshad (fol. 32b4): glo po chos rgyal a mgon bzang pos kho char lha khang ngor pa rdo rje ’chang la phul bas de phyin dpal ldan sa skya bas bzung ba yin no zhes grags so||. See also mNga’ ris srid gros mi rigs chos lugs rig gnas lo rgyus u lhan, sTod mnga’ ris dgon sde khag gi dkar chag (vol. 2, pp. 28–31.8), Tshe ring rgyal po, mNga’ ris chos ’byung (pp. 123.18–124.3), Gyalpo et al. 2012: 59–64, Petech 1997: 240, 244, Vitali 1996: 520–523, and Vitali 2012b: 163. For the location of ’Khor chags, see Gyalpo et al. 2012: 11 (Khorchag) and Ryavec 2015: 78 (Khorchag). On the basis of the Jo bo rin po che dngul sku mched gsum rten brten par bcas pa’i dkar chag rab dga’i glu dbyangs by Wa gindra karma (alias Ngag dbang ’phrin las rnam rgyal), a sixteenth-century work presently unavailable to me, Gyalpo et al. 2012: 64 refer to Ngor chen having commissioned mural paintings at ’Khor chags during the second quarter of the fifteenth century. For an inscription in the entrance area of the lHa khang chen mo at ’Khor chags that makes mention of Ngor chen’s visit to the monastery and sPu rang, see Tropper 2019: 68, 79–82, 95–97. 38 115 See Petech 1978: 319. 116 See Shākya mchog ldan, Chos ’khor rnam gzhag (pp. 470.6–471.1): dang pos rang lo zhe brgyad pa sa mo bya la e waṃ chos ldan gyi dgon pa btab| mdo sngags gnyis ka dang khyad par rnam ’grel g.yag ṭik dang rigs gter ’chad pa’i grwa khang dang chos gzhi btsugs| de nas mched pa la glo bo thub bstan rnam rgyal dang| pu rangs chos sde rgyal byed tshal| chu ’dus chos sde chos ’khor nor bu gling rnams sku dngos kyis btsugs| gu ge brgya gling thang dang| rting khebs kyi chos ’khor dga’ ldan rtse mo yang rje nyid kyi zhal ltas khyab nas btsugs pa’o|. Mang thos Klu sgrub rgya lugs rig gnas lo rgyus u lhan, sTod mnga’ ris dgon sde khag gi dkar chag (vol. 1, pp. 164–174) and Tshe ring rgyal po, mNga’ ris chos ’byung (pp. 225–229). 120 See Vitali 1996: 54.8–12, 110, 148, 269–272. 121 See Vitali 1996: 84.7–9, 133, 269, 505. The account continues with the coronation of Phun tshogs lde, which Vitali 1996: 84.10–15, 133, 505 considers having occurred on the same occasion as his marriage. Cf. van der Kuijp 2015: 343. 122 See Tshe ring rgyal po, mNga’ ris chos ’byung (pp. 226.19–228.8). See also mNga’ ris srid mtsho (1523–1596) in his Buddhist chronology estimates the size of Ngor chen’s foundations gros mi rigs chos lugs rig gnas lo rgyus u lhan, sTod mnga’ ris dgon sde khag gi dkar chag (vol. in those places, though not designating the monasteries by name. According to him, the 1, pp. 165.12–174). monastic foundation in Gu ge comprised one hundred monks; see Klu sgrub rgya mtsho, 123 bsTan rtsis gsal ba’i nyin byed (p. 215.16–20). 117 Among the students of ’Jam dbyangs Shes rab rgya mtsho (1396–1474), the third abbot of Ngor, Shes rab ’bum is recorded as an early abbot of rGyal byed tshal; see Sangs rgyas phun tshogs, Ngor gyi gdan rabs (p. 9.3–4): chos ’khor rgyal byed tshal gyi mkhan po shes rab ’bum la sogs pa rab tu mang ngo|. Other masters connected with the monastery were sNar thang bKa’ bzhi pa Grags pa shes rab tshul khrims and Sems dpa’ chen po Legs pa’i shes rab, who both functioned as chos dpon; see Kun dga’ grol mchog, Shāk mchog gi rnam thar (fols. 14a2, 28a5): […] snar thang ka [= bka’] bzhi pa grags pa shes rab tshul khrims phyis mnga’ ris kyi pu rangs rgyal byed tshal gyi chos dpon gnang ba de […]; […] sems dpa’ chen po legs pa’i shes rab pu rangs rgyal byed tshal gyi chos dpon du bskos|. 118 For the location of Phyi dbang, see Ryavec 2015: 119 (Chiwang). 119 Tshe ring rgyal po, mNga’ ris chos ’byung (pp. 49.25–50.6, 226.9–18) associates two kings with the site: sKyid lde btsan (i.e., sPyi lde btsan, the ruler of Gu ge Byang ngos in the mid12th century) and rNam rgyal lde (1372–1439), the father of Phun tshogs lde. The name of the fortress as found in local oral lore, mKhar rtse rNam rgyal, derives from that father’s name. According to this lore, the fortress on top of the hill was already the seat of the Jo bDag po. Moreover, there are also ruins of a fortress below that were the seat of mDa’ ba Chos rgyal. For a description of the site of Phyi dbang, see mNga’ ris srid gros mi rigs chos Pritzker 1998: 225–226. Pritzker 1998: 225 notes that his “Chinese colleagues’ charting came up with a count of over one thousand man-made caves.” 124 I am deeply grateful to the late Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po for kindly sharing his photographic documentation of Phyi dbang. 125 See Bod kyi mdzes rtsal kun btus kyi rtsom sgrig tshogs pa, Bod kyi mdzes rtsal kun btus (vol. 1, pp. 216–224, 238–252). 126 For the dating of the work, see dPal ’byor bzang po, Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i yid ’phrog 1 (p. 311.2–3): bdag chos ’byung smra ba chu byi la skyes nas da lta’i me rta la sbyar ba yan la lnga bcu nga lnga song|; “After I, the narrator of the Buddhist History, was born in a water-mouse [year; i.e., 1552], fifty-five years passed up to the point when [I] compiled [it] in the present firehorse [year; i.e., 1606].” Cf. Vitali 2012a: 5 and Vitali 2012c: 85 who understands this passage in the sense that dPal ’byor bzang po began writing the work in 1552. 127 dPal ’byor bzang po, Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i yid ’phrog 1 (pp. 107.6–108.2): ngo bo lotstsha ba’i chos rgyud yin pa la sa skya pa dang ’bri khungs su ming btags nas bar du ’bri khung pas bzungs| phyis bla ma sprul sku nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan dang| mkhan po chos dpal bzang po dang| chos rje la mkhyen rab pa dang| mkhas pa’i dbang po sgyu khul [= rgyun bskul] paṇḍi ta grags pa rgyal mtshan dang| ta ra ratṇa sogs kyis| rgya gling thang| rab rgyas gling| shī war sogs kyang mtho ling 39 gi yan lag yin no||. On Gu ge Paṇḍita’s epithet rgyun bskul, here given as sgyu khul, see Heimbel 2017: 55. The location and history of Shī war needs further clarification. 128 https://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Drigung-Lotsawa-Manikashrijnana/3936 (accesssed 18.03. 2019). 132 Bla ma sPrul sku Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan should not be confused with the eponymous ’Ba’ ra bKa’ brgyud master sPrul sku Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan (1475–1530). 129 See ’Jam dbyangs Nam mkha’ brtan pa, Gu ge paṇḍi ta’i rnam thar (fols. 2a2–3a2). 130 ’Jam dbyangs Kun dga’ bsod nams, Dam pa’i chos thos pa’i rgya mtsho (p. 137.1–6): ye shes mgon po phyag bzhi pa’i phyi sgrub kyi rjes gnang thob pa’i brgyud pa ni| ye shes kyi mgon po| slob See Vitali 1996: 391–392. See also Petech 1997: 241, Sørensen and Hazod 2007: vol. 1, 140, and Vitali 1999: 35, 199 (Tib. 58). For a description of the monastery and the site of bZhi sde, see mNga’ ris srid gros mi rigs chos lugs rig gnas lo rgyus u lhan, sTod mnga’ ris dgon sde khag gi dkar chag (vol. 2, pp. 115–123) and Tshe ring rgyal po, mNga’ ris chos ’byung (pp. 141–148), both of which refer to the monastery as Zhi sde lha sde dgon. For the location of Zhi sde, see Gyalpo et al. 2012: 11 (Zhide) and Ryavec 2015: 78 (Zhide Lhade). See ’Jam dbyangs Nam mkha’ brtan pa, Gu ge paṇḍi ta’i rnam thar (fol. 3a2–b3). Nam dpon klu sgrub| mar me mdzad bzang po| dus zhabs pa che chung| rtsa mi sangs rgyas grags| dpal 133 grags pa seng ge| slob dpon sangs rgyas gzhon nu| lo tsā ba ma ṇi ka shrī| sa bzang ’phags pa| chos phun tshogs, Ngor chen gyi rnam thar (p. 532.4): bzhi sde chos sder drung nam rtse ba dang|. rje kun dga’ bzang po| bla ma paṇḍi ta| rje btsun bsod nams lhun grub| des bdag la’o| |yang na lo tsā 134 See above n. 107. 135 See ’Jam dbyangs Nam mkha’ brtan pa, Gu ge paṇḍi ta’i rnam thar (fol. 3b2–5). 