¡@Jambhala: an imperial envoy to Tibet during the late Yuan
Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp
The Journal of the American Oriental Society Vol.113 No.4 Oct-Dec 1993 pp.538
COPYRIGHT @ American Oriental Society 1993
Two PASSAGES IN THE TWO available versions of Tshalpa Kun-dga' rdo-rje's Deb ther/gter dmar po or Hu lan debter, namely, a chronology of China's dynastic successions from the Zhou to the Tang dynasties and from the Tang to the Yuan dynasties,(2) that were adapted by later Tibetan historians, are owed to a report (or reports) transmitted to him by a certain [']Dzam-bha-la (*Jambhala), to whose name is affixed the following phrase:(3) 1. sto-shri-mgon [TSHAL 17]. 2. sti-shri-mgon [TSHAL 25]. 3. stwo-shri-mgon [TSHAL1 8b]. 4. sogs-shri-mgon [TSHAL1 12b].(4) G. Roerich interpreted the first two elements of this phrase in Tshal-pa's work to mean "Imperial Preceptor" (dishi); and he was followed in this by several other scholars.(5) However, none of them addressed the problem that logically follows from this interpretation, namely that of the meaning and/or function of mgon. In addition, they also did not comment on the then quite impossible and unprecedented situation of having a title within a personal name, if indeed they would be inclined to take the ignored mgon as part of his name. D. Seyfort Ruegg also referred to G. Roerich's observation, but he retained the reading tu-shri, and was disinclined to equate it explicitly with dishi;(6) his omission of the last element mgon in his translation-cumparaphrase is no doubt an oversight. The phrase in all its orthographic variability is left standing as it is in the Japanese translation of Tshal-pa's text by S. Inaba and H. Sato.(7) The recent Chinese translation of a version of Tshal-pa's work by Chen Qingying and Zhou Runnian transcribes it by, respectively, duoshiligun [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] deshiligun [UKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], whereas Tang Chi'an's translation of Yar-lung Jo-bo Sakya-rin-chen's chronicle of 1376 renders it by the problematic guoshi huzhu [UNKNOWN TEST OMITTED].(8) In their translations of, respectively, Dpal'byor bzang-po's text and `Gos Lo-tsa-ba's work, Chen Qingying and Guo Heqing merely transcribe it into Chinese without further comment.(9) From this we may conclude that they did not identify this phrase and, more importantly, that they at least did not understand it as reflecting dishi. We may also note here that none of the available listings of imperial preceptors, whether in Tibetan or Chinese sources, mention a *Jambhala as a dishi.(10) Most recently, L. Petech suggested that tvansri-mgon (sic!) of Bu-ston's biography - the text actually has tu-shri-mgon-reflects Chinese tuan-shih kuan (i.e., Pinyin Tuanshi guan) [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] "judge, magistrate, legal officer," the equivalent of Mongol jar[gamma]uji.(11) Another version of this expression is found in one of the biographies of Sa-skya Pandita (1182-1251), where it is written as rdo-shri-mgon. As far as I am aware, it is first met with in the versified biography of 1579 by the Rin-spungs-pa prince Ngag-dbang 'jig-rten dbang-phyug 1542-?1625).(12) There we learn that the rdo-shi-mgon was one of the two envoys who were allegedly sent by prince Goden in 1244 to invite Sa-skya Pandita to his court in Liangzhou; the other one is referred to as dzi-ba-kha. We also encounter the former, this time as rdor-sri-mgon, in the letter of invitation which the Mongol prince purportedly addressed to Saskya Pandita, that is quoted in full for the first time in A-mes-zhabs Ngag-dbang kun-dga' bsod-nams' (1597-1659) biography of the Sa-skya-pa hierarch, which is contained in his well-known history of the leading families of Sa-skya of 1629.(13) Of interest is that here the name of his companion is given as the official (dpon) Jo-dar-ma. The period during which the Mongols in China exercised a measure of political control over the Tibetan cultural area, that is, from 1240 to 1368, allowed for an influx of a substantial number of Mongol, Uyghur and Chinese loanwords into the lexicon of classical written Tibetan. (14) As is to be expected, most of these are of an administrative and institutional nature, and the vast majority are of Chinese rather than of Mongol/Uyghur origin; as far as I am aware, written Tibetan did not incorporate any Tangut loan words. It is for this reason that, at least in theory, sto-shri-mgon or its variants can derive from either a Chinese or a Mongol/Uyghur original. Orthographically speaking, the ligature st, where the s is a superscript, is now phonologically realized as /t/ in most Tibetan dialects. On the evidence of variants tu and to, we can surmise that this may have already been the case in the first half of the fourteenth century, if not earlier.(15) Similarly, the ligature mg with m as a prescript of radical g, is now realized as /g/. In the present instance, the orthographic stability of mgon is simply indicative of phonological and, above all, semantic unambiguity; it means "protector." However, the phonology of the first element of the expression was apparently so foreign to the Tibetan ear that no semantic sense could be made of it, and the result was an orthographic free-for-all. The second element shri is attested in the witnesses of Tshal-pa's work, not merely as a phonological approximation of Chinese shi as in dishi, guoshi, etc., also shri, but also of shi [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] as in da[i]shi, "Grand-Master,"16 and shi [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] as in yuanshi, "President."