LaGrandefr (talk | contribs) Original texts have been shown in the talk page. |
PericlesofAthens (talk | contribs) |
||
(130 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Image:17th century Central Tibeten thanka of Guhyasamaja Akshobhyavajra, Rubin Museum of |
[[Image:17th century Central Tibeten thanka of Guhyasamaja Akshobhyavajra, Rubin Museum of Art.jpg|thumb|right|200px|A 17th century Tibetan [[thangka]] of Guhyasamaja Akshobhyavajra; the Ming Dynasty court gathered various tribute items which were native products of Tibet (such as thangkas),<ref name="information office of the state council 73"/> and in return granted Tibetan tribute-bearers with gifts.<ref>Wang Jiawei & Nyima Gyaincain, ''The Historical Status of China's Tibet'' (China Intercontinental Press, 1997), 39–41.</ref>]] |
||
{{chinesetext}} |
|||
The exact nature of Sino-Tibetan relations during the [[Ming Dynasty]] (1368–1644) of [[China]] is unclear. Some modern scholars living and working in the [[People's Republic of China]] assert that the Ming Dynasty had unquestioned [[sovereignty]] over [[Tibet]], pointing to the Ming court's issuing of various titles to Tibetan leaders, Tibetans' full acceptance of these titles, and a renewal process for successors of these titles that involved traveling to the Ming capital. Most scholars outside the PRC say that the relationship was one of [[suzerainty]], that Ming titles were only nominal, that Tibet remained an independent region outside of Ming control, and that it [[List of tributaries of Imperial China|simply paid tribute]] up until the [[Jiajing Emperor|reign of Jiajing]] (r. 1521–1566), who ceased relations with Tibet. Some scholars argue that the significant [[Chinese Buddhism|religious nature]] of the relationship of the Ming court with Tibetan [[lama]]s is underrepresented in modern scholarship. Others underscore the commercial aspect of the relationship, noting the Ming Dynasty's shortage of [[horses in warfare|horses for warfare]] and thus the importance of the horse trade with Tibet. |
|||
The Ming initiated sporadic armed intervention in Tibet during the 14th century, while at times the Tibetans also used armed resistance against Ming forays. The [[Wanli Emperor]] (r. 1572–1620) made attempts to reestablish Sino-Tibetan relations after the [[History of Tibet#The origin of the title of 'Dalai Lama'|Mongol-Tibetan alliance]] initiated in 1578, which affected the foreign policy of the subsequent [[Qing Dynasty]] (1644–1912) of China in their support for the [[Dalai Lama]] of the [[Gelug|Yellow Hat sect]]. By the late 16th century, the [[Mongols]] were successful armed protectors of the Yellow Hat Dalai Lama, after increasing their presence in the [[Amdo]] region. This culminated in [[Güshi Khan]]'s 1642 conquest of Tibet. |
|||
The exact nature of Sino-Tibetan relations during the Ming Dynasty of [[China]] is contested by modern scholars who are divided on the issue of whether or not the [[Ming Dynasty]] (1368–1644) had unquestioned [[sovereignty]] over [[Tibet]]. Some scholars believe this was so, citing the Ming court's issuing of various titles to Tibetan leaders, Tibetans' full acceptance of these titles, and a renewal process for successors of these titles that entailed traveling to the Ming capital. Other scholars assert it was a relationship of [[suzerainty]], that Ming titles were only nominal, that Tibet remained an independent region outside of Ming control, and that it [[List of tributaries of Imperial China|simply paid tribute]] up until the [[Jiajing Emperor|reign of Jiajing]] (r. 1521–1566) when he ceased relations. Some scholars argue that the significant [[Chinese Buddhism|religious nature]] of the relationship of the Ming court with Tibetan [[lama]]s is underrepresented in modern scholarship. Others underscore the commercial aspect of the relationship, noting the Ming Dynasty's [[Horses in warfare|insufficient amount of horses]] and the essential horse trade with Tibet. |
|||
The Ming initiated some armed intervention in Tibet during the 14th century, while at times the Tibetans also used some armed resistance against Ming forays. The [[Wanli Emperor]] (r. 1572–1620) made attempts to reestablish Sino-Tibetan relations in the wake of a [[History of Tibet#The origin of the title of 'Dalai Lama'|Mongol-Tibetan alliance]] initiated in 1578, the latter of which affected the foreign policy of the subsequent [[Qing Dynasty]] (1644–1912) of China in their support for the [[Dalai Lama]] of the [[Gelug|Yellow Hat sect]]. By the late 16th century, the [[Mongols]] proved to be successful armed protectors of the Yellow Hat Dalai Lama after their increasing presence in the [[Amdo]] region, culminating in [[Güshi Khan]]'s 1642 conquest of Tibet. |
|||
==Background== |
==Background== |
||
===Mongol Empire=== |
===Mongol Empire=== |
||
[[Image:Chogyal.JPG|thumb|220px|[[Drogön Chögyal Phagpa]], one of the five founders of the [[Sakya]] school of Tibetan Buddhism, was appointed as a king of Tibet by the Mongol ruler [[Kublai Khan]] (r. 1260–1294).]] |
[[Image:Chogyal.JPG|thumb|220px|[[Drogön Chögyal Phagpa]], one of the five founders of the [[Sakya]] school of Tibetan Buddhism, was appointed as a king of Tibet by the Mongol ruler [[Kublai Khan]] (r. 1260–1294).]] |
||
[[Tibet]] was once |
[[Tibet]] was once a strong power contemporaneous with the Chinese [[Tang Dynasty]] (618–907). Until the Tibetan Empire's collapse in the 9th century, it was the Tang's major rival in dominating [[Inner Asia]].<ref name="goldstein 1">Melvyn C. Goldstein, ''Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet and the Dalai Lama'' (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 1.</ref><ref name="twitchett 106 179">Denis Twitchett, "Tibet in Tang's Grand Strategy", in ''Warfare in Chinese History'' (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2000), 106–179.</ref> During the [[Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms]] (907–960) in China, there was little Sino-Tibetan relations while the fractured political realm of China saw no threat in an equally politically fractured Tibet.<ref name="kolmas 12 14">Josef Kolmas, ''Tibet and Imperial China: A Survey of Sino-Tibetan Relations Up to the End of the Manchu Dynasty in 1912: Occasional Paper 7'' (Canberra: The Australian National University, Centre of Oriental Studies, 1967), 12–14.</ref> During the Chinese [[Song Dynasty]] (960–1279), there survives a scarce amount of documents involving Sino-Tibetan contacts. The Song were far more concerned with countering northern enemy states of the ethnic Khitan [[Liao Dynasty]] (907–1125) and ethnic Jurchen [[Jin Dynasty (1115-1234)|Jin Dynasty]] (1115–1234).<ref name="kolmas 14 17">Kolmas, ''Tibet and Imperial China'', 14–17.</ref> |
||
In 1207, [[Genghis Khan]] (r. 1206–1227) established diplomatic relations with Tibet in 1207 by sending envoys there.<ref name="chan 261">Hok-Lam Chan, "The Chien-wen, Yung-lo, Hung-shi, and Hsuan-te reigns", in ''The Cambridge History of China: Volume 7, The Ming Dynasty, 1368-1644, Part 1'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 261.</ref> In the 1240s, Tibet was invaded by the [[Mongols]]; with [[Sakya Pandita]]'s submission it was officially incorporated into the [[Mongol Empire]] during the regency of [[Töregene Khatun]] (1241–1246). |
|||
===Overthrow of the Sakya and Yuan=== |
|||
In 1358, this Sakya viceregal regime installed by the Mongols in Tibet was officially overthrown in rebellion by the Phagmodru myriarch Janchub Gyaltsän (1302–1364).<ref name="chan 262">Chan, "The Chien-wen, Yung-lo, Hung-shi, and Hsuan-te reigns", 262.</ref><ref name="goldstein 4">Goldstein, ''The Snow Lion and the Dragon'', 4.</ref> The Mongol Yuan court was forced to accept him as the new viceroy to replace the Sakya regime, while Janchub Gyaltsän and his Phagmodru successors gained ''de facto'' rule over Tibet.<ref name="chan 262"/><ref name="goldstein 4"/> In 1368, a [[Han Chinese]] revolt known as the [[Red Turban Rebellion]] toppled the Mongol Yuan Dynasty in China, allowing Zhu Yuanzhang to establish the Ming Dynasty and his rule as the [[Hongwu Emperor]] (r. 1368–1398). Hok-Lam Chan writes that it is not clear how much the early Ming court understood the [[civil war]] going on in Tibet between rival religious sects, but the first emperor was anxious to avoid the same trouble that Tibet had caused for the Tang Dynasty.<ref name="chan 262"/> Instead of recognizing the Phagmodru ruler, the Hongwu Emperor sided with the Karmapa of the nearer [[Kham]] region and southeastern Tibet, sending envoys out in the winter of 1372–1373 to ask the Yuan officeholders to renew their titles for the new Ming court.<ref name="chan 262"/> As evident in his imperial edicts, Hongwu was well aware of the Buddhist link between Tibet and China, and wished to foster this link.<ref name="sperling 475"/> The fourth Karmapa [[Rolpe Dorje]] (1340–1383) rejected Hongwu's invitation, although he did send his disciples as envoys to the Ming court in [[Nanjing]].<ref name="chan 262"/> Hongwu also trusted his guru Zongluo, one of many Buddhist monks at court, to head a religious mission into Tibet in 1378–1382 in order to obtain [[Buddhist texts|Buddhist scriptures]].<ref name="sperling 475"/> However, the early Ming government enacted a law which forbid Han Chinese to learn the tenets of [[Tibetan Buddhism]], which was later rescinded, although Gray Tuttle asserts that there is no detailed evidence of Chinese, especially lay Chinese, studying Tibetan Buddhism until the [[History of the Republic of China|Republican era]].<ref name="tuttle 27">Gray Tuttle, ''Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China'' (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 27.</ref> |
|||
[[Karma Pakshi]] (1203–1283)—the head [[lama]] and second [[Karmapa]] of the Tibetan [[Karma Kagyu|Black Hat]] sect—rejected the invitation of [[Kublai Khan]] (r. 1260–1294) to appear in his court, so instead Kublai invited [[Drogön Chögyal Phagpa]] (1235–1280), leader of the [[Sakya]] sect, who came to his court in 1253.<ref name="rossabi 40 41">Morris Rossabi, ''Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times'' (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 40–41.</ref><ref name="patterson 88">George N. Patterson, "China and Tibet: Background to the Revolt", ''The China Quarterly'', no. 1 (January-March 1960): 88.</ref> Kublai instituted a unique relationship with the Phagpa lama, which recognized Kublai as a superior sovereign in political affairs, with the Phagpa lama acting as the senior instructor to Kublai in religious affairs.<ref name="rossabi 40 41"/><ref name="patterson 88 89">Patterson, "China and Tibet", 88–89.</ref> Kublai also made Drogön Chögyal Phagpa the ruling priest-king of Tibet Proper, which was comprised of 13 different states ruled by myriarchies.<ref name="patterson 88 89"/><ref name="wylie the first mongol conquest">Turrell V. Wylie, "The First Mongol Conquest of Tibet Reinterpreted", ''Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies'' 37, no. 1 (June 1997): 104.</ref> |
|||
==Assertions in the Mingshi== |
|||
Kublai did not conquer the Song Dynasty of China until 1279, so Tibet was a component of the early Mongol Empire before it was combined into a larger empire with the whole of China—the [[Yuan Dynasty]] (1279–1368). |
|||
According to the official [[Twenty-Four Histories|historical work on the Ming Dynasty]]—the ''[[History of Ming]]'' (or ''Mingshi'' [[Chinese language|in Chinese]])—compiled in 1739 by the subsequent [[Qing Dynasty]] (1644–1912), Ming China occupied Tibet in the west, and set up "[[Ü-Tsang|Dbus-Gtsang]] Itinerant High Commandery" (烏思藏都指揮使司) and "[[Amdo|Mdo]]-[[kham]]s Itinerant High Commandery" (朵甘衛都指揮使司) in the east as well as "E-Li-Si Army-Civilian Marshal Office" (俄力思軍民元帥府) in the west of Tibet.<ref>''[[Mingshi]]''-Geography I «明史•地理一»: 東起朝鮮,西據吐番,南包安南,北距大磧。</ref><ref>''[[Mingshi]]''-Geography III «明史•地理三»: 七年七月置西安行都衛於此,領河州、朵甘、烏斯藏、三衛。</ref> It states that there were also a number of administrative divisions settled under them, one Itinerant Commandery (指揮使司), three Pacification Commissioner's Offices (宣尉使司), six Expedition Commissioner's Offices (招討司), four Wanhu offices (萬戶府, myriarchies each in command of 10,000 households), and 17 Qianhu offices (千戶所, chiliarchies each in command of 1,000 households).<ref>''[[Mingshi]]''-Military II «明史•兵二»</ref> |
|||
===Overthrow of the Sakya and Yuan=== |
|||
{| class="wikitable" align="center" |
|||
In 1358, the Sakya viceregal regime installed by the Mongols in Tibet was overthrown in a rebellion by the Phagmodru myriarch Janchub Gyaltsän (1302–1364).<ref name="chan 262">Chan, "The Chien-wen, Yung-lo, Hung-shi, and Hsuan-te reigns", 262.</ref><ref name="goldstein 4">Goldstein, ''The Snow Lion and the Dragon'', 4.</ref> The Mongol Yuan court was forced to accept him as the new viceroy, and Janchub Gyaltsän and his Phagmodru successors gained ''de facto'' rule over Tibet.<ref name="chan 262"/><ref name="goldstein 4"/> In 1368, a [[Han Chinese]] revolt known as the [[Red Turban Rebellion]] toppled the Mongol Yuan Dynasty in China. Zhu Yuanzhang then established the Ming Dynasty, ruling as the [[Hongwu Emperor]] (r. 1368–1398). It is not clear how much the early Ming court understood the [[civil war]] going on in Tibet between rival religious sects, but the first emperor was anxious to avoid the same trouble that Tibet had caused for the Tang Dynasty.<ref name="chan 262"/> Instead of recognizing the Phagmodru ruler, the Hongwu Emperor sided with the Karmapa of the nearer [[Kham]] region and southeastern Tibet, sending envoys out in the winter of 1372–1373 to ask the Yuan officeholders to renew their titles for the new Ming court.<ref name="chan 262"/> As evident in his imperial edicts, Hongwu was well aware of the Buddhist link between Tibet and China, and wanted to foster it.<ref name="sperling 475"/> The fourth Karmapa [[Rolpe Dorje]] (1340–1383) rejected Hongwu's invitation, although he did send some disciples as envoys to the Ming court in [[Nanjing]].<ref name="chan 262"/> Hongwu also entrusted his guru Zongluo, one of many Buddhist monks at court, to head a religious mission into Tibet in 1378–1382 in order to obtain [[Buddhist texts|Buddhist scriptures]].<ref name="sperling 475"/> However, the early Ming government enacted a law which forbid Han Chinese to learn the tenets of [[Tibetan Buddhism]], which was later rescinded.<ref name="tuttle 27"/> But there is little detailed evidence of Chinese—especially lay Chinese—studying Tibetan Buddhism until the [[History of the Republic of China|Republican era]]. <ref name="tuttle 27">Gray Tuttle, ''Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China'' (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 27.</ref> |
|||
|- |
|||
! colspan=2 align="center" |Administrative divisions set up in Tibet by Ming court<ref>''[[Mingshi]]''-Military II «明史•兵二»</ref> |
|||
|- |
|||
| Itinerant High Commandery (都指揮使司) |
|||
| Dbus-Gtsang (烏思藏), Mdo-khams (朵甘) |
|||
|- |
|||
| Itinerant Commandery (指揮使司) |
|||
| Longda (隴答) |
|||
|- |
|||
| Pacification Commissioner's Office (宣尉使司) |
|||
| Duogan (朵甘), Dongbuhanhu (董卜韓胡), Changhexiyutongningyuan (長河西魚通寧遠) |
|||
|- |
|||
| Expedition Commissioner's Office (招討司) |
|||
| Duogansi (朵甘思), Duoganlongda (朵甘隴答), Duogandan (朵甘丹), Duogancangtang (朵甘倉溏), Duoganchuan (朵甘川), Moerkan (磨兒勘) |
|||
|- |
|||
| Wanhu offices (萬戶府) |
|||
| Shaerke (沙兒可), Naizhu (乃竹), Luosiduan (羅思端), Biesima (別思麻) |
|||
|- |
|||
| Qianhu offices (千戶所) |
|||
| Duogansi (朵甘思), Suolazong (所剌宗), Suobolijia (所孛里加), Suochanghexi (所長河西), Suoduobasansun (所多八三孫), Suojiaba (所加八), Suozhaori (所兆日), Nazhu (納竹), Lunda (倫答), Guoyou (果由), Shalikehahudi (沙里可哈忽的), Bolijiasi (孛里加思), Shalituer (撒裏土兒), Canbulang (參卜郎), Lacuoya (剌錯牙), Xieliba (泄里壩), Runzelusun (潤則魯孫) |
|||
|} |
|||
==Assertions in the Mingshi== |
|||
Ming court put to use the policy «managing Tibet according to conventions and customs, granting more titles and setting up more organs» (因俗以治,多封眾建) over Tibet. <ref>"Did Tibet Become an Independent Country after the Revolution of 1911?" Liu Muyan, Liu Limei, 1994 [http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/ljzg/3585/3592/3596/t17963.htm]</ref> Therefore, the Ming court principally appointed three Princes of Dharma (法王), five princes (王) and many other titles like Grand State Tutors (大國師), State Tutors (國師), etc. to the important schools of Tibetan Buddhism, such as the Garma [[Kagyu|Kagyu sect]], [[Sakya|Sakya sect]], and [[Gelug|Gelug sect]].<ref>''[[Mingshi]]''-Western territory III «明史•列傳第二百十七西域三»</ref> These lay and monk leaders of Ü-Tsang and other Tibetan areas paid tribute to the Ming court, were appointed new positions, and issued new seals of authority after handing in seals issued by the Yuan Dynasty. And leading officials of these organs were all appointed by the central government and were subject to punishment in the case of law-breaking.<ref name="wang nyima 38"/> |
|||
[[Image:Sera15.JPG|thumb|left|200px|The [[Sera Monastery]], built in 1419 by Shākya Yeshes, the representative of [[Je Tsongkhapa]] at the Ming court who was bestowed with the title "Great Mercy Prince of Dharma" by the Ming [[Yongle Emperor]] (r. 1402–1424)<ref name="chen 52"/>]] |
|||
According to the official [[Twenty-Four Histories|historical work on the Ming Dynasty]]—the ''[[History of Ming]]'' (or ''Mingshi'' [[Chinese language|in Chinese]])—compiled in 1739 by the subsequent [[Qing Dynasty]] (1644–1912), the Ming Dynasty established the "E-Li-Si Army-Civilian Marshal Office" (俄力思軍民元帥府) in western Tibet and installed the "[[Ü-Tsang|Dbus-Gtsang]] Itinerant High Commandery" (烏思藏都指揮使司) and "[[Amdo|Mdo]]-[[kham]]s Itinerant High Commandery" (朵甘衛都指揮使司) to administer eastern Tibet.<ref>''[[Mingshi]]''-Geography I «明史•地理一»: 東起朝鮮,西據吐番,南包安南,北距大磧。</ref><ref>''[[Mingshi]]''-Geography III «明史•地理三»: 七年七月置西安行都衛於此,領河州、朵甘、烏斯藏、三衛。</ref> The history states that there were a number of administrative offices set up under these high commanderies, including one Itinerant Commandery (指揮使司), three Pacification Commissioner's Offices (宣尉使司), six Expedition Commissioner's Offices (招討司), four Wanhu offices (萬戶府, myriarchies each in command of 10,000 households), and 17 Qianhu offices (千戶所, chiliarchies each in command of 1,000 households).<ref>''[[Mingshi]]''-Military II «明史•兵二»</ref> |
|||
The Ming court appointed three Princes of Dharma (法王) and five princes (王), and granted many other titles, such as Grand State Tutors (大國師) and State Tutors (國師), to the important schools of Tibetan Buddhism, including the [[Karma Kagyu|Karma Kagyu sect]], [[Sakya|Sakya sect]], and [[Gelug|Gelug sect]].<ref>''[[Mingshi]]''-Western territory III «明史•列傳第二百十七西域三»</ref> These lay and monk leaders of Ü-Tsang and other Tibetan areas paid tribute to the Ming court, were appointed to new positions, and issued new seals of authority after handing in seals issued by the Yuan Dynasty. According to Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain, leading officials of these organs were all appointed by the central government and were subject to punishment in the case of law-breaking.<ref name="wang nyima 38"/> |
|||
{| class="wikitable" align="center" |
|||
|- |
|||
! |
|||
! Title |
|||
! Name |
|||
! Sect |
|||
! Year |
|||
|- |
|||
| rowspan=3 align="center" | Princes of Dharma (法王) |
|||
| Great Treasure Prince of Dharma (大寶法王) |
|||
| [[Tulku]] [[Tsurphu Monastery|Tsurphu]] [[Karmapa]] |
|||
| [[Karma Kagyu|Karma Kagyu Sect]] ([[Karma Kagyu|Black Hat sect]]) |
|||
| 1407 |
|||
|- |
|||
| Great Vehicle Prince of Dharma (大乘法王) |
|||
| Prince of Dharma of the [[Sagya|Sagya Sect]] (represented by Gunga Zhaxi) |
|||
| [[Sagya|Sagya Sect]] ([[Red Hat sect]]) |
|||
| 1413 |
|||
|- |
|||
| Great Mercy Prince of Dharma (大慈法王) |
|||
| Shākya Yeshes (representative of [[Je Tsongkhapa]]) |
|||
| [[Gelug|Gelug Sect]] ([[Yellow Hat Sect]]) |
|||
| 1434 |
|||
|- |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
| rowspan=5 align="center" | Princes (王) |
|||
| Prince of Persuasion (闡化王) |
|||
| Zhaba Gyaincain |
|||
| Phagmo Drupa Sect |
|||
| 1406 |
|||
|- |
|||
| Promotion Prince of Virtue (贊善王) |
|||
| Zusibal Gyainzang |
|||
| Lingzang |
|||
| 1407 |
|||
|- |
|||
| Guardian Prince of Doctrine (護教王) |
|||
| Namge Bazangpo |
|||
| Guanjor |
|||
| 1407 |
|||
|- |
|||
| Propagation Prince of Doctrine (闡教王) |
|||
| Linzenbal Gyaigyanzang |
|||
| Zhigung Gagyu Sect |
|||
| 1413 |
|||
|- |
|||
| Assistant Prince of Doctrine (輔教王) |
|||
| Namkelisba |
|||
| Sagya Sect |
|||
| 1415 |
|||
|} |
|||
Turrell V. Wylie and Li Tieh-tseng |
Turrell V. Wylie and Li Tieh-tseng argue that the reliability of the heavily censored ''Mingshi'' as a credible source on Sino-Tibetan relations is questionable, given modern scholarship.<ref name="wylie 470"/> Other historians also assert that these Ming titles were nominal and did not actually confer the authority that the earlier Yuan titles had.<ref name="hoffman 65">Helmut Hoffman, "Early and Medieval Tibet", in ''The History of Tibet: Volume 1, The Early Period to c. AD 850, the Yarlung Dynasty'' (New York: Routledge, 2003), 65.</ref><ref name="goldstein 4 5">Goldstein, ''The Snow Lion and the Dragon'', 4–5.</ref> |
||
==Modern scholarly debates== |
==Modern scholarly debates== |
||
===Inheritance, reappointments, and titles=== |
===Inheritance, reappointments, and titles=== |
||
[[Image:Sera15.JPG|thumb|right|200px|The [[Sera Monastery]], built in 1419 by Shākya Yeshes, the representative of [[Je Tsongkhapa]] at the Ming court who was bestowed with the title "Great Mercy Prince of Dharma" by the Ming [[Yongle Emperor]] (r. 1402–1424)<ref name="chen 52"/>]] |
|||
Michael C. van Walt van Praag states that the Ming court had little interest in Tibet besides a lama-patron relationship, viewing Tibet as an independent state to the west.<ref name="wang nyima 31">Wang & Nyima, ''The Historical Status of China's Tibet'', 31.</ref> The historian Xagabba Wangqug Dedain makes a similar claim to van Praag's assertion.<ref name="wang nyima 31"/> However, Jiawei Wang and Nyima Gyaincain state that these assertions by van Praag and Xagabba are "fallacies".<ref name="wang nyima 31"/> |
|||
Historians disagree on what the relationship was between the Ming court and Tibet and whether or not Ming China had sovereignty over Tibet. Michael C. van Walt van Praag states that the Ming court had little interest in Tibet besides a lama-patron relationship, viewing Tibet as an independent state to the west.<ref name="wang nyima 31">Wang & Nyima, ''The Historical Status of China's Tibet'', 31.</ref> The historian Xagabba Wangqug Dedain supports van Praag's position.<ref name="wang nyima 31"/> However, Jiawei Wang and Nyima Gyaincain state that these assertions by van Praag and Xagabba are "fallacies".<ref name="wang nyima 31"/> |
|||
Wang and Nyima argue that the Ming emperor sent edicts to Tibet twice in the second year of the Ming Dynasty, while his urging of various Tibetan tribes to submit to the authority of the Ming court demonstrated the far-sighted goals of the founding emperor who viewed Tibet as a significant region to pacify.<ref name="Wang nyima 31 32">Wang & Nyima, ''The Historical Status of China's Tibet'', 31–31.</ref> At the same time, the Mongol Prince Punala, who had inherited his position as ruler of Tibetan areas, went to Nanjing to pay tributes to the Ming court and show his allegiance in 1371, bringing along the seal of authority issued by the Yuan court. They also state that since successors of lamas granted the title of "prince" had to travel to the Ming court to renew this title, this along with lamas calling themselves princes proves that the Ming court had "full sovereignty over Tibet".<ref name="wang nyima 37">Wang & Nyima, ''The Historical Status of China's Tibet'', 37.</ref> They also state that the Ming Dynasty, through issuing imperial edicts to invite ex-Yuan officials to the court for official positions in the early years of its founding, won submission from ex-Yuan religious and administrative leaders in the Tibetan areas, thereby incorporating Tibetan areas into the rule of the Ming court. Thus, the Ming court won the power to rule Tibetan areas formerly under the rule of the Yuan Dynasty.<ref name="wang nyima 37"/> |
|||
Wang and Nyima argue that the Ming emperor sent edicts to Tibet twice in the second year of the Ming Dynasty, while his urging of various Tibetan tribes to submit to the authority of the Ming court demonstrated the far-sighted goals of the founding emperor who viewed Tibet as a significant region to pacify.<ref name="Wang nyima 31">Wang & Nyima, ''The Historical Status of China's Tibet'', 31.</ref> They note that at the same time, the Mongol Prince Punala, who had inherited his position as ruler of Tibetan areas, went to Nanjing to pay tributes to the Ming court and show his allegiance in 1371, bringing along the seal of authority issued by the Yuan court.<ref name="wang nyima 32">Wang & Nyima, ''The Historical Status of China's Tibet'', 32.</ref> They also state that since successors of lamas granted the title of "prince" had to travel to the Ming court to renew this title, this along with lamas calling themselves princes proves that the Ming court had "full sovereignty over Tibet".<ref name="wang nyima 37">Wang & Nyima, ''The Historical Status of China's Tibet'', 37.</ref> And they state that the Ming Dynasty, through issuing imperial edicts to invite ex-Yuan officials to the court for official positions in the early years of its founding, won submission from ex-Yuan religious and administrative leaders in the Tibetan areas, thereby incorporating Tibetan areas into the rule of the Ming court. Thus, they conclude, the Ming court won the power to rule Tibetan areas formerly under the rule of the Yuan Dynasty.<ref name="wang nyima 37"/> |
|||