136 See ’Jam dbyangs Nam mkha’ brtan pa, Gu ge paṇḍi ta’i rnam thar (fol. 13a4–b1): bstan pa’i chen rga lo| phag mo gru pa| ’bri khung ’jig rten mgon po| skyi shod pa bkra shis ’bum| skyi shod pa ba| sprul sku nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan| mkhas btsun nam mkha’ rtse mo| |bla ma paṇ chen man sngar bzhin no| |yang ye shes mgon po de nyid kyi gsang sgrub srog gi thig le’i rjes gnang thun mong ma yin pa’i brgyud pa ni| rdo rje ’chang| phyag na rdo rje| klu sgrub| ke sa ra na te| dril bu pa| dza landha ri pa| nag po spyod pa| spyod mdzad chos kyi rdo rje| a wa dhū ti pa| kha che byang chub bzang po| dga’ ba’i rdo rje| rdo rje gdan pa che chung| rtsa mi sangs rgyas grags pa| dpal chen rga lo| |phag mo gru pa| rgya kun mkhyen| gtsang drag pa rin chen gzhon nu| rin chen grags| rin chen smon lam| bla chen smon lam shes rab| sgra tshad pa blo chen| mnyam med lo tsā ba ma ṇi ka shrī| sprul sku nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan| mkhas btsun nam mkha’ rtse mo| |paṇ chen grags rgyal| rje bsod nams lhun grub| de la bdag gi [= gis] thob|. 131 However, Maṇikaśrījñāna can not be considered a bKa’ brgyud master in the strict sense of the word. He had not only pursued studies of bKa’ brgyud teachings at ’Bri gung, where he is also said to have held the monastic seat, but, as was typical for his time, engaged in an ecumenical training under various masters at different monasteries, including Sa skya, Zha lu, and sNye thang. At the latter monastery, he met Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292– 1361), whose teachings he primarily taught afterwards. For a biographical sketch of Maṇikaśrījñāna, see Cyrus Stearns, 2008, “Drigung Lotsāwa Maṇikaśrījñāna,” mkha’ rtse mo is recorded among the list of Ngor chen’s disciples, as included in Sangs rgyas bya ba bde bar gshegs pa’i sku gzugs gyi [= kyi] bkod pa tshad la sogs pa ni| […] bzhi sder ’khor lo bde mchog| dpal phyag bzhi pa bla ma rgyud pa dang bcas pa shin du [= tu] legs pa dang| […] rten mchod bsam gyi [= gyis] mi khyab pa’i phyag rjes ni brjod gyi [= gyis] mi lang ngo||; and Tshe ring rgyal po, mNga’ ris chos ’byung (p. 142.2–6): rig gnas gsar brje’i skabs su ’du khang rtsa gtor btang nas gyang gog tsam las lhag med kyang spyi lo 1989 lor nyams gso byas so| dgon pa de’i jo khang sogs lha khang kha shas nang rten rtsa brlag btang yang ldebs ris rnying pa bsdad yod| sa skya’i gdung rgyud dang lam ’bras bla brgyud sogs kyi bris ris shin tu mtshar zhing gson nyams ldan pa ’dug|. For pictures of both Zhi sde lha sde and its old murals, see Tshe ring rgyal po, mNga’ ris chos ’byung (p. 14 of plates). 137 See ’Jam dbyangs Nam mkha’ brtan pa, Gu ge paṇḍi ta’i rnam thar (fol. 13b1–3). Gu ge Paṇḍita also taught and designed the gtsug lag khang and sacred images at Chos ’khor gling, 40 145 an institution that awaits further identification; see ’Jam dbyangs Nam mkha’ brtan pa, Gu ge paṇḍi ta’i rnam thar (fols. 11b2, 13a8–b1). 138 At Ngor Monastery, the bZhi sde regional dormitory (khang tshan) was established to house monks originating from the regions of mNga’ ris and Ladakh; see Jackson 1989: 49– 50, n. 2. 139 bSod nams grags pa, Deb ther dmar po gsar ma (p. 39.5–39a1): gu ge’i dpal lha btsan po yang dge ldan pa nyag gcig mchod yul du mdzad nas nor zong gis mnyes par byed cing| mnga’ zhabs na sa skya pa’i chos sde {gloss: rgya gling thang dang bzhi sde sogs} yod pa rnams rang babs su ’jog. 140 See Vitali 1996: 392, n. 635. 141 See Tshe ring rgyal po, mNga’ ris chos ’byung (pp. 202–208) and Tshe ring rgyal po, mTshan byang. See also Bod kyi mdzes rtsal kun btus kyi rtsom sgrig tshogs pa, Bod kyi mdzes rtsal kun btus (vol. 1, pp. 184–195). For the location of mKhar rtse Valley and mKhar rdzong, see rGyal po and Papa-Kalantari 2009: 3, Map 2. 142 rGyal po and Papa-Kalantari 2009: 18. 143 rGyal po and Papa-Kalantari 2009: 21. 144 Wang Ruilei, “An Exploration of the Identification of the Guru Donor and the Theme of the Mkhar rdzong Cave in Mkhar rtse Valley, Mnga’ ris,” The Seventh International Conference on Tibetan Archaelogy and Art, October 19–21, 2018, Chengdu, China. The inscription for sPrul sku Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan as presented by Wang Ruilei, and as legible on photographs kindly provided by Christiane Kalantari, reads: ’phrin las rnam sprul bzang po’i sku mna’ shing| |mkhyen rabs nam mkha’i ngos ltar rab yangs pa| |bslab gsum bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan gyis mdzes pa| |dpal ldan bla ma’i zhabs la phyag ’tshal lo||. Neither inscription is mentioned by Tshe ring rgyal po, mTshan byang. The two masters were previously identified as a double portrait of Bu ston Rin chen grub (1290–1263); see rGyal po and Papa-Kalantari 2009: 18. Tshe ring rgyal po, mTshan byang (pp. 194–205). As for Ngor chen, the lineage recorded by Tshe ring rgyal po, mTshan byang (p. 195.14–15) ends with dPal ldan tshul khrims (1333– 1399), Shar chen Ye shes rgyal mtshan (1359–1406), and Ngor chen. 146 The depicted masters also create a link with the old dynasty of Gu ge. For instance, in a register in-between the two Tibetan Buddhist masters framed by large maṇḍalas and the lineage depiction above, we find four larger portrayals of (from left to right) sPu rang bTsun pa, Lo chen Rin chen bzang po, lHa Bla ma Ye shes ’od, and lHa rje Bla ma Zhi ba ’od; see Tshe ring rgyal po, mTshan byang (p. 205.6–7). Further identification awaits the donors depicted in an alcove on the right side of the southern wall: Yon bdag Chos skyong grub and Yon bdag mGon po; see Tshe ring rgyal po, mTshan byang (p. 200.9). Moreover, at the farleft end of the western wall two rows of figures in the lower register who are apparently attending and also performing the consecration of the cave temple are depicted, all portrayed in three quarter profile facing to the right: in the upper row from left to right a royal figure wearing a white turban and two monks, and below four female members of the royal court. According to accompanying inscriptions, the royal figure is identified as Klong chen Glang dar ma, the inscription of the monk in the middle illegible, and the third monk at the right is given as Sangs rgyas rgyal mtshan; the women below are identified as Yon tan rtse mo, bKra shis brtsegs, ’Phags mo klu mo, and bZang mo; see Bod kyi mdzes rtsal kun btus kyi rtsom sgrig tshogs pa, Bod kyi mdzes rtsal kun btus (vol. 1, p. 192). However, the only inscription recognisable in this publication is the one below the monk to the right, which I suggest reading as bZi rjid [= gZi brjid] rgyal mtshan instead of Sangs rgyas rgyal mtshan. 147 See Tshe ring rgyal po, mNga’ ris chos ’byung (pp. 202–207). For a description of the site, see also mNga’ ris srid gros mi rigs chos lugs rig gnas lo rgyus u lhan, sTod mnga’ ris dgon sde khag gi dkar chag (vol. 1, pp. 93–108) and rGyal po and Papa-Kalantari 2009: 5–6. The former source knows to add that the affiliation of mKhar rtse changed from bKa’ brgyud to Ngor. 41 148 See Bod kyi mdzes rtsal kun btus kyi rtsom sgrig tshogs pa, Bod kyi mdzes rtsal kun btus (vol. 1, pp. 196–215). For a description of the site, see rGyal po and Papa-Kalantari 2009: 21–23. 