(17) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, and recognizing that, in the Tibetan and Mongol literature of the period, titles usually appear after the proper names of individuals, it is clear that this expression very probably represents a title. Tshal-pa's first mention of *Jambhala occurs in the following sentence:(18) ... [the afore]said was observed by *Jambhala stoshri-mgon on the basis of an Old Chinese chronicle (deb-gter)[.] Recorded in writing in the temple of Lhasa. Yar-lung Jo-bo inserts, between mthong-ba and lhasa'i, the phrase "by Si-tu Dge-ba'i blo-gros [= Tshal-pa's alternate name!, the most supreme of those who speak of the way (tshul) [in which] Sino-tibetan [relations were maintained!" (rgya-bod-kyi-tshul smra-ba-rnamskyi nang-nas mchog-tu gyur-pa si-tu dge-ba'i-blo-groskyis), which explicitly provides a subject for the finite perfective "recorded in writing" (yi-ger bris-pa yinno //). It is transparent that mthong-ba is equally to be taken as a finite verb, so that I believe we have to countenance the hiatus implied by variant f which reads a semi-final marker / despite the absence of a final particle in *o. The "[afore]said" (zhes[-pa]) concerns a brief chronology of the Chinese emperors, from the Zhou (ce'u) to the Tang dynasties, with particular mention of the famous pilgrim and translator Xuanzang 596-664) and the fortunes of the famous Jo-bo statue of Sakyamuni at the age of eleven that was brought to Tibet by princess Wencheng. Just prior to the passage quoted above, Tshal-pa closes his account with the statement:(19) When Sri'i-glen Kong-jo [Ch. Shuilian Gongzhu [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED!,= Wencheng], in Tibetan [she is] called Mtsho'inang-du-padmo [In-lake Lotus], the daughter of Thang Tha'i-dzung [Ch. Tang Taizong], had come to Tibet, the Jo-bo Sakya [statue] arrived in Tibet. From that time up to the present seven hundred years have elapsed. This passage is absent from Yar-lung Jo-bo's text. The Chinese sources are quite explicit about the fact that princess Wencheng - she was not the daughter of Taizong himself - arrived in Tibet in 641, so that the implied date of this particular passage would be 1341.(20) This means *Jambhala may have related this account to Tshal-pa in that year.(21) Alternatively, it is of course also possible that *Jambhala was transmitting a text which itself was either dated to the year 1341, or which he himself had dated to that year, for there is no absolute guarantee that this particular dating corresponds to the year in which he had provided Tshal-pa with the text, or even that it is not a gloss by the latter to identify the year in which he received this information. The second entry of *Jambhala's name is preceded by a laconic account of the violent death of the deposed Zhaoxian emperor of the southern Song who, having been exiled by Qubilai to the Tibetan cultural area, had at some time become a monk in Sa-skya monastery.(22) Many years hence, in 1323, he was executed at the order of emperor Gegan [Yingzong emperor, r. 19 April 1320-4 September 1323!. Tshal-pa's text reads:(23) During the thirteenth year of ci-dben (Ch. zhiyuan, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] [in 1276] from [the time] Se-chen rgyal-po [Qubilai] dwelled at the capital, when three years had passed since the Sman-rtse emperor G.yi'u-ju (Ch. Youzhu) stayed in the capital [of Hangzhou], minister ('ching/ching-sang, Ch. chengxiang) Bayan conquered the Song empire and the emperor was dispatched to Sa-skya [monastery in exile]. Then, because [he] was subsequently murdered during [the reign] of emperor Gegan, [his] blood became milk [due to his innocence]. The empire of the Mongols is called ta'i-dben (Ch. Da Yuan). The [afore]-said statement (smras) by `Dzambha-la sto-shri mgon was recorded [by me Tshal-pa]. The first thing we notice about this passage is the way in which the date for the first event is given, which allows for the assumption that Tshal-pa's source for this information was ultimately of Chinese provenance. Tshal-pa's Tibetan rather neatly distinguishes between the social positions of the two protagonists, Qubilai and the Zhaoxian emperor, by deploying the honorific "dwelled" (bzhugs) for the former and non-honorific "stayed" (bsdad) for the latter. The conquest of the Southern Song was formally concluded by 14 June 1276,(24) or very shortly thereafter, in Shangdu, Qubilai's summer residence. The terminus ante quo of this passage, which coincides with Zhaoxian's execution, indicates that an encounter between *Jambhala and Tshal-pa might have taken place around the years 1324 or 1325, when the latter had journeyed to the imperial court.(25) There is a curious passage towards the end of Tshalpa's chronicle, but prior to the "appendix" that is taken up by the reproduction of an edict of 1309 proclaimed by emperor Kulug [Wuzong emperor, r. 21 June 1307-27 January 1311!, which, too, must be based on a Chinese source, although its provenance is not made clear.(26) It iS concerned with an explanation of several dynastic titles beginning with that of the Tang and ending with that of Da Yuan. The origin of the latter title is identified as having been taken from a work entitled Ji-bu-yi/si, which can only be a reference to the Zhou Yi or Yi Jing, the Book of Changes.(27) The textual position of this passage is rather odd, since it properly belongs at the end of its discussion of the imperial succession of China, or at least at some point in its survey of the Mongol empire. Missing altogether in Yarlung Jo-bo's text, it reappears in Dpal-'byor bzang-po's work, where it is found in the chapter on the Mongol imperial succession, and where, significantly, it is tied to the Da Yuan tongzhi [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], a set of legal documents that was compiled in 1315 and issued in 1323.(28) Tshal-pa's and Yar-lung Jo-bo's accounts of the imperial succession in China are explicitly said to have been derived from information provided by *Jambhala, and both terminate with the mention of Qubilai's conquest of the Southern Song. Tshal-pa's text is quite different from Dpal-'byor bzang-po's work, however. The latter does not mention the Song dynasty or, for that matter, the Southern Song in the context of China - this is done elsewhere, namely in the survey of the Mongol empire - and instead speaks of Cinggis Qan's conquests. It is at this point that the text adds a very significant detail in that it explicitly connects *Jambhala to the Da Yuan tongzhi.(29) This might indicate that this work may very well have been one of *Jambhala's principal sources for his transmission of these details of Chinese history to the Tibetans. The Da Yuan tongzhi is known to have existed in two versions, one in Chinese and one in Mongol.