The [[Information Office of the State Council]] of the [[PRC]] states that the Ming Dynasty's Ü-Tsang Commanding Office governed most areas of Tibet.<ref name="information office of the state council 73">Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, ''Testimony of History'' (China Intercontinental Press, 2002), 73.</ref> It also states that while the Ming abolished the policy council set up by the Mongol Yuan to manage local affairs in Tibet and the Mongol system of Imperial Tutors to govern religious affairs, the Ming adopted a policy of bestowing titles upon religious leaders who had submitted to the Ming Dynasty.<ref name="information office of the state council 73"/> |
|||
[[Image:Mongol Empire map.gif|thumb|right|250px|Map showing changes in borders of the Mongol Empire from the founding by [[Genghis Khan]] in 1206, Genghis Khan's death in 1227 to the rule of [[Kublai Khan]], with the Yuan Dynasty shown in purple at the final stage of Kublai's death in 1294.]] |
[[Image:Mongol Empire map.gif|thumb|right|250px|Map showing changes in borders of the Mongol Empire from the founding by [[Genghis Khan]] in 1206, Genghis Khan's death in 1227 to the rule of [[Kublai Khan]], with the Yuan Dynasty shown in purple at the final stage of Kublai's death in 1294.]] |
||
Thomas Laird, in his book ''The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama'', writes that |
Thomas Laird, in his book ''The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama'', writes that Wang and Nyima present the [[Government of the People's Republic of China|government viewpoint of the People's Republic of China]] in their ''Historical Status of China's Tibet'', and fail to realize that China was "absorbed into a larger, non-Chinese political unit" during the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, which Wang and Nyima paint as a characteristic Chinese dynasty succeeded by the Ming.<ref name="laird 106 107">Thomas Laird, ''The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama'' (New York: Grove Press, 2006), 106–107.</ref> Laird asserts that the ruling Mongol khans never administered Tibet as part of China, instead ruling them as separate territories "as the British administered India and New Zealand in more recent times; the fact that Britain once colonized both does not make India part of New Zealand today".<ref name="laird 107">Laird, ''The Story of Tibet'', 107.</ref> Of later Mongol and Tibetan accounts interpreting the Mongol conquest of Tibet, Laird asserts that "they, like all non-Chinese historical narratives, never portray the Mongol subjugation of Tibet as a Chinese one".<ref name="laird 107"/> John Powers, in his book ''History as propaganda: Tibetan exiles versus the People's Republic of China'', states that:<ref name="powers 50"/> |
||
<blockquote>Chinese writers assert that the territories of the Mongol empire were inherited by the succeeding Ming Dynasty ... The main problem with Chinese claims that later dynasties inherited Mongol lands is that the Mongol empire included vast areas of Asia and eastern Europe which were not in fact controlled by the Ming or Qing dynasties. The Mongols conquered most of Eurasia, and their territory extended from Lithuania in the West to Persia in the south. But although contemporary Chinese histories emphatically state that Tibet became part of Chinese territory as a result of Mongol conquests, they do not attempt to claim that Lithuanians are a minority nationality of China or that the Crimea is an inalienable part of Chinese territory.<ref name="powers 50">John Powers, ''History as propaganda: Tibetan exiles versus the People's Republic of China'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 50.</ref> |
<blockquote>Chinese writers assert that the territories of the Mongol empire were inherited by the succeeding Ming Dynasty ... The main problem with Chinese claims that later dynasties inherited Mongol lands is that the Mongol empire included vast areas of Asia and eastern Europe which were not in fact controlled by the Ming or Qing dynasties. The Mongols conquered most of Eurasia, and their territory extended from Lithuania in the West to Persia in the south. But although contemporary Chinese histories emphatically state that Tibet became part of Chinese territory as a result of Mongol conquests, they do not attempt to claim that Lithuanians are a minority nationality of China or that the Crimea is an inalienable part of Chinese territory.<ref name="powers 50">John Powers, ''History as propaganda: Tibetan exiles versus the People's Republic of China'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 50.</ref> |
||
</blockquote> |
</blockquote> |
||
[[Image:Kublai Khan.jpg|thumb|left|200px|[[Kublai Khan]] (r. 1260–1294); Patricia Ann Berger writes that the Ming emperor [[Yongle Emperor|Yongle]]'s patronage of [[Deshin Shekpa]], the [[Karmapa]], was an attempt to reassert a relationship with Tibet that Kublai Khan had earlier enjoyed with the Sakya Phagpa lama.<ref name="berger 184"/>]] The ''[[Columbia Encyclopedia]]'' distinguishes between the Yuan Dynasty and the other Mongol Empire khanates of [[Ilkhanate]], [[Chagatai Khanate]] and the [[Golden Horde]]. The ''Columbia Encyclopedia'' described the Yuan Dynasty as "A Mongol dynasty of China that ruled from 1271 to 1368, and a division of the great empire conquered by the Mongols. Founded by Kublai Khan, who adopted the Chinese dynastic name of Yüan in 1271."<ref>The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition (2001-07). [http://www.bartleby.com/65/yu/Yuan.html Yuan]. Retrieved on [[2008]]-[[04-28]].</ref> The ''[[Encyclopedia Americana]]'' described the Yuan Dynasty as "the line of Mongol rulers in China" and the Mongols "proclaimed a Chinese-style Yüan dynasty at Khanbaliq (Beijing)".<ref> Encyclopedia Americana. (2008). Grolier Online. [http://ea.grolier.com/cgi-bin/article?assetid=0428510-00 "Hucker, Charles H. "Yüan Dynasty"] Retrieved on [[2008]]-[[04-28]].</ref> The [[Metropolitan Museum of Art]] writes that the Mongol rulers of the Yuan Dynasty "adopted Chinese political and cultural models; ruling from their capitals in Dadu, they assumed the role of Chinese emperors"<ref name="Met">The Metropolitan Museum of Art. [http://www.metmuseum.org/TOAH/hd/yuan/hd_yuan.htm "Yuan Dynasty (1279–1368)". In Timeline of Art History]. Retrieved on [[2008]]-[[04-28]].</ref> The Metropolitan Museum of Art also noted that in spite of the gradual assimilation of Yuan monarchs, the Mongol rulers imposed harsh policies discriminating against the literati and southern Chinese.<ref name="Met"/> Morris Rossabi, in his ''Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times'', describes the Yuan's institution of an [[Caste#Castes in China|ethno-geographic caste hierarchy]] favoring the Mongols and other ethnicities and discriminating against the Han Chinese majority, while at the same time abolishing the [[imperial examinations]] of China's [[civil service]] legacy.<ref name="rossabi 71 72 117">Rossabi, ''Khubilai Khan'', 71–72, 117, 130.</ref> |
|||
[[Image:Kublai Khan.jpg|thumb|left|200px|[[Kublai Khan]] (r. 1260–1294); Patricia Ann Berger writes that the Ming emperor [[Yongle Emperor|Yongle]]'s patronage of [[Deshin Shekpa]], the [[Karmapa]], was an attempt to reassert a relationship with Tibet that Kublai Khan had earlier enjoyed with the Sakya Phagpa lama.<ref name="berger 184"/>]] |
|||
Academic sources and encyclopedias seen from non-Tibetan perspectives on the other hand, such as the ''[[Columbia Encyclopedia]]'', distinguishes the difference between the Yuan Dynasty and the rest of the divisions of the Mongol Empire of [[Ilkhanate]], [[Chagatai Khanate]] and [[Golden Horde]]. The ''Columbia Encyclopedia'' described the Yuan Dynasty as "A Mongol dynasty of China that ruled from 1271 to 1368, and a division of the great empire conquered by the Mongols. Founded by Kublai Khan, who adopted the Chinese dynastic name of Yüan in 1271."<ref>The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition (2001-07). [http://www.bartleby.com/65/yu/Yuan.html Yuan]. Retrieved on [[2008]]-[[04-28]].</ref> The ''[[Encyclopedia Americana]]'' described the Yuan Dynasty as "the line of Mongol rulers in China" and the Mongols "proclaimed a Chinese-style Yüan dynasty at Khanbaliq (Beijing)".<ref> Encyclopedia Americana. (2008). Grolier Online. [http://ea.grolier.com/cgi-bin/article?assetid=0428510-00 "Hucker, Charles H. "Yüan Dynasty"] Retrieved on [[2008]]-[[04-28]].</ref> Cultural insitutions such as [[Metropolitan Museum of Art]] writes that the Mongol rulers of the Yuan Dynasty "adopted Chinese political and cultural models; ruling from their capitals in Dadu, they assumed the role of Chinese emperors"<ref name="Met">The Metropolitan Museum of Art. [http://www.metmuseum.org/TOAH/hd/yuan/hd_yuan.htm "Yuan Dynasty (1279–1368)". In Timeline of Art History]. Retrieved on [[2008]]-[[04-28]].</ref> although Tibetologists, such as Thomas Laird often dismisses the Yuan Dynasty as a non-Chinese political unit and plays down its Chinese characteristics. The Metropolitan Museum of Art also noted that in spite of the gradual assimilation of Yuan monarchs, the Mongol rulers imposed harsh policy in discriminating against the literatis and southern Chinese.<ref name="Met"/> Morris Rossabi, in his ''Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times'', describes the Yuan's untraditional institution of an [[Caste#Castes in China|ethno-geographic caste hierarchy]] favoring the Mongols and other ethnicities and discriminated towards the Han Chinese majority, while at the same time abolishing the [[imperial examinations]] of China's [[civil service]] legacy.<ref name="rossabi 71 72 117">Rossabi, ''Khubilai Khan'', 71–72, 117, 130.</ref> |
|||
According to the [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China]], the Ming court implemented the policy of managing Tibet according to conventions and customs, granting titles and setting up more administrative organs over Tibet.<ref>Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China (November 15, 2000). [http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/ljzg/3585/3592/3596/t17963.htm "Did Tibet Become an Independent Country after the Revolution of 1911?"]. Retrieved on [[2008]]-[[05-02]].</ref> The [[Information Office of the State Council]] of the [[People's Republic of China|PRC]] states that the Ming Dynasty's Ü-Tsang Commanding Office governed most areas of Tibet.<ref name="information office of the state council 73">Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, ''Testimony of History'' (China Intercontinental Press, 2002), 73.</ref> It also states that while the Ming abolished the policy council set up by the Mongol Yuan to manage local affairs in Tibet and the Mongol system of Imperial Tutors to govern religious affairs, the Ming adopted a policy of bestowing titles upon religious leaders who had submitted to the Ming Dynasty.<ref name="information office of the state council 73"/> For example, an edict of the Hongwu Emperor in 1373 appointed the Tibetan leader Choskunskyabs as the General of the mNgav-ris Military and Civil ''Wanhu'' Office, stating:<ref name="information office of the state council 75"/> |
|||
Dawa Norbu, a leading author of the Tibetan diaspora, argues that modern [[Communist Party of China|Chinese Communist]] historians tend to be in favor of the view that the Ming simply reappointed old Yuan officials in Tibet and perpetuated their rule of Tibet in this manner.<ref name="norbu 58">Dawa Norbu, ''China's Tibet Policy'' (Richmond: Curzon, 2001), 58.</ref> Norbu writes that, although this would have been true for the eastern Tibetan regions of [[Amdo]] and [[Kham]]'s "tribute-cum-trade" relations with the Ming, it was untrue if applied to western Tibetan regions of [[Ü-Tsang]] and [[Ngari]], which were ruled by "three successive nationalistic regimes" after the Phagmodru myriarch Janchub Gyaltsän (Byang chub rgyal mtshan, 1302–1364), which Norbu writes "Communist historians prefer to ignore."<ref name="norbu 58"/> Laird writes that the Ming appointed titles to eastern Tibetan princes, and that "these alliances with eastern Tibetan principalities are the evidence China now produces for its assertion that the Ming ruled Tibet", despite the fact that the Ming did not send an army to replace the Mongols after they left Tibet.<ref name="laird 137"/> Yiu Yung-chin states that the furthest western extent of the Ming Dynasty's territory was [[Gansu]], [[Sichuan]], and [[Yunnan]], while "the Ming did not possess Tibet".<ref name="yiu 121">Yiu Yung-chin, "Two Focuses of the Tibet Issue", in ''Tibet Through Dissident Chinese Eyes: Essays on Self-determination'' (New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1998), 121.</ref> Shih-Shan Henry Tsai writes that when the [[Yongle Emperor]] (r. 1402–1424) sent his eunuch Yang Sanbao into Tibet in 1413, it was a mission to gain the allegiance of various Tibetan princes.<ref name="tsai 187"/> |
|||
Jiawei Wang and Nyima Gyaincain state that after the official title "Education Minister" was granted to Janchub Gyaltsän by the Yuan court, this title appeared frequently with his name in various Tibetan texts, while his Tibetan title "Degsi" is seldom mentioned.<ref name="wang nyima 42">Wang & Nyima, ''The Historical Status of China's Tibet'', 42.</ref> Wang and Nyima take this to mean that "even in the later period of the Yuan Dynasty, the Yuan imperial court and the Pagmo Drupa regime maintained a Central-local government relation".<ref name="wang nyima 42"/> Janchub Gyaltsän even wrote in his will: |
|||
<blockquote> |
<blockquote> |
||
I, the sovereign of the Empire, courteously treat people from all corners of the Empire who love righteousness and pledge allegiance to the Court and assign them official posts. I have learned with great pleasure that you, Chos-kun-skyabs, who live in the Western Region, inspired by my power and reputation, are loyal to the Court and capable of safeguarding the territory in your charge. The mNgav-ris Military and Civil ''Wanhu'' Office has just been established. I, therefore, appoint you head of the office with the title of General Huaiyuan, believing that you are most qualified for the post. I expect you to be even more conscientious in your work than in the past, to comply with discipline and to care for your men so that security and peace in your region can be guaranteed.<ref name="information office of the state council 75">Information Office of the State Council, ''Testimony of History'', 75.</ref> |
|||
In the past I received loving care from the emperor in the east. If the emperor continues to care for us, please follow his edicts and the imperial envoy should be well received.<ref name="wang nyima 42">Wang & Nyima, ''Historical Status of China's Tibet'', 42.</ref> |
|||
</blockquote> |
</blockquote> |
||
Chen Qingying writes that the Ming court conferred new official positions on ex-Yuan Tibetan leaders of the Phachu Kargyu and granted them lower-ranking positions.<ref name="chen 48">Chen, ''Tibetan History'', 48.</ref> Of the county (zong) leaders of Neiwo Zong and Renbam Zong, Chen states that when "the Emperor learned the actual situation of the Phachu Kargyu, the Ming court then appointed the main Zong leaders to be senior officers of the Senior Command of Dbus and Gtsang."<ref name="chen 48"/> The official posts that the Ming court established in Tibet, such as senior and junior commanders, offices of Qianhu (in charge of 1,000 households), and offices of Wanhu (in charge of 10,000 households), were all hereditary positions according to Chen, but he asserts that "the succession of some important posts still had to be approved by the emperor," while old imperial mandates had to be returned to the Ming court for renewal.<ref name="chen 48"/> |
|||
And Chen also state<ref>Chen P43</ref> that the Records of Founding Emperor of the Ming Dynasty shows that Sagya Gyaincain was given the title of Initiation State Master. After the Ming officer of Hezhou felt the general situation of Dbus and Gtsang was under control, he immediately suggested to [[Hongwu Emperor|Ming Emperor Taizu]] that he offered an official title to Sagya Gyaincain. Accepting this, Emperor Taizu issued an edict to grant the title of Initiation State Master to Sagya Gyaincain, and sent envoys to hand over the jade seal of authority, color silk and satin. Sagya Gyaincain also sent envoys to pay tribute to Ming Dynasty Emperor Taizu and offerd statues of Buddha, Buddhist scriptures and sarira as tribute. |
|||
[[Image:Yongle-Emperor1.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The [[Yongle Emperor]] (r. 1402–1424), his official court portrait painting]] |
|||
Moreover, Chen writes that<ref>Chen P48</ref> the Ming court conferred new official positions in Tibet en ex-Yuan leaders of the Phachu Kargyu and granted them lower-ranking positions. When the Emperor learned the actual situation of the Phachu Kargyu, the Ming court then appointed the main Zong leaders to be senior officers of the Senior Command of Dbus and Gtsang. In Neiwo Zong and Renbam Zong, the greatest Zongs of Phachu Kargyu, the Ming court set up Senior Commands. The officials posts that the Ming court granted in Tibet, sucn as senior and junior commanders, officiers of Qianhu (1000-household) Office and Wanhu (10000-household) Office, were hereditary, but the succession of some important posts still had to be approved by the emperor. And the old imperial mandates had to be returned to be replaced by new ones. |
|||
Dawa Norbu, a leading author of the Tibetan diaspora, argues that modern [[Communist Party of China|Chinese Communist]] historians tend to be in favor of the view that the Ming simply reappointed old Yuan officials in Tibet and perpetuated their rule of Tibet in this manner.<ref name="norbu 58">Dawa Norbu, ''China's Tibet Policy'' (Richmond: Curzon, 2001), 58.</ref> Norbu writes that, although this would have been true for the eastern Tibetan regions of [[Amdo]] and [[Kham]]'s "tribute-cum-trade" relations with the Ming, it was untrue if applied to western Tibetan regions of [[Ü-Tsang]] and [[Ngari]], which were ruled by "three successive nationalistic regimes" after the Phagmodru myriarch Janchub Gyaltsän (Byang chub rgyal mtshan, 1302–1364), which Norbu writes "Communist historians prefer to ignore."<ref name="norbu 58"/> Laird writes that the Ming appointed titles to eastern Tibetan princes, and that "these alliances with eastern Tibetan principalities are the evidence China now produces for its assertion that the Ming ruled Tibet", despite the fact that the Ming did not send an army to replace the Mongols after they left Tibet.<ref name="laird 137"/> Yiu Yung-chin states that the furthest western extent of the Ming Dynasty's territory was [[Gansu]], [[Sichuan]], and [[Yunnan]], while "the Ming did not possess Tibet."<ref name="yiu 121">Yiu Yung-chin, "Two Focuses of the Tibet Issue", in ''Tibet Through Dissident Chinese Eyes: Essays on Self-determination'' (New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1998), 121.</ref> Shih-Shan Henry Tsai, a professor of History and Director of Asian Studies at the University of Arkansas, writes that the [[Yongle Emperor]] (r. 1402–1424) sent his eunuch Yang Sanbao into Tibet in 1413 to gain the allegiance of various Tibetan princes, while Yongle paid a small fortune in return gifts for tributes in order to maintain the loyalty of neighboring vassal states such as [[Nepal]] and Tibet.<ref name="tsai 187 188">Shih-Shan Henry Tsai, ''Perpetual Happiness: The Ming Emperor Yongle'' (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001), 187–188.</ref> |
|||
Wang and Nyima state that after the official title "Education Minister" was granted to Janchub Gyaltsän by the Yuan court, this title appeared frequently with his name in various Tibetan texts, while his Tibetan title "Degsi" is seldom mentioned.<ref name="wang nyima 42">Wang & Nyima, ''The Historical Status of China's Tibet'', 42.</ref> Wang and Nyima take this to mean that "even in the later period of the Yuan Dynasty, the Yuan imperial court and the Pagmo Drupa regime maintained a Central-local government relation".<ref name="wang nyima 42"/> Janchub Gyaltsän is even supposed to have written in his will:<ref name="wang nyima 42"/> |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
In the past I received loving care from the emperor in the east. If the emperor continues to care for us, please follow his edicts and the imperial envoy should be well received.<ref name="wang nyima 42">Wang & Nyima, ''Historical Status of China's Tibet'', 42.</ref> |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
[[Image:Tsongkhapa.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Depiction of [[Je Tsongkhapa]], founder of the [[Gelug|Yellow Hat sect]], from a 19th-century painting]] |
[[Image:Tsongkhapa.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Depiction of [[Je Tsongkhapa]], founder of the [[Gelug|Yellow Hat sect]], from a 19th-century painting]] |
||
Lok-Ham Chan, a professor of history at the University of Washington, writes that Janchub Gyaltsän's aims were to recreate the old Tibetan Kingdom that existed during the Chinese Tang Dynasty, to build "nationalist sentiment" amongst Tibetans, and to "remove all traces of Mongol suzerainty".<ref name="chan 262"/> Georges Dreyfus, a professor of religion at Williams College, writes that it was Janchub Gyaltsän who adopted the old administrative system of [[Songtsän Gampo]] (c. 605–649)—the first [[List of Kings of Tibet|Yarlung king]] to establish Tibet as a strong power—by reinstating its legal code of punishments and administrative units.<ref name="dreyfus 504">Georges Dreyfus, "Cherished memories, cherished communities: proto-nationalism in Tibet", in ''The History of Tibet: Volume 2, The Medieval Period: c. AD 850–1895, the Development of Buddhist Paramountcy'' (New York: Routledge, 2003), 504.</ref> For example, instead of the 13 governorships established by the Mongol Sakya viceroy, Janchub Gyaltsän divided Central Tibet into districts (dzong) with district heads (dzong dpon) who had to conform to old rituals and wear clothing styles of old Imperial Tibet.<ref name="dreyfus 504"/> According to Chen, the Ming officer of Hezhou (modern day [[Linxia]]) alterted the Hongwu Emperor that the general situation in Dbus and Gtsang "was under control" and so he suggested to the emperor that he offer the second Phagmodru ruler Sagya Gyaincain an official title.<ref name="chen 44">Chen, ''Tibetan History'', 44.</ref> According to the Records of the Founding Emperor, Hongwu issued an edict granting the title "Initiation State Master" to Sagya Gyaincain, while the latter sent envoys to the Ming court to hand over his jade seal of authority along with tribute of colored silk and satin, statues of the Buddha, Buddhist scriptures, and sarira.<ref name="chen 44"/> Dreyfus writes that after the Phagmodru myriarchy lost its centralizing power over Tibet in 1434, several attempts by other families to establish hegemonies failed over the next two centuries until 1642 with [[Lozang Gyatso, 5th Dalai Lama|Lozang Gyatso, the Fifth Dalai Lama's]] effective hegemony over Tibet.<ref name="dreyfus 504"/> |
|||
The Ming Dynasty granted |
The Ming Dynasty granted titles to sects such as the Black Hat Karmapa lamas, but the latter had previously declined Mongol invitations to receive titles.<ref name="wylie 469 470">Wylie, "Lama Tribute in the Ming Dynasty", 469–470.</ref> When the Ming Yongle Emperor invited [[Je Tsongkhapa]] (1357–1419), founder of the [[Gelug|Yellow Hat]] sect, to come to the Ming court and pay tribute, the latter declined.<ref name="wylie 469 470"/> Wang and Nyima write that this was due to old age and physical weakness, and also because of efforts being made to build three major monasteries.<ref>Wang & Nyima, ''The Historical Status of China's Tibet'', 35.</ref> Chen Qingying states that Tsongkhapa wrote a letter to decline the Emperor's invitation, and in this reply, Tsongkhapa wrote:<ref name="chen 51"/> |
||
<blockquote> |
<blockquote> |
||
It's not that I don't know it's the edict of the Great dominator of the world for the sake of Buddhist doctrine, or that I don't obey the edict of Your Majesty. I'm seriously ill whenever I meet the public, so I can't embark on a journey in compliance with the imperial edict. I wish that Your Majesty might be merciful, not be displeased, it will really be a great mercy. <ref>Chen |
It's not that I don't know it's the edict of the Great dominator of the world for the sake of Buddhist doctrine, or that I don't obey the edict of Your Majesty. I'm seriously ill whenever I meet the public, so I can't embark on a journey in compliance with the imperial edict. I wish that Your Majesty might be merciful, not be displeased, it will really be a great mercy. <ref name="chen 51">Chen Qingying, ''Tibetan History'' (Beijing: China Intercontinental Press, 2003), 51; original text: 余非不知此是大地之大主宰為佛法著想之諭旨,亦非不遵不敬陛下之詔書,但我每與眾人相會,便發生重病,故不能遵照聖旨而行,惟祈陛下如虛空廣大之胸懷,不致不悅,實為幸甚。</ref> |
||
</blockquote> |
</blockquote> |
||
[[Image:Xuande.jpg|thumb|right|200px|[[Xuande Emperor]] (r. 1425–1435)]] |
|||
Tom Grunfeld says that Tsongkhapa claimed ill health in his refusal to appear at the Ming court.<ref name="grunfeld 40">A. Tom Grunfeld, ''The Making of Modern Tibet'' (New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1996), 40.</ref> Instead, Tsongkhapa sent his disciple Chosrje Shākya Yeshes (Jamchen Choje, 釋迦也失) to Nanjing in 1414 on his behalf, where the Yongle Emperor bestowed upon him the title of "State Teacher"—the same title earlier awarded the Phagmodru ruler of Tibet.<ref name="wylie 469 470"/><ref name="grunfeld 40"/> The [[Xuande Emperor]] (r. 1325–1435) even granted this disciple Chosrje Shākya Yeshes the title of a "King" (王).<ref name="wylie 469 470"/> Turrell V. Wylie notes that this—like the Black Hat sect—cannot be seen as a reappointment of Mongol Yuan offices, since the Yellow Hat sect was created after the fall of the Yuan Dynasty.<ref name="wylie 469 470"/> Even though the Yellow Hat sect exchanged gifts with and sent missions to the Ming court up until the 1430s,<ref name="chan 263"/> the Yellow Hat sect was not mentioned in the ''Mingshi'' or the ''Mingshi Lu''.<ref name="wylie 470"/> On this, the historian Li Tieh-tseng says: |