149 See dPal ’byor bzang po, Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i yid ’phrog 1 (pp. 258.4–259.6): […] phyis mtho gling du lotstsha ba chos rgyun lo dgu bcu rma med par gnas pa’i rjes su bstan pa’i lhag ma pa’i zhal nas| rgyal po la chos gsan par bzhed na| stan dma’ ba la bzhugs te| snod kyi skyon gsum spong| ’du shes drug bsten dgos tshul sogs chos gsan pa’i kun spyod ’di mdzad na yong mchi| de lta min na rngo mi thag [= thog?] go zhes gsungs pas| de dus sa skya pa’i dge bshes chen po sprul sku bzhugs pa la| ngag dbang grags pa’i gsung lugs rnams brjod pas| chos nyan pa la de dgos tshul lung nas bshad zer bas| ’o na khyed de lta mi mdzad pa ci yin dris pa dang| rgyal po ma dgyes dogs pas so zer ba la chos nyan pa la de ltar byed dgos par dgongs nas| chos rje ngag dbang grags pa spyan drangs| tsam yod pa la sa ’bri gnyis kyi bla ma re gling du bzhugs nas bstan pa nya sma [= nyams dma’] ba chos zhus| mtho ling dang| blos tang gi gdan sar bskos pas| rje rin po che’i chos lugs btsugs|. la| bla ma sprul sku bas kyang che rlom kho nas gu ge bdag po la chos ’bul ba’i rim pas bshad nyan 151 yong ye med pa’i nyan bshad byed pa la| bla mas ’chad cing slob mas nyan pa’i tshul legs po ma dar ba la brten nas| chos rgyal phun tshogs ldes thugs ma rangs pas| spyir bla ma khu dbon gyis bstan pa bsam nas mgon po a ti sha yid bzhin nor bu ’dra ba rgya gar nas spyan drangs| dgos [= sgos] lotshtsha ba yab sras ’phags yul du bsdzangs [= brdzangs]| slar paṇḍi ta dang bcas pa gu ger byon nas dam pa’i chos rgyas par bstan pa’i srol ’di dang ji ltar byas nas bsgrub snyam du dgongs nas rgyal ba tsong kha pa yab sras kyi yon tan dang bsngags pa thos nas da sangs rgyas gnyis pa lta bu’i bla ma de bsod nams kyi dpal du spyan drangs dgos| gal te bstan pa’i bya bas khong rang ma byon na’ang sras kyi mthu [= thu] bo cig spyan drangs dgongs [= dgos?] zhes thugs la yod pa la| rgyal ba yab sras rnams ni spyan ma ’drongs na’ang| rje tsong kha pas lung bstan pa bzhin paṇ chen ngag dbang grags pa spyan ’drongs te| bka’ gdams kyi bstan pa dar rgyas su mdzad lags shing| de nas rje ngag dbang grags pa mchod yon tan gyi mtho gling du gzhi phab|. See also dPal ’byor bzang po, Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i yid ’phrog 2 (pp. 196.2–197.5), apparently a handwritten copy of the former manuscript, and dPal ’byor bzang po, Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i yid ’phrog 3 (pp. 131.7–132.2), a digital-input version of the manuscript with some umarked emendations and newly introduced transcription errors. The part mchod yon tan gyi in the last sentence is unclear to me. The digital-input version emended this part to mchod yon (i.e., “Thereupon, rJe Ngag dbang grags pa, preceptor-donee and ruler-donor, settled at mTho gling”); see dPal ’byor bzang po, Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i yid ’phrog 3 (p. 132.2). For a discussion of the various accounts of and reasons given for inviting Ngag dbang grags pa to Gu ge, see Vitali 2012a: 148–149. 150 dPal ’byor rgya mtsho, dGa’ ldan chos ’byung (fols. 85b3–86a2): […] snyan pa| gu ge’i bdag po bkra shis ’od lde dang| khri rnams [= rnam] rgyal ’od dang| shākya ’od dang mched gsum gyi snyan du lhongs pas| chos gsan par bzhed de| spyan ’dren la btang bas| mkhas pa ngag dbang grags Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, dGa’ ldan chos ’byung (vol. 2, p. 34.6): de dus rgyal po’i sar sa skya pa’i dge bshes sprul sku ba yod pa la|. 152 Other dGe lugs accounts relate the invitation of Ngag dbang grags pa to a local demoness the Sa skya and ’Bri gung lamas were unable to subdue; see Vitali 2012a: 148–149. 153 On Ngag dbang grags pa, see Petech 1997: 243–244, Vitali 1999: 37–38, and Vitali 2012a: 146–152, who believes that Ngag dbang grags pa was invited to Gu ge before Tsong kha pa’s passing in 1419 and returned to his native land of Gu ge before 1424. 154 Vitali 1999: 111. 155 See Vitali 1999: 111–114, Vitali 2012a: 228–229, and Vitali 2012c: 23–24. The textual source for some of Vitali’s observations is a paper by the Tibetan historian bKra shis tshe ring, who, in turn, bases his enumeration of mTho lding branches on oral accounts of senior monks of mTho lding; see bKra shis tshe ring, mTho lding dgon pa’i chags rabs (p. 112.4–14). As a further mTho lding branch with a Ngor affiliation, Vitali 1999: 111–114 records Gum phug (or sGom phug) dgon pa. However, Vitali 1999: 152 specifies the affiliation of sGom phug dgon pa as bKa’ brgyud. On the sGom phug (or mGon phug) lha khang of the ’Brug pa bKa’ brgyud school, see mNga’ ris srid gros mi rigs chos lugs rig gnas lo rgyus u lhan, sTod mnga’ ris dgon sde khag gi dkar chag (vol. 1, pp. 202–211) and Tshe ring rgyal po, mNga’ ris chos ’byung (pp. 247–249). For its location; see Ryavec 2015: 119 (Gongphug). Other Sa skya monasteries with a Ngor affiliation were sNye mgo dgon to the east of the Ma pham g.yu mtsho in sPu rang and Yul dgon pa to the north-west of Rab rgyas gling in Gu ge; see Tshe 42 158 ring rgyal po, mNga’ ris chos ’byung (pp. 161–162 and 245–246). For the location of both, see Ryavec 2015: 78 (Nyago) and 119 (Yul). Still another Ngor affiliated monastery was She shad dgon, a branch of Phyi dbang; see mNga’ ris srid gros mi rigs chos lugs rig gnas lo rgyus u lhan, sTod mnga’ ris dgon sde khag gi dkar chag (vol. 1, pp. 198–201). It was located south of Rab rgyas gling; see Ryavec 2015: 119 (Sheshay). Vitali 1999: 152 gives the rTsa bu lha khang in sPu rang as adhering to the Ngor pa, whereas Tshe ring rgyal po, mNga’ ris chos ’byung (pp. 140–141) gives the rKang rtse’i rTswa phu lha khang as affiliated to the ’Brug pa bKa’ brgyud school. Cf. mNga’ ris srid gros mi rigs chos lugs rig gnas lo rgyus u lhan, sTod mnga’ ris dgon sde khag gi dkar chag (vol. 2, pp. 124–132), which based on local lore gives the rTsa phu lha khang as “bKa’ brgyud rnying ma,” but also mentions it as a branch of Byang chub gling in gTsang. For its location, see Ryavec 2015: 78 (Tsapu Lhakhang), who gives it as a dGe lugs temple since the seventeenth century. Most of the monasteries discussed in this essay can also be found recorded within two of the aforementioned lists of mainly Sa skya monasteries that dPal ldan chos skyong included in his autobiography (i.e., the Chu ’dus yan la dwags phyin gyi mang ja bsngo rten mar me bcas kyi tho and Ma debs [= deb] la gsal bzhin gyi| glo bo| bal po| gu ge| la dwags phyogs kyi dgon sde rnams la mang ’gyed dkar me bcas kyi tho); see dPal ldan chos skyong, Rang rnam (vol. 1, pp. 381.3–385.6). Moreover, they are also recorded in a more I would like to thank Christian Luczanits for this first assessment. Stylistically, the murals might be comparable to those of the cave temple of Bar rdzong gog po in the mKhar rtse Valley and of the bKra shis gsum brtsegs temple in Wanla, Ladakh. On the former, see Bod kyi mdzes rtsal kun btus kyi rtsom sgrig tshogs pa, Bod kyi mdzes rtsal kun btus (vol. 1, pp. 94–115), Tshe ring rgyal po, mTshan byang (pp. 205–211), and Zhang 2018. On the latter, see Luczanits 2002, Luczanits 2015: 243–244, and Neuwirth 2015. On early ’Bri gung art, see Luczanits 2015; on ’Bri gung art in general, see Jackson 2015. On western Himalayan Buddhist art during the thirteenth and fourteenth century, see, for instance, the discussion by Kalantari 2017: 200–203. 159 On the ’Bri gung pa in Far-western Tibet, see Jackson 2015: xviii–xxi, 5–17, Kerin 2015: 79–90, Petech 1987, Petech 1997: 240–242, Vitali 1996: 372–390, 400–425, 437–441, passim, and Vitali 1999: 34–38. 160 See Sangs rgyas dar po, rGod tshang pa’i rnam thar (pp. 71.15–73.4). For a translation of the passage of rGod tshang pa’s encounters with yogis in Spiti, see Laurent (forthcoming). For a partial translation of this passage and the dating of rGod tshang pa’s journey through Spiti, see Vitali 1996: 359, n. 70, 408–409, n. 670. Laurent (forthcoming) considers the possibility that a small group of anchorites could have also settled in the cliffs of Brag mkhar recent list of Sa skya monasteries in Tibet that was published in 2006 by the dPal sa skya’i lo in the thirteenth or fourteenth century. rgyus ’tshol bsdu tshogs chung headed by Dam pa Rin po che of Ngor; see dPal sa skya’i lo 161 See Huber 2008: 100–103, 246. 162 Below the hermitage the gorge or ravine is crossed by a river-bed next to which there are rgyus ’tshol bsdu tshogs chung, mTshan byang dkar chag (p. 2). 156 sTeng rgyud 69 makes mention of a visit of the Rab gling mKhan po, the abbot of Rab gling, to sTeng rgyud in a fire-hare year. Provided that Rab gling is short for Rab rgyas gling, this document would attest to direct relations between both monasteries. On the occasion of that abbot’s visit, the monastic rules and discipline (sgrig lam kun spyod) were renewed according to those of Ngor Monastery. For sTeng rgyud 69, see Schuh and Heimbel 2019, vol. 1, 359, 363–366 (Abbildungen 317–320). 