(30) The latter version was already in existence in 1323. Dpal'byor bzang-po appears to have had direct access to one or the other version of this work, inasmuch as he makes this remarkable statement:(31) The original [version] of this book [the Da Yuan tongzhi! existed in the legal department (khrims-ra) of the Central Secretariat cong-zhu-shing, Ch. zhongshusheng). A copy (ngo-shus) of it was given to Grand-Govenor Dbang-phyug brtson-'grus himself by the minister (chengxiang) Sbeg-so-kha [= Beg Boqal.(32) The Da Yuan tongzhi, originally in Uyghur script yugur-gyi yi-ge ngo-bo), existed together with [a version] in the [?] 'Phags-pa script (hor-yig-ma). Although [the copy] was carried off by Yar-lung-pa,(33) [I] have written about [this] topic (skabs-don), since these items [of the text] are [still] in [my] mind. We do not know in what language the Da Yuan tongzhi was transmitted to Tibet, but on the basis of the above it may very well have been the Mongol version, since Dbang-phyug brtson-'grus, like many other highranking Tibetan officials, was, at a minimum, acquainted with that language as well as with Chinese. Further supporting evidence for bilingualism of the Tibetan ruling class during Tibet's "Mongol period" occurs in the political biography-cum-apology of his great rival and, after a protracted struggle, his vanquisher, Ta'i-si-tu Byang-chub rgyal-mtshan (1302-64).(34) In an entry dated probably sometime in 1356, we read that the Grand-Governor was able to address Commander-in-Chief (du-dben-sha, Ch. duyuanshuai) Gzhon[-nu] rgyal[-mtshan] in Mongol, and the implication of the passage is that Ta'i-si-tu was well aware of what was being said. Elsewhere, in an entry dated slightly after the New Year of 1348,(35) Ta'i-si-tu writes that a chap called `Bum-pa Rag-sha, who may have been a Tibetan, related to him the comments made by some Mongols who saw that the local people of 'On[-pa] prostrated themselves before him, circumambulated him, and wept for joy upon seeing him. The Mongols were quite surprised at this - Ta'i-si-tu's reputation had been smeared, especially, by Dbang-phyug brtson-'grus - and remarked among themselves "in Mongol" (hor-skad-du):(36) Grand-Governor Dbang[-phyug] brtson[-'grus] alleges that he [Ta'i-si-tu] is an evil person[, but] this does not appear to be the case. Tears come from [their] eyes by the mere [sight of] this man. This is an act which is hard [to follow]. In the passage already referred to, G. Roerich draws attention to a remark in Bu-ston's biography to the effect that an imperial mission headed by Bha-de ching-dben(37) and *Jambhala arrived at his see of Zhwa-lu monastery on the fifteenth day of the ninth lunar month, 22 October, of 1344, to present him with an invitation from emperor To[gamma]on Temur [Shundi emperor, r. 19 July 1333-10 September 1368! to come to the capital. We do not have the official "letter of invitation." Well known to the court - at least one of his writings was most likely translated into Chinese during To[gamma]on Temur's reign(38) - Bu-ston was visited by *Prajna, a Mongol prince, sometime in 1353.39 He was probably urged to come to the court on yet another occasion, for we have a written imperial reaction to his disinclination to do so, a decree of sorts that must be dated to the year 1355.40 These missions in connection with Bu-ston are, as far as I have been able to determine, nowhere mentioned in Chinese sources. But this is in itself hardly surprising, inasmuch as it is unlikely that a simple invitation would have merited a special entry in, for instance, the Yuanshi, and there is no evidence that these invitations had a purpose other than a purely religious one. Another imperial envoy, who also does not seem to be registered in Chinese sources, was one called Klurgyal and he arrived in Tibet sometime during the year 1357, in order to present an invitation/order to Blachen Bsod-nams blo-gros (1332-62), the abbot of Saskya monastery's Dus-mchod Residence, to come to the capital; he was subsequently installed as a dishi. L. Petech interprets the title affixed to his name - he writes here ta sri mgon - as reflecting Chinese ta-shih kuan [unknown] which he glosses by commenting that "the rather vague Chinese title means Office (kuan) of a High Commissioner (ta-shi)."(41) However, the reading of the text he cites is tu-shri-mgon, which has a number of variant readings, none of which commence with ta.(42) In other words, we have here precisely the same title that was predicated of *Jambhala.
Given the above, it is possible to identify this title? We have seen that in every case the individuals thus styled were envoys, who were sent by the Mongol court to transmit an invitation to leading Tibetan scholar-saints. Given the nature of their missions and the fact that Tibetan prelates often played important roles in which religious and political concerns were inextricably intertwined, they must have held a rank high enough to be commensurate with their task. Indeed, with Sa-skya Pandita and Bsod-nams blo-gros, the invitation by, respectively, prince Goden and emperor To[gamma]on Temur, had definite political dimensions, although of course in the case of the former, these were much more modest than what is usually alleged in the Tibetan and non-Tibetan secondary literature. Moreover, at least for Bsod-nams blo-gros, but probably also for Sa-skya Pandita and other ranking Tibetan men of the cloth, these invitations involved certain legal issues, for they must have been accompanied by official proclamations, which formalized the new relationship into which the prelate and the court had entered, in addition to which his representative at his see also had to be formally appointed prior to his departure. It is for these reasons that I should like to propose that the expression in all its orthographic variability goes back to Chinese tuanshi guan, which itself reflects Mongol jar[gamma]uci. A possible reflex of tuan, and that is all it really is, may be found in the variants twan-shri-mgon and stong-shri-mgon that are preserved in the texts of Dpal-'byor bzang-po and, if this be not merely a typographical error, in a version of Dpa'-bo's chronicle;43 Tibetan tu, to, etc., may go back to a northwestern Chinese pronunciation of tuan. Another, perhaps less likely, possibility is that it echoes dushi guan [unknown] which, however, does not seem to occur in extant Yuan sources. However, it is attested in the Ming shilu, and probably in other Ming sources as well.