|||
Tom Grunfeld says that Tsongkhapa claimed ill health in his refusal to appear at the Ming court.<ref name="grunfeld 40">A. Tom Grunfeld, ''The Making of Modern Tibet'' (New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1996), 40.</ref> Instead, Tsongkhapa sent his disciple Chosrje Shākya Yeshes (Jamchen Choje, 釋迦也失) to Nanjing in 1414 on his behalf, where the Yongle Emperor bestowed upon him the title of "State Teacher"—the same title earlier awarded the Phagmodru ruler of Tibet.<ref name="wylie 469 470"/><ref name="grunfeld 40"/> The [[Xuande Emperor]] (r. 1425–1435) even granted this disciple Chosrje Shākya Yeshes the title of a "King" (王).<ref name="wylie 469 470"/> This title does not appear to have held any practical meaning, or to have given its holder any power, at Tsongkhapa's [[Ganden monastery]]. Turrell V. Wylie notes that this—like the Black Hat sect—cannot be seen as a reappointment of Mongol Yuan offices, since the Yellow Hat sect was created after the fall of the Yuan Dynasty.<ref name="wylie 469 470"/> Even though the Yellow Hat sect exchanged gifts with and sent missions to the Ming court up until the 1430s,<ref name="chan 263"/> the Yellow Hat sect was not mentioned in the ''Mingshi'' or the ''Mingshi Lu''.<ref name="wylie 470"/> On this, the historian Li Tieh-tseng says:<ref name="wylie 470"/> |
|||
[[Image:Yongle-Emperor1.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The [[Yongle Emperor]] (r. 1402–1424), his official court portrait painting]] |
|||
<blockquote> |
<blockquote> |
||
In China not only the emperor could do no wrong, but also his prestige and dignity had to be upheld at any cost. Had the fact been made known to the public that Ch'eng-tsu's repeated invitations extended to Tsong-ka-pa were declined, the Emperor's prestige and dignity would have been considered as lowered to a contemptible degree, especially at a time when his policy to show high favours toward lamas was by no means popular and had already caused resentment among the people. This explains why no mention of Tsong-k'a-pa and the Yellow Sect was made in the ''Ming Shih'' and ''Ming Shih lu''.<ref name="wylie 470">Turrell V. Wylie, "Lama Tribute in the Ming Dynasty", in ''The History of Tibet: Volume 2, The Medieval Period: c. AD 850–1895, the Development of Buddhist Paramountcy'' (New York: Routledge, 2003), 470.</ref> |
In China not only the emperor could do no wrong, but also his prestige and dignity had to be upheld at any cost. Had the fact been made known to the public that Ch'eng-tsu's repeated invitations extended to Tsong-ka-pa were declined, the Emperor's prestige and dignity would have been considered as lowered to a contemptible degree, especially at a time when his policy to show high favours toward lamas was by no means popular and had already caused resentment among the people. This explains why no mention of Tsong-k'a-pa and the Yellow Sect was made in the ''Ming Shih'' and ''Ming Shih lu''.<ref name="wylie 470">Turrell V. Wylie, "Lama Tribute in the Ming Dynasty", in ''The History of Tibet: Volume 2, The Medieval Period: c. AD 850–1895, the Development of Buddhist Paramountcy'' (New York: Routledge, 2003), 470.</ref> |
||
</blockquote> |
</blockquote> |
||
Wylie asserts that this type of [[censorship]] of the ''Mingshi'' distorts the true picture of the history of Sino-Tibetan relations, while the Ming court granted titles to various lamas regardless of their sectarian affiliations in an ongoing civil war in Tibet between competing lamaist factions.<ref name="wylie 470 471">Wylie, "Lama Tribute in the Ming Dynasty", 470–471.</ref><ref name="riggs 226">Riggs, "Tibet in Extremis", ''Far Eastern Survey'' 19, no. 21 (1950): 226.</ref> Wylie argues that Ming titles of "King" granted indiscriminately to various Tibetan lamas or even their disciples should not be viewed as reappointments to earlier Yuan Dynasty offices, since the viceregal Sakya regime established by the Mongols in Tibet was overthrown by the Phagmodru myriarchy before the Ming existed.<ref name="wylie 468 469">Wylie, "Lama Tribute in the Ming Dynasty", 468–469.</ref> Helmut Hoffman states that the Ming upheld the facade of rule over Tibet through periodic missions of "tribute emissaries" to the Ming court and by granting nominal titles to ruling lamas, but did not actually interfere in Tibetan governance.<ref name=" |
Wylie asserts that this type of [[censorship]] of the ''Mingshi'' distorts the true picture of the history of Sino-Tibetan relations, while the Ming court granted titles to various lamas regardless of their sectarian affiliations in an ongoing civil war in Tibet between competing lamaist factions.<ref name="wylie 470 471">Wylie, "Lama Tribute in the Ming Dynasty", 470–471.</ref><ref name="riggs 226">Riggs, "Tibet in Extremis", ''Far Eastern Survey'' 19, no. 21 (1950): 226.</ref> Wylie argues that Ming titles of "King" granted indiscriminately to various Tibetan lamas or even their disciples should not be viewed as reappointments to earlier Yuan Dynasty offices, since the viceregal Sakya regime established by the Mongols in Tibet was overthrown by the Phagmodru myriarchy before the Ming existed.<ref name="wylie 468 469">Wylie, "Lama Tribute in the Ming Dynasty", 468–469.</ref> Helmut Hoffman states that the Ming upheld the facade of rule over Tibet through periodic missions of "tribute emissaries" to the Ming court and by granting nominal titles to ruling lamas, but did not actually interfere in Tibetan governance.<ref name="hoffman 65"/> Melvyn C. Goldstein writes that the Ming had no real administrative authority over Tibet, as the various titles given to Tibetan leaders did not confer authority as the earlier Mongol Yuan titles had.<ref name="goldstein 4 5">Goldstein, ''The Snow Lion and the Dragon'', 4–5.</ref> He asserts that "by conferring titles on Tibetans already in power, the Ming emperors merely recognized political reality."<ref name="goldstein 5">Goldstein, ''The Snow Lion and the Dragon'', 5.</ref> Hugh E. Richardson writes that the Ming Dynasty exercised no authority over the succession of Tibetan ruling families, the Phagmodru (1354–1436), Rinbung (1436–1565), and Tsangpa (1565–1642).<ref name="kolmas 29"/> |
||
===Religious significance=== |
===Religious significance=== |
||
{{see|Chinese Buddhism|Tibetan Buddhism|Religion in China}} |
{{see|Chinese Buddhism|Tibetan Buddhism|Religion in China}} |
||
Following the tradition of Mongol emperors and their reverence for Tibetan Sakya lamas, Norbu writes that the Ming Emperor Yongle showed an enormous amount of deference towards [[Deshin Shekpa]] (1384–1415), the fifth Karmapa, as he came out of the palace in Nanjing to greet the Karmapa and did not force him to [[kowtow]] like any other tributary vassal.<ref name="norbu 51 52">Norbu, ''China's Tibet Policy'', 51–52.</ref> On [[March 10]], [[1403]], the Yongle Emperor had invited Deshin Shekpa to his court, even though the previous Fourth Karmapa of Tibet had rejected the invitation of the Hongwu Emperor of China.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 482">The Ming Biographical History Project of the Association for Asian Studies, ''Dictionary of Ming Biography, 1368-1644: 明代名人傳: Volume 1, A-L'' (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), 482.</ref> A Tibetan translation in the 16th century preserves the letter of Yongle, which the [[Association for Asian Studies]] notes is polite and complimentary towards the Karmapa.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 482"/> In order to seek out the Karmapa, Yongle dispatched his eunuch Hou Xian (候顯 |
Following the tradition of Mongol emperors and their reverence for Tibetan Sakya lamas, Norbu writes that the Ming Emperor Yongle showed an enormous amount of deference towards [[Deshin Shekpa]] (1384–1415), the fifth Karmapa, as he came out of the palace in Nanjing to greet the Karmapa and did not force him to [[kowtow]] like any other tributary vassal.<ref name="norbu 51 52">Norbu, ''China's Tibet Policy'', 51–52.</ref> On [[March 10]], [[1403]], the Yongle Emperor had invited Deshin Shekpa to his court, even though the previous Fourth Karmapa of Tibet had rejected the invitation of the Hongwu Emperor of China.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 482">The Ming Biographical History Project of the Association for Asian Studies, ''Dictionary of Ming Biography, 1368-1644: 明代名人傳: Volume 1, A-L'' (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), 482.</ref> A Tibetan translation in the 16th century preserves the letter of Yongle, which the [[Association for Asian Studies]] notes is polite and complimentary towards the Karmapa.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 482"/> In order to seek out the Karmapa, Yongle dispatched his eunuch Hou Xian (候顯; fl. 1403–1427) and the Buddhist monk Zhi Guang (d. 1435) to Tibet.<ref name="tsai 84">Tsai, ''Perpetual Happiness'', 84.</ref> Traveling to [[Lhasa]] either through [[Qinghai]] or via the [[Silk Road]] to [[Khotan]], Hou Xian and Zhi Guang did not return to Nanjing until 1407.<ref name="tsai 187">Tsai, ''Perpetual Happiness'', 187.</ref> |
||
[[Image:Kinnara Chine Guimet 21107.jpg|thumb|left|200px|A Chinese gilded brass figure of a mythological Buddhist ''[[kinnari]]'', from the reign era of [[Xuande Emperor|Xuande]] (r. 1425–1435)]] |
[[Image:Kinnara Chine Guimet 21107.jpg|thumb|left|200px|A Chinese gilded brass figure of a mythological Buddhist ''[[kinnari]]'', from the reign era of [[Xuande Emperor|Xuande]] (r. 1425–1435)]] |
||
During his travels beginning in 1403, further exhortations by the Ming court compelled Deshin Shekpa to visit Nanjing by [[April 10]], [[1407]].<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 482"/> At [[Linggu Temple]] in Nanjing, he presided over the religious ceremonies for Yongle's deceased parents, while the 22 days of his stay were marked by religious [[miracle]]s that were recorded in five languages on a gigantic scroll that bore the emperor's seal.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 482"/><ref name="tsai 84"/> Elliot Sperling writes that Yongle, in granting Deshin Shekpa with the title of "King" and praising his [[Magic (paranormal)|mystical abilities]] and miracles, was trying to build an alliance with the Karmapa as the Mongols had with the Sakya lamas, but Deshin Shekpa rejected Yongle's offer.<ref name="sperling 477">Sperling, "The 5th Karma-pa and some aspects of the relationship between Tibet and the Early Ming", 477.</ref> Tibetan sources say he persuaded Yongle not to impose his military might on Tibet as the Mongols had previously done,<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 482"/> but Hok-Lam Chan states that "there is little evidence that this was ever the emperor's intention" and that evidence points to the fact that Deshin Skekpa was invited strictly for religious purposes.<ref name="chan 263">Chan, "The Chien-wen, Yung-lo, Hung-shi, and Hsuan-te reigns", 263.</ref> Marsha Weidner states that Deshin Shekpa's miracles "testified to the power of both the emperor and his guru and served a legitimizing tool for the emperor's problematic succession to the throne |
During his travels beginning in 1403, further exhortations by the Ming court compelled Deshin Shekpa to visit Nanjing by [[April 10]], [[1407]].<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 482"/> At [[Linggu Temple]] in Nanjing, he presided over the religious ceremonies for Yongle's deceased parents, while the 22 days of his stay were marked by religious [[miracle]]s that were recorded in five languages on a gigantic scroll that bore the emperor's seal.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 482"/><ref name="tsai 84"/> Elliot Sperling writes that Yongle, in granting Deshin Shekpa with the title of "King" and praising his [[Magic (paranormal)|mystical abilities]] and miracles, was trying to build an alliance with the Karmapa as the Mongols had with the Sakya lamas, but Deshin Shekpa rejected Yongle's offer.<ref name="sperling 477">Sperling, "The 5th Karma-pa and some aspects of the relationship between Tibet and the Early Ming", 477.</ref> Tibetan sources say he persuaded Yongle not to impose his military might on Tibet as the Mongols had previously done,<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 482"/> but Hok-Lam Chan states that "there is little evidence that this was ever the emperor's intention" and that evidence points to the fact that Deshin Skekpa was invited strictly for religious purposes.<ref name="chan 263">Chan, "The Chien-wen, Yung-lo, Hung-shi, and Hsuan-te reigns", 263.</ref> Marsha Weidner states that Deshin Shekpa's miracles "testified to the power of both the emperor and his guru and served a legitimizing tool for the emperor's problematic succession to the throne," referring to Yongle's conflict with the previous [[Jianwen Emperor]] (r. 1398–1402).<ref>Marsha Weidner, "Imperial Engagements with Buddhist Art and Architecture: Ming Variations of an Old Theme", in ''Cultural Intersections in Later Chinese Buddhism'' (Manoa: University of Hawaii Press, 2001), 121.</ref> Tsai writes that Deshin Shekpa aided the legitimacy of Yongle's rule by providing him with portents and omens which demonstrated [[Mandate of Heaven|Heaven's favor]] of Yongle on the Ming throne.<ref name="tsai 84"/> During his stay in Nanjing, Deshin Shekpa was bestowed with the title "Great Treasure Prince of Dharma" by Yongle.<ref name="chen 52">Chen Qingying, ''Tibetan History'' (China Intercontinental Press, 2003), 52.</ref> However, Chan writes that in 1446 the Ming court cut off all relations with the Karmapa hierarchs, and before that point the Ming court was unaware that Deshin Shekpa had died in 1415, believing that the representatives of his sect that continued to visit the capital were sent by him.<ref name="chan 263"/> |
||
[[Image:Zhengtong Emperor.jpg|thumb|right|200px|[[Zhengtong Emperor]] (r. 1435–1449)]] |
[[Image:Zhengtong Emperor.jpg|thumb|right|200px|[[Zhengtong Emperor]] (r. 1435–1449)]] |
||
With the example of the Ming court's relationship with the fifth Karmapa and other Tibetan leaders, Norbu states that Chinese Communist historians have failed to realize the significance of the religious aspect of the Ming-Tibetan relationship.<ref name="norbu 52"/> He writes that the meeting of lamas with the [[Emperor of China|emperor]] were exchanges of tribute between "the patron and the priest" and was not merely a political subordinate paying tribute to a superior.<ref name="norbu 52">Norbu, ''China's Tibet Policy'', 52.</ref> He also notes that the items of tribute were Buddhist artifacts which symbolized "the religious nature of the relationship |
With the example of the Ming court's relationship with the fifth Karmapa and other Tibetan leaders, Norbu states that Chinese Communist historians have failed to realize the significance of the religious aspect of the Ming-Tibetan relationship.<ref name="norbu 52"/> He writes that the meeting of lamas with the [[Emperor of China|emperor]] were exchanges of tribute between "the patron and the priest" and was not merely a political subordinate paying tribute to a superior.<ref name="norbu 52">Norbu, ''China's Tibet Policy'', 52.</ref> He also notes that the items of tribute were Buddhist artifacts which symbolized "the religious nature of the relationship."<ref name="norbu 52"/> Josef Kolmaš writes that the Ming Dynasty did not exercise any direct political control over Tibet, content with their tribute relations that were "almost entirely of a religious character."<ref name="kolmas 32">Kolmas, ''Tibet and Imperial China'', 32.</ref> Patricia Ann Berger writes that Yongle's courting and granting of titles to lamas was his attempt to "resurrect the relationship between China and Tibet established earlier by the Yuan dynastic founder Khubilai Khan and his guru Phagpa."<ref name="berger 184">Patricia Ann Berger, ''Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China'' (Manoa: University of Hawaii Press, 2003), 184.</ref> She also writes that the later Qing emperors and their Mongol associates viewed Yongle's relationship with Tibet as "part of a chain of [[Rebirth (Buddhism)|reincarnation]] that saw this Han Chinese emperor as yet another emanation of [[Manjusri]]."<ref name="berger 184"/> |
||
The Information Office of the State Council of the PRC preserves an edict of the [[Zhengtong Emperor]] (r. 1435–1449) addressed to the Karmapa lama in 1445 (a year before relations were severed as Chan mentions above), written after the latter's agent had brought tribute to the Ming court that included holy relics.<ref name="information office of the state council 95">Information Office of the State Council, ''Testimony of History'', 95.</ref> Zhengtong had the following message delivered to the Great Treasure Prince of Dharma, the Karmapa: |
The Information Office of the State Council of the PRC preserves an edict of the [[Zhengtong Emperor]] (r. 1435–1449) addressed to the Karmapa lama in 1445 (a year before relations were severed as Chan mentions above), written after the latter's agent had brought tribute to the Ming court that included holy relics.<ref name="information office of the state council 95">Information Office of the State Council, ''Testimony of History'', 95.</ref> Zhengtong had the following message delivered to the Great Treasure Prince of Dharma, the Karmapa:<ref name="information office of the state council 95"/> |
||
<blockquote>Out of compassion, Buddha taught people to be good and persuaded them to embrace his doctrines. You, who live in the remote Western Region, have inherited the true Buddhist doctrines. I am deeply impressed not only by the compassion with which you preach among the people in your region for their enlightenment, but also by your respect for the wishes of Heaven and your devotion to the Court. I am very pleased that you have sent bSod-nams-nyi-ma and other Tibetan monks here bringing with them statues of Buddha, horses and other specialties as tributes to the court.<ref name="information office of the state council 95"/></blockquote> |
<blockquote>Out of compassion, Buddha taught people to be good and persuaded them to embrace his doctrines. You, who live in the remote Western Region, have inherited the true Buddhist doctrines. I am deeply impressed not only by the compassion with which you preach among the people in your region for their enlightenment, but also by your respect for the wishes of Heaven and your devotion to the Court. I am very pleased that you have sent bSod-nams-nyi-ma and other Tibetan monks here bringing with them statues of Buddha, horses and other specialties as tributes to the court.<ref name="information office of the state council 95"/></blockquote> |
||
Line 167: | Line 99: | ||
Sperling writes that the Ming simultaneously bought horses in the Kham region while fighting Tibetan tribes in Amdo and receiving Tibetan embassies in Nanjing.<ref name="sperling 475">Elliot Sperling, "The 5th Karma-pa and some aspects of the relationship between Tibet and the Early Ming", in ''The History of Tibet: Volume 2, The Medieval Period: c. AD 850–1895, the Development of Buddhist Paramountcy'' (New York: Routledge, 2003), 475.</ref> He also argues that the embassies of Tibetan lamas visiting the Ming court were for the most part efforts to promote commercial transactions between the lamas' large, wealthy entourage and Ming Chinese merchants and officials.<ref name="sperling 478">Sperling, "The 5th Karma-pa and some aspects of the relationship between Tibet and the Early Ming", 478.</ref> Kolmaš writes that while the Ming maintained a [[laissez-faire]] policy towards Tibet and limited the numbers of the Tibetan retinues, the Tibetans sought to maintain a tributary relationship with the Ming because imperial patronage provided them with wealth and power.<ref name="kolmas 28 29">Kolmas, ''Tibet and Imperial China'', 28–29.</ref> Laird writes that Tibetans eagerly sought Ming court invitations since the gifts the Tibetans received for bringing tribute were much greater in value than the latter.<ref name="laird 131">Laird, ''The Story of Tibet'', 131.</ref> As for Yongle's gifts to his Tibetan and [[Nepal]]ese vassals such as silver wares, Buddha relics, utensils for Buddhist temples and religious ceremonies, and gowns and robes for monks, Tsai writes "in his effort to draw neighboring states to the Ming orbit so that he could bask in glory, Yongle was quite willing to pay a small price."<ref name="tsai 188">Tsai, ''Perpetual Happiness'', 188.</ref> The Information Office of the State Council of the PRC lists the Tibetan tribute items as oxen, horses, camels, sheep, fur products, medical herbs, Tibetan incenses, ''[[thangka]]s'' (painted scrolls), and handicrafts while the Ming awarded Tibetan tribute-bearers with an equal value of gold, silver, satin and brocade, bolts of cloth, grains, and tea leaves.<ref name="information office of the state council 73"/> [[Silk]] workshops during the Ming also catered specifically to the Tibetan market with silk clothes and furnishings featuring Tibetan Buddhist iconography.<ref name="vollmer 98 100">John E. Vollmer, ''Silk for Thrones and Altars: Chinese Costumes and Textiles from the Liao through the Qing Dynasty'' (Berkeley: Ten Speed Press, 2004), 98–100.</ref> |
Sperling writes that the Ming simultaneously bought horses in the Kham region while fighting Tibetan tribes in Amdo and receiving Tibetan embassies in Nanjing.<ref name="sperling 475">Elliot Sperling, "The 5th Karma-pa and some aspects of the relationship between Tibet and the Early Ming", in ''The History of Tibet: Volume 2, The Medieval Period: c. AD 850–1895, the Development of Buddhist Paramountcy'' (New York: Routledge, 2003), 475.</ref> He also argues that the embassies of Tibetan lamas visiting the Ming court were for the most part efforts to promote commercial transactions between the lamas' large, wealthy entourage and Ming Chinese merchants and officials.<ref name="sperling 478">Sperling, "The 5th Karma-pa and some aspects of the relationship between Tibet and the Early Ming", 478.</ref> Kolmaš writes that while the Ming maintained a [[laissez-faire]] policy towards Tibet and limited the numbers of the Tibetan retinues, the Tibetans sought to maintain a tributary relationship with the Ming because imperial patronage provided them with wealth and power.<ref name="kolmas 28 29">Kolmas, ''Tibet and Imperial China'', 28–29.</ref> Laird writes that Tibetans eagerly sought Ming court invitations since the gifts the Tibetans received for bringing tribute were much greater in value than the latter.<ref name="laird 131">Laird, ''The Story of Tibet'', 131.</ref> As for Yongle's gifts to his Tibetan and [[Nepal]]ese vassals such as silver wares, Buddha relics, utensils for Buddhist temples and religious ceremonies, and gowns and robes for monks, Tsai writes "in his effort to draw neighboring states to the Ming orbit so that he could bask in glory, Yongle was quite willing to pay a small price."<ref name="tsai 188">Tsai, ''Perpetual Happiness'', 188.</ref> The Information Office of the State Council of the PRC lists the Tibetan tribute items as oxen, horses, camels, sheep, fur products, medical herbs, Tibetan incenses, ''[[thangka]]s'' (painted scrolls), and handicrafts while the Ming awarded Tibetan tribute-bearers with an equal value of gold, silver, satin and brocade, bolts of cloth, grains, and tea leaves.<ref name="information office of the state council 73"/> [[Silk]] workshops during the Ming also catered specifically to the Tibetan market with silk clothes and furnishings featuring Tibetan Buddhist iconography.<ref name="vollmer 98 100">John E. Vollmer, ''Silk for Thrones and Altars: Chinese Costumes and Textiles from the Liao through the Qing Dynasty'' (Berkeley: Ten Speed Press, 2004), 98–100.</ref> |
||
While the Ming Dynasty traded horses with Tibet, it upheld a policy of outlawing border markets in the north, which Laird says was an effort to punish the Mongols for their raids and to "drive them from the frontiers of China".<ref name="laird 141">Laird, ''The Story of Tibet'', 141.</ref> However, when [[Altan Khan]] (1507–1582)—leader of the Tümed Mongols who overthrew the [[Oirats|Oirat Mongol]] confederation's hegemony over the steppes—made peace with the Ming Dynasty in 1571, he persuaded the Ming to reopen their border markets in 1573.<ref name="laird 141"/> This provided the Chinese with a new supply of horses that the Mongols had in excess; it was also a relief to the Ming, since they were unable to stop the Mongols from periodic raiding.<ref name="laird 141"/> Laird says that despite the fact that later Mongols believed Altan forced the Ming to view him as an equal, Chinese historians argue that he was simply a loyal Chinese citizen.<ref name="laird 141"/> |
While the Ming Dynasty traded horses with Tibet, it upheld a policy of outlawing border markets in the north, which Laird says was an effort to punish the Mongols for their raids and to "drive them from the frontiers of China".<ref name="laird 141">Laird, ''The Story of Tibet'', 141.</ref> However, when [[Altan Khan]] (1507–1582)—leader of the Tümed Mongols who overthrew the [[Oirats|Oirat Mongol]] confederation's hegemony over the steppes—made peace with the Ming Dynasty in 1571, he persuaded the Ming to reopen their border markets in 1573.<ref name="laird 141"/> This provided the Chinese with a new supply of horses that the Mongols had in excess; it was also a relief to the Ming, since they were unable to stop the Mongols from periodic raiding.<ref name="laird 141"/> Laird says that despite the fact that later Mongols believed Altan forced the Ming to view him as an equal, Chinese historians argue that he was simply a loyal Chinese citizen.<ref name="laird 141"/> By 1578, Altan Khan formed a formidable Mongol-Tibetan alliance with the Yellow Hat sect that the Ming viewed from afar without intervention.<ref name="goldstein 8"/><ref name="kolmas 31 32"/><ref name="laird 144"/> |