157 There is another hermitage in the direct vicinity of the monastic ruins of sTeng rgyud, the origin of which is not yet known. It contains some caves located at a cliff within the gorge to the east of sTeng rgyud and was used by the latter’s monks (Figs. 13–14). remains of a bricked wall built at the rock face. There thus might have been a direct connection from the river to the hermitage above, most likely for fetching water. 163 Since the original southern wall has been completely destroyed, it is impossible to say anything about whether or not it also contained murals. 164 Local oral lore identifies the site as the seat of a master referred to as Go mig Bla ma. 43 165 As a preliminary reading for the inscription shown in Fig. 50, I would suggest: spyan snga rin po che||. This “sPyan snga Rin po che” can be identified as sPyan snga Grags pa ’byung gnas (1175–1255), fourth abbot of ’Bri gung, the famous nephew-disciple of the great founder ’Jig rten mgon po. The previous lineage master shown in Fig. 49 could then be his abbatial predecessor, bSod nams grags pa (1187–1234/35), also known as dBon Rin po che. This would fit the legible ending of the accompanying inscription: […] rin po che||. 166 Luczanits 2015: 233. 167 Luczanits 2015: 237. 168 See Luczanits 2015: 237. 169 See Luczanits 2015: 233. 170 I am grateful to Christian Luczanits for suggesting this dating. 171 Within the enumeration of paintings (sku thang) recorded in one of the two aforementioned inventory registers, a painting of a further unspecified lama is listed, which might be the painting under discussion; see sTeng rgyud 83 (fol. 5a7): bla ma’i sku thang gcig|. For sTeng rgyud 83, see Schuh and Heimbel 2019: vol. 1, 258 (Abbildung 215). 172 On depictions of this trio, see Jackson 2010: 109–115. 173 See Luczanits 2015: 221. For a list of the successive head lamas, see Jackson 2015: 276– 279. On western-Himalayan ’Bri gung thangkas, see Luczanits 2015: 227–230. Illustrations Fig. 1 Map of Monastic Sites of Spiti Related to this Study: (A) Go mig lHun grub rtse mo, (B) Ruins of sTeng rgyud lHun grub rtse mo, (C) sTeng rgyud dgon lHun grub chos ’khor gling, Kaza, (D) mNgon dga’, (E) dKyil dgon Nor bu dge ’phel, (F) La go spal, Brag mkhar (alias Brag mkhar bKra shis chos gling), (G) gSang sngags chos gling, sPrin, (H) Ta po. Fig. 2 Map of Go mig and Surroundings: (A) Go mig lHun grub rtse mo, (B) Ruins of sTeng rgyud lHun grub rtse mo, (C) sTeng rgyud dgon lHun grub chos ’khor gling, Kaza, (D) mNgon dga’, (E) dKyil dgon Nor bu dge ’phel. Fig. 3 sTeng rgyud lHun grub rtse mo (1933). Photo by Eugenio Ghersi. After Bellatalla, Gemignani, and Rossi 2008: 111. Fig. 4 sTeng rgyud lHun grub rtse mo (1933). Photo by Eugenio Ghersi. After Bellatalla 2018: 82. Fig. 5 Monastic dance at sTeng rgyud lHun grub rtse mo (1933). Photo by Eugenio Ghersi. After Bellatalla, Gemignani, and Rossi 2008: 98. Fig. 6 Monastic dance at sTeng rgyud lHun grub rtse mo (1933). Photo by Eugenio Ghersi. After Bellatalla, Gemignani, and Rossi 2008: 101. Fig. 7 Monks in front of sTeng rgyud lHun grub rtse mo (1917 or 1918). Photo by Henry Lee Shuttleworth. After Laurent 2017: 2. Fig. 8 Ruins of sTeng rgyud lHun grub rtse mo (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 9 Ruins of sTeng rgyud lHun grub rtse mo (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 10 Ruins of sTeng rgyud lHun grub rtse mo (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 11 Ruins of sTeng rgyud lHun grub rtse mo (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 12 View of Kaza from the ruins of sTeng rgyud lHun grub rtse mo (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 13 Hermitic cave site of sTeng rgyud lHun grub rtse mo (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 14 Hermitic cave site of sTeng rgyud lHun grub rtse mo (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 15 Go mig lHun grub rtse mo (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 16 Close-up view of Go mig lHun grub rtse mo (2017). The yellow-roofed building on the left is the old protector chapel (dgon khang) with the lama’s residence directly attached to its left and the museum building to its right. The building on the right consists of the assembly hall and monks’ quarters that were newly built when the well at sTeng rgyud was drying up as a consequence of the the Kinnaur earthquake of January 19, 1975. © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 17 sTeng rgyud dgon lHun grub chos ’khor gling, Kaza (2017); founded in 1974 and rebuilt from 2005–2009. © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 18 Rab rgyas gling (1933). Photo by Eugenio Ghersi. After Bellatalla, Gemignani, and Rossi 2008: 113. Fig. 19 dKyil dgon Nor bu dge ’phel (1933). Photo by Eugenio Ghersi. After Bellatalla, Gemignani, and Rossi 2008: 114. Fig. 20 mNgon dga’, facing south (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 21 mNgon dga’, remains of a wall (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 22 mNgon dga’, facing north (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 23 Phyi dbang (2011), © Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po. Fig. 24 Phyi dbang (2011), © Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po. Fig. 25 Phyi dbang (2011), © Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po. Fig. 26 Phyi dbang (2011), © Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po. Fig. 27 Cave no. 32, eastern wall, Phyi dbang (2011), © Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po. Fig. 28 Cave no. 32, western wall, Phyi dbang (2011), © Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po. Fig. 29 Cave no. 32, northern wall, Phyi dbang (2011), © Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po (photo adjusted by Jörg Heimbel). Fig. 30 Cave no. 32, southern wall, Phyi dbang (2011), © Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po. Fig. 31 mKhar rdzong, northern wall, © Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po. Fig. 32 sPrul sku Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan and Drung pa (alias mKhas btsun) Nam mkha’ rtse mo, northern wall, mKhar rdzong, © Gu ge Tshe ring rgyal po (photo adjusted by Jörg Heimbel). Fig. 33 Hermitage facing east with the small building in front of the rock face featuring the mural paintings, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 34 Hermitage facing west with the small building in front of the rock face featuring the mural paintings, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 35 Smaller building in front of the rock face with surrounding remains of the original structure’s southern and eastern walls, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 36 Traces of the murals on the original structure’s inner eastern wall, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 37 Western wall of the main room with a gateway to the first, smaller room where the entrance is located, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 38 Western and northern rock face walls, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 39 Northern rock face wall, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 40 Northern rock face wall, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 41 Northern rock face wall, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 42 Vajradhara with two standing bodhisattvas in three-quarter profile, northern rock face wall, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 43 Detail of the first maṇḍala, northern rock face wall, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 44 A standing deity with traces of blue colour embracing a consort with two hands folded behind her back, the right leg extended straight, the left leg bent (two-armed form of Cakrasaṃvara with consort?), northern rock face wall, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 