(44) To[gamma]on Temur was to all appearances well served by dishi Kun-dga' rgyal-mtshan (1310-58), so that we can hardly consider Bu-ston's invitation to have been an attempt on the part of the court to undo the dishi in one way or another. We may speculate that an additional reason why *Jambhala had come to Tibet had to do with the enormous political upheavals (some would say rebellions) that were taking place during this time in Central Tibet as well as in Mnga'-ris, troubles that must have required imperial arbiters and legal officers of sorts. It is nonetheless curious that Ta'i-si-tu does not mention him at all, but then his autobiography swiftly passes over the 1330s and early 1340s. We have seen that the earliest attested date during which *Jambhala acted as Tshal-pa's informant may have been in the year 1341, so that we cannot fully agree with the categorical statement of L. Petech, who writes that *Jambhala had supplied Tshal-pa with information on Chinese history when he had come to Tibet in 1344.45 In other words, we may have to assume that *Jambhala could have been dispatched to Central Tibet on two occasions, or that Tshal-pa was in China proper in 1341. To be sure, textual evidence is lacking so far for either assumption. BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS Chen Qingying. Han Zang shiji. Lhasa: Xizang Renmin Chubanshe, 1986. Translation Of RGYA. Chen Qingying and Zhou Runnian. Hongshi. Lhasa: Xizang Renmin Chubanshe, 1988. Translation Of TSHAL. DPA' Dpa'-bo Gtsug-lag phreng-ba. Chos 'byung mkhas pa'i dga' ston, ed. Rdo-rje rgyal-po. 2 vols. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe, 1986. DPA'(P) Dpa'-bo Gtsug-lag phreng-ba. Chos 'byung mkhas pa'i dga' ston. 2 vols. New Delhi, 1980. Inaba, Sh. and Sato, H. Huran deputeru (Hu-lan deb-ther) - chibetto nendaiki. Kyoto, 1964. Translation of an edited version Of TSHAL 1. Macdonald, A. "Preambule h la lecture d'un Rgya bod yig tshang." Journal Asiatique CCLI (1963): 53-159. Petech, L. Central Tibet and the Mongols. The Yuan-Sa-skya Period of Tibetan History. Serie Orientale Roma LXV. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1990. RGYA Stag-tshang-pa Dpal-'byor bzang-po. Rgya bod yig tshang chen mo. Ed. Dung-dkar Blo-bzang 'phrin-las. Chengdu: Si-khron mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1985. RGYA(R) Ibid. Rgya bod kyi yig tshang mkhas pa dga' byed chen mo'i dkar chab gdog(!). J. F. Rock manuscript. East Asia Library, University of Washington. RGYA(T) Ibid. Rgya bod yig tshang mkhas pa dga' byed. 2 vols. Thimphu, 1979. Schuh, D. Erlasse und Sendschreiben mongolischer Herrscher fur tibetische Geistliche. Skt. Augustin: Wissenschaftsverlag, 1977. Ruegg, D. S. The Life of Bu ston rin po che. Serie Orientale Roma XXXIV. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1966. si Si-tu Pan-chen Chos-kyi 'byung-gnas. Bsgrub [b]rgyud karma kam tshang brgyud pa rin po che'i rnam par thar pa rab 'byams nor bu zla ba chu shel gyi phreng ba. Vol. 1, New Delhi, 1972. TAI Ta'i-si-tu Byang-chub rgyal-mtshan. Bka' chems mthong ba don Idan. Rlangs kyi po ti bse ru. Ed. Chab-spel Tshebrtan phun-tshogs. Lhasa: Bodljongs mi-rigs dpe-skrunkhang, 1987. Pp. 103-373. TAI1 Ibid. Lha rigs rlangs kyi rnam thar. New Delhi, 1974. Pp.212-836. TAI2 lbid. Ta si tu Byang chub rgyal mtshan gyi bka' chems. Lhasa: Bod-ljongs mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1989. Pp. 1-282. TAIch Zanla Awang and Yu Wanshi. Lang shijiazu shi. Ed. Chen Qingying. Lhasa: Xizang Renmin Chubanshe, 1989. Translation Of TAI. Tang Chi'an. Yalong zunzhe jiaofa shi. Lhasa: Xizang Renmin Chubanshe, 1989. Translation Of YAR. TSHAL Tshal-pa Kun-dga' rdo-rje. Deb ther dmar po. Ed. and comm. Dung-dkar Blo-bzang 'phrin-las. Pre-cin: Mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1981. TSHAL1 Ibid. Gangtok, 1961. Wang Yao. "Nan Song xiaodi zhaoxian yishi kaobian." Xizang yanjiu 1 (1981): 65-76. YAR Yar-lung Jo-bo Sakya-rin-chen. Yar lung chos 'byung. Ed. Dbyangs - can. Chengdu: Si-khron mi-rigs dpeskrun-khang, 1988. YAR1 Ibid. Ed. Ngag-dbang. Lhasa: Bod-1jongs mi-rigs dpeskrun-khang, 1988. (1) A preliminary version of this paper was read on 27 April 1991 at the Central Asia in Berkeley conference, University of California, Berkeley. The Tibetan transliteration of the secondary literature used in this paper has been standardized throughout. The bibliography itemizes only those sources that are quoted more than once. (2) See TSHAL 12-17, 24-25 [TSHAL1 6b-8b, 12a-12b, Inaba-Sato 1964: 47-51, 59-60: Chen-Zhou 1988: 11-15, 21-22!. These passages are reproduced in most of the subsequent Tibetan historiographical literature. (3) A possibly, but not necessarily, independent textual witness of this expression is found in Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub's (1290-1364) two-part bibliography of 1355 to 1366 by his disciple Sgra-tshad-pa Rin-chen rnam-rgyal (1318-88). There, in Ruegg (1966: 122, 23a), we read namely tu-shri-mgon, a variant which, as we shall see below, is also attested elsewhere. (4) Another variant of this phrase is twan-shri-mgon, which we find Stag-tshang-pa Dpal-'byor bzang-po's Rgya bod yig tshang mkhas pa dga' byed compilation of 1434-50 - see below note 16 - in RGYA 116 [RGYA(R) 70a, RGYA (T)1 164, Chen 1986: 73!. (5) G. Roerich tr., The Blue Annals (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1976), vii, 56 ad 'Gos Lo-tsa-ba Gzhon-nu-dpal's (1392-1481) Blue Annals of 1476 to 1478, the Deb gter sngon po (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1976), 52, and then Macdonald (1963: 128, note 109) and also, it seems, in P. K. S[phi]rensen, A Fourteenth Century Tibetan Historical Work, Rgyl-rabs gsal-ba'i me-long: Author, Date and Sources, A Case Study (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1986), 