||
===Armed intervention and border stability=== |
===Armed intervention and border stability=== |
||
Line 180: | Line 112: | ||
The Association for Asian Studies states that there is no known written evidence to suggest that later leaders of the Yellow Hat sect—[[Gendun Drup, 1st Dalai Lama|First Dalai Lama Gendun Drup]] (1391–1474) and [[Gendun Gyatso, 2nd Dalai Lama|Second Dalai Lama Gendun Gyatso]] (1475–1571)—had any contacts with Ming China.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 412 413">''Dictionary of Ming Biography'', 412–413.</ref> These two religious leaders were preoccupied with an overriding concern for dealing with the powerful secular princes of [[Rinbung County|Rinbung]], who were patrons and protectors of the Black Hat Karmapa lamas.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 412 413"/> The prince of Rinbung occupied [[Lhasa]] in 1498 and excluded the Yellow Hat sect from attending New Years ceremonies and prayers, the most important event in the Yellow Hat sect.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 413">''Dictionary of Ming Biography'', 413.</ref> While the task of New Years prayers in Lhasa was granted to the Karmapa, Gendun Gyatso traveled in exile looking for allies.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 413"/> However, it was not until 1518 that the secular Phagmodru ruler captured Lhasa from the Rinbung, and thereafter the Yellow Hat sect was given rights to conduct the New Years prayer.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 413"/> When the [[Red Hat sect|Red Hat]] abbot of the [[Drigung Monastery]] threatened Lhasa in 1537, Gendun Gyatso was forced to abandon the [[Drepung Monastery]], although he eventually returned.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 413"/> |
The Association for Asian Studies states that there is no known written evidence to suggest that later leaders of the Yellow Hat sect—[[Gendun Drup, 1st Dalai Lama|First Dalai Lama Gendun Drup]] (1391–1474) and [[Gendun Gyatso, 2nd Dalai Lama|Second Dalai Lama Gendun Gyatso]] (1475–1571)—had any contacts with Ming China.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 412 413">''Dictionary of Ming Biography'', 412–413.</ref> These two religious leaders were preoccupied with an overriding concern for dealing with the powerful secular princes of [[Rinbung County|Rinbung]], who were patrons and protectors of the Black Hat Karmapa lamas.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 412 413"/> The prince of Rinbung occupied [[Lhasa]] in 1498 and excluded the Yellow Hat sect from attending New Years ceremonies and prayers, the most important event in the Yellow Hat sect.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 413">''Dictionary of Ming Biography'', 413.</ref> While the task of New Years prayers in Lhasa was granted to the Karmapa, Gendun Gyatso traveled in exile looking for allies.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 413"/> However, it was not until 1518 that the secular Phagmodru ruler captured Lhasa from the Rinbung, and thereafter the Yellow Hat sect was given rights to conduct the New Years prayer.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 413"/> When the [[Red Hat sect|Red Hat]] abbot of the [[Drigung Monastery]] threatened Lhasa in 1537, Gendun Gyatso was forced to abandon the [[Drepung Monastery]], although he eventually returned.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 413"/> |
||
The [[Zhengde Emperor]] (r. 1505–1521), who enjoyed the company of lamas at court despite protests from the [[censorate]], had heard tales of a "living Buddha" which he desired to host at the Ming capital; this was none other than the Rinbung-supported Karmapa then occupying Lhasa.<ref name="geiss 417">James Geiss, "The Cheng-te reign, 1506-1521", in ''The Cambridge History of China: Volume 7, The Ming Dynasty, 1368-1644, Part 1'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 417.</ref> Zhengde's top advisors made every attempt to dissuade him from inviting this lama to court, arguing that Tibetan Buddhism was wildly heterodox and unorthodox.<ref name="tuttle 27"/> Despite protests by the [[Grand Secretariat|Grand Secretary]] Liang Chu, in 1515 the Zhengde Emperor sent his eunuch official Liu Yun of the [[Chancellor of China|palace chancellery]] on a mission to invite this Karmapa to [[Beijing]].<ref name="geiss 417 418">Geiss, "The Cheng-te reign, 1506-1521", 417–418.</ref> Liu commanded a fleet of hundreds of ships requisitioned along the [[Yangzi River]], consuming {{convert|100|oz|g|0}} of silver a day in food expenses while stationed for a year in [[Chengdu]] of [[Sichuan]].<ref name="geiss 418"/> After procurring necessary gifts for the mission, he departed with a cavalry force of about 1,000 troops.<ref name="geiss 418">Geiss, "The Cheng-te reign, 1506-1521", 418.</ref> When the request was given, the Karmapa lama refused to leave Tibet despite the Ming force coercing him to do so.<ref name="geiss 418"/> The Karmapa launched a surprise ambush on Liu Yun's camp, seizing all the goods and valuables while killing or wounding half of Liu Yun's entire escort.<ref name="geiss 418"/> After this fiasco, Liu fled for his life, but only returned to Chengdu several years later to find that the Zhengde Emperor had died.<ref name="geiss 418"/> |
The [[Zhengde Emperor]] (r. 1505–1521), who enjoyed the company of lamas at court despite protests from the [[censorate]], had heard tales of a "living Buddha" which he desired to host at the Ming capital; this was none other than the Rinbung-supported Karmapa then occupying Lhasa.<ref name="geiss 417">James Geiss, "The Cheng-te reign, 1506-1521", in ''The Cambridge History of China: Volume 7, The Ming Dynasty, 1368-1644, Part 1'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 417.</ref> Zhengde's top advisors made every attempt to dissuade him from inviting this lama to court, arguing that Tibetan Buddhism was wildly heterodox and unorthodox.<ref name="tuttle 27"/> Despite protests by the [[Grand Secretariat|Grand Secretary]] Liang Chu, in 1515 the Zhengde Emperor sent his eunuch official Liu Yun of the [[Chancellor of China|palace chancellery]] on a mission to invite this Karmapa to [[Beijing]].<ref name="geiss 417 418">Geiss, "The Cheng-te reign, 1506-1521", 417–418.</ref> Liu commanded a fleet of hundreds of ships requisitioned along the [[Yangzi River]], consuming {{convert|100|oz|g|0}} of silver a day in food expenses while stationed for a year in [[Chengdu]] of [[Sichuan]].<ref name="geiss 418"/> After procurring necessary gifts for the mission, he departed with a cavalry force of about 1,000 troops.<ref name="geiss 418">Geiss, "The Cheng-te reign, 1506-1521", 418.</ref> When the request was given, the Karmapa lama refused to leave Tibet despite the Ming force coercing him to do so.<ref name="geiss 418"/> The Karmapa launched a surprise ambush on Liu Yun's camp, seizing all the goods and valuables while killing or wounding half of Liu Yun's entire escort.<ref name="geiss 418"/> After this fiasco, Liu fled for his life, but only returned to Chengdu several years later to find that the Zhengde Emperor had died.<ref name="geiss 418"/> |
||
===Tibetans as a national minority=== |
===Tibetans as a national minority=== |
||
[[Image:Ming-Empire2.jpg|thumb|right|200px|According to this map of the Ming Empire during the [[Yongle Emperor]]'s reign, published by [[Harvard University Press]] in 1905, the boundaries shown do not include the Ming's vassal states, while Tibet is noticeably absent from the Ming's sovereign territories or directly-governed areas in yellow.]] |
|||
[[Image:Tibet CN.png|thumb|right|200px|The [[Tibet Autonomous Region]] in the [[People's Republic of China]]; Marina Illich states that PRC scholars bracket Tibet under a "[[Ethnic minorities in China|minority nationality]]" rubric which "narrowly conceives of geographic Tibet as a modern-day Tibet Autonomous Region (T.A.R.) abutted by a congeries of 'Tibetan prefectures' in ... Sichuan, Qinghai, Gansu, and Yunnan", while the historic definition of Tibet is portrayed anachronistically as an "inalienable part of China".<ref name="illich 19"/>]] |
[[Image:Tibet CN.png|thumb|right|200px|The [[Tibet Autonomous Region]] in the [[People's Republic of China]]; Marina Illich states that PRC scholars bracket Tibet under a "[[Ethnic minorities in China|minority nationality]]" rubric which "narrowly conceives of geographic Tibet as a modern-day Tibet Autonomous Region (T.A.R.) abutted by a congeries of 'Tibetan prefectures' in ... Sichuan, Qinghai, Gansu, and Yunnan", while the historic definition of Tibet is portrayed anachronistically as an "inalienable part of China".<ref name="illich 19"/>]] |
||
Elliot Sperling, a specialist of Indian studies and the director of the Tibetan Studies program at Indiana University’s department of Central Eurasia Studies writes that "the idea that Tibet became part of China in the 13th century is a very recent construction |
Elliot Sperling, a specialist of Indian studies and the director of the Tibetan Studies program at Indiana University’s department of Central Eurasia Studies, writes that "the idea that Tibet became part of China in the 13th century is a very recent construction."<ref name="sperling new york times">Sperling, Elliot. ([[April 13]], [[2008]]). [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/opinion/13sperling.html?ref=opinion Don't Know Much About Tibetan History]. ''[[The New York Times]]''. Retrieved on [[2008]]-[[04-24]].</ref> He writes that Chinese writers of the early 20th century were of the view that Tibet was not annexed by China until the Manchu Qing Dynasty invasion during the 18th century.<ref name="sperling new york times"/> He also states that Chinese writers of the early 20th century described Tibet as a feudal dependent of China, not an integral part of it.<ref name="sperling new york times"/> Sperling states that this is because "Tibet was ruled as such, within the empires of the Mongols and the Manchus" and also that "China's intervening Ming Dynasty ... had no control over Tibet."<ref name="sperling new york times"/> He writes that the Ming relationship with Tibet is problematic for China’s insistence of its unbroken sovereignty over Tibet since the 13th century.<ref name="sperling new york times"/> As for the Tibetan view that Tibet was never subject to the rule of the Yuan or Qing emperors of China, Sperling also discounts this by stating that Tibet was "subject to rules, laws and decisions made by the Yuan and Qing rulers" and that even Tibetans described themselves as subjects of these emperors.<ref name="sperling new york times"/> |
||
Josef Kolmaš, a [[sinologist]], [[:Category:Tibetologists|Tibetologist]], and Professor of Oriental Studies at the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, writes that it was during the Qing Dynasty "that developments took place on the basis of which Tibet came to be considered an organic part of China, both practically and theoretically subject to the Chinese central government |
Josef Kolmaš, a [[sinologist]], [[:Category:Tibetologists|Tibetologist]], and Professor of Oriental Studies at the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, writes that it was during the Qing Dynasty "that developments took place on the basis of which Tibet came to be considered an organic part of China, both practically and theoretically subject to the Chinese central government."<ref name="kolmas 33">Kolmas, ''Tibet and Imperial China'', 33.</ref> Yet he states that this was a radical change in regards to all previous eras of Sino-Tibetan relations.<ref name="kolmas 33"/> |
||
P. Christiaan Klieger, an anthropologist and scholar of the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, writes that the vice royalty of the Sakya regime installed by the Mongols established a patron-priest relationship between Tibetans and Mongol converts to Tibetan Buddhism.<ref name="klieger 217">P. Christiaan Klieger, "Riding High on the Manchurian Dream: Three Paradigms in the Construction of the Tibetan Question", in ''Contemporary Tibet: Politics, Development, and Society in a Disputed Region'' (New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2006), 217.</ref> According to him, the Tibetan lamas and Mongol khans upheld a "mutual role of religious prelate and secular patron |
P. Christiaan Klieger, an anthropologist and scholar of the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, writes that the vice royalty of the Sakya regime installed by the Mongols established a patron-priest relationship between Tibetans and Mongol converts to Tibetan Buddhism.<ref name="klieger 217">P. Christiaan Klieger, "Riding High on the Manchurian Dream: Three Paradigms in the Construction of the Tibetan Question", in ''Contemporary Tibet: Politics, Development, and Society in a Disputed Region'' (New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2006), 217.</ref> According to him, the Tibetan lamas and Mongol khans upheld a "mutual role of religious prelate and secular patron," respectively.<ref name="klieger 217"/> He adds that:<ref name="klieger 217"/> |
||
<blockquote>Although agreements were made between Tibetan leaders and Mongol khans, Ming and Qing emperors, it was the Republic of China and its Communist successors that assumed the former imperial tributaries and subject states as integral parts of the Chinese nation-state.<ref name="klieger 217"/></blockquote> |
<blockquote>Although agreements were made between Tibetan leaders and Mongol khans, Ming and Qing emperors, it was the Republic of China and its Communist successors that assumed the former imperial tributaries and subject states as integral parts of the Chinese nation-state.<ref name="klieger 217"/></blockquote> |
||
Marina Illich, a scholar of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, while discussing the life of the Yellow Hat lama Chankya Rolpe Dorje (1717–1786), mentions the limitations of both Western and Chinese modern scholarship in their interpretation of Tibetan sources. As for the limitations imposed on scholars by the central government of the People's Republic of China on issues regarding the history of Tibet, Illich writes: |
Marina Illich, a scholar of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, while discussing the life of the Yellow Hat lama Chankya Rolpe Dorje (1717–1786), mentions the limitations of both Western and Chinese modern scholarship in their interpretation of Tibetan sources. As for the limitations imposed on scholars by the central government of the People's Republic of China on issues regarding the history of Tibet, Illich writes:<ref name="illich 19"/> |
||
<blockquote>PRC scholars ... work under the strict supervision of censor bureaus and must adhere to historiographic guidelines issued by the state [and] have little choice but to frame their discussion of eighteenth-century Tibetan history in the anachronistic terms of contemporary People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) state discourse ... Bound by Party directives, these scholars have little choice but to portray Tibet as a trans-historically inalienable part of China in a way that profoundly obscures questions of Tibetan agency.<ref name="illich 19">Marina Illich, "Imperial Stooge or Emissary to the Dge lugs Throne? Rethinking the Biographies of Chankya Rolpé Dorjé", in ''Power, Politics, and the Reinvention of Tradition: Tibet in the Seventeenth adn Eighteenth Centuries'' (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2006), 19.</ref></blockquote> |
<blockquote>PRC scholars ... work under the strict supervision of censor bureaus and must adhere to historiographic guidelines issued by the state [and] have little choice but to frame their discussion of eighteenth-century Tibetan history in the anachronistic terms of contemporary People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) state discourse ... Bound by Party directives, these scholars have little choice but to portray Tibet as a trans-historically inalienable part of China in a way that profoundly obscures questions of Tibetan agency.<ref name="illich 19">Marina Illich, "Imperial Stooge or Emissary to the Dge lugs Throne? Rethinking the Biographies of Chankya Rolpé Dorjé", in ''Power, Politics, and the Reinvention of Tradition: Tibet in the Seventeenth adn Eighteenth Centuries'' (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2006), 19.</ref></blockquote> |
||
''[[China Daily]]'', a |
''[[China Daily]]'', a [[Chinese Communist Party|CCP-controlled]] news organization since 1981, states that although there were dynastic changes after Tibet was incorporated into the territory of China's Yuan Dynasty in the 13th century, "Tibet has remained under the jurisdiction of the central government of China."<ref name="china daily">''[[China Daily]]''. ([[April 9]], [[2008]]). [http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-04/09/content_6601917.htm From Dynasty to Republic]. Chinadaily.com.cn. Retrieved on [[2008]]-[[04-25]].</ref> It also states that the Ming Dynasty "inherited the right to rule Tibet" from the Yuan Dynasty, and repeats the claims in the ''Mingshi'' about the Ming establishing two itinerant high commands over Tibet.<ref name="china daily"/> ''China Daily'' states that the Ming handled Tibet's civil administration, appointed all leading officials of these administrative organs, and punished Tibetans who broke the law.<ref name="china daily"/> The party-controlled ''[[People's Daily]]'', the state-controlled [[Xinhua News Agency]], and the [[State Council of the People's Republic of China|state-controlled]] national television network [[China Central Television]] post the same article that ''China Daily'' has, the only difference being their headlines and some additional text.<ref name="people's daily">''[[People's Daily]]''. ([[April 14]], [[2008]]). [http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90785/6392108.html Tell you a true Tibet - Ownership of Tibet]. English.peopledaily.com.cn. Retrieved on [[2008]]-[[04-26]].</ref><ref name="cctv">[[China Central Television|CCTV]]. (2005). [http://www.cctv.com/english/special/Tibethistory/20080421/105456_2.shtml Tell you a true Tibet - Sovereignty of Tibet]. CCTV.com. Retrieved on [[2008]]-[[04-26]].</ref><ref name="xinhua">[[Xinhua News Agency]]. ([[April 15]], [[2008]]). [http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/16/content_7987724.htm Tell you a true Tibet - Sovereignty of Tibet]. Retrieved on [[2008]]-[[05-06]].</ref> |
||
==Mongol-Tibetan alliance== |
==Mongol-Tibetan alliance== |
||
===Altan Khan and the Dalai Lama=== |
===Altan Khan and the Dalai Lama=== |
||
[[Image:Jiajing.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The [[Jiajing Emperor]] (r. 1521–1567)]] |
[[Image:Jiajing.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The [[Jiajing Emperor]] (r. 1521–1567)]] |
||
During the reign of the [[Jiajing Emperor]] (r. 1521–1567), the native Chinese ideology of [[Taoism|Daoism]] was fully sponsored at the Ming court, while the [[Tibetan Buddhism]] of Tibet's lamas and even [[Chinese Buddhism|other types of Buddhism]] were ignored or suppressed.<ref name="wylie 470"/> Even the ''Mingshi'' states that the Tibetan lamas discontinued their trips to Ming China and its court at this point.<ref name="wylie 470"/> The Grand Secretary Yang Tinghe under Jiajing was determined to break the [[eunuch]] influence at court which typified the Zhengde era,<ref name="wills 338 339">John E. Wills, Jr., "Relations with Maritime Europe, 1514–1662", in ''The Cambridge History of China: Volume 8, The Ming Dynasty, 1368–1644, Part 2'', 333–375, ed. Denis Twitchett, John King Fairbank, and Albert Feuerwerker (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 338–339.</ref> an example being the costly escort of the eunuch Liu Yun as described above in his failed mission to Tibet. The court eunuchs were in favor of expanding and building new commercial ties with foreign countries such as [[Portuguese Empire|Portugal]], which Zhengde deemed permissible since he had an affinity for foreign and exotic people.<ref name="wills 338 339"/> With the death of Zhengde and ascension of Jiajing, the politics at court shifted in favor of the [[Neo-Confucianism|Confucian establishment]] which not only rejected the Portuguese embassy of [[Fernão Pires de Andrade]],<ref name="wills 338 339"/> but had a predisposed animosity towards Tibetan Buddhism and lamas.<ref name="geiss 417 418"/> |
During the reign of the [[Jiajing Emperor]] (r. 1521–1567), the native Chinese ideology of [[Taoism|Daoism]] was fully sponsored at the Ming court, while the [[Tibetan Buddhism]] of Tibet's lamas and even [[Chinese Buddhism|other types of Buddhism]] were ignored or suppressed.<ref name="wylie 470"/> Even the ''Mingshi'' states that the Tibetan lamas discontinued their trips to Ming China and its court at this point.<ref name="wylie 470"/> The Grand Secretary Yang Tinghe under Jiajing was determined to break the [[eunuch]] influence at court which typified the Zhengde era,<ref name="wills 338 339">John E. Wills, Jr., "Relations with Maritime Europe, 1514–1662", in ''The Cambridge History of China: Volume 8, The Ming Dynasty, 1368–1644, Part 2'', 333–375, ed. Denis Twitchett, John King Fairbank, and Albert Feuerwerker (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 338–339.</ref> an example being the costly escort of the eunuch Liu Yun as described above in his failed mission to Tibet. The court eunuchs were in favor of expanding and building new commercial ties with foreign countries such as [[Portuguese Empire|Portugal]], which Zhengde deemed permissible since he had an affinity for foreign and exotic people.<ref name="wills 338 339"/> With the death of Zhengde and ascension of Jiajing, the politics at court shifted in favor of the [[Neo-Confucianism|Confucian establishment]] which not only rejected the Portuguese embassy of [[Fernão Pires de Andrade]] (d. 1523),<ref name="wills 338 339"/> but had a predisposed animosity towards Tibetan Buddhism and lamas.<ref name="geiss 417 418"/> Evelyn S. Rawski, a professor in the Department of History of the University of Pittsburgh, writes that the Ming's unique relationship with Tibetan prelates essentially ended with Jiajing's reign while Ming power in the Amdo region was supplanted by the Mongols.<ref name="rawski 245">Evelyn S. Rawski, ''The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions'' (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 245.</ref> |
||
Meanwhile, the Tümed Mongols began moving into the Kokonor region (modern [[Qinghai]] province), raiding the Ming Chinese frontier and even as far as the suburbs of Beijing under [[Altan Khan]] (1507–1582).<ref>David M. Robinson, "Politics, Force and Ethnicity in Ming China: Mongols and the Abortive Coup of 1461", in ''Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies'' 59, no. 1 (June 1999): 81.</ref><ref name="wylie 470"/> Klieger writes that Altan Khan's presence in the west effectively reduced Ming influence and contact with Tibet.<ref name="klieger 217 218">Klieger, "Riding High on the Manchurian Dream", 217–218.</ref> After Altan Khan made peace with the Ming Dynasty in 1571, he invited the third hierarch of the Yellow Hat sect—[[Sonam Gyatso, 3rd Dalai Lama|Sonam Gyatso]] (1543–1588)—to meet him in Amdo (modern Qinghai) in 1578, where he granted him and his two predecessors the title of [[Dalai Lama]]—literally "Ocean Teacher".<ref name="wylie 470"/><ref name="grunfeld 41">Grunfeld, ''The Making of Modern Tibet'', 41.</ref> The full title was "Dalai Lama Vajradhara", ''[[vajradhara]]'' meaning "Holder of the Thunderbolt" in [[Sanskrit]].<ref name="kolmas 31"/><ref name="grunfeld 41"/> Goldstein writes that Sonam Gyatso also enhanced Altan Khan's standing by granting him the title "king of religion, majestic purity".<ref name="goldstein 8">Goldstein, ''The Snow Lion and the Dragon'', 8.</ref> |
Meanwhile, the Tümed Mongols began moving into the Kokonor region (modern [[Qinghai]] province), raiding the Ming Chinese frontier and even as far as the suburbs of Beijing under [[Altan Khan]] (1507–1582).<ref>David M. Robinson, "Politics, Force and Ethnicity in Ming China: Mongols and the Abortive Coup of 1461", in ''Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies'' 59, no. 1 (June 1999): 81.</ref><ref name="wylie 470"/> Klieger writes that Altan Khan's presence in the west effectively reduced Ming influence and contact with Tibet.<ref name="klieger 217 218">Klieger, "Riding High on the Manchurian Dream", 217–218.</ref> After Altan Khan made peace with the Ming Dynasty in 1571, he invited the third hierarch of the Yellow Hat sect—[[Sonam Gyatso, 3rd Dalai Lama|Sonam Gyatso]] (1543–1588)—to meet him in Amdo (modern Qinghai) in 1578, where he granted him and his two predecessors the title of [[Dalai Lama]]—literally "Ocean Teacher".<ref name="wylie 470"/><ref name="grunfeld 41">Grunfeld, ''The Making of Modern Tibet'', 41.</ref> The full title was "Dalai Lama Vajradhara", ''[[vajradhara]]'' meaning "Holder of the Thunderbolt" in [[Sanskrit]].<ref name="kolmas 31"/><ref name="grunfeld 41"/> Goldstein writes that Sonam Gyatso also enhanced Altan Khan's standing by granting him the title "king of religion, majestic purity".<ref name="goldstein 8">Goldstein, ''The Snow Lion and the Dragon'', 8.</ref> Rawski writes that the Dalai Lama officially recognized Altan Khan as the "Protector of the Faith".<ref name="rawski 246"/> |
||
[[Image:Potala1.jpg|thumb| |
[[Image:Potala1.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Under the fifth Dalai Lama, [[Lozang Gyatso, 5th Dalai Lama|Lozang Gyatso]], the [[Potala Palace]] at [[Lhasa]] became the chief residence of the Dalai Lama.]] |
||