45 A maṇḍala dedicated to Vajrayoginī or Vajravārāhī, northern rock face wall, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 46 A maṇḍala most likely dedicated to Jinasāgara Avalokiteśvara, northern rock face wall, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 47 Fragments of a large maṇḍala most likely dedicated to Cakrasaṃvara, western wall, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 48 ’Bri gung hierarch, western wall, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 49 Inscribed lineage master ([…] rin po che||?), northern rock face wall, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 50 Inscribed lineage master (spyan snga rin po che||?), northern rock face wall, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 51 Lineage master, northern rock face wall, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 52 Flaming triple jewel in the middle of the cloth draped over the centre of the throne base, northern rock face wall, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 53 Undulating lotus vines sprouting out of a vase that stands upon a crossed vajra, northern rock face wall, Khyim chung lung pa (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 54 Thangka painting of a ’Bri gung hierarch and Ṣaḍakṣara Avalokiteśvara (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 55 Detail of the two main figures of Fig. 44 (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 56 Detail of the left part of the upper two rows of Fig. 44 (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 57 Detail of the right part of the upper two rows of Fig. 44 (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 58 Detail of the left part of the lower two rows of Fig. 44 (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 59 Detail of the right part of the lower two rows of Fig. 44 (2017), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 60 bKa’ sgo (fol. 1a), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 61 bKa’ sgo (fol. 1b), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 62 bKa’ sgo (fol. 2a), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 63 bKa’ sgo (fol. 2b), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 64 bKa’ sgo (fol. 3a), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 65 bKa’ sgo (fol. 3b), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 66 bKa’ sgo (fol. 4a), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 67 bKa’ sgo (fol. 4b), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 68 bKa’ sgo (fol. 5a), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 69 bKa’ sgo (fol. 5b), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 70 bKa’ sgo (fol. 6a), © Jörg Heimbel. Fig. 71 Mang spro 19, bCa’ yig, © Blo gsal don grub. Fig. 72 Mang spro 19 (ll. 1–17), bCa’ yig, © Blo gsal don grub. Fig. 73 Mang spro 19 (ll. 18–37), bCa’ yig, © Blo gsal don grub. Fig. 74 Mang spro 71 (fol. 1a), © Blo gsal don grub. Fig. 75 Mang spro 71 (fol. 1b), © Blo gsal don grub. Fig. 76 Mang spro 71 (fol. 2a), © Blo gsal don grub. Fig. 77 Mang spro 71 (fol. 2b), © Blo gsal don grub. Fig. 78 Mang spro 71 (fol. 3a), © Blo gsal don grub. Fig. 79 Mang spro 71 (fol. 3b), © Blo gsal don grub. 127 Bibliography Tibetan-Language Works Kun dga’ grol mchog (1507–1566). Shāk mchog gi rnam thar = Paṇḍi ta chen po shākya mchog ldan gyi rnam par thar pa zhib mo rnam par ’byed pa. Block-print, 108 fols. BDRC (W25586). ’Jam dbyangs Kun dga’ bsod nams, Sa skya Lo tsā ba (1485–1533). Dam pa’i chos thos pa’i rgya khang phyag btab nas lo gcig stong ’khor ba’i rjes dran mdzad sgo’i go sgrig tshogs chung, 1996. Ngag dbang bsod nams rgyal mtshan, mKhan chen (b. 1830s, d. 1890s). Jo bo sku mched gsum gyi lo rgyus = lHar bcas ’gro ba’i mchod sdong jo bo sku mched gsum sngon byung gi gtam rabs brjod pa rin chen baiḍur sngon po’i pi waṃ. Block-print, 18 fols. mNga’ ris srid gros mi rigs chos lugs rig gnas lo rgyus u lhan (ed.). sTod mnga’ ris dgon sde khag gi dkar chag = sTod mnga’ ris dgon sde khag gi dkar chag dwangs gsal me long. 2 vols. Ti mtsho = Dam pa’i chos thos pa’i rgya mtsho rin po che padma rā ga’i phreng ba. In Sa lo chen po se’i shes rig ’od phreng, vols. 2–3. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2015. ’jam dbyangs kun dga’ bsod nams kyi gsung ’bum, pp. 1–252. Kathmandu: Sa skya rgyal yongs Jam dbyangs rgyal mtshan. dPal sa skya’i lam ’bras la dwags su dar rgyas byung tshul. Chos dung gsung rab slob gnyer khang, 2007. Kun dga’ lhun grub (1616–1675). sTag tshang ras pa’i rnam thar = Au ḍi yā ṇa pa ngag dbang rgya mtsho’i rnam thar legs bris bai ḍūrya dkar po’i rgyud mang. Block-print, 57 vols. BDRC (W2CZ5991). Klu sgrub rgya mtsho, Mang thos (1523–1596). bsTan rtsis gsal ba’i nyin byed = bsTan rtsis gsal ba’i nyin byed lhag bsam rab dkar. Published together with the Tha snyad rig gnas lnga ji ltar byung ba’i tshul gsal bar byed pa blo gsal mgrin rgyan legs bshad nor bu’i phreng ba by ’Dar stod dGra ’dul dbang po. Gangs can rig mdzod, vol. 4. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 1987. bKra shis tshe ring. dKyil dgon nor bu dge ’phel gyi byung ba brjod pa = sPyi ti dkyil dgon nor bu dge ’phel gyi byung ba brjod pa’i rab byed ’phags nor bdun ldan. In sPyi ti dkyil dgon nor bu dge ’phel gyi byung ba brjod pa’i rab byed ’phags nor bdun ldan: A Short Guide to Key Gonpa entitled The Mirror that Sheds Light on the Centre of the Mandala, edited by Tashi Tsering, pp. 29– 76. Key Monastery, H.P.: Key Monastery, 2000. ———. mTho lding dgon pa’i chags rabs = Tho ling dpal dpe med lhun gyis grub pa’i gtsug lag khang nas mtho lding dgon pa’i bar gyi chags rabs shin tu bsdus pa sngon ’gro’i lam ston. In Tho ling dpal dpe med lhun gyis grub pa’i gtsug lag khang phyag btab nas lo gcig stong ’khor ba’i rjes dran dus deb, edited by Tashi Tsering, pp. 83–123. Dharamsala, H.P.: Tho ling gtsug lag dkar po: Sa skya’i rtsom rig dus deb, 2005, vol. 1, pp. 21–27. ———. Mang spro dgon thub bstan sha gling chos ’khor. In The History of Ladakh Monasteries: dGon rabs kun gsal nyi snang, edited by Jamyang Gyaltsan, pp. 445–483. Leh, J&K: All Ladakh Gonpa Society, 1995. ———. Mang spro dgon pa: Mangtro Monastery. Leh, J&K: Cultural and Welfare Society, 2005. ———. Mang spro dgon gyi chags rabs. La dwags kyi shi ra za (bZo dang shes rig gi gter mdzod mang spro dgon), 2014, lo 36, vols. 5–6, pp. 1–16. ’Jam dbyangs shes rab, mDo khams Thar lam dgon gyi mkhan ming. Ngag dbang mkhyen brtse’i rnam thar = dPal e-wam chos-ldan-gyi bdan [sic] rabs don-gnis-pa [sic] khaṅ-gsar khan-chen [sic] nag-dban [sic] khyen-brtse [sic] thub-bstan sñiṅ-po’i rnam-par thar-pa nomtsher [sic] nor-bu’i do-śal. Delhi: Sherab Gyaltshen for Ngor Khangsar Labrang, 1995. ’Jam dbyangs Nam mkha’ brtan pa, bZhi (or gZhi) sde pa (fl. 15th century). Gu ge paṇḍi ta’i rnam thar = rNam thar dgos ’dod ’byung ba. dBu med manuscript, 19 fols. Tāranātha (1575–1634). Rang rnam = rGyal khams pa tā ra nā thas bdag nyid kyi rnam thar nges par brjod pa’i deb gter shin tu zhib mo ma bcos lhug pa’i rtogs brjod. In Jo nang rje btsun tā ra nā tha’i gsung ’bum dpe bsdur ma, edited by the dPal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib 128 ’jug khang, vols. 1–2. 45 vols. Mes po’i zhul bzhag, vols. 43–87. Beijing: Krung go’i bod zhib ’jug khang, vol. 38 (nyi), pp. 63–327. Xining: mTsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2008. 2011. bsTan pa dbang phyug, Mang spro sKyong ’du ba. Mang spro dgon thub bstan shwa gling chos ’khor gling gi lo rgyus. Chos dung dkar po: Sa skya’i rtsom rig dus deb, 2010, vol. 6, pp. 54– 59. bsTan ’dzin chos kyi blo gros (1868–1906). Ti se’i gnas bshad = Gangs ri chen po ti se dang mtsho chen ma dros pa bcas kyi sngon byung gi lo rgyus mdor bsdus su brjod pa’i rab byed shel dkar me long. Block-print, 63 fols. BDRC (W22709). dPal ldan chos skyong (1702–1760). Ngor gyi gdan rabs kha skong = E waṃ pa’i gdan rabs rin chen phreng mdzes kyi kha skong rtogs brjod byin rlabs ’dod dgu’i dpal ster. In Lam ’bras Tshogs bśad: The Sa-skya-pa teachings of the path and the fruit, according to the Ṅor-pa transmission. As arranged by ’Jam-dbyaṅs Blo-gter-dbaṅ-po and his successors and incorporating other texts transmitting the lineage through the present Ṅor and Sa-skya systems. 