235ff. (6) Ruegg (1966: 122, note 1). (7) Inaba-sato (1964: 51, 60, 75). (8) Chen-Zhou (1988: 15, 22) and Tang (1989: 20, 25) ad YAR 26, 34 [YAR1 28, 36]. Tang Chi'an's guoshi huzhu is meaningful - guoshi means "national preceptor" and huzhu "protector" (mgon-po) - but misleading. (9) See their different transcriptions in, respectively, Chen (1986: 66, 73) and the Qingshi (Lhasa: Xizang Renmin Chubanshe, 1985), 36, ad Deb ther sngon po, Stod-smad [vol. 1], ed. Dung-dkar Blo-bzang 'phrin-las (Chengdu: Si-khron mirigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1985), 81. S. Bira, "Some Remarks on the Hu-lan deb-ther of Kun-dga' rdo-rje," Acta Orientalia Hungarica XVII (1964): 72, also does not equate the first two syllables of this phrase with dishi. (10) See Tucci (1949: 15, 252-53), Zhaqi Siqin [= Secen Jagcid], Menggu yu Xizang lishi guanxi zhi yanjiu (Taibei: Zhengzhong Shuju Yinhang, 1978), 93-94, and Wang Furen - Chen Qingying, Meng Zang minzu guanxi shilue (Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe, 1985), 35-38, for essentially the Chinese dossier, and TSHAL 48-52 [TSHAL1 22a-4b, Inaba-Sato 1964: 119-26, Chen-Zhou 1988: 43-47] and YAR 168 [YAR] 161, Tang 1989: 95! for the earliest Tibetan listings. (11) See Petech (1990: 101-2). (12) See his Sa skya pandita kun dga' rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po'i rnam par thar pa bskal pa bzang po'i legs lam, The Slobbshad Tradition of the Sa-skya Lam-'bras, vol. I (Dehradun: Skya Centre, 1983), 240. (13) See his Sa skya'i gdung rabs ngo mtshar bang mdzod [Sde-dge print] (New Delhi: Bonpo Monastic Centre, 1975), 134 [= ed. Rdo-rje rgyal-po (Pe-cin: Mi-rigs dpeskrun-khang, 1986, 118)!. The translation in Chen Qingying, Gao Hefu, and Zhou Runnian, Sajia shixi shi (Lhasa: Xizang Renmin Chubanshe, 1989), 81, transcribes the phrase by duo'er si gun [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]. For an analysis of this letter of invitation, see Schuh (1977: 31-41), where he shows, by way of a microphilological analysis of the various witnesses of the text, that there is ample reason to doubt the integrity of this letter. As has been indicated severally by D. P. Jackson, A-mes-zhabs' Saskya Pandita biography is by-and-large based on the earlier one by Glo-bo Mkhan-chen Bsod-nams lhun-grub (1456-1532), which functions as a kind of preface to his commentary on Sa-skya Pandita's Mkhas pa rnams 'jug pa'i sgo. A-meszhabs inserts the letter from Goden within the line in Glo-bo Mkhan-chen's Mkhas pa rnams jug pa'i sgo'i rnam par bshad pa rig gnas gsal byed (New Delhi, 1979), 61: .. pho nya .. bsngags te / [here A-mes-zhabs inserts the letter] sku nas sgres na yang.. The dossier on Sa-skya Pandita's relations with the Mongols has also been severely reduced by D. P. Jackson's recent demonstration that another well-known letter, this time allegedly addressed by Sa-skya Pandita to his fellow Tibetans and, again, allegedly sent from Goden's court, is most likely spurious as well; see his "Sa-skya Pandita's Letter to the Tibetans: A Late and Dubious Addition to His Collected Works," The Journal of the Tibet Society 6 (1986): 17-23. Another tradition of Sa-skya Pandita's invitation is related by an anonymous series of notes of an oral account (gsung-sgros) of his biography. There we read that, in accordance with an earlier prophecy by his uncle Rje-btsun Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan (1147-1216), it was the official/military commander (dponpo) Dor-ta, who proclaimed Goden's order (lung bsgrags), that is, "invitation," to him. See the Chos rje pandi ta chen po'i rnam thar gsung sgros ma, Ngor-chen kun-dga' bzang-po'i bka' `bum, in Sa skya pa'i bka' `bum, ed., Bsod-nams rgyamtsho (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968), 33/4/3-4. For some reason, this work was included in the collected writings of Ngor-chen Kun-dga' bzang-po (1382-1456), although the colophon says nothing about its authorship, and although it does mention that it is based on the writings of Blo-gros rgyalmtshan dpal-bzang-po (= [?]'Phags-pa 1235-1280), Dmar-ston Chos-kyi rgyal-po, Mkhas-pa Rgyal-ba-dpal, Bi-ji Rin-chengrags, [Sga A-gnyan] Dam-pa Kun-dga'-grags (1240-1304), Bar-ston Rdo-rje rgyal-mtshan and, indirectly, Rin-chen-dpal. Absent from this bibliographic remark is the "middle" biography-in-verse of Sa-skya Pandita attributed to another one of his disciples, Yar-klungs-pa Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan. The latter appears to be the oldest work in which Dor-ta is noted as Goden's envoy to Sa-skya Pandita; see the Chos kyi rje sa skya pandi ta kun dga' rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po'i rnam par thar pa 'bring po, The Slob-bshad Tradition of the Sa-skya Lam'bras, vol. 1 (Dehradun: Sakya Centre, 1983), 68-69. Most Tibetan sources identify Dor-ta (or: Do-rta, Do-rta nag-po, etc.) as the military commander who headed the Mongol invasion of Central Tibet in 1240. (14) For a study of one of these, namely ba[gamma]si, which may, however, already be attested prior to Tibet's "Mongol period" and which has a long and checkered history in Tibet, albeit in various orthographic guises, see my "`Ba[gamma]si' and Ba[gamma]si-s in Tibetan Historical, Biographical and Lexicographical Literature," which is under preparation. A recent survey of some Mongol loanwords in Lhasa Tibetan is T. J. Norbu and T. Takeuchi, "Mongolian Loanwords in Tibetan and Their Socio-cultural Implications," in Tibetan History and Language: Studies Dedicated to Uray Geza on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. E. Steinkellner (Vienna: Arbeitskreis fur Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien, 1991), 383-86. (15) Of course, we have to take into consideration the considerable editorial distance between the first manuscripts of our sources and their witnesses that are available to us at the present time. So far no autographs have been published if, indeed, they have managed to survive. I am unable to explain the other variant of sogs. (16) TSHAL 102 [Chen-zhou 1988: 89] where reference is made to El Temur thai-shri (Ch. taishi [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]); the