Laird writes that Altan Khan abolished the native Mongol practices of [[shamanism]] and blood sacrifice, while the Mongol princes and subjects were coerced by Altan to convert to Tibetan Gelug Buddhism—or face execution by continuing their shamanistic faith.<ref name="laird 143 144">Laird, ''The Story of Tibet'', 143–144.</ref> Committed to their religious leader, Mongol princes began requesting the Dalai Lama to bestow titles on them, which demonstrated "the unique fusion of religious and political power" wielded by the Dalai Lama, as Laird writes.<ref name="laird 146"/> Kolmaš states that the spiritual and secular Mongol-Tibetan alliance of the 13th century was renewed by this alliance constructed by Altan Khan and Sonam Gyatso.<ref name="kolmas 30 31">Kolmas, ''Tibet and Imperial China'', 30–31.</ref> Angela F. Howard writes that this unique relationship not only provided the Dalai Lama and [[Panchen Lama]] with religious and political authority in Tibet, but that Altan Khan gained "enormous power among the entire Mongol population".<ref name="howard 13">Angela F. Howard, "Introduction", in ''Chinese Sculpture'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 13.</ref> To further cement the Mongol-Tibetan alliance, the great-grandson of Altan Khan—[[Yonten Gyatso, 4th Dalai Lama|Yonten Gyatso]] (1589–1616)—was made the 4th Dalai Lama.<ref name="wylie 470"/><ref name="kolmas 31">Kolmas, ''Tibet and Imperial China'', 31.</ref> In 1642, [[Lozang Gyatso, 5th Dalai Lama|his successor]] became the first Dalai Lama to wield effective political control over Tibet.<ref name="dreyfus 504"/> |
Laird writes that Altan Khan abolished the native Mongol practices of [[shamanism]] and blood sacrifice, while the Mongol princes and subjects were coerced by Altan to convert to Tibetan Gelug Buddhism—or face execution by continuing their shamanistic faith.<ref name="laird 143 144">Laird, ''The Story of Tibet'', 143–144.</ref> Committed to their religious leader, Mongol princes began requesting the Dalai Lama to bestow titles on them, which demonstrated "the unique fusion of religious and political power" wielded by the Dalai Lama, as Laird writes.<ref name="laird 146"/> Kolmaš states that the spiritual and secular Mongol-Tibetan alliance of the 13th century was renewed by this alliance constructed by Altan Khan and Sonam Gyatso.<ref name="kolmas 30 31">Kolmas, ''Tibet and Imperial China'', 30–31.</ref> Angela F. Howard writes that this unique relationship not only provided the Dalai Lama and [[Panchen Lama]] with religious and political authority in Tibet, but that Altan Khan gained "enormous power among the entire Mongol population".<ref name="howard 13">Angela F. Howard, "Introduction", in ''Chinese Sculpture'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 13.</ref> Rawski writes that Altan Khan's conversion to the Yellow Hat sect "can be interpreted as an attempt to expand his authority in his conflict with his nominal superior, [[Tümen Jasagtu Khan|Tümen Khan]]."<ref name="rawski 246">Rawski, ''The Last Emperors'', 246.</ref> To further cement the Mongol-Tibetan alliance, the great-grandson of Altan Khan—[[Yonten Gyatso, 4th Dalai Lama|Yonten Gyatso]] (1589–1616)—was made the 4th Dalai Lama.<ref name="wylie 470"/><ref name="kolmas 31">Kolmas, ''Tibet and Imperial China'', 31.</ref> In 1642, [[Lozang Gyatso, 5th Dalai Lama|his successor]] became the first Dalai Lama to wield effective political control over Tibet.<ref name="dreyfus 504"/> |
||
===Contact with the Ming=== |
===Contact with the Ming Dynasty=== |
||
[[Image:Wanli.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The [[Wanli Emperor]] (r. 1572–1620)]] |
[[Image:Wanli.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The [[Wanli Emperor]] (r. 1572–1620)]] |
||
Sonam Gyatso, after being granted the grandiose title by Altan Khan, departed for Tibet. Before he left, he sent a letter and gifts to the Ming Chinese official [[Zhang Juzheng]] (1525–1582), which arrived on [[March 12]], [[1579]].<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 23">''Dictionary of Ming Biography'', 23.</ref> Sometime in August or September of that year, Sonam Gyatso's representative stationed with Altan Khan received a return letter and gift from the [[Wanli Emperor]] (r. 1572–1620), who also conferred upon Sonam Gyatso a title; this was the first official contact between a Dalai Lama and a government of China.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 23"/> However, Laird states that when Wanli invited him to Beijing, the Dalai Lama declined the offer due to a prior commitment, even though he was only {{convert|250|mi|km|0}} from Beijing.<ref name="laird 146">Laird, ''The Story of Tibet'', 146.</ref> Laird adds that "the power of the Ming emperor did not reach very far at the time".<ref name="laird 146"/> Although not recorded in any official Chinese records, Sonam Gyatso's biography states that Wanli again conferred titles on Sonam Gyatso in 1588, invited him to Beijing for a second time, but Sonam Gyatso was unable to visit China as he died in [[Mongolia]] while en route to Tibet, working since 1585 with Altan Khan's son in Mongolia to further the spread of Buddhism.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 23"/><ref name="laird 146"/> |
Sonam Gyatso, after being granted the grandiose title by Altan Khan, departed for Tibet. Before he left, he sent a letter and gifts to the Ming Chinese official [[Zhang Juzheng]] (1525–1582), which arrived on [[March 12]], [[1579]].<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 23">''Dictionary of Ming Biography'', 23.</ref> Sometime in August or September of that year, Sonam Gyatso's representative stationed with Altan Khan received a return letter and gift from the [[Wanli Emperor]] (r. 1572–1620), who also conferred upon Sonam Gyatso a title; this was the first official contact between a Dalai Lama and a government of China.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 23"/> However, Laird states that when Wanli invited him to Beijing, the Dalai Lama declined the offer due to a prior commitment, even though he was only {{convert|250|mi|km|0}} from Beijing.<ref name="laird 146">Laird, ''The Story of Tibet'', 146.</ref> Laird adds that "the power of the Ming emperor did not reach very far at the time".<ref name="laird 146"/> Although not recorded in any official Chinese records, Sonam Gyatso's biography states that Wanli again conferred titles on Sonam Gyatso in 1588, invited him to Beijing for a second time, but Sonam Gyatso was unable to visit China as he died in [[Mongolia]] while en route to Tibet, working since 1585 with Altan Khan's son in Mongolia to further the spread of Buddhism.<ref name="dictionary of ming biography 23"/><ref name="laird 146"/> |
||
Of the third Dalai Lama, ''China Daily'' states that the "Ming Dynasty showed him special favor by allowing him to pay tribute |
Of the third Dalai Lama, ''China Daily'' states that the "Ming Dynasty showed him special favor by allowing him to pay tribute."<ref name="china daily"/> ''China Daily'' then says that Sonam Gyatso was granted the title Dorjichang or Vajradhara Dalai Lama in 1587 [sic!],<ref name="china daily"/> but ''China Daily'' does not mention who granted him the title. Without mentioning the role of the Mongols, ''China Daily'' states that it was the successive Qing Dynasty which established the title of ''Dalai Lama'' and his power in Tibet:<ref name="china daily"/> |
||
<blockquote>In 1653, the Qing emperor granted an honorific title to the fifth Dalai Lama and then did the same for the fifth Bainqen Lama in 1713, officially establishing the titles of the Dalai Lama and the Bainqen Erdeni, and their political and religious status in Tibet.<ref name="china daily"/></blockquote> |
<blockquote>In 1653, the Qing emperor granted an honorific title to the fifth Dalai Lama and then did the same for the fifth Bainqen Lama in 1713, officially establishing the titles of the Dalai Lama and the Bainqen Erdeni, and their political and religious status in Tibet.<ref name="china daily"/></blockquote> |
||
Kolmaš writes that, as the Mongol presence in Tibet increased, culminating in the conquest of Tibet by a Mongol leader in 1642, the Ming emperors "viewed with apparent unconcern these developments in Tibet |
Kolmaš writes that, as the Mongol presence in Tibet increased, culminating in the conquest of Tibet by a Mongol leader in 1642, the Ming emperors "viewed with apparent unconcern these developments in Tibet."<ref name="kolmas 31 32"/> He adds that the Ming court's lack of concern for Tibet was one of the reasons why the Mongols pounced on the chance to reclaim their old vassal of Tibet and "fill once more the political vacuum in that country".<ref name="kolmas 32"/> On the mass Mongol conversion to Tibetan Buddhism under Altan Khan, Laird writes that "the Chinese watched these developments with interest, though few Chinese ever became devout Tibetan Buddhists".<ref name="laird 144">Laird, ''The Story of Tibet'', 144.</ref> |
||
===Civil war and Güshi Khan=== |
===Civil war and Güshi Khan's conquest=== |
||
[[Image:Gushi Khan Fresco Image.jpg|thumb|right|200px|A fresco of [[Güshi Khan]] from the 17th-century [[Potala Palace]] at Lhasa]] |
[[Image:Gushi Khan Fresco Image.jpg|thumb|right|200px|A fresco of [[Güshi Khan]] from the 17th-century [[Potala Palace]] at Lhasa]] |
||
In 1565, the powerful Rinbung princes were overthrown by one of their own ministers, who styled himself as the Tsangpa or Ü-Tsang king.<ref name="kolmas 29">Kolmas, ''Tibet and Imperial China'', 29.</ref><ref name="laird 152">Laird, ''The Story of Tibet'', 152.</ref> In 1618, only two years after Yonten Gyatso died, the Yellow Hat sect and the Red Hat sect went to war, the Red Hats supported by the secular Ü-Tsang king.<ref name="goldstein 6">Goldstein, ''The Snow Lion and the Dragon'', 6.</ref> The latter had a large number of Yellow Hat lamas killed, occupied their monasteries at Drepung and [[Sera Monastery|Sera]], and outlawed any attempts to find another Dalai Lama.<ref name="goldstein 6"/> In 1633, the Yellow Hats and several thousand Mongol adherents defeated the Ü-Tsang king's troops near Lhasa before a peaceful negotiation was settled.<ref name="goldstein 6"/> Goldstein writes that in this the "Mongols were again playing a significant role in Tibetan affairs, this time as the military arm of the Dalai Lama."<ref name="goldstein 6"/> When an ally of the Ü-Tsang ruler threatened destruction of the Yellow Hats again, the fifth Dalai Lama Lozang Gyatso pleaded for help from the Mongol prince [[Güshi Khan]] (1582–1655), leader of the Khoshut (Qoshot) tribe of the [[Oirats|Oirat Mongols]].<ref name="goldstein 9">Goldstein, ''The Snow Lion and the Dragon'', 9.</ref><ref name="kolmas 31"/> Güshi Khan accepted his role as protector, and from 1637–1640 he not only defeated the Yellow Hats' enemies in the Amdo and Kham regions, but also resettled his entire tribe into Amdo.<ref name="goldstein 9"/><ref name="kolmas 31"/> Sonam Chöpel, chief steward of the Dalai Lama, urged Güshi Khan to assault the Ü-Tsang king's homebase of [[Shigatse]], which Güshi Khan agreed upon, enlisting the aid of Yellow Hat monks and supporters.<ref name="goldstein 9"/> In 1642, Güshi Khan captured Shigatse and summarily executed the ruler of Ü-Tsang, King of Tibet.<ref name="goldstein 9"/> |
In 1565, the powerful Rinbung princes were overthrown by one of their own ministers, who styled himself as the Tsangpa or Ü-Tsang king.<ref name="kolmas 29">Kolmas, ''Tibet and Imperial China'', 29.</ref><ref name="laird 152">Laird, ''The Story of Tibet'', 152.</ref> In 1618, only two years after Yonten Gyatso died, the Yellow Hat sect and the Red Hat sect went to war, the Red Hats supported by the secular Ü-Tsang king.<ref name="goldstein 6">Goldstein, ''The Snow Lion and the Dragon'', 6.</ref> The latter had a large number of Yellow Hat lamas killed, occupied their monasteries at Drepung and [[Sera Monastery|Sera]], and outlawed any attempts to find another Dalai Lama.<ref name="goldstein 6"/> In 1633, the Yellow Hats and several thousand Mongol adherents defeated the Ü-Tsang king's troops near Lhasa before a peaceful negotiation was settled.<ref name="goldstein 6"/> Goldstein writes that in this the "Mongols were again playing a significant role in Tibetan affairs, this time as the military arm of the Dalai Lama."<ref name="goldstein 6"/> When an ally of the Ü-Tsang ruler threatened destruction of the Yellow Hats again, the fifth Dalai Lama Lozang Gyatso pleaded for help from the Mongol prince [[Güshi Khan]] (1582–1655), leader of the Khoshut (Qoshot) tribe of the [[Oirats|Oirat Mongols]].<ref name="goldstein 9">Goldstein, ''The Snow Lion and the Dragon'', 9.</ref><ref name="kolmas 31"/> Güshi Khan accepted his role as protector, and from 1637–1640 he not only defeated the Yellow Hats' enemies in the Amdo and Kham regions, but also resettled his entire tribe into Amdo.<ref name="goldstein 9"/><ref name="kolmas 31"/> Sonam Chöpel, chief steward of the Dalai Lama, urged Güshi Khan to assault the Ü-Tsang king's homebase of [[Shigatse]], which Güshi Khan agreed upon, enlisting the aid of Yellow Hat monks and supporters.<ref name="goldstein 9"/> In 1642, Güshi Khan captured Shigatse and summarily executed the ruler of Ü-Tsang, King of Tibet.<ref name="goldstein 9"/> |
||
After the victory in Ü-Tsang, Güshi Khan installed the fifth Dalai Lama as the ruler of Tibet, but conferred the actual governing authority to the regent Sonam Chöpel.<ref name="goldstein 9"/> Although Güshi Khan had granted the Dalai Lama "supreme authority" as Goldstein writes, the title of 'King of Tibet' was conferred upon |
After the victory in Ü-Tsang, Güshi Khan installed the fifth Dalai Lama as the ruler of Tibet, but conferred the actual governing authority to the regent Sonam Chöpel.<ref name="goldstein 9"/> Although Güshi Khan had granted the Dalai Lama "supreme authority" as Goldstein writes, the title of 'King of Tibet' was conferred upon Güshi Khan, spending his summers in pastures north of Lhasa and occupying Lhasa each winter.<ref name="goldstein 9"/><ref name="kolmas 31 32">Kolmas, ''Tibet and Imperial China'', 31–32.</ref> Rawski writes that the Dalai Lama shared power with his regent and Güshi Khan during his early secular and religious reign.<ref name="rawski 250 251">Rawski, ''The Last Emperors'', 250–251.</ref> However, Rawski states that he eventually "expanded his own authority by presenting himself as [[Avalokitesvara]] through the performance of rituals," by building the [[Potala Palace]] and other structures on traditional religious sites, and by emphasizing lineage reincarnation through written biographies.<ref name="rawski 251">Rawski, ''The Last Emperors'', 251.</ref> Goldstein states that the government of Güshi Khan and the Dalai Lama persecuted the Black Hat Karma Kagyu sect, confiscated their wealth and property, and even converted their monasteries into Yellow Hat Gelug monasteries.<ref name="goldstein 9"/> Rawski writes that this Mongol patronage allowed the Yellow Hats to dominate over the rival religious sects in Tibet.<ref name="rawski 251"/> |
||
[[Image:Album of the Yongzheng Emperor in Costumes 3.jpg|thumb|right|200px|From ''Album of the [[Yongzheng Emperor]] in Costumes'', by anonymous court artists |
[[Image:Album of the Yongzheng Emperor in Costumes 3.jpg|thumb|right|200px|From the ''Album of the [[Yongzheng Emperor]] in Costumes'', by anonymous court artists of the Yongzheng period (1723—35)]] |
||
Meanwhile, the Chinese Ming Dynasty fell to the rebellion of [[Li Zicheng]] (1606–1645) in 1644, yet his short-lived [[Shun Dynasty]] was crushed by the [[Manchu]] invasion and the Han Chinese general [[Wu Sangui]] (1612–1678). ''China Daily'' states that when the following Qing Dynasty replaced the Ming Dynasty, it merely "strengthened administration of Tibet".<ref name="china daily"/> However, Kolmaš states that the Dalai Lama was very observant of what was going on in China and accepted a Manchu invitation in 1640 to visit their capital at [[Mukden]] in 1642, before the Ming collapsed.<ref name="kolmas 34 35">Kolmas, ''Tibet and Imperial China'', 34–35.</ref> Dawa Norbu, William Rockhill, and George N. Patterson write that when the [[Shunzhi Emperor]] (r. 1644–1661) of the subsequent Qing Dynasty invited the Fifth Dalai Lama Lozang Gyatso to Beijing in 1652, Shunzhi treated the Dalai Lama as an independent sovereign of Tibet.<ref name="norbu 52">Norbu, ''China's Tibet Policy'', 52.</ref><ref name="patterson 89">Patterson, "China and Tibet: Background to the Revolt", 89.</ref> Patterson writes that this was an effort of Shunzhi to secure an alliance with Tibet that would ultimately lead to the establishment of Manchu rule over Mongolia.<ref name="patterson 89"/> In this meeting with the Qing emperor, Goldstein asserts that the Dalai Lama was not someone to be trifled with due to his alliance with Mongol tribes, some of which were declared enemies of the Qing.<ref name="goldstein 10">Goldstein, ''The Snow Lion and the Dragon'', 10.</ref> When the [[Dzungar]] Mongols attempted to spread their territory from what is now [[Xinjiang]] into Tibet, the [[Kangxi Emperor]] (r. 1661–1722) responded to Tibetan pleas for aid with his own invasion of Tibet in 1717, occupying Lhasa in 1720.<ref name="ebrey 227">Ebrey, ''Cambridge Illustrated History of China'', 227.</ref><ref name="kolb 368">Albert Kolb, ''East Asia: China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam: Geography of a Cultural Region'', trans. C.A.M. Sym (New York: Routledge, 1971), 368.</ref> By 1751, during the reign of the [[Qianlong Emperor]] (r. 1735–1796), a protectorate and permanent Qing Dynasty garrison was established in Tibet.<ref name="ebrey 227"/><ref name="kolb 368"/> As of 1751, Albert Kolb writes that "Chinese claims to suzerainty over Tibet date from this time."<ref name="kolb 368"/> |
Meanwhile, the Chinese Ming Dynasty fell to the rebellion of [[Li Zicheng]] (1606–1645) in 1644, yet his short-lived [[Shun Dynasty]] was crushed by the [[Manchu]] invasion and the Han Chinese general [[Wu Sangui]] (1612–1678). ''China Daily'' states that when the following Qing Dynasty replaced the Ming Dynasty, it merely "strengthened administration of Tibet".<ref name="china daily"/> However, Kolmaš states that the Dalai Lama was very observant of what was going on in China and accepted a Manchu invitation in 1640 to visit their capital at [[Mukden]] in 1642, before the Ming collapsed.<ref name="kolmas 34 35">Kolmas, ''Tibet and Imperial China'', 34–35.</ref> Dawa Norbu, William Rockhill, and George N. Patterson write that when the [[Shunzhi Emperor]] (r. 1644–1661) of the subsequent Qing Dynasty invited the Fifth Dalai Lama Lozang Gyatso to Beijing in 1652, Shunzhi treated the Dalai Lama as an independent sovereign of Tibet.<ref name="norbu 52">Norbu, ''China's Tibet Policy'', 52.</ref><ref name="patterson 89">Patterson, "China and Tibet: Background to the Revolt", 89.</ref> Patterson writes that this was an effort of Shunzhi to secure an alliance with Tibet that would ultimately lead to the establishment of Manchu rule over Mongolia.<ref name="patterson 89"/> In this meeting with the Qing emperor, Goldstein asserts that the Dalai Lama was not someone to be trifled with due to his alliance with Mongol tribes, some of which were declared enemies of the Qing.<ref name="goldstein 10">Goldstein, ''The Snow Lion and the Dragon'', 10.</ref> When the [[Dzungar]] Mongols attempted to spread their territory from what is now [[Xinjiang]] into Tibet, the [[Kangxi Emperor]] (r. 1661–1722) responded to Tibetan pleas for aid with his own invasion of Tibet in 1717, occupying Lhasa in 1720.<ref name="ebrey 227">Ebrey, ''Cambridge Illustrated History of China'', 227.</ref><ref name="kolb 368">Albert Kolb, ''East Asia: China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam: Geography of a Cultural Region'', trans. C.A.M. Sym (New York: Routledge, 1971), 368.</ref> By 1751, during the reign of the [[Qianlong Emperor]] (r. 1735–1796), a protectorate and permanent Qing Dynasty garrison was established in Tibet.<ref name="ebrey 227"/><ref name="kolb 368"/> As of 1751, Albert Kolb writes that "Chinese claims to suzerainty over Tibet date from this time."<ref name="kolb 368"/> |
||
==Administrative offices and officials' titles== |
|||
{| class="wikitable" align="center" |
|||
|- |
|||
! colspan=2 align="center" |Ming administrative divisions established in Tibet according to the ''Mingshi''<ref>''[[Mingshi]]''-Military II «明史•兵二»</ref> |
|||
|- |
|||
| Itinerant High Commandery (都指揮使司) |
|||
| Dbus-Gtsang (烏思藏), Mdo-khams (朵甘) |
|||
|- |
|||
| Itinerant Commandery (指揮使司) |
|||
| Longda (隴答) |
|||
|- |
|||
| Pacification Commissioner's Office (宣尉使司) |
|||
| Duogan (朵甘), Dongbuhanhu (董卜韓胡), Changhexiyutongningyuan (長河西魚通寧遠) |
|||
|- |
|||
| Expedition Commissioner's Office (招討司) |
|||
| Duogansi (朵甘思), Duoganlongda (朵甘隴答), Duogandan (朵甘丹), Duogancangtang (朵甘倉溏), Duoganchuan (朵甘川), Moerkan (磨兒勘) |
|||
|- |
|||
| Wanhu offices (萬戶府) |
|||
| Shaerke (沙兒可), Naizhu (乃竹), Luosiduan (羅思端), Biesima (別思麻) |
|||
|- |
|||
| Qianhu offices (千戶所) |
|||
| Duogansi (朵甘思), Suolazong (所剌宗), Suobolijia (所孛里加), Suochanghexi (所長河西), Suoduobasansun (所多八三孫), Suojiaba (所加八), Suozhaori (所兆日), Nazhu (納竹), Lunda (倫答), Guoyou (果由), Shalikehahudi (沙里可哈忽的), Bolijiasi (孛里加思), Shalituer (撒裏土兒), Canbulang (參卜郎), Lacuoya (剌錯牙), Xieliba (泄里壩), Runzelusun (潤則魯孫) |
|||
|} |
|||
{| class="wikitable" align="center" |
|||
|- |
|||
! colspan=5 align="center" |Ming titles granted to Tibetan leaders |
|||
|- |
|||
! |
|||
! Title |
|||
! Name |
|||
! Sect |
|||
! Year |
|||
|- |
|||
| rowspan=3 align="center" | Princes of Dharma (法王) |
|||
| Great Treasure Prince of Dharma (大寶法王) |
|||
| [[Tulku]] [[Tsurphu Monastery|Tsurphu]] [[Karmapa]]<ref name="chen 52"/> |
|||
| [[Karma Kagyu|Karma Kagyu Sect]] ([[Karma Kagyu|Black Hat sect]]) |
|||
| 1407 |
|||
|- |
|||
| Great Vehicle Prince of Dharma (大乘法王) |
|||
| Prince of Dharma of the [[Sagya|Sagya Sect]] (represented by Gunga Zhaxi)<ref name="chen 52"/> |
|||
| [[Sagya|Sagya Sect]] ([[Red Hat sect]]) |
|||
| 1413 |
|||
|- |
|||
| Great Mercy Prince of Dharma (大慈法王) |
|||
| Shākya Yeshes (representative of [[Je Tsongkhapa]])<ref name="chen 52"/> |
|||
| [[Gelug|Gelug Sect]] ([[Yellow Hat Sect]]) |
|||
| 1434 |
|||
|- |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
| rowspan=5 align="center" | Princes (王) |
|||
| Prince of Persuasion (闡化王) |
|||
| Zhaba Gyaincain<ref name="chen 50">Chen, ''Tibetan History'', 50.</ref> |
|||
| Phagmo Drupa Sect |
|||
| 1406 |
|||
|- |
|||
| Promotion Prince of Virtue (贊善王) |
|||
| Zhusibar Gyaincain<ref name="chen 50"/> |
|||
| Lingzang |
|||
| 1407 |
|||
|- |
|||
| Guardian Prince of Doctrine (護教王) |
|||
| Namge Bazangpo<ref name="chen 51">Chen, ''Tibetan History'', 51.</ref> |
|||
| Guanjor |
|||
| 1407 |
|||
|- |
|||
| Propagation Prince of Doctrine (闡教王) |
|||
| Linzenbal Gyangyanzang<ref name="chen 52">Chen, ''Tibetan History'', 52.</ref> |
|||
| Zhigung Gagyu Sect |
|||
| 1413 |
|||
|- |
|||
| Assistant Prince of Doctrine (輔教王) |
|||
| Namkelisiba (Namkelebei Lobzhui Gyaincain Sangpo)<ref name="chen 51"/> |
|||
| Sagya Sect |
|||
| 1415 |
|||
|} |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
Line 266: | Line 278: | ||
*Perdue, Peter C. (2000). "Culture, History, and Imperial Chinese Strategy: Legacies of the Qing Conquests", in ''Warfare in Chinese History'', 252–287, edited by Hans van de Ven. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill. ISBN 9004117741. |
*Perdue, Peter C. (2000). "Culture, History, and Imperial Chinese Strategy: Legacies of the Qing Conquests", in ''Warfare in Chinese History'', 252–287, edited by Hans van de Ven. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill. ISBN 9004117741. |
||
*Powers, John. (2004). ''History as propaganda: Tibetan exiles versus the People's Republic of China''. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195174267. |
*Powers, John. (2004). ''History as propaganda: Tibetan exiles versus the People's Republic of China''. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195174267. |
||
*Rawski, Evelyn S. (1998). ''The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions''. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0520228375. |
|||
*Riggs, Fred W. "Tibet in Extremis", ''Far Eastern Survey'' (Volume 19, Number 21, 1950): 224–230. |
*Riggs, Fred W. "Tibet in Extremis", ''Far Eastern Survey'' (Volume 19, Number 21, 1950): 224–230. |
||
*Robinson, David M. "Politics, Force and Ethnicity in Ming China: Mongols and the Abortive Coup of 1461", ''Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies'' (Volume 59, Number 1, June 1999): 79–123. |
*Robinson, David M. "Politics, Force and Ethnicity in Ming China: Mongols and the Abortive Coup of 1461", ''Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies'' (Volume 59, Number 1, June 1999): 79–123. |
Revision as of 02:24, 7 May 2008
Template:Chinesetext The exact nature of Sino-Tibetan relations during the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) of China is unclear. Some modern scholars living and working in the People's Republic of China assert that the Ming Dynasty had unquestioned sovereignty over Tibet, pointing to the Ming court's issuing of various titles to Tibetan leaders, Tibetans' full acceptance of these titles, and a renewal process for successors of these titles that involved traveling to the Ming capital. Most scholars outside the PRC say that the relationship was one of suzerainty, that Ming titles were only nominal, that Tibet remained an independent region outside of Ming control, and that it simply paid tribute up until the reign of Jiajing (r. 1521–1566), who ceased relations with Tibet. Some scholars argue that the significant religious nature of the relationship of the Ming court with Tibetan lamas is underrepresented in modern scholarship. Others underscore the commercial aspect of the relationship, noting the Ming Dynasty's shortage of horses for warfare and thus the importance of the horse trade with Tibet.