6 vols. Reproduced from prints from the Sde-dge blocks from the library of the Ven. Klu-sdiṅs Mkhan Rin- po-che of Ṅor. Sa-skya Lam ’bras Literature Series, vols. 22–27. Dehra Dun, U.P.: Sakya Centre, 1985, vol. 4, pp. 495–593. ———. Rang rnam = Ṅor mkhan-chen dpal-ldan-chos-skyoṅ źabs kyi rnam thar sna tshogs ljon pa stug po’i khri śiṅ: The autobiography of the 33rd Abbot of Ṅor Dpal-ldan-chos-skyoṅ. Completed and edited by Źu-chen Tshul-khrims-rin-chen of Sde-dge. Reproduced from tracing of a print from the Sde-dge blocks from the library of Burmiok Athing by The Eight [sic] Khams-sprul Don-brgyud-ñi-ma. 4 vols. Tibetan Craft Community Tashijong, Palampur, H.P.: The Sungrab Nyamso Gyunpel Parkhang, 1974–1975. dPal ’byor rgya mtsho, mKhar nag Lo tsā ba (fl. 16th/17th century). dGa’ ldan chos ’byung = dGa’ ldan chos ’byung dpag bsam sdong po mkhas pa dgyes byed. dBu med manuscript, 102 fols. BDRC (W18611) dPal ’byor bzang po, Zhang zhung ba bShes gnyen (b. 1552). Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i yid ’phrog 1. In Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs, edited by the dPal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying ———. Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i yid ’phrog 2. In Vitali 2012c: 87–356. ———. Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i yid ’phrog 3. Edited by the mNga’ ris srid gros mi rigs chos lugs rig gnas lo rgyus u lhan. Ti se’i shes rig ’od phreng, vol. 1. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2015. dPal sa skya’i lo rgyus ’tshol bsdu tshogs chung (ed.). mTshan byang dkar chag = Gangs ljongs chol kha gsum du gnas pa’i dpal sa skya’i ring lugs ’dzin pa’i dgon sde dang| ri khrod| lha khang (gnas shul) khag gi mtshan byang dkar chag gzigs bder bkod pa. [Lhasa?:] gNa’ deng lo rgyus rig gnas ’tshol bsdu tshogs chung, 2006. Bod kyi mdzes rtsal kun btus kyi rtsom sgrig tshogs pa (ed.). Bod kyi mdzes rtsal kun btus = Bod kyi mdzes rtsal kun btus: Zangzu meishu jicheng. Ri mo sgyu rtsal skor gyi mnga’ ris ldebs ris: Huihua yishu bihua ali juan, vol. 1. Chengdu: Si khron dus deb tshogs pa and Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2017. Blo gsal don grub. La dwags su bskyod pa’i zin tho. Chos dung dkar po: Sa skya’i rtsom rig dus deb, 2010, vol. 6, pp. 17–26. Tshe ring rgyal po, Gu ge (1961–2015). mNga’ ris chos ’byung = mNga’ ris chos ’byung gangs ljongs mdzes rgyan. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, 2006. ———. mTshan byang = mNga’ ris sa khul rtswa mda’ rdzong na mchis pa’i gu ge rgyal rabs skabs bzhengs pa’i lha khang gi mtshan byang skor la rags tsam brjod pa. In Epigraphic Evidence in the Pre-modern Buddhist World. Proceedings of the Eponymous Conference Held in Vienna, 14–15 Oct. 2011, edited by Kurt Tropper, pp. 193–216. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, vol. 85. Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 2014. Rāhula (alias dGe ’dun bsod nams). Ta po = Ta po| Dus rabs bcu pa nas nyi shu pa’i bar gyi snga mo’i rgya gar dang bod kyi ldebs ris dang yi ge nub hi mā la ya’i gna’ bo’i dgon grong zhig. Tabo, H.P.: Ta po dgon gyi dpe mdzod khang, 2013. La dwags rgyal rabs. In Francke 1926: 17–59. 129 Shākya mchog ldan, gSer mdog Paṇ chen (1428–1507). Chos ’khor rnam gzhag = Chos kyi ’khor lo bskor ba’i rnam gzhag ji ltar grub pa’i yi ge gzu bor gnas pa’i mdzangs pa dga’ byed. In The Complete Works (gsun [sic] ’bum) of Gśer-mdog [sic] Paṇ-chen Śākya-mchog-ldan. 24 vols. Reproduced from the unique manuscript prepared in the 18th century at the order of Rje Sakya-rin-chen [sic], the 9th Rje Mkhan-po Bhutan [sic] preserved at the Monastery of Pha-jo-sdins [sic] ’og-min-gnis-pa [sic]. Delhi: Nagwang Topgyal, 1995 (third edition), vol. 16 (ma), pp. 457–482. First edition, Thimphu: Kunzang Topgey, 1975. Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, sDe srid (1653–1705). dGa’ ldan chos ’byung = Baiḍūrya-ser-po: A history of Dga’-ldan (= Dge-lugs-pa) sect. Reproduced from the original Lhasa block print from library [sic] of Stag-sna Rinpoche of Ladakh. 2 vols. Gedan Sungrab Minyam Gyunphel, vols. 135–136. New Delhi: Ngawang Gelek Demo, 1980. Sangs rgyas dar po, rNal ’byor ba (fl. 16th century). rGod tshang pa’i rnam thar = rGyal ba rgod tshang pa mgon po rdo rje’i rnam par thar pa mthong ba don ldan nor bu’i phreng ba. In rGod tshang ba mgon po rdo rje’i rnam thar, edited by Sangs rgyas, pp. 1–304. Xining: mTsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1993. Sangs rgyas phun tshogs, ’Jam mgon (1649–1705). Ngor chen gyi rnam thar = rDo rje ’chang kun dga’ bzang po’i rnam par thar pa legs bshad chu bo ’dus pa’i rgya mtsho. In Lam ’bras slob bśad: The Sa-skya-pa teachings of the path and the fruit, according to the Tshar-pa transmission. As arranged by ’Jam-dbyaṅs-blo-gter-dbaṅ-po and supplemented by texts continuing the lineage through Khaṅ-gsar Dam-pa and Sga-ston Ṅag-dbaṅ-legs-pa Rin-poches. 21 vols. Reproduced from prints from the Sde-dge redaction from the library of the Ven. Klu-sdiṅs Mkhan Rin-po-che of Ṅor. Sa-skya Lam ’bras Literature Series, vols. 1– 21. Dehra Dun, U.P.: Sakya Centre, 1983–1985, vol. 1 (ka), pp. 475–585. bSod nams grags pa, Paṇ chen (1478–1554). Deb ther dmar po gsar ma = rGyal rabs ’phrul gyi lde mig gam deb ther dmar po’i deb gsar ma. In Tucci 1971: 1–103. bSod nams tshe brtan, Yo seb dGe rgan alias Yoseb Gergan (c. 1878–1946). Bla dwags rgyal rabs ’chi med gter = Ladags rgyalrabs chimed ster (History of Ladakh). In Tibetan. Arranged and Edited with Introduction and Annotation by S. S. Gergan. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 1976. bSod nams lhun grub, Glo bo mKhan chen (1456–1532). Rang rnam = rJe btsun bsod nams lhun grub legs pa’i ’byung gnas rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’i rnam par thar pa zhus lan. In Kramer 2008: 113–142. Non-Tibetan Language Works Bellatalla, David. 2018. Eugenio Ghersi: Beyond the Undiscovered Soul. Unpublished Diary of the Italian Scientific Expedition to Western Tibet in 1933. Rovereto: Montura Editing. Bellatalla, David, Carlo A. Gemignani, and Luisa Rossi (eds.). 2008. Eugenio Ghersi: un marinaio ligure in Tibet. Genova: Sagep Editori. Bray, John. 1994. “Towards a Tibetan Christianity? The Lives of Joseph Gergan and Eliyah Tsetan Phuntsog.” In Tibetan Studies. Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies Fagernes 1992, edited by Per Kvaerne, vol. 1, pp. 68–80. The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, Occasional Papers, vol. 1,1. Oslo: The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture. ———. 2008. “August Hermann Francke’s Letters from Ladakh 1896–1906: The Making of a Missionary Scholar.” The Tibet Journal, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 3–28. ———. 2015. “A. H. Francke’s last visit to Ladakh: history, archaeology and the First World War.” Zentralasiatische Studien, vol. 44, pp. 147–178. Francke, A. H. 1914. Antiquities of Indian Tibet. Part 1. Personal Narrative. Archaeological Survey of India, New Imperial Series, vol. 38. Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing, India. ———. 1926. Antiquities of Indian Tibet. Part (Volume) 2. The Chronicles of Ladakh and Minor Chronicles, Texts and Translations, with Notes and Maps. Archaeological Survey of India, New Imperial Series, vol. 50. Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing, India. 130 Emmer, Gerhard. 2007. “Dga’ Ldan Tshe Dbang Dpal Bzang Po and the Tibet-Ladakh- Jahoda, Christian. 