title is also written mtha'i-shri and tha'i-hri in TSHAL 107 [Chen-zhou 1988: 94!. Macdonald (1963: 88, 136, note 155) draws attention to an interpolated passage in RGYA 116 [RGYA(R) 70b, RGYA(T)L 165! where we read that "on the sixteenth day of the eighth month of the iron-male-horse year [1450, the Yingzong emperor] was taken prisoner by the Mongol minister A-san Thang-shri [= Esen Taishi] (lcags pho rta lo zla ba brgyad pa'i tshes bcu drug la / hor gyi blon po a san /["/" must be omitted! thang shris btson la khyer /)." However, there can be no equivalence between thang-shri and *Jambhala's title, as she avers, and it does not reflect dishi. Chen (1986: 73) correctly has it that thang-shri reflects Chinese taishi. For this title, see H. Serruys, "The Office of Tayisi in Mongolia in the Fifteenth Century," Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 37 (1977): 353-80, especially pp. 361ff. (17) See, for instance, TSHAL 110 [Chen-zhou 1988: 96], where reference is made to Nam-mkha'-dpal dbon-shri (Ch. yuanshi), and TSHAL 118, 120 [Chen-zhou 1988: 103, 1051 ad Tho-gon (= To[gamma]on) dben-shri (Ch. yuanshi). Both men were presumably associated with the Xuanzheng Yuan, the "Commission for Tibetan and Buddhist Affairs." (18) TSHAL 17 [TSHAL1 8b, Inaba-Sato 1964; 51, Chen-zhou 1988: 151; see A)SO YAR 26 [YAR1 28, Tang 1989: 20] and RGYA 106 [RGYA(R) 64a, RGYA(T)1 150, Chen 1986: 73]: ... zhes(a) rgya'i deb ther(b) rnying(c) pa las(d) 'dzam(e) bha la sto shri mgon gyis mthong ba(f) lha sa'i gtsug lag khang du yi ger bris pa yin no // a. YAR, YAR1 add pa. b. TSHAL1 gter. c. RGYA, RGYA(T) rnyed. d. TSHAL1, RGYA add /. e. RGYA, RGYA(T) dzam. f. YAR, YAR1 add /; RGYA, RGYA(T) pa (19) The text reads: thang tha'i dzung gi sras mo sru'i(a) glen kong jo /(b) bod skad du mtsho'i nang gi padmo zhes pa de bod du yong(c) ba'i dus su / jo bo shakya bod du byon /(d) dus de nas da Ita'i bar la(e) lo bdun brgya 'gro ... a. TSHAL1 su'i. b. TSHAL1 adds c. TSHAL1, RGYA, RGYA(T) 'ong. d. RGYA, RGYA(T) jo bo shakya mu ne byon pa yin /. e. RGYA, RGYA(T) de nas da Ita me pho khyi lo'di'i bar la. (20) On the use of 'gro in chronological determinations, see Z. Yamaguchi, "Methods of Chronological Calculation in Tibetan Historical Sources," in Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, vol. 2, ed. L. Ligeti (Budapest: Akademia Kiado, 1984), 416-17. Yamaguchi also argues, on pp. 409-10, 419, that the princess arrived in Tibet in 640. Most scholars do not concur with this. For instance, Chr. Beckwith, The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), 24, following the Jiu Tangshu 3:52, dates her departure for Tibet to 2 March 641. (21) As is shown by the variant readings, Dpal-'byor bzangpo departs from Tshal-pa's text in some details and interpolates(?) - see variant e - "the fire-male-dog year," that is, 1346, intending therefore that the statue arrived in Tibet in 646. He, or his source, therefore appears to have confused the year in which this portion of Tshal-pa's text was compiled with the year during which he received this information from *Jambhala. Tshal-pa's text resurfaces unimpaired in the corresponding passage of Dpa'-bo Gtsug-lag phreng-ba's (1504-66) chronicle: see DPA'(P)2 576 [DPA' 1400]. Sections of Tshal-pa's work were undoubtedly compiled in the year 1346, but, aside from one much later interpolation, other sections, notably those of the text Of TSHAL, date from the early 1360s. In other words, the text of the Deb ther dmar po throws up some interesting text-historical questions, which cannot be dealt with here. (22) What seems to be the earliest report on these events, is Nian Chang's (1283-?), Fozu lidai tongzai, in Taisho Issaikyo (Tokyo, 1924-29), vol. 49, no. 2036, 734b2o-2l: On the fourth month of this year [1323, the imperial court] ordered the death of Hezun ([UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] = Tib. lhabtsun), the Duke of Ying, in Hexi ([UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]). For further details, see Wang (1981), of which a Tibetan version was published as "Nan-sung rgyal-rabs-kyi rgyal-po hra'o-di ch'u-zhan-gyi byas-rjes skor rtog-zhib dang gsal-byed-pa," Bod ljongs zhib jug 2 (1982): 31-56. English versions of this paper are found in "Fragments from Historical Records About the Life of Emperor Gongdi of the Song Dynasty," in Contributions on Tibetan Language, History and Culture, vol. 1, ed. E. Steinkellner and H. Tauscher (Vienna: Arbeitskreis fur Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien, 1983), 431-47, and in Tibet Studies: Journal of the Tibetan Academy of Social Sciences 1 (1989): 24-38. For a critical reaction to Wang's paper, see Zhen Yijun, "Nan song xiaodi zhaoxian shi," in Xizang Yanjiu 4 (1984): 51. Wang (1981: 69) quotes an interlinear note in Pan-chen Bsod-nams grags-pa's (1478-1554) Deb ther dmar po gsar ma (Lhasa: Bod-ljongs mirigs dpeskrun-khang, 1982), 49, where he translates the gloss - he reads it as 'dis sa skyar spyi 'dzin mdzad (the text, however, has spyil, and not spyi-, which is probably not the Pan-chen's) - by [he] "became the chief of Sa-skya monastery." The same gloss is also found in the manuscript published in G. Tucci, Deb-ther dmar-po gsar-ma, Tibetan Chronicles by Bsod-nams grags-pa, Serie Orientale Roma XXIV (Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1971), 44a, who does not render it in his translation on p. 177. The topotactic -r of sa-skyar and spyil 'dzin mdzad are not fully accommodated in this translation. I take spyil to be but an abbreviation for "a thatched [or grass] hut used by a hermit" (spyil-po or spyil-bu; Sanskrit *trnakuti), so that the phrase rather translates as: "[he] took up [residence in a! thatched hut in Sa-skya." The rendition of this line in Huang Hao's translation in Xin Hongshi (Lhasa: Xizang Minzu Chubanshe, 1985), 47, by, "At Sa-kya, this person assumed the position of chief supporter," is therefore also not acceptable (23) TSHAL 25 [TSHAL 1 12b, Inaba-Sato 1964: 59-60, Chen-Zhou 1988: 221; see also YAR 34 [YAR1 35-36, Tang 1989: 25]: se chen rgyal(a) po(a) rgyal sar bzhugs nas(b) ci dben lo bcu gsum pa'i dus su(c) sman rtse'i(d) rgyal po