The Ming initiated sporadic armed intervention in Tibet during the 14th century, while at times the Tibetans also used armed resistance against Ming forays. The Wanli Emperor (r. 1572–1620) made attempts to reestablish Sino-Tibetan relations after the Mongol-Tibetan alliance initiated in 1578, which affected the foreign policy of the subsequent Qing Dynasty (1644–1912) of China in their support for the Dalai Lama of the Yellow Hat sect. By the late 16th century, the Mongols were successful armed protectors of the Yellow Hat Dalai Lama, after increasing their presence in the Amdo region. This culminated in Güshi Khan's 1642 conquest of Tibet.
Background
Mongol Empire
Tibet was once a strong power contemporaneous with the Chinese Tang Dynasty (618–907). Until the Tibetan Empire's collapse in the 9th century, it was the Tang's major rival in dominating Inner Asia.[3][4] During the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms (907–960) in China, there was little Sino-Tibetan relations while the fractured political realm of China saw no threat in an equally politically fractured Tibet.[5] During the Chinese Song Dynasty (960–1279), there survives a scarce amount of documents involving Sino-Tibetan contacts. The Song were far more concerned with countering northern enemy states of the ethnic Khitan Liao Dynasty (907–1125) and ethnic Jurchen Jin Dynasty (1115–1234).[6]
In 1207, Genghis Khan (r. 1206–1227) established diplomatic relations with Tibet in 1207 by sending envoys there.[7] In the 1240s, Tibet was invaded by the Mongols; with Sakya Pandita's submission it was officially incorporated into the Mongol Empire during the regency of Töregene Khatun (1241–1246).
Karma Pakshi (1203–1283)—the head lama and second Karmapa of the Tibetan Black Hat sect—rejected the invitation of Kublai Khan (r. 1260–1294) to appear in his court, so instead Kublai invited Drogön Chögyal Phagpa (1235–1280), leader of the Sakya sect, who came to his court in 1253.[8][9] Kublai instituted a unique relationship with the Phagpa lama, which recognized Kublai as a superior sovereign in political affairs, with the Phagpa lama acting as the senior instructor to Kublai in religious affairs.[8][10] Kublai also made Drogön Chögyal Phagpa the ruling priest-king of Tibet Proper, which was comprised of 13 different states ruled by myriarchies.[10][11]
Kublai did not conquer the Song Dynasty of China until 1279, so Tibet was a component of the early Mongol Empire before it was combined into a larger empire with the whole of China—the Yuan Dynasty (1279–1368).
Overthrow of the Sakya and Yuan
In 1358, the Sakya viceregal regime installed by the Mongols in Tibet was overthrown in a rebellion by the Phagmodru myriarch Janchub Gyaltsän (1302–1364).[12][13] The Mongol Yuan court was forced to accept him as the new viceroy, and Janchub Gyaltsän and his Phagmodru successors gained de facto rule over Tibet.[12][13] In 1368, a Han Chinese revolt known as the Red Turban Rebellion toppled the Mongol Yuan Dynasty in China. Zhu Yuanzhang then established the Ming Dynasty, ruling as the Hongwu Emperor (r. 1368–1398). It is not clear how much the early Ming court understood the civil war going on in Tibet between rival religious sects, but the first emperor was anxious to avoid the same trouble that Tibet had caused for the Tang Dynasty.[12] Instead of recognizing the Phagmodru ruler, the Hongwu Emperor sided with the Karmapa of the nearer Kham region and southeastern Tibet, sending envoys out in the winter of 1372–1373 to ask the Yuan officeholders to renew their titles for the new Ming court.[12] As evident in his imperial edicts, Hongwu was well aware of the Buddhist link between Tibet and China, and wanted to foster it.[14] The fourth Karmapa Rolpe Dorje (1340–1383) rejected Hongwu's invitation, although he did send some disciples as envoys to the Ming court in Nanjing.[12] Hongwu also entrusted his guru Zongluo, one of many Buddhist monks at court, to head a religious mission into Tibet in 1378–1382 in order to obtain Buddhist scriptures.[14] However, the early Ming government enacted a law which forbid Han Chinese to learn the tenets of Tibetan Buddhism, which was later rescinded.[15] But there is little detailed evidence of Chinese—especially lay Chinese—studying Tibetan Buddhism until the Republican era. [15]
Assertions in the Mingshi
According to the official historical work on the Ming Dynasty—the History of Ming (or Mingshi in Chinese)—compiled in 1739 by the subsequent Qing Dynasty (1644–1912), the Ming Dynasty established the "E-Li-Si Army-Civilian Marshal Office" (俄力思軍民元帥府) in western Tibet and installed the "Dbus-Gtsang Itinerant High Commandery" (烏思藏都指揮使司) and "Mdo-khams Itinerant High Commandery" (朵甘衛都指揮使司) to administer eastern Tibet.[17][18] The history states that there were a number of administrative offices set up under these high commanderies, including one Itinerant Commandery (指揮使司), three Pacification Commissioner's Offices (宣尉使司), six Expedition Commissioner's Offices (招討司), four Wanhu offices (萬戶府, myriarchies each in command of 10,000 households), and 17 Qianhu offices (千戶所, chiliarchies each in command of 1,000 households).[19]
The Ming court appointed three Princes of Dharma (法王) and five princes (王), and granted many other titles, such as Grand State Tutors (大國師) and State Tutors (國師), to the important schools of Tibetan Buddhism, including the Karma Kagyu sect, Sakya sect, and Gelug sect.[20] These lay and monk leaders of Ü-Tsang and other Tibetan areas paid tribute to the Ming court, were appointed to new positions, and issued new seals of authority after handing in seals issued by the Yuan Dynasty. According to Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain, leading officials of these organs were all appointed by the central government and were subject to punishment in the case of law-breaking.[21]
Turrell V. Wylie and Li Tieh-tseng argue that the reliability of the heavily censored Mingshi as a credible source on Sino-Tibetan relations is questionable, given modern scholarship.[22] Other historians also assert that these Ming titles were nominal and did not actually confer the authority that the earlier Yuan titles had.[23][24]
Modern scholarly debates
Inheritance, reappointments, and titles
Historians disagree on what the relationship was between the Ming court and Tibet and whether or not Ming China had sovereignty over Tibet. Michael C. van Walt van Praag states that the Ming court had little interest in Tibet besides a lama-patron relationship, viewing Tibet as an independent state to the west.[25] The historian Xagabba Wangqug Dedain supports van Praag's position.[25] However, Jiawei Wang and Nyima Gyaincain state that these assertions by van Praag and Xagabba are "fallacies".[25]
Wang and Nyima argue that the Ming emperor sent edicts to Tibet twice in the second year of the Ming Dynasty, while his urging of various Tibetan tribes to submit to the authority of the Ming court demonstrated the far-sighted goals of the founding emperor who viewed Tibet as a significant region to pacify.[26] They note that at the same time, the Mongol Prince Punala, who had inherited his position as ruler of Tibetan areas, went to Nanjing to pay tributes to the Ming court and show his allegiance in 1371, bringing along the seal of authority issued by the Yuan court.[27] They also state that since successors of lamas granted the title of "prince" had to travel to the Ming court to renew this title, this along with lamas calling themselves princes proves that the Ming court had "full sovereignty over Tibet".[28] And they state that the Ming Dynasty, through issuing imperial edicts to invite ex-Yuan officials to the court for official positions in the early years of its founding, won submission from ex-Yuan religious and administrative leaders in the Tibetan areas, thereby incorporating Tibetan areas into the rule of the Ming court. Thus, they conclude, the Ming court won the power to rule Tibetan areas formerly under the rule of the Yuan Dynasty.[28]
Thomas Laird, in his book The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama, writes that Wang and Nyima present the government viewpoint of the People's Republic of China in their Historical Status of China's Tibet, and fail to realize that China was "absorbed into a larger, non-Chinese political unit" during the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, which Wang and Nyima paint as a characteristic Chinese dynasty succeeded by the Ming.[29] Laird asserts that the ruling Mongol khans never administered Tibet as part of China, instead ruling them as separate territories "as the British administered India and New Zealand in more recent times; the fact that Britain once colonized both does not make India part of New Zealand today".[30] Of later Mongol and Tibetan accounts interpreting the Mongol conquest of Tibet, Laird asserts that "they, like all non-Chinese historical narratives, never portray the Mongol subjugation of Tibet as a Chinese one".[30] John Powers, in his book History as propaganda: Tibetan exiles versus the People's Republic of China, states that:[31]
Chinese writers assert that the territories of the Mongol empire were inherited by the succeeding Ming Dynasty ... The main problem with Chinese claims that later dynasties inherited Mongol lands is that the Mongol empire included vast areas of Asia and eastern Europe which were not in fact controlled by the Ming or Qing dynasties. The Mongols conquered most of Eurasia, and their territory extended from Lithuania in the West to Persia in the south. But although contemporary Chinese histories emphatically state that Tibet became part of Chinese territory as a result of Mongol conquests, they do not attempt to claim that Lithuanians are a minority nationality of China or that the Crimea is an inalienable part of Chinese territory.[31]
The Columbia Encyclopedia distinguishes between the Yuan Dynasty and the other Mongol Empire khanates of Ilkhanate, Chagatai Khanate and the Golden Horde. The Columbia Encyclopedia described the Yuan Dynasty as "A Mongol dynasty of China that ruled from 1271 to 1368, and a division of the great empire conquered by the Mongols. Founded by Kublai Khan, who adopted the Chinese dynastic name of Yüan in 1271."[33] The Encyclopedia Americana described the Yuan Dynasty as "the line of Mongol rulers in China" and the Mongols "proclaimed a Chinese-style Yüan dynasty at Khanbaliq (Beijing)".[34] The Metropolitan Museum of Art writes that the Mongol rulers of the Yuan Dynasty "adopted Chinese political and cultural models; ruling from their capitals in Dadu, they assumed the role of Chinese emperors"[35] The Metropolitan Museum of Art also noted that in spite of the gradual assimilation of Yuan monarchs, the Mongol rulers imposed harsh policies discriminating against the literati and southern Chinese.[35] Morris Rossabi, in his Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times, describes the Yuan's institution of an ethno-geographic caste hierarchy favoring the Mongols and other ethnicities and discriminating against the Han Chinese majority, while at the same time abolishing the imperial examinations of China's civil service legacy.[36]
According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, the Ming court implemented the policy of managing Tibet according to conventions and customs, granting titles and setting up more administrative organs over Tibet.[37] The Information Office of the State Council of the PRC states that the Ming Dynasty's Ü-Tsang Commanding Office governed most areas of Tibet.[1] It also states that while the Ming abolished the policy council set up by the Mongol Yuan to manage local affairs in Tibet and the Mongol system of Imperial Tutors to govern religious affairs, the Ming adopted a policy of bestowing titles upon religious leaders who had submitted to the Ming Dynasty.[1] For example, an edict of the Hongwu Emperor in 1373 appointed the Tibetan leader Choskunskyabs as the General of the mNgav-ris Military and Civil Wanhu Office, stating:[38]
I, the sovereign of the Empire, courteously treat people from all corners of the Empire who love righteousness and pledge allegiance to the Court and assign them official posts. I have learned with great pleasure that you, Chos-kun-skyabs, who live in the Western Region, inspired by my power and reputation, are loyal to the Court and capable of safeguarding the territory in your charge. The mNgav-ris Military and Civil Wanhu Office has just been established. I, therefore, appoint you head of the office with the title of General Huaiyuan, believing that you are most qualified for the post. I expect you to be even more conscientious in your work than in the past, to comply with discipline and to care for your men so that security and peace in your region can be guaranteed.[38]
Chen Qingying writes that the Ming court conferred new official positions on ex-Yuan Tibetan leaders of the Phachu Kargyu and granted them lower-ranking positions.[39] Of the county (zong) leaders of Neiwo Zong and Renbam Zong, Chen states that when "the Emperor learned the actual situation of the Phachu Kargyu, the Ming court then appointed the main Zong leaders to be senior officers of the Senior Command of Dbus and Gtsang."[39] The official posts that the Ming court established in Tibet, such as senior and junior commanders, offices of Qianhu (in charge of 1,000 households), and offices of Wanhu (in charge of 10,000 households), were all hereditary positions according to Chen, but he asserts that "the succession of some important posts still had to be approved by the emperor," while old imperial mandates had to be returned to the Ming court for renewal.[39]
Dawa Norbu, a leading author of the Tibetan diaspora, argues that modern Chinese Communist historians tend to be in favor of the view that the Ming simply reappointed old Yuan officials in Tibet and perpetuated their rule of Tibet in this manner.[40] Norbu writes that, although this would have been true for the eastern Tibetan regions of Amdo and Kham's "tribute-cum-trade" relations with the Ming, it was untrue if applied to western Tibetan regions of Ü-Tsang and Ngari, which were ruled by "three successive nationalistic regimes" after the Phagmodru myriarch Janchub Gyaltsän (Byang chub rgyal mtshan, 1302–1364), which Norbu writes "Communist historians prefer to ignore."[40] Laird writes that the Ming appointed titles to eastern Tibetan princes, and that "these alliances with eastern Tibetan principalities are the evidence China now produces for its assertion that the Ming ruled Tibet", despite the fact that the Ming did not send an army to replace the Mongols after they left Tibet.[41] Yiu Yung-chin states that the furthest western extent of the Ming Dynasty's territory was Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan, while "the Ming did not possess Tibet."[42] Shih-Shan Henry Tsai, a professor of History and Director of Asian Studies at the University of Arkansas, writes that the Yongle Emperor (r. 1402–1424) sent his eunuch Yang Sanbao into Tibet in 1413 to gain the allegiance of various Tibetan princes, while Yongle paid a small fortune in return gifts for tributes in order to maintain the loyalty of neighboring vassal states such as Nepal and Tibet.[43]
Wang and Nyima state that after the official title "Education Minister" was granted to Janchub Gyaltsän by the Yuan court, this title appeared frequently with his name in various Tibetan texts, while his Tibetan title "Degsi" is seldom mentioned.[44] Wang and Nyima take this to mean that "even in the later period of the Yuan Dynasty, the Yuan imperial court and the Pagmo Drupa regime maintained a Central-local government relation".[44] Janchub Gyaltsän is even supposed to have written in his will:[44]
In the past I received loving care from the emperor in the east. If the emperor continues to care for us, please follow his edicts and the imperial envoy should be well received.[44]
Lok-Ham Chan, a professor of history at the University of Washington, writes that Janchub Gyaltsän's aims were to recreate the old Tibetan Kingdom that existed during the Chinese Tang Dynasty, to build "nationalist sentiment" amongst Tibetans, and to "remove all traces of Mongol suzerainty".[12] Georges Dreyfus, a professor of religion at Williams College, writes that it was Janchub Gyaltsän who adopted the old administrative system of Songtsän Gampo (c. 605–649)—the first Yarlung king to establish Tibet as a strong power—by reinstating its legal code of punishments and administrative units.[45] For example, instead of the 13 governorships established by the Mongol Sakya viceroy, Janchub Gyaltsän divided Central Tibet into districts (dzong) with district heads (dzong dpon) who had to conform to old rituals and wear clothing styles of old Imperial Tibet.[45] According to Chen, the Ming officer of Hezhou (modern day Linxia) alterted the Hongwu Emperor that the general situation in Dbus and Gtsang "was under control" and so he suggested to the emperor that he offer the second Phagmodru ruler Sagya Gyaincain an official title.[46] According to the Records of the Founding Emperor, Hongwu issued an edict granting the title "Initiation State Master" to Sagya Gyaincain, while the latter sent envoys to the Ming court to hand over his jade seal of authority along with tribute of colored silk and satin, statues of the Buddha, Buddhist scriptures, and sarira.[46] Dreyfus writes that after the Phagmodru myriarchy lost its centralizing power over Tibet in 1434, several attempts by other families to establish hegemonies failed over the next two centuries until 1642 with Lozang Gyatso, the Fifth Dalai Lama's effective hegemony over Tibet.[45]
The Ming Dynasty granted titles to sects such as the Black Hat Karmapa lamas, but the latter had previously declined Mongol invitations to receive titles.[47] When the Ming Yongle Emperor invited Je Tsongkhapa (1357–1419), founder of the Yellow Hat sect, to come to the Ming court and pay tribute, the latter declined.[47] Wang and Nyima write that this was due to old age and physical weakness, and also because of efforts being made to build three major monasteries.[48] Chen Qingying states that Tsongkhapa wrote a letter to decline the Emperor's invitation, and in this reply, Tsongkhapa wrote:[49]
It's not that I don't know it's the edict of the Great dominator of the world for the sake of Buddhist doctrine, or that I don't obey the edict of Your Majesty. I'm seriously ill whenever I meet the public, so I can't embark on a journey in compliance with the imperial edict. I wish that Your Majesty might be merciful, not be displeased, it will really be a great mercy. [49]
Tom Grunfeld says that Tsongkhapa claimed ill health in his refusal to appear at the Ming court.[50] Instead, Tsongkhapa sent his disciple Chosrje Shākya Yeshes (Jamchen Choje, 釋迦也失) to Nanjing in 1414 on his behalf, where the Yongle Emperor bestowed upon him the title of "State Teacher"—the same title earlier awarded the Phagmodru ruler of Tibet.[47][50] The Xuande Emperor (r. 1425–1435) even granted this disciple Chosrje Shākya Yeshes the title of a "King" (王).[47] This title does not appear to have held any practical meaning, or to have given its holder any power, at Tsongkhapa's Ganden monastery. Turrell V. Wylie notes that this—like the Black Hat sect—cannot be seen as a reappointment of Mongol Yuan offices, since the Yellow Hat sect was created after the fall of the Yuan Dynasty.[47] Even though the Yellow Hat sect exchanged gifts with and sent missions to the Ming court up until the 1430s,[51] the Yellow Hat sect was not mentioned in the Mingshi or the Mingshi Lu.[22] On this, the historian Li Tieh-tseng says:[22]
In China not only the emperor could do no wrong, but also his prestige and dignity had to be upheld at any cost. Had the fact been made known to the public that Ch'eng-tsu's repeated invitations extended to Tsong-ka-pa were declined, the Emperor's prestige and dignity would have been considered as lowered to a contemptible degree, especially at a time when his policy to show high favours toward lamas was by no means popular and had already caused resentment among the people. This explains why no mention of Tsong-k'a-pa and the Yellow Sect was made in the Ming Shih and Ming Shih lu.[22]
Wylie asserts that this type of censorship of the Mingshi distorts the true picture of the history of Sino-Tibetan relations, while the Ming court granted titles to various lamas regardless of their sectarian affiliations in an ongoing civil war in Tibet between competing lamaist factions.[52][53] Wylie argues that Ming titles of "King" granted indiscriminately to various Tibetan lamas or even their disciples should not be viewed as reappointments to earlier Yuan Dynasty offices, since the viceregal Sakya regime established by the Mongols in Tibet was overthrown by the Phagmodru myriarchy before the Ming existed.[54] Helmut Hoffman states that the Ming upheld the facade of rule over Tibet through periodic missions of "tribute emissaries" to the Ming court and by granting nominal titles to ruling lamas, but did not actually interfere in Tibetan governance.[23] Melvyn C. Goldstein writes that the Ming had no real administrative authority over Tibet, as the various titles given to Tibetan leaders did not confer authority as the earlier Mongol Yuan titles had.[24] He asserts that "by conferring titles on Tibetans already in power, the Ming emperors merely recognized political reality."[55] Hugh E. Richardson writes that the Ming Dynasty exercised no authority over the succession of Tibetan ruling families, the Phagmodru (1354–1436), Rinbung (1436–1565), and Tsangpa (1565–1642).[56]
Religious significance
Following the tradition of Mongol emperors and their reverence for Tibetan Sakya lamas, Norbu writes that the Ming Emperor Yongle showed an enormous amount of deference towards Deshin Shekpa (1384–1415), the fifth Karmapa, as he came out of the palace in Nanjing to greet the Karmapa and did not force him to kowtow like any other tributary vassal.[57] On March 10, 1403, the Yongle Emperor had invited Deshin Shekpa to his court, even though the previous Fourth Karmapa of Tibet had rejected the invitation of the Hongwu Emperor of China.[58] A Tibetan translation in the 16th century preserves the letter of Yongle, which the Association for Asian Studies notes is polite and complimentary towards the Karmapa.[58] In order to seek out the Karmapa, Yongle dispatched his eunuch Hou Xian (候顯; fl. 1403–1427) and the Buddhist monk Zhi Guang (d. 1435) to Tibet.[59] Traveling to Lhasa either through Qinghai or via the Silk Road to Khotan, Hou Xian and Zhi Guang did not return to Nanjing until 1407.[60]
During his travels beginning in 1403, further exhortations by the Ming court compelled Deshin Shekpa to visit Nanjing by April 10, 1407.[58] At Linggu Temple in Nanjing, he presided over the religious ceremonies for Yongle's deceased parents, while the 22 days of his stay were marked by religious miracles that were recorded in five languages on a gigantic scroll that bore the emperor's seal.[58][59] Elliot Sperling writes that Yongle, in granting Deshin Shekpa with the title of "King" and praising his mystical abilities and miracles, was trying to build an alliance with the Karmapa as the Mongols had with the Sakya lamas, but Deshin Shekpa rejected Yongle's offer.[61] Tibetan sources say he persuaded Yongle not to impose his military might on Tibet as the Mongols had previously done,[58] but Hok-Lam Chan states that "there is little evidence that this was ever the emperor's intention" and that evidence points to the fact that Deshin Skekpa was invited strictly for religious purposes.[51] Marsha Weidner states that Deshin Shekpa's miracles "testified to the power of both the emperor and his guru and served a legitimizing tool for the emperor's problematic succession to the throne," referring to Yongle's conflict with the previous Jianwen Emperor (r. 1398–1402).[62] Tsai writes that Deshin Shekpa aided the legitimacy of Yongle's rule by providing him with portents and omens which demonstrated Heaven's favor of Yongle on the Ming throne.[59] During his stay in Nanjing, Deshin Shekpa was bestowed with the title "Great Treasure Prince of Dharma" by Yongle.[16] However, Chan writes that in 1446 the Ming court cut off all relations with the Karmapa hierarchs, and before that point the Ming court was unaware that Deshin Shekpa had died in 1415, believing that the representatives of his sect that continued to visit the capital were sent by him.[51]
With the example of the Ming court's relationship with the fifth Karmapa and other Tibetan leaders, Norbu states that Chinese Communist historians have failed to realize the significance of the religious aspect of the Ming-Tibetan relationship.[63] He writes that the meeting of lamas with the emperor were exchanges of tribute between "the patron and the priest" and was not merely a political subordinate paying tribute to a superior.[63] He also notes that the items of tribute were Buddhist artifacts which symbolized "the religious nature of the relationship."[63] Josef Kolmaš writes that the Ming Dynasty did not exercise any direct political control over Tibet, content with their tribute relations that were "almost entirely of a religious character."[64] Patricia Ann Berger writes that Yongle's courting and granting of titles to lamas was his attempt to "resurrect the relationship between China and Tibet established earlier by the Yuan dynastic founder Khubilai Khan and his guru Phagpa."[32] She also writes that the later Qing emperors and their Mongol associates viewed Yongle's relationship with Tibet as "part of a chain of reincarnation that saw this Han Chinese emperor as yet another emanation of Manjusri."[32]
The Information Office of the State Council of the PRC preserves an edict of the Zhengtong Emperor (r. 1435–1449) addressed to the Karmapa lama in 1445 (a year before relations were severed as Chan mentions above), written after the latter's agent had brought tribute to the Ming court that included holy relics.[65] Zhengtong had the following message delivered to the Great Treasure Prince of Dharma, the Karmapa:[65]
Out of compassion, Buddha taught people to be good and persuaded them to embrace his doctrines. You, who live in the remote Western Region, have inherited the true Buddhist doctrines. I am deeply impressed not only by the compassion with which you preach among the people in your region for their enlightenment, but also by your respect for the wishes of Heaven and your devotion to the Court. I am very pleased that you have sent bSod-nams-nyi-ma and other Tibetan monks here bringing with them statues of Buddha, horses and other specialties as tributes to the court.[65]
Tribute and exchanging tea for horses