2015. Socio-economic Organisation in a Border Area of Tibetan Culture: Tabo, Mughal War of 1679–84.” In The Mongolia-Tibet Interface: Opening New Research Spiti Valley, Himachal Pradesh, India. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Terrains in Inner Asia. PIATS 2003: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften, vol. 486; Veröffentlichungen zur International Association for Tibetan Studies, Oxford, 2003, edited by Uradyn E. Bulag and Sozialanthropologie, vol. 21. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Hildegard G. M. Diemberger, pp. 81–107. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Wissenschaften. Gyalpo, Tsering et al. 2012. ’Khor chags. Khorchag. Kuo jia. Studies and Materials on Jamspal, Lozang. 1997. “The five royal patrons and three Maitreya images in Basgo.” In Historical Western Tibet, vol. 1. Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang. Recent Research on Ladakh 6: Proceedings of the Sixth International Colloquium on Ladakh, Heimbel, Jörg. 2017. Vajradhara in Human Form: The Life and Times of Ngor chen Kun dga’bzang po. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute. Henry, Namgyal. 2016. “La tradition de Padma gling pa au Spiti dans la Vallée des nuages.” PhD thesis, Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales. ———. 2017. “The Origins of the Padma gling pa Tradition in the Cloud Valley of Spiti.” In The Spiti Valley: Recovering the Past and Exploring the Present. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Spiti, Wolfson College, Oxford, 6th–7th May 2016, edited by Yannick Laurent and David Pritzker, pp. 271–288. Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, vol. 41. Huber, Toni. 2008. The Holy Land Reborn: Pilgrimage and the Tibetan Reinvention of Buddhist India. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Hutton, Thomas. 1840. “Journal of a trip through Kunawur, Hungrung, and Spiti, undertaken in the year 1838, under the patronage of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, for the purpose of determining the geological formation of those districts. Part 2.” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. 9, part 1, no. 101, pp. 489–513. Jackson, David P. 1989. “Sources on the Chronology and Succession of the Abbots of Ngor E-waṃ-chos-ldan.” Berliner Indologische Studien, vol. 4/5, pp. 49–94. ———. 2010. The Nepalese Legacy in Tibetan Painting. Masterworks of Tibetan Painting Series. New York: Rubin Museum of Art. ———. 2015. Painting Traditions of the Drigung Kagyu School. Masterworks of Tibetan Painting Series. New York: Rubin Museum of Art. edited by Henry Osmaston and Nawang Tsering, pp. 139–156. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Jinpa, Nawang. 2015. “Why Did Tibet and Ladakh Clash in the 17th Century? Rethinking the Background to the ‘Mongol War’ in Ngari (1679-1684).” In Ladakh: Historical Perspectives and Social Change, edited by John Bray, Petra Maurer, and Andrea Butcher, pp. 113–150. The Tibet Journal, vol. 40, no. 2. Kalantari, Christiane. 2017. “The Art of Khorchag and Khartse in the Fabric of Western Himalayan Buddhist Art (10th–14th Centuries): Questions of Style 2.” In Interaction in the Himalayas and Central Asia: Processes of Transfer, Translation and Transformation in Art, Archaeology, Religion and Polity, Proceedings of the Third International SEECHAC Colloquium, 25–27 Nov. 2013, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, edited by Eva Allinger et al., pp. 191–225. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, PhilosophischHistorische Klasse, Denkschriften, vol. 495; Veröffentlichungen zur Sozialanthropologie, vol. 22. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press. Kerin, Melissa R. 2015. Art and Devotion at a Buddhist Temple in the Indian Himalaya. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Klimburg-Salter, Deborah E. 1990. “Tucci Himalayan Archives Report, 1: The 1989 Expedition to the Western Himalayas, and a Retrospective View of the 1933 Tucci Expedition.” East and West, vol. 40, nos. 1–4, pp. 145–171. ———. 1991. “The Tucci Himalayan Archive.” In East and West, vol. 41, nos. 1–4, pp. 379– 384. 131 ———. 2015. “Travels Across the Roof of the World: Towards the Discovery of Tibetan Art.” In Discovering Tibet: The Tucci Expeditions and Tibetan Paintings, edited by Deborah Klimburg-Salter, pp. 33–59. Milano: Skira. Klimburg-Salter, Deborah E. and David Bellatalla. 1997. “Eugenio Ghersi: 1904–1997.” East and West, vol. 47, nos. 1–4, pp. 434–437. Kramer, Jowita. 2008. A Noble Abbot from Mustang: Life and Works of Glo-bo mKhan-chen (1456–1532). Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, vol. 68. Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien. Van der Kuijp, Leonard W. J. 2013. “Gu ge Paṇ chen Grags pa rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po (1415–86) on the Nyi ma’i rabs (*Sūrayavaṃśa) and the Tibetan Royal Families.” In Nepalica-Tibetica: Festgabe for Christoph Cüppers, edited by Franz-Karl Ehrhard and Petra Maurer, vol. 1, pp. 325–336. 2 vols. Beiträge zur Zentralasienforschung, vol. 28, 1–2. Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH (IITBS). ———. 2015. “A Fifteenth Century Biography of Lha bla ma Ye shes ’od (947–1019/24): Its Prolegomenon and Prophecies.” In Tibet in Dialogue with its Neighbours: History, Culture and Art of Central and Western Tibet, 8th to 15th century, edited by Erika Forte et al., pp. 341–375. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, vol. 88. Beijing: China Tibetology Research Center. Laurent, Lobsang Nyima. 2013. “Historical Research on Dangkhar.” In The Ancient Monastic Complex of Dangkhar, edited by Holger Neuwirth, pp. 106–137. Buddhist Architecture in the Western Himalayas, vol. 1. Graz: Verlag der Technischen Universität Graz. ———. 2014. “The Upper Temple of Dangkhar Monastery: Iconographical Capharnaüm or Political Manoeuvre?” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, vol. 29, pp. 103-153. Laurent, Yannick. 2017a. “On Maṇi and Epigraphy: Four Stone Inscriptions from Spiti.” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, vol. 39, pp. 229–265. ———. 2017b. “Henry Lee Shuttleworth (1882–1960) and the History of Spiti.” In The Spiti Valley: Recovering the Past and Exploring the Present. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Spiti, Wolfson College, Oxford, 6th–7th May 2016, edited by Yannick Laurent and David Pritzker, pp. 1–55. Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, vol. 41. ———. Forthcoming. “Dangkhar: The Royal Seat of Spiti. Archaeological and Historical Research in the Western Himalayas.” PhD thesis, University of Oxford. Lo Bue, Erberto. 2007. “The Gu ru lha khang at Phyi dbang: a Mid-15th Century Temple in Central Ladakh.” In Discoveries in Western Tibet and the Western Himalayas: Essays on History, Literature, Archaeology and Art. PIATS 2003: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Oxford, 2003, edited by Amy Heller and Giacomella Orofino, pp. 175–196. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Luczanits, Christian. 2002. “The Wanla Bkra shis gsum brtsegs.” In Buddhist Art and Tibetan Patronage: Ninth to Fourteenth Centuries. PIATS 2000: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Leiden, 2000, edited by Deborah E. Klimburg and Eva Allinger, pp. 115–125. Leiden, Boston, and Köln: Brill. ———. 2015. “Beneficial to See: Early Drigung Painting.” In Jackson 2015: 215–259. Nalesini, Oscar. 1994. “Pictures from the Roof of the World: Reorganization of the Giuseppe Tucci Photographic Archives.” East and West, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 185–210. ———. 2008. “Assembling Loose Pages, Gathering Fragments of the Past: Giuseppe Tucci and His Wanderings Throughout Tibet and the Himalayas, 1926–1954.” In Sanskrit Texts from Giuseppe Tucci’s Collection: Part 1, edited by Francesco Sferra, pp. 79–114. Roma: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente. ———. 2011. “A short history of the Tibetan explorations of Giuseppe Tucci.” In Visibilia Invisibilium: Non-invasive Analyses on Tibetan Paintings from the Tucci Expeditions,” edited by Marisa Laurenzi Tabasso, Massimiliano A. Polichetti, and Claudio Seccaroni, pp. 17–28. Rome: Orientalis Publications. ———. 2015. “The Photographic Archive of Giuseppe Tucci.” In Discovering Tibet: The Tucci Expeditions and Tibetan Paintings, edited by Deborah Klimburg-Salter, pp. 67–71. Milano: Skira. 132 Neuwirth, Holger (ed.). 2015. The Three Storied Temple of Wanla. Buddhist Architecture in the Western Himalayas, vol. 2. Graz: Verlag der Technischen Universität Graz. Petech, Luciano. 1977. The Kingdom of Ladakh C. 950–1842 A. D. Roma: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente (IsMEO). ———. 2016. Herrschaft, örtliche Verwaltung und Demographie des äußersten Westens des tibetischen Hochlandes: Rechtsdokumente aus Purig und Spiti. Teil 2: Spiti. Monumenta Tibetica Historica, Abteilung 3: Diplomata, Epistolae et Leges, Band 15. Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies (IITBS). ———. 1978. “The ’Bri-guṅ-pa Sect in Western Tibet and Ladakh.” In Proceedings of the Schuh, Dieter and Jörg Heimbel. 2019. Beiträge zur politischen Geschichte von Spiti zwischen Csoma de Kőrös Memorial Symposium Held at Mátrafüred, Hungary, 24–30 September 1976, 1629 und 1842 und zur Geschichte der Sa-skya-pa-Schule im äußersten Westen des tibetischen edited by Lousi Ligeti, pp. 313–325. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Hochlandes: Rechtsdokumente aus dem Kloster Gog-mig (~ sTeng-rgyud) in Spiti. 1. Teil: ———. 1997. “Western Tibet: Historical Introduction.” In Tabo: A Lamp for the Kingdom. Early Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Art in the Western Himalaya, edited by Deborah E. Klimburg–Salter, pp. 229–255 Milan: Skira. Peter, Friedrich A. 1975. “Glossary of Place Names in Western Tibet.” Ethnologische Zeitschrift Zürich, vol. 2, pp. 5–29b. De Rossi Filibeck, Elena. 1999. “A Description of Spyi ti by J. Gergan.” In Territory and Identity in Tibet and the Himalayas. PIATS 2000: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Leiden 2000, edited by Katia Buffetrille and Hildegard Diemberger, pp. 313–324. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Beiträge von Dieter Schuh. Monumenta Tibetica Historica, Abteilung 3: Diplomata, Epistolae et Leges, Band 18 (1). Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies (IITBS). Schuh, Dieter and J. K. Phukhang. 1979. Urkunden und Sendschreiben aus Zentraltibet, Ladakh und Zanskar. 2. Teil: Edition der Texte. Monumenta Tibetica Historica, Abteilung 3: Diplomata et Epistolae, Band 4. St. Augustin: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag. Snellgrove, David L. and Tadeusz Skorupski. 1980. The Cultural Heritage of Ladakh 2: Zangskar and the Cave Temples of Ladakh. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Sørensen, Per K. and Guntram Hazod (in cooperation with Tsering Gyalbo). 2007. Rulers rGyal po, Tshe ring and Christiane Papa-Kalantari (in cooperation with Christian Jahoda). on the Celestial Plain: Ecclesiastic and Secular Hegemony in Medieval Tibet. A Study of Tshal 2009. The Buddhist Monuments of Khartse Valley, Western Tibet. Österreichische Akademie Gung-thang. 2 vols. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch- der Wissenschaften, AAS Working Papers in Social Anthropology, vol. 9. Wien: Historische Klasse, Denkschriften, vol. 361; Veröffentlichungen zur Sozialanthropologie, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. vol. 10. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Ryavec, Karl E. 2015. A Historical Atlas of Tibet. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Schuh, Dieter. 1976. Urkunden und Sendschreiben aus Zentraltibet, Ladakh und Zanskar. 1. Teil: Faksimiles. Monumenta Tibetica Historica, Abteilung 3: Diplomata et Epistolae, Band 2. St. Augustin: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag. ———. 2011. Reise in die Geschichte Baltistans. Band 2. Expedition in ein immer noch unbekanntes Land. Sonderausgabe der Tibet-Encyclopedia. Andiast: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies (IITBS). Tobdan. 1992. “Spiti: A Historical Survey”. In Himalaya: Past and Present, vol. 2, edited by Maheshwar P. Joshi, Allen C. Fanger, and Charles W. Brown, pp. 303–318. Almora: Shree Almora Book Depot. Tropper, Kurt. 2019. “Inscription 1 in the Entrance Area of the Lha khang chen mo at ’Khor chags Monastery: Edition and Annotated Translation.” Berliner Indologische Studien, vol. 24, pp. 63–104. 133 Tsering, Tashi and Gaku Ishimura. 2012. “A Historical Overview of Education and Social nag lo tsa ba’s dGa’ ldan chos ’byung; mTho gling gSer khang gi dkar chab, a description of the Change in Spiti valley, India.” International Association for Ladakh Studies, vol. 28, pp. 4– temple complex; and Zhang zhung mkhan rgyud, a lineage of its abbots. Dharamshala, H.P.: 16. Amnye Machen Institute. Tucci, Giuseppe. 1971. Deb t’er dmar po gsar ma: Tibetan Chronicles by bSod nams grags pa, Vol. 1: Tibetan Text, Emendations to the Text, English Translation and an Appendix containing two Minor Chronicles. Serie Orientale Roma, vol. 14. Roma: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente (IsMEO). ———. 1988. The Temples of Western Tibet and their Artistic Symbolism. English version of Indo-Tibetica, vol. 3, part 1: The Monasteries of Spiti and Kunavar. Edited by Lokesh Chandra, from a first draft translation by Uma Marina Vesci and others. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan. Tucci, Giuseppe and E. Ghersi. 1935. Secrets of Tibet: Being the Chronicle of the Tucci Scientific Expedition to Western Tibet (1933). Translated from the Italian Edition by Mary A. Johnstone. London and Glasgow: Blackie & Son. Vitali, Roberto. 1996. The Kingdoms of Gu.ge Pu.hrang: According to mNga’ ris rgyal.rabs by Gu.ge mkhan.chen Ngag.dbang grags.pa. Dharamsala, H.P.: Tho.ling gtsug.lag khang lo.gcig.stong ’khor.ba’i rjes.dran.mdzad sgo’i go.sgrig tshogs.chung. ———. 1999. Records of Tho.ling: A Literary and Visual Reconstruction of the “Mother” Monastery in Gu.ge. Dharamshala, H.P.: High Asia, an imprint of Amnye Machen Institute. ———. 2000. “A Short Guide to Key Gonpa entitled The Mirror that Sheds Light on the Centre of the Mandala.” In sPyi ti dkyil dgon nor bu dge ’phel gyi byung ba brjod pa’i rab byed ’phags nor bdun ldan: A Short Guide to Key Gonpa entitled The Mirror that Sheds Light on the Centre of the Mandala, edited by Tashi Tsering, pp. 77–94. Key Monastery, H.P.: Key Monastery. ———. 2012a. The dGe lugs pa in Gu ge and the Western Himalaya (early 15th–late 17th Century). A study of four historical documents: Chapter Fourteen and part of Chapter Three of Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i yid ’phrog; the Chapter on the dGe lugs pa in mNga’ ris stod in mKhar ———. 2012b. A Short History of Mustang (10th–15th century). Dharamsala, H.P.: Amnye Machen Institute. ———. 2012c. Zhang zhung pa dPal ’byor bzang po, Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i yid ’phrog, with an introduction by Roberto Vitali entitled Zhang zhung pa dPal ’byor bzang po’s Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i yid ’phrog: an outline (contents and synopses). Dharamshala, H.P.: Amnye Machen Institute. Wilson, Horace Hayman (ed.). 1841. Travels in the Himalayan Provinces of Hindustan and Panjab; in Ladakh and Kashmir; in Peshawar, Kabul, Kunduz, and Bokhara; by Mr. William Moorcroft and Mr. George Trebeck, from 1819–1825. London: John Murray. Zhang, Changhong. 2018. “Xizang ali pa er ga er bu shiku de tuxiang chengxu” (The Iconographic Program of the Cave Par dkar po in Mnga’ ris, Tibet). In Tibetan Genealogies: Studies in Memoriam of Guge Tsering Gyalpo (1961–2015), edited by Guntram Hazod and Shen Weirong, pp. 553–606. Beijing: China Tibetology Publishing House.