g.yi'u ju(e) rgyal sar sdad(f) nas lo gsum song ba la / ba yan ching(g) sang gis sung(h) gi rgyal khams blangs te/(i) rgyal po sa(j) skyar btang /(k) lha btsun byas / rting la ge gan rgyal po'i dus su bsad pas khrag 'o mar byung ngo / hor gyi rgyal khams ta'i dben zer / zhes pa 'dzam bha la sto shri mgon gyis smras pa bris pa'o// a. YAR, YAR1 Omit. b. TSHAL1, YAR add C. YAR, YAR1 add /. d. TSHAL1 tshe, YAR, YAR1 tse'i. e. YAR, YAR1 g.ye'i-chu. f. TSHAL1, YAR, YAR1 bsdad. g. TSHAL1 'ching. h. TSHAL1 gsung, YAR dpung. i. TSHAL1 Omits. j. TSHAL1 Omits. k. YAR, YAR1 Omit. (24) See F. W. Cleaves, "The Biography of Bayan of the Barin in the Yuan Shih," Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 19 (1956): 257. (25) In TSHAL *1, Dung-dkar Blo-bzang 'phrin-las writes that this took place in 1324. The anonymous Rgyal rabs sogs bod kyi yig tshang gsal ba'i me long, Sngon gyi gtam me tog gi 'phreng ba .. (Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1985), 116, writes "aged seventeen [= sixteen]," that is to say, he went to the Mongol court in 1325. (26) TSHAL 149 [TSHAL1 38b-39a, Inaba-sat6 1964: 194, Chen-Zhou 1988: 128-29!. (27) For a discussion of "Da Yuan," see H. Franke, From Tribal Chieftain to Universal Emperor and God: The Legitimation of the Yuan Dynasty, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte (Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1978), 2:26-29. (28) For these documents, of which only a portion has been recovered, see P. Heng-chao Ch'en, Chinese Legal Tradition under the Mongols (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1979), 25-30, 36-38, and the literature cited there, and recently Han Rulin, ed., Yuanchao shi, vol. I (Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe, 1986), 326-28. Dpal-'byor bzang-po writes at RGYA 269-70 [RGYA(R) 164a, RGYA(T)1 384-85, Chen 1986: 164-65]: de'i don / ji Ita bu yi zer ba yi ge'i nang na yod pas / khen dben zer ba'i yig brus / yangs pa dang / chen po rgyas pa di yin par song na / bden pa / brtan pa'i gdan sa zer ba yin no // rta'i dben mthong ji'i deb ther zer ba'ang / rgyal khams chen por / khrims kyi bya ba phra rags byed tshul rnams / zhib par btab yod pa'i rta'i dben mthong ji / While the reference to the Da Yuan tongzhi at RGYA 116 [RGYA(R) 70a, RGYA(T)I, 164, Chen 1986: 73! already found mention in Macdonald (1963: 88), it was first positively identified as a source used by Dpal-'byor bzang-po in L. Petech, "The Mongol Census in Tibet," in Tibetan Studies in Honour of Hugh Richardson, ed. M. Aris and Aung San Suu Kyi (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1980), 233, ad the occurrence of its title at RGYA 288 [RGYA(R) 175a-b, RGYA(T)L 412, Chen 1986: 178]. (29) RGYA 115-16 [RGYA(R) 70a, RGYA(T)L 164, Chen 1986: 731. (30) N.Ts. Munkuyev, "Two Mongolian Printed Fragments from Khara-khoto," in Mongolian Studies, ed. L. Ligeti (Amsterdam: B. R. Gruner, 1970), 347ff. (31) RGYA 288 [RGYA(R) 175a-b, RGYA(T)L 412, Chen 1986: 178, Petech 1990: 97-981: yi ge di'i ngo bo / cong zhu zhing gi khrims ra na / bca' tshe blangs dug pa / de'i ngo shus / sbeg so kha ching sang gis / dpon chen dbang phyug brtson 'grus bdag la byin nas / yu gur gyi yi ge ngo bo / ta'i dben thong ji'i deb ther / hor yig ma dang lhan du yod pa / yar lung pas khyer 'dug na'ang / don di rnams blo la yod pas skabs don bris pa yin / (32) In cursive Tibetan so and bo look virtually identical. On Beg Boqa, see Petech (1990: 97-98). (33) The interpretation of this passage in Petech (1990: 97-98) needs to be modified on several counts. In the first place, Dpal-'byor bzang-po does not allege that the Da Yuan tongzhi - the title of this work is omitted by L. Petech, but the context demands that he had this in mind when he writes of a "covenant" - was a "covenant between 'Phags-pa and Qubilai which exists in the original in the office (khrims-ra) of the Central Secretariat." This is impossible for chronological reasons, although one cannot a priori discount the possibility that it contained a section (or sections) on the two spheres of influence, secular and spiritual, or on the juridical status of monks and monasteries. In fact, this is explicitly indicated at RGYA 116 [RGYA(R) 70a, RGYA(T)1 164, Chen 1986: 73], where we read that the text had to do with the two "legal systems/two types of governance" (khrims-gnyis, *qoyar ja-sa[gamma]). Earlier, Petech (1990: 90, note 17) put forth the hypothesis that the text's "Yar-lung-pa" refers to "Rdo-rje Yar-lungs-pa" or "Rdo-rje seng-ge Yar-lungs-pa," already a senior official in Central Tibet in circa 1295, who "probably ... brought to Tibet the Da Yuan tongzhi in the original Uighur script together with a copy in the Hor script." Dpal-'byor bzang-po's yar lung pas 'khyer 'dug na'ang can only be interpreted in the sense of although was taken away/carried off by Yar-lung-pa," as was also done by Chen Qingying. This passage may even be autobiographical, so that, on this basis, we should be able to discount the identity of this "Yar-lung-pa" with Rdo-rje seng-ge. If it be not autobiographical, but rather a passage which Dpal-b'yor bzang-po culled from an unidentified source, then we would have to assume that Rdo-rje seng-ge lived a very long life indeed, for the Beg Boqa only became chengxiang in 1328, and was executed in the following year. I should like to propose that this "Yar-lung-pa" may perhaps be identified with Yar-lung Jo-bo, whose chronicle includes a great deal of material on Tibet's Mongol period that is not found in Tshalpa's chronicle, although he, too, does not mention the Da Yuan tongzhi. To be noted is, furthermore, that these portions of Yar-lung Jo-bo's treatise, together with supplementary material, are also met with in Dpal-'byor bzang-po's compilation. (34) Three Tibetan versions are available of this work, of which one, namely TAI, was translated into Chinese, for which, see TAIch; on the three Tibetan versions, see my "On the Life and Political Career of Ta'i-si-tu Byang-chub rgyal-mtshan 1302-?1364)," in Tibetan History and Language: Studies Dedicated to Uray Geza on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. E. Steinkellner (Vienna: Arbeitskreis