Tsai writes that shortly after the visit by Deshin Shekpa, Yongle ordered the construction of a road and trading posts at the upper reaches of the Yangzi River and Mekong River in order to facilitate trade with Tibet in tea, horses, and salt.[60] The trade route passed through Sichuan and crossed Shangri-La County in Yunnan.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the help page). Elliot Sperling notes that this trade in Tibetan horses for Chinese tea existed long before the Ming was established.[66] Like in the Ming, Peter C. Perdue says that obtaining horses from Inner Asia in exchange for Chinese tea was the goal of the earlier Wang Anshi (1021–1086), who realized that China proper could not produce enough militarily capable steeds.[67] Horses were needed not only for cavalry but also as draft animals for the army's supply wagons.[67] The Ming government attempted to regulate this trade with government-supervised markets, but these collapsed in 1449 due to military failures and internal ecological and commercial pressures on the tea producing regions.[67] Van Praag states that the Ming's establishment of diplomatic delegations with Tibet was merely an effort by the Ming court to secure urgently needed horses.[68] Wang and Nyima argue that these were not diplomatic delegations at all, that Tibetan areas were ruled by the Ming since Tibetan leaders were granted positions as Ming officials, that horses were collected from Tibet as a mandatory "corvée" tax, and therefore Tibetans were "undertaking domestic affairs, not foreign diplomacy".[69]
Sperling writes that the Ming simultaneously bought horses in the Kham region while fighting Tibetan tribes in Amdo and receiving Tibetan embassies in Nanjing.[14] He also argues that the embassies of Tibetan lamas visiting the Ming court were for the most part efforts to promote commercial transactions between the lamas' large, wealthy entourage and Ming Chinese merchants and officials.[70] Kolmaš writes that while the Ming maintained a laissez-faire policy towards Tibet and limited the numbers of the Tibetan retinues, the Tibetans sought to maintain a tributary relationship with the Ming because imperial patronage provided them with wealth and power.[71] Laird writes that Tibetans eagerly sought Ming court invitations since the gifts the Tibetans received for bringing tribute were much greater in value than the latter.[72] As for Yongle's gifts to his Tibetan and Nepalese vassals such as silver wares, Buddha relics, utensils for Buddhist temples and religious ceremonies, and gowns and robes for monks, Tsai writes "in his effort to draw neighboring states to the Ming orbit so that he could bask in glory, Yongle was quite willing to pay a small price."[73] The Information Office of the State Council of the PRC lists the Tibetan tribute items as oxen, horses, camels, sheep, fur products, medical herbs, Tibetan incenses, thangkas (painted scrolls), and handicrafts while the Ming awarded Tibetan tribute-bearers with an equal value of gold, silver, satin and brocade, bolts of cloth, grains, and tea leaves.[1] Silk workshops during the Ming also catered specifically to the Tibetan market with silk clothes and furnishings featuring Tibetan Buddhist iconography.[74]
While the Ming Dynasty traded horses with Tibet, it upheld a policy of outlawing border markets in the north, which Laird says was an effort to punish the Mongols for their raids and to "drive them from the frontiers of China".[75] However, when Altan Khan (1507–1582)—leader of the Tümed Mongols who overthrew the Oirat Mongol confederation's hegemony over the steppes—made peace with the Ming Dynasty in 1571, he persuaded the Ming to reopen their border markets in 1573.[75] This provided the Chinese with a new supply of horses that the Mongols had in excess; it was also a relief to the Ming, since they were unable to stop the Mongols from periodic raiding.[75] Laird says that despite the fact that later Mongols believed Altan forced the Ming to view him as an equal, Chinese historians argue that he was simply a loyal Chinese citizen.[75] By 1578, Altan Khan formed a formidable Mongol-Tibetan alliance with the Yellow Hat sect that the Ming viewed from afar without intervention.[76][77][78]
Armed intervention and border stability
Patricia Ebrey writes that Tibet, like Joseon Korea and other neighboring states to the Ming, settled for its tributary status while there were no troops or governors of Ming China stationed in its territory.[79] Laird writes that "after the Mongol troops left Tibet, no Ming troops replaced them".[41] Wang and Nyima state that, despite the fact that the Ming refrained from sending troops to subdue Tibet and refrained from garrisoning Ming troops there, these measures were unnecessary so long as the Ming court upheld close ties with Tibetan vassals and their forces.[21] However, there were instances in the 14th century when Emperor Hongwu did use military force to quell unrest in Tibet. John D. Langlois writes that there was unrest in Tibet and western Sichuan, which the Marquis Mu Ying (沐英) was commissioned to quell in November 1378 after he established a Taozhou garrison in Gansu.[80] Langlois notes that by October 1379, Mu Ying had allegedly captured 30,000 Tibetan prisoners and 200,000 domesticated animals.[80] Yet invasion went both ways; the Ming general Qu Neng, under the command of Lan Yu, was ordered to repel a Tibetan assault into Sichuan in 1390.[81]
Discussions of strategy in the mid Ming Dynasty focused primarily on recovery of the Ordos region, which the Mongols used as a rallying base to stage raids into Ming China.[82] Norbu states that the Ming Dynasty, preoccupied with the Mongol threat to the north, could not spare additional armed forces to enforce or back up their claim of sovereignty over Tibet; instead, they relied on "Confucian instruments of tribute relations" of heaping unlimited number of titles and gifts on Tibetan lamas through acts of diplomacy.[83] Sperling states that the delicate relationship between the Ming and Tibet was "the last time a united China had to deal with an independent Tibet", that there was a potential for armed conflict at their borders, and that the ultimate goal of Ming foreign policy with Tibet was not subjugation but "avoidance of any kind of Tibetan threat".[84]
Historians Luciano Petech and Sato Hisashi argue that the Ming upheld a "divide-and-rule" policy towards a weak and politically fragmented Tibet after the Sakya regime had fallen.[40] Chan writes that this was perhaps the calculated strategy of Yongle, as exclusive patronage to one Tibetan sect would have given it too much regional power.[85] Sperling finds no textual evidence in either Chinese or Tibetan sources to support this thesis of Petech and Hisashi.[40] Norbu asserts that their thesis is largely based on the list of Ming titles conferred on Tibetan lamas rather than "comparative analysis of developments in China and Tibet".[40] P. Christiaan Klieger argues that the Ming court's patronage of high Tibetan lamas "was designed to help stabilize border regions and protect trade routes".[86]
The Association for Asian Studies states that there is no known written evidence to suggest that later leaders of the Yellow Hat sect—First Dalai Lama Gendun Drup (1391–1474) and Second Dalai Lama Gendun Gyatso (1475–1571)—had any contacts with Ming China.[87] These two religious leaders were preoccupied with an overriding concern for dealing with the powerful secular princes of Rinbung, who were patrons and protectors of the Black Hat Karmapa lamas.[87] The prince of Rinbung occupied Lhasa in 1498 and excluded the Yellow Hat sect from attending New Years ceremonies and prayers, the most important event in the Yellow Hat sect.[88] While the task of New Years prayers in Lhasa was granted to the Karmapa, Gendun Gyatso traveled in exile looking for allies.[88] However, it was not until 1518 that the secular Phagmodru ruler captured Lhasa from the Rinbung, and thereafter the Yellow Hat sect was given rights to conduct the New Years prayer.[88] When the Red Hat abbot of the Drigung Monastery threatened Lhasa in 1537, Gendun Gyatso was forced to abandon the Drepung Monastery, although he eventually returned.[88]
The Zhengde Emperor (r. 1505–1521), who enjoyed the company of lamas at court despite protests from the censorate, had heard tales of a "living Buddha" which he desired to host at the Ming capital; this was none other than the Rinbung-supported Karmapa then occupying Lhasa.[89] Zhengde's top advisors made every attempt to dissuade him from inviting this lama to court, arguing that Tibetan Buddhism was wildly heterodox and unorthodox.[15] Despite protests by the Grand Secretary Liang Chu, in 1515 the Zhengde Emperor sent his eunuch official Liu Yun of the palace chancellery on a mission to invite this Karmapa to Beijing.[90] Liu commanded a fleet of hundreds of ships requisitioned along the Yangzi River, consuming 100 ounces (2,835 g) of silver a day in food expenses while stationed for a year in Chengdu of Sichuan.[91] After procurring necessary gifts for the mission, he departed with a cavalry force of about 1,000 troops.[91] When the request was given, the Karmapa lama refused to leave Tibet despite the Ming force coercing him to do so.[91] The Karmapa launched a surprise ambush on Liu Yun's camp, seizing all the goods and valuables while killing or wounding half of Liu Yun's entire escort.[91] After this fiasco, Liu fled for his life, but only returned to Chengdu several years later to find that the Zhengde Emperor had died.[91]
Tibetans as a national minority
Elliot Sperling, a specialist of Indian studies and the director of the Tibetan Studies program at Indiana University’s department of Central Eurasia Studies, writes that "the idea that Tibet became part of China in the 13th century is a very recent construction."[93] He writes that Chinese writers of the early 20th century were of the view that Tibet was not annexed by China until the Manchu Qing Dynasty invasion during the 18th century.[93] He also states that Chinese writers of the early 20th century described Tibet as a feudal dependent of China, not an integral part of it.[93] Sperling states that this is because "Tibet was ruled as such, within the empires of the Mongols and the Manchus" and also that "China's intervening Ming Dynasty ... had no control over Tibet."[93] He writes that the Ming relationship with Tibet is problematic for China’s insistence of its unbroken sovereignty over Tibet since the 13th century.[93] As for the Tibetan view that Tibet was never subject to the rule of the Yuan or Qing emperors of China, Sperling also discounts this by stating that Tibet was "subject to rules, laws and decisions made by the Yuan and Qing rulers" and that even Tibetans described themselves as subjects of these emperors.[93]
Josef Kolmaš, a sinologist, Tibetologist, and Professor of Oriental Studies at the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, writes that it was during the Qing Dynasty "that developments took place on the basis of which Tibet came to be considered an organic part of China, both practically and theoretically subject to the Chinese central government."[94] Yet he states that this was a radical change in regards to all previous eras of Sino-Tibetan relations.[94]
P. Christiaan Klieger, an anthropologist and scholar of the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, writes that the vice royalty of the Sakya regime installed by the Mongols established a patron-priest relationship between Tibetans and Mongol converts to Tibetan Buddhism.[86] According to him, the Tibetan lamas and Mongol khans upheld a "mutual role of religious prelate and secular patron," respectively.[86] He adds that:[86]
Although agreements were made between Tibetan leaders and Mongol khans, Ming and Qing emperors, it was the Republic of China and its Communist successors that assumed the former imperial tributaries and subject states as integral parts of the Chinese nation-state.[86]
Marina Illich, a scholar of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, while discussing the life of the Yellow Hat lama Chankya Rolpe Dorje (1717–1786), mentions the limitations of both Western and Chinese modern scholarship in their interpretation of Tibetan sources. As for the limitations imposed on scholars by the central government of the People's Republic of China on issues regarding the history of Tibet, Illich writes:[92]
PRC scholars ... work under the strict supervision of censor bureaus and must adhere to historiographic guidelines issued by the state [and] have little choice but to frame their discussion of eighteenth-century Tibetan history in the anachronistic terms of contemporary People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) state discourse ... Bound by Party directives, these scholars have little choice but to portray Tibet as a trans-historically inalienable part of China in a way that profoundly obscures questions of Tibetan agency.[92]
China Daily, a CCP-controlled news organization since 1981, states that although there were dynastic changes after Tibet was incorporated into the territory of China's Yuan Dynasty in the 13th century, "Tibet has remained under the jurisdiction of the central government of China."[95] It also states that the Ming Dynasty "inherited the right to rule Tibet" from the Yuan Dynasty, and repeats the claims in the Mingshi about the Ming establishing two itinerant high commands over Tibet.[95] China Daily states that the Ming handled Tibet's civil administration, appointed all leading officials of these administrative organs, and punished Tibetans who broke the law.[95] The party-controlled People's Daily, the state-controlled Xinhua News Agency, and the state-controlled national television network China Central Television post the same article that China Daily has, the only difference being their headlines and some additional text.[96][97][98]
Mongol-Tibetan alliance
Altan Khan and the Dalai Lama
During the reign of the Jiajing Emperor (r. 1521–1567), the native Chinese ideology of Daoism was fully sponsored at the Ming court, while the Tibetan Buddhism of Tibet's lamas and even other types of Buddhism were ignored or suppressed.[22] Even the Mingshi states that the Tibetan lamas discontinued their trips to Ming China and its court at this point.[22] The Grand Secretary Yang Tinghe under Jiajing was determined to break the eunuch influence at court which typified the Zhengde era,[99] an example being the costly escort of the eunuch Liu Yun as described above in his failed mission to Tibet. The court eunuchs were in favor of expanding and building new commercial ties with foreign countries such as Portugal, which Zhengde deemed permissible since he had an affinity for foreign and exotic people.[99] With the death of Zhengde and ascension of Jiajing, the politics at court shifted in favor of the Confucian establishment which not only rejected the Portuguese embassy of Fernão Pires de Andrade (d. 1523),[99] but had a predisposed animosity towards Tibetan Buddhism and lamas.[90] Evelyn S. Rawski, a professor in the Department of History of the University of Pittsburgh, writes that the Ming's unique relationship with Tibetan prelates essentially ended with Jiajing's reign while Ming power in the Amdo region was supplanted by the Mongols.[100]
Meanwhile, the Tümed Mongols began moving into the Kokonor region (modern Qinghai province), raiding the Ming Chinese frontier and even as far as the suburbs of Beijing under Altan Khan (1507–1582).[101][22] Klieger writes that Altan Khan's presence in the west effectively reduced Ming influence and contact with Tibet.[102] After Altan Khan made peace with the Ming Dynasty in 1571, he invited the third hierarch of the Yellow Hat sect—Sonam Gyatso (1543–1588)—to meet him in Amdo (modern Qinghai) in 1578, where he granted him and his two predecessors the title of Dalai Lama—literally "Ocean Teacher".[22][103] The full title was "Dalai Lama Vajradhara", vajradhara meaning "Holder of the Thunderbolt" in Sanskrit.[104][103] Goldstein writes that Sonam Gyatso also enhanced Altan Khan's standing by granting him the title "king of religion, majestic purity".[76] Rawski writes that the Dalai Lama officially recognized Altan Khan as the "Protector of the Faith".[105]
Laird writes that Altan Khan abolished the native Mongol practices of shamanism and blood sacrifice, while the Mongol princes and subjects were coerced by Altan to convert to Tibetan Gelug Buddhism—or face execution by continuing their shamanistic faith.[106] Committed to their religious leader, Mongol princes began requesting the Dalai Lama to bestow titles on them, which demonstrated "the unique fusion of religious and political power" wielded by the Dalai Lama, as Laird writes.[107] Kolmaš states that the spiritual and secular Mongol-Tibetan alliance of the 13th century was renewed by this alliance constructed by Altan Khan and Sonam Gyatso.[108] Angela F. Howard writes that this unique relationship not only provided the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama with religious and political authority in Tibet, but that Altan Khan gained "enormous power among the entire Mongol population".[109] Rawski writes that Altan Khan's conversion to the Yellow Hat sect "can be interpreted as an attempt to expand his authority in his conflict with his nominal superior, Tümen Khan."[105] To further cement the Mongol-Tibetan alliance, the great-grandson of Altan Khan—Yonten Gyatso (1589–1616)—was made the 4th Dalai Lama.[22][104] In 1642, his successor became the first Dalai Lama to wield effective political control over Tibet.[45]
Contact with the Ming Dynasty
Sonam Gyatso, after being granted the grandiose title by Altan Khan, departed for Tibet. Before he left, he sent a letter and gifts to the Ming Chinese official Zhang Juzheng (1525–1582), which arrived on March 12, 1579.[110] Sometime in August or September of that year, Sonam Gyatso's representative stationed with Altan Khan received a return letter and gift from the Wanli Emperor (r. 1572–1620), who also conferred upon Sonam Gyatso a title; this was the first official contact between a Dalai Lama and a government of China.[110] However, Laird states that when Wanli invited him to Beijing, the Dalai Lama declined the offer due to a prior commitment, even though he was only 250 miles (402 km) from Beijing.[107] Laird adds that "the power of the Ming emperor did not reach very far at the time".[107] Although not recorded in any official Chinese records, Sonam Gyatso's biography states that Wanli again conferred titles on Sonam Gyatso in 1588, invited him to Beijing for a second time, but Sonam Gyatso was unable to visit China as he died in Mongolia while en route to Tibet, working since 1585 with Altan Khan's son in Mongolia to further the spread of Buddhism.[110][107]
Of the third Dalai Lama, China Daily states that the "Ming Dynasty showed him special favor by allowing him to pay tribute."[95] China Daily then says that Sonam Gyatso was granted the title Dorjichang or Vajradhara Dalai Lama in 1587 [sic!],[95] but China Daily does not mention who granted him the title. Without mentioning the role of the Mongols, China Daily states that it was the successive Qing Dynasty which established the title of Dalai Lama and his power in Tibet:[95]
In 1653, the Qing emperor granted an honorific title to the fifth Dalai Lama and then did the same for the fifth Bainqen Lama in 1713, officially establishing the titles of the Dalai Lama and the Bainqen Erdeni, and their political and religious status in Tibet.[95]
Kolmaš writes that, as the Mongol presence in Tibet increased, culminating in the conquest of Tibet by a Mongol leader in 1642, the Ming emperors "viewed with apparent unconcern these developments in Tibet."[77] He adds that the Ming court's lack of concern for Tibet was one of the reasons why the Mongols pounced on the chance to reclaim their old vassal of Tibet and "fill once more the political vacuum in that country".[64] On the mass Mongol conversion to Tibetan Buddhism under Altan Khan, Laird writes that "the Chinese watched these developments with interest, though few Chinese ever became devout Tibetan Buddhists".[78]
Civil war and Güshi Khan's conquest
In 1565, the powerful Rinbung princes were overthrown by one of their own ministers, who styled himself as the Tsangpa or Ü-Tsang king.[56][111] In 1618, only two years after Yonten Gyatso died, the Yellow Hat sect and the Red Hat sect went to war, the Red Hats supported by the secular Ü-Tsang king.[112] The latter had a large number of Yellow Hat lamas killed, occupied their monasteries at Drepung and Sera, and outlawed any attempts to find another Dalai Lama.[112] In 1633, the Yellow Hats and several thousand Mongol adherents defeated the Ü-Tsang king's troops near Lhasa before a peaceful negotiation was settled.[112] Goldstein writes that in this the "Mongols were again playing a significant role in Tibetan affairs, this time as the military arm of the Dalai Lama."[112] When an ally of the Ü-Tsang ruler threatened destruction of the Yellow Hats again, the fifth Dalai Lama Lozang Gyatso pleaded for help from the Mongol prince Güshi Khan (1582–1655), leader of the Khoshut (Qoshot) tribe of the Oirat Mongols.[113][104] Güshi Khan accepted his role as protector, and from 1637–1640 he not only defeated the Yellow Hats' enemies in the Amdo and Kham regions, but also resettled his entire tribe into Amdo.[113][104] Sonam Chöpel, chief steward of the Dalai Lama, urged Güshi Khan to assault the Ü-Tsang king's homebase of Shigatse, which Güshi Khan agreed upon, enlisting the aid of Yellow Hat monks and supporters.[113] In 1642, Güshi Khan captured Shigatse and summarily executed the ruler of Ü-Tsang, King of Tibet.[113]
After the victory in Ü-Tsang, Güshi Khan installed the fifth Dalai Lama as the ruler of Tibet, but conferred the actual governing authority to the regent Sonam Chöpel.[113] Although Güshi Khan had granted the Dalai Lama "supreme authority" as Goldstein writes, the title of 'King of Tibet' was conferred upon Güshi Khan, spending his summers in pastures north of Lhasa and occupying Lhasa each winter.[113][77] Rawski writes that the Dalai Lama shared power with his regent and Güshi Khan during his early secular and religious reign.[114] However, Rawski states that he eventually "expanded his own authority by presenting himself as Avalokitesvara through the performance of rituals," by building the Potala Palace and other structures on traditional religious sites, and by emphasizing lineage reincarnation through written biographies.[115] Goldstein states that the government of Güshi Khan and the Dalai Lama persecuted the Black Hat Karma Kagyu sect, confiscated their wealth and property, and even converted their monasteries into Yellow Hat Gelug monasteries.[113] Rawski writes that this Mongol patronage allowed the Yellow Hats to dominate over the rival religious sects in Tibet.[115]
Meanwhile, the Chinese Ming Dynasty fell to the rebellion of Li Zicheng (1606–1645) in 1644, yet his short-lived Shun Dynasty was crushed by the Manchu invasion and the Han Chinese general Wu Sangui (1612–1678). China Daily states that when the following Qing Dynasty replaced the Ming Dynasty, it merely "strengthened administration of Tibet".[95] However, Kolmaš states that the Dalai Lama was very observant of what was going on in China and accepted a Manchu invitation in 1640 to visit their capital at Mukden in 1642, before the Ming collapsed.[116] Dawa Norbu, William Rockhill, and George N. Patterson write that when the Shunzhi Emperor (r. 1644–1661) of the subsequent Qing Dynasty invited the Fifth Dalai Lama Lozang Gyatso to Beijing in 1652, Shunzhi treated the Dalai Lama as an independent sovereign of Tibet.[63][117] Patterson writes that this was an effort of Shunzhi to secure an alliance with Tibet that would ultimately lead to the establishment of Manchu rule over Mongolia.[117] In this meeting with the Qing emperor, Goldstein asserts that the Dalai Lama was not someone to be trifled with due to his alliance with Mongol tribes, some of which were declared enemies of the Qing.[118] When the Dzungar Mongols attempted to spread their territory from what is now Xinjiang into Tibet, the Kangxi Emperor (r. 1661–1722) responded to Tibetan pleas for aid with his own invasion of Tibet in 1717, occupying Lhasa in 1720.[79][119] By 1751, during the reign of the Qianlong Emperor (r. 1735–1796), a protectorate and permanent Qing Dynasty garrison was established in Tibet.[79][119] As of 1751, Albert Kolb writes that "Chinese claims to suzerainty over Tibet date from this time."[119]
Administrative offices and officials' titles
Ming administrative divisions established in Tibet according to the Mingshi[120] | |
---|---|
Itinerant High Commandery (都指揮使司) | Dbus-Gtsang (烏思藏), Mdo-khams (朵甘) |
Itinerant Commandery (指揮使司) | Longda (隴答) |
Pacification Commissioner's Office (宣尉使司) | Duogan (朵甘), Dongbuhanhu (董卜韓胡), Changhexiyutongningyuan (長河西魚通寧遠) |
Expedition Commissioner's Office (招討司) | Duogansi (朵甘思), Duoganlongda (朵甘隴答), Duogandan (朵甘丹), Duogancangtang (朵甘倉溏), Duoganchuan (朵甘川), Moerkan (磨兒勘) |
Wanhu offices (萬戶府) | Shaerke (沙兒可), Naizhu (乃竹), Luosiduan (羅思端), Biesima (別思麻) |
Qianhu offices (千戶所) | Duogansi (朵甘思), Suolazong (所剌宗), Suobolijia (所孛里加), Suochanghexi (所長河西), Suoduobasansun (所多八三孫), Suojiaba (所加八), Suozhaori (所兆日), Nazhu (納竹), Lunda (倫答), Guoyou (果由), Shalikehahudi (沙里可哈忽的), Bolijiasi (孛里加思), Shalituer (撒裏土兒), Canbulang (參卜郎), Lacuoya (剌錯牙), Xieliba (泄里壩), Runzelusun (潤則魯孫) |
Ming titles granted to Tibetan leaders | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Name | Sect | Year | |
Princes of Dharma (法王) | Great Treasure Prince of Dharma (大寶法王) | Tulku Tsurphu Karmapa[16] | Karma Kagyu Sect (Black Hat sect) | 1407 |
Great Vehicle Prince of Dharma (大乘法王) | Prince of Dharma of the Sagya Sect (represented by Gunga Zhaxi)[16] | Sagya Sect (Red Hat sect) | 1413 | |
Great Mercy Prince of Dharma (大慈法王) | Shākya Yeshes (representative of Je Tsongkhapa)[16] | Gelug Sect (Yellow Hat Sect) | 1434 | |
Princes (王) | Prince of Persuasion (闡化王) | Zhaba Gyaincain[121] | Phagmo Drupa Sect | 1406 |
Promotion Prince of Virtue (贊善王) | Zhusibar Gyaincain[121] | Lingzang | 1407 | |
Guardian Prince of Doctrine (護教王) | Namge Bazangpo[49] | Guanjor | 1407 | |
Propagation Prince of Doctrine (闡教王) | Linzenbal Gyangyanzang[16] | Zhigung Gagyu Sect | 1413 | |
Assistant Prince of Doctrine (輔教王) | Namkelisiba (Namkelebei Lobzhui Gyaincain Sangpo)[49] | Sagya Sect | 1415 |
See also
- Tibetan sovereignty debate
- Foreign relations of Imperial China
- Foreign relations of Tibet
- History of China
- History of Tibet
Notes
- ^ a b c d Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, Testimony of History (China Intercontinental Press, 2002), 73.