fur Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien, 1991), 278-79, note 2. On p. 306 of this paper, I interpreted the phrase si tu [ba] bzhugs 'o [b]rgyal as "Ta'i-si-tu is well]" The Chinese translation of the text was not available for consultation at the time I wrote this paper; TAIch 198 interprets this phrase by: situ zhibu, xinku le], "Si-tu stay [where you are, it is too] bothersome for you [to come here]]" This is the correct interpretation, and mine was wrong. The entries for 'o brgyal in the dictionaries are not free from unambiguity. G. N. Roerich, Tibetan-Russian-English Dictionary, issue 8, ed. Y. Parfionovich and V. Dylykova (Moscow: Nauka Publishers, 1986), 206, reads "fatigue," and "to be fatigued" for the verbal form 'o-brgyal-ba. On the other hand, Zhang Yisun, ed., Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo / Zang Han da cidian, vol. 3 (Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe), 2525-26, has two entries for "o- brgyal; dka' las khag po dang thang chad pa, "difficult(y) and tiresome/ing," and lam zhugs kyi mgron po slebs par khams bde zhu ba'i zhe tshig gam thugs rje che zhu ba, "a polite way for asking after [someone's] well-being when traveling, or an expression of thanks." The two meanings are met with in, respectively, the uses of 'o brgyal bar gyur in 'Jigs-meddbangs' biography of Bo-dong Pan-chen Phyogs las rnam rgyal (1375-1451) of 1453 - Bo dong Phyogs las rnam rgyal gyi rnam thar (Chengdu: Si-khron mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1990), 166 [see also, Encyclopedia Tibetica: The Collected Works of Bo-dong Phyogs-las rnam-rgyal, vol. I (New Delhi: The Tibet House, 1981, 230)!-and 'o brgyal che in Gungthang Dkon-mchog bstan-pa'i sgron-me's (1762-1823) biography of Dkon-mchog 'jigs-med dbang-po (1728-91) of 1799, Dus gsum rgyal ba'i spyi gzugs rje btsun dkon mchog 'jigs med dbang po'i zhal snga nars kyi rnam par thar pa rgyal sras rgya mtsho'i jug ngogs, The Collected Works of Dkon-mchog 'jigs-med dbang-po, vol. I (New Delhi, 1971), 135. (35) TAI 267-68 [TAI1 596, TAI2 174, TAIch 184]. (36) TAI 186 [TAI1 403-4, Tai2 89, TAIch 132]; TAI1 omits horskad-du: dpon chen dbang brtson gyis(a)/'di mi ngan pa gcig yin zer ba(c) / de(d) mi bden par 'dug mi' di tsam gyis(e) mig nas mchi(f) ma yong gi'dug pa /(g)'di dka'(h) mo'i bya ba yin zer ba / a. TAI1, TAI2 omit. e. TAI1, Tai2 gyi. b. TAI zhig. f. TAI1 chi. C. TAI, TAI1 Omit. g. TAI1 Omits. d. TAI1, TAI2 omit. h. TAI1 bka'. (37) Ruegg (1966: 122, 23a). Bha-de's title of ching dben (Ch. qian yuan [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] "department secretary," is found in connection with various Yuan government departments, such as the Commission of Tibetan and Buddhist Affairs, the Bureau of Military Affairs, the Bureau for Imperial Household Provisions, and the Imperial Academy for Medicine. Given the nature of the mission, it is likely that Bha-de was affiliated with the first of these. The expression qian yuan seems also attested in one of the biographies of Karma-pa Ill Rang-'byung rdo-rje (1284-1338), namely in the one compiled by Si-tu Pan-chen Chos-kyi 'byung-gnas (1699-1774), who writes, at si 215, that a Ra-dza-ta tshen-dben and Zam-bha'o met the Karma-pa in Amdo as he was en route to the court in the beginning of the year 1332; see also Schuh (1977: 132-33). Further, we learn at TSHAL 102 [Chen-Zhou 1988: 89]-a similar passage is also found at si 217-that a certain Grags-pa brtson-'grus was appointed tshen-dbon/dben of the tha'i-hi-dben. Chen Qingying and Zhou Runnian give can yuan [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]"?", and Taihui Yuan [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] as the Chinese original for the two expressions. As far as I can gather, neither are attested for the Yuan period. It is quite possible that tha'i-hi-dben reflects Taiyi Yuan, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], "Imperial Academy of Medicine," for which see P. Ratchnevsky, Un Code des Yuan, vol. 2 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1972), 47ff. The taiyi yuan had two qian yuans associated with it so that there is a good possibility that tshen-dbon/dben also reflects qian yuan. For the last two Tibetan passages, see now also Chen Qingying, "Gemaba rangjiong duoji liangci jin jing shilue," Zhongguo Zangxue 3 (1988): 89-99. (38) Towards the end of the year 1352, Bu-ston wrote a little work on the proportions of the Mahabodhistupa according to the Vimalaprabha-commentary of the Kalacakratantra, entitled the Byang chub chen po'i mchod rten gyi tshad; see The Collected Works of Bu-ston [and Sgra-tshad-pal [Lhasa print] (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971), 14:551-57, and Ruegg (1966: 135). This work was translated into Chinese as the Da puti tayang chicun fa and is contained in what is likely a Yuan dynasty collection of Tibetan Buddhist esoterica, for which see the Dacheng yaotao miji (Taibei: Ziyou Chubanshe, 1986), 353-57. For this bundle of very interesting texts, see the valuable analysis in Chr. I. Beckwith, "A Hitherto Unnoticed Yuan-Period Collection Attributed to 'Phags-pa," in Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, vol. 1, ed. L. Ligeti (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1984), 9-16, and for Bu-ston's text specifically, p. 15 no. 21, where "[*Bu-ston?]" can now read "[*Bu-ston]", and where the scribe's name "Lingchan nanjiale," certainly reflects "[Sgratshad-pa] Rin-chen rnam-rgyal." (39) On him, see L. Petech, "Imperial Princes of the Yuan Period Connected with Tibet," in Indo-tibetan Studies: Papers in Honour of Professor D. L. Snellgrove, ed. T. Skorupski (Tring, 1990), 296-97. The very brief entry on him in Dpal-b'yor bzang-po's text at RGYA 267 (RGYA(R) 162a, RGYA(T)1 380, Chen 1986: 1621, is probably owed to Yar-lung Jo-bo's note at YAR 86 [TAR1 87, Tang 1989: 54]. He is also mentioned at TSHAL 115 [Chen-Zhou 1988: 100] as Srad-nya (sic]). (40) For the text, translation and a discussion of its date, see Tucci (1949: 672, 752-54, 705-6, note 987). His argumentation for dating this document to the year 1355 is convincing, although it would imply several other imperial invitations after 