- ^ Wang Jiawei & Nyima Gyaincain, The Historical Status of China's Tibet (China Intercontinental Press, 1997), 39–41.
- ^ Melvyn C. Goldstein, Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet and the Dalai Lama (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 1.
- ^ Denis Twitchett, "Tibet in Tang's Grand Strategy", in Warfare in Chinese History (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2000), 106–179.
- ^ Josef Kolmas, Tibet and Imperial China: A Survey of Sino-Tibetan Relations Up to the End of the Manchu Dynasty in 1912: Occasional Paper 7 (Canberra: The Australian National University, Centre of Oriental Studies, 1967), 12–14.
- ^ Kolmas, Tibet and Imperial China, 14–17.
- ^ Hok-Lam Chan, "The Chien-wen, Yung-lo, Hung-shi, and Hsuan-te reigns", in The Cambridge History of China: Volume 7, The Ming Dynasty, 1368-1644, Part 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 261.
- ^ a b Morris Rossabi, Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 40–41.
- ^ George N. Patterson, "China and Tibet: Background to the Revolt", The China Quarterly, no. 1 (January-March 1960): 88.
- ^ a b Patterson, "China and Tibet", 88–89.
- ^ Turrell V. Wylie, "The First Mongol Conquest of Tibet Reinterpreted", Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 37, no. 1 (June 1997): 104.
- ^ a b c d e f Chan, "The Chien-wen, Yung-lo, Hung-shi, and Hsuan-te reigns", 262.
- ^ a b Goldstein, The Snow Lion and the Dragon, 4.
- ^ a b c Elliot Sperling, "The 5th Karma-pa and some aspects of the relationship between Tibet and the Early Ming", in The History of Tibet: Volume 2, The Medieval Period: c. AD 850–1895, the Development of Buddhist Paramountcy (New York: Routledge, 2003), 475.
- ^ a b c Gray Tuttle, Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 27.
- ^ a b c d e f Chen Qingying, Tibetan History (China Intercontinental Press, 2003), 52. Cite error: The named reference "chen 52" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ Mingshi-Geography I «明史•地理一»: 東起朝鮮,西據吐番,南包安南,北距大磧。
- ^ Mingshi-Geography III «明史•地理三»: 七年七月置西安行都衛於此,領河州、朵甘、烏斯藏、三衛。
- ^ Mingshi-Military II «明史•兵二»
- ^ Mingshi-Western territory III «明史•列傳第二百十七西域三»
- ^ a b Wang & Nyima, The Historical Status of China's Tibet, 38.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Turrell V. Wylie, "Lama Tribute in the Ming Dynasty", in The History of Tibet: Volume 2, The Medieval Period: c. AD 850–1895, the Development of Buddhist Paramountcy (New York: Routledge, 2003), 470.
- ^ a b Helmut Hoffman, "Early and Medieval Tibet", in The History of Tibet: Volume 1, The Early Period to c. AD 850, the Yarlung Dynasty (New York: Routledge, 2003), 65.
- ^ a b Goldstein, The Snow Lion and the Dragon, 4–5.
- ^ a b c Wang & Nyima, The Historical Status of China's Tibet, 31.
- ^ Wang & Nyima, The Historical Status of China's Tibet, 31.
- ^ Wang & Nyima, The Historical Status of China's Tibet, 32.
- ^ a b Wang & Nyima, The Historical Status of China's Tibet, 37.
- ^ Thomas Laird, The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama (New York: Grove Press, 2006), 106–107.
- ^ a b Laird, The Story of Tibet, 107.
- ^ a b John Powers, History as propaganda: Tibetan exiles versus the People's Republic of China (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 50.
- ^ a b c Patricia Ann Berger, Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China (Manoa: University of Hawaii Press, 2003), 184.
- ^ The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition (2001-07). Yuan. Retrieved on 2008-04-28.
- ^ Encyclopedia Americana. (2008). Grolier Online. "Hucker, Charles H. "Yüan Dynasty" Retrieved on 2008-04-28.
- ^ a b The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "Yuan Dynasty (1279–1368)". In Timeline of Art History. Retrieved on 2008-04-28.
- ^ Rossabi, Khubilai Khan, 71–72, 117, 130.
- ^ Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China (November 15, 2000). "Did Tibet Become an Independent Country after the Revolution of 1911?". Retrieved on 2008-05-02.
- ^ a b Information Office of the State Council, Testimony of History, 75.
- ^ a b c Chen, Tibetan History, 48.
- ^ a b c d e Dawa Norbu, China's Tibet Policy (Richmond: Curzon, 2001), 58.
- ^ a b Laird, The Story of Tibet, 137.
- ^ Yiu Yung-chin, "Two Focuses of the Tibet Issue", in Tibet Through Dissident Chinese Eyes: Essays on Self-determination (New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1998), 121.
- ^ Shih-Shan Henry Tsai, Perpetual Happiness: The Ming Emperor Yongle (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001), 187–188.
- ^ a b c d Wang & Nyima, The Historical Status of China's Tibet, 42. Cite error: The named reference "wang nyima 42" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ a b c d Georges Dreyfus, "Cherished memories, cherished communities: proto-nationalism in Tibet", in The History of Tibet: Volume 2, The Medieval Period: c. AD 850–1895, the Development of Buddhist Paramountcy (New York: Routledge, 2003), 504.
- ^ a b Chen, Tibetan History, 44.
- ^ a b c d e Wylie, "Lama Tribute in the Ming Dynasty", 469–470.
- ^ Wang & Nyima, The Historical Status of China's Tibet, 35.
- ^ a b c d Chen Qingying, Tibetan History (Beijing: China Intercontinental Press, 2003), 51; original text: 余非不知此是大地之大主宰為佛法著想之諭旨,亦非不遵不敬陛下之詔書,但我每與眾人相會,便發生重病,故不能遵照聖旨而行,惟祈陛下如虛空廣大之胸懷,不致不悅,實為幸甚。 Cite error: The named reference "chen 51" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ a b A. Tom Grunfeld, The Making of Modern Tibet (New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1996), 40.
- ^ a b c Chan, "The Chien-wen, Yung-lo, Hung-shi, and Hsuan-te reigns", 263.
- ^ Wylie, "Lama Tribute in the Ming Dynasty", 470–471.
- ^ Riggs, "Tibet in Extremis", Far Eastern Survey 19, no. 21 (1950): 226.
- ^ Wylie, "Lama Tribute in the Ming Dynasty", 468–469.
- ^ Goldstein, The Snow Lion and the Dragon, 5.
- ^ a b Kolmas, Tibet and Imperial China, 29.
- ^ Norbu, China's Tibet Policy, 51–52.
- ^ a b c d e The Ming Biographical History Project of the Association for Asian Studies, Dictionary of Ming Biography, 1368-1644: 明代名人傳: Volume 1, A-L (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), 482.
- ^ a b c Tsai, Perpetual Happiness, 84.
- ^ a b Tsai, Perpetual Happiness, 187.
- ^ Sperling, "The 5th Karma-pa and some aspects of the relationship between Tibet and the Early Ming", 477.
- ^ Marsha Weidner, "Imperial Engagements with Buddhist Art and Architecture: Ming Variations of an Old Theme", in Cultural Intersections in Later Chinese Buddhism (Manoa: University of Hawaii Press, 2001), 121.
- ^ a b c d Norbu, China's Tibet Policy, 52.
- ^ a b Kolmas, Tibet and Imperial China, 32.
- ^ a b c Information Office of the State Council, Testimony of History, 95.
- ^ Sperling, "The 5th Karma-pa and some aspects of the relationship between Tibet and the Early Ming", 474–475.
- ^ a b c Peter C. Perdue, "Culture, History, and Imperial Chinese Strategy: Legacies of the Qing Conquests", in Warfare in Chinese History (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2000), 273.
- ^ Wang & Nyima, The Historical Status of China's Tibet, 39–40.
- ^ Wang & Nyima, The Historical Status of China's Tibet 40.
- ^ Sperling, "The 5th Karma-pa and some aspects of the relationship between Tibet and the Early Ming", 478.
- ^ Kolmas, Tibet and Imperial China, 28–29.
- ^ Laird, The Story of Tibet, 131.
- ^ Tsai, Perpetual Happiness, 188.
- ^ John E. Vollmer, Silk for Thrones and Altars: Chinese Costumes and Textiles from the Liao through the Qing Dynasty (Berkeley: Ten Speed Press, 2004), 98–100.
- ^ a b c d Laird, The Story of Tibet, 141.
- ^ a b Goldstein, The Snow Lion and the Dragon, 8.
- ^ a b c Kolmas, Tibet and Imperial China, 31–32.
- ^ a b Laird, The Story of Tibet, 144.
- ^ a b c Patricia B. Ebrey, Cambridge Illustrated History of China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 227. Cite error: The named reference "ebrey 227" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ a b John D. Langlois, "The Hung-wu reign, 1368–1398", in The Cambridge History of China: Volume 7, The Ming Dynasty, 1368-1644, Part 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 139.
- ^ Langlois, "The Hung-wu reign, 1368–1398", 161.
- ^ Perdue, "Culture, History, and Imperial Chinese Strategy: Legacies of the Qing Conquests", 266–267.
- ^ Norbu, China's Tibet Policy, 59.
- ^ Sperling, "The 5th Karma-pa and some aspects of the relationship between Tibet and the Early Ming", 475–477.
- ^ Chan, "The Chien-wen, Yung-lo, Hung-shi, and Hsuan-te reigns", 263–264.
- ^ a b c d e P. Christiaan Klieger, "Riding High on the Manchurian Dream: Three Paradigms in the Construction of the Tibetan Question", in Contemporary Tibet: Politics, Development, and Society in a Disputed Region (New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2006), 217.
- ^ a b Dictionary of Ming Biography, 412–413.
- ^ a b c d Dictionary of Ming Biography, 413.
- ^ James Geiss, "The Cheng-te reign, 1506-1521", in The Cambridge History of China: Volume 7, The Ming Dynasty, 1368-1644, Part 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 417.
- ^ a b Geiss, "The Cheng-te reign, 1506-1521", 417–418.
- ^ a b c d e Geiss, "The Cheng-te reign, 1506-1521", 418.
- ^ a b c Marina Illich, "Imperial Stooge or Emissary to the Dge lugs Throne? Rethinking the Biographies of Chankya Rolpé Dorjé", in Power, Politics, and the Reinvention of Tradition: Tibet in the Seventeenth adn Eighteenth Centuries (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2006), 19.
- ^ a b c d e f Sperling, Elliot. (April 13, 2008). Don't Know Much About Tibetan History. The New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-04-24.
- ^ a b Kolmas, Tibet and Imperial China, 33.
- ^ a b c d e f g h China Daily. (April 9, 2008). From Dynasty to Republic. Chinadaily.com.cn. Retrieved on 2008-04-25.
- ^ People's Daily. (April 14, 2008). Tell you a true Tibet - Ownership of Tibet. English.peopledaily.com.cn. Retrieved on 2008-04-26.
- ^ CCTV. (2005). Tell you a true Tibet - Sovereignty of Tibet. CCTV.com. Retrieved on 2008-04-26.
- ^ Xinhua News Agency. (April 15, 2008). Tell you a true Tibet - Sovereignty of Tibet. Retrieved on 2008-05-06.
- ^ a b c John E. Wills, Jr., "Relations with Maritime Europe, 1514–1662", in The Cambridge History of China: Volume 8, The Ming Dynasty, 1368–1644, Part 2, 333–375, ed. Denis Twitchett, John King Fairbank, and Albert Feuerwerker (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 338–339.
- ^ Evelyn S. Rawski, The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 245.
- ^ David M. Robinson, "Politics, Force and Ethnicity in Ming China: Mongols and the Abortive Coup of 1461", in Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 59, no. 1 (June 1999): 81.
- ^ Klieger, "Riding High on the Manchurian Dream", 217–218.
- ^ a b Grunfeld, The Making of Modern Tibet, 41.
- ^ a b c d Kolmas, Tibet and Imperial China, 31.
- ^ a b Rawski, The Last Emperors, 246.
- ^ Laird, The Story of Tibet, 143–144.
- ^ a b c d Laird, The Story of Tibet, 146.
- ^ Kolmas, Tibet and Imperial China, 30–31.
- ^ Angela F. Howard, "Introduction", in Chinese Sculpture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 13.
- ^ a b c Dictionary of Ming Biography, 23.
- ^ Laird, The Story of Tibet, 152.
- ^ a b c d Goldstein, The Snow Lion and the Dragon, 6.
- ^ a b c d e f g Goldstein, The Snow Lion and the Dragon, 9.
- ^ Rawski, The Last Emperors, 250–251.
- ^ a b Rawski, The Last Emperors, 251.
- ^ Kolmas, Tibet and Imperial China, 34–35.
- ^ a b Patterson, "China and Tibet: Background to the Revolt", 89.
- ^ Goldstein, The Snow Lion and the Dragon, 10.
- ^ a b c Albert Kolb, East Asia: China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam: Geography of a Cultural Region, trans. C.A.M. Sym (New York: Routledge, 1971), 368.
- ^ Mingshi-Military II «明史•兵二»
- ^ a b Chen, Tibetan History, 50.
References
Organizations
- The Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. (2002). Testimony of History. Edited by Hongjia Xiang and Yuxin Zhan. China Intercontinental Press. ISBN 7801138856.
- The Ming Biographical History Project of the Association for Asian Studies. (1976). Dictionary of Ming Biography, 1368-1644: 明代名人傳: Volume 1, A-L. Edited by L. Carrington Goodrich and Chaoying Fang. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231038011.
Authors
- Berger, Patricia Ann. (2003). Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 0824825632.
- Ebrey, Patricia Buckley (1999). The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-66991-X
- Chan, Hok-Lam. (1988). "The Chien-wen, Yung-lo, Hung-shi, and Hsuan-te reigns", in The Cambridge History of China: Volume 7, The Ming Dynasty, 1368-1644, Part 1, 182–384, edited by Denis Twitchett and John K. Fairbank. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521243327.
- Chen, Qingying. (2003). Tibetan History. Beijing: China Intercontinental Press. ISBN 7501016607.
- Dreyfus, Georges. (2003). "Cherished memories, cherished communities: proto-nationalism in Tibet", in The History of Tibet: Volume 2, The Medieval Period: c. AD 850–1895, the Development of Buddhist Paramountcy, 492–522, ed. Alex McKay. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415308429.
- Geiss, James. (1988). "The Cheng-te reign, 1506-1521", in The Cambridge History of China: Volume 7, The Ming Dynasty, 1368-1644, Part 1, 403–439, edited by Denis Twitchett and John K. Fairbank. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521243327.
- Goldstein, Melvyn C. (1997). The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet and the Dalai Lama. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0520219511.
- Grunfeld, A. Tom. (1996). The Making of Modern Tibet. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. ISBN 1563247143.
- Hoffman, Helmut. (2003). "Early and Medieval Tibet", in The History of Tibet: Volume 1, The Early Period to c. AD 850, the Yarlung Dynasty, 45–69, edited by Alex McKay. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415308429.
- Howard, Angela F. (2006). "Introduction", in Chinese Sculpture, 7–16, edited by Angela F. Howard. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300100655.
- Illich, Marina. (2006). "Imperial Stooge or Emissary to the Dge lugs Throne? Rethinking the Biographies of Chankya Rolpé Dorjé", in Power, Politics, and the Reinvention of Tradition: Tibet in the Seventeenth adn Eighteenth Centuries, 17–32. Edited by Bryan J. Cuevas & Kurtis R. Schaeffer. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill. ISBN 9004153519.
- Klieger, P. Christiaan. (2006). "Riding High on the Manchurian Dream: Three Paradigms in the Construction of the Tibetan Question", in Contemporary Tibet: Politics, Development, and Society in a Disputed Region, 214–229, edited by Barry Sautman and June Teufel Dreyer. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. ISBN 0765613549.
- Kolb, Albert. (1971). East Asia: China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam: Geography of a Cultural Region. Translated by C.A.M. Sym. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0416084206.
- Kolmaš, Josef. (1967). Tibet and Imperial China: A Survey of Sino-Tibetan Relations Up to the End of the Manchu Dynasty in 1912: Occasional Paper 7. Canberra: The Australian National University, Centre of Oriental Studies.
- Laird, Thomas. (2006). The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama. New York: Grove Press. ISBN 080214327X.
- Langlois, John D., Jr. (1988). "The Hung-wu reign, 1368–1398", in The Cambridge History of China: Volume 7, The Ming Dynasty, 1368-1644, Part 1, 107–181, edited by Denis Twitchett and John K. Fairbank. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521243327.
- Lopez, Donald S., Jr. "'Lamaism' and the Disappearance of Tibet", Comparative Studies in Society and History (Volume 38, Number 1, January 1996): 3–25.
- Norbu, Dawa. (2001). China's Tibet Policy. Richmond: Curzon. ISBN 0700704744.
- Patterson, George N. "China and Tibet: Background to the Revolt", The China Quarterly (Number 1, January-March 1960): 87–102.
- Perdue, Peter C. (2000). "Culture, History, and Imperial Chinese Strategy: Legacies of the Qing Conquests", in Warfare in Chinese History, 252–287, edited by Hans van de Ven. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill. ISBN 9004117741.
- Powers, John. (2004). History as propaganda: Tibetan exiles versus the People's Republic of China. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195174267.
- Rawski, Evelyn S. (1998). The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0520228375.
- Riggs, Fred W. "Tibet in Extremis", Far Eastern Survey (Volume 19, Number 21, 1950): 224–230.
- Robinson, David M. "Politics, Force and Ethnicity in Ming China: Mongols and the Abortive Coup of 1461", Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies (Volume 59, Number 1, June 1999): 79–123.
- Rossabi, Morris (1988). Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-05913-1.
- Sperling, Elliot. (2003). "The 5th Karma-pa and some aspects of the relationship between Tibet and the Early Ming", in The History of Tibet: Volume 2, The Medieval Period: c. AD 850–1895, the Development of Buddhist Paramountcy, 473–482, ed. Alex McKay. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415308429.
- Tsai, Shih-Shan Henry. (2001). Perpetual Happiness: The Ming Emperor Yongle. Seattle: University of Washington Press. ISBN 0295981245.
- Tuttle, Gray. (2005). 'Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231134460.
- Twitchett, Denis. (2000). "Tibet in Tang's Grand Strategy" in Warfare in Chinese History, 106–179, edited by Hans van de Ven. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill. ISBN 9004117741.
- Vollmer, John E. (2004). Silk for Thrones and Altars: Chinese Costumes and Textiles from the Liao through the Qing Dynasties. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press. ISBN 1580085903.
- Wang, Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain. (1997). The Historical Status of China's Tibet. Beijing: China Intercontinental Press. ISBN 7801133048.
- Weidner, Marsha. (2001). "Imperial Engagements with Buddhist Art and Architecture: Ming Variations of an Old Theme", in Cultural Intersections in Later Chinese Buddhism, 117–144, edited by Marsha Weidner. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 0824823087.
- Wills, John E., Jr. (1998). "Relations with Maritime Europe, 1514–1662", in The Cambridge History of China: Volume 8, The Ming Dynasty, 1368–1644, Part 2, 333–375. Edited by Denis Twitchett, John King Fairbank, and Albert Feuerwerker. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521243335.
- Wylie, Turrell V. "The First Mongol Conquest of Tibet Reinterpreted", Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies (Volume 37, Number 1, June 1977): 103–133.
- Wylie, Turrell V. (2003). "Lama Tribute in the Ming Dynasty", in The History of Tibet: Volume 2, The Medieval Period: c. AD 850–1895, the Development of Buddhist Paramountcy, 467–472, ed. Alex McKay. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415308429.
- Yiu, Yung-chin. (1998). "Two Focuses of the Tibet Issue", in Through Dissident Chinese Eyes: Essays on Self-determinaton, 121–123, edited by Cao Changqing and James D. Seymour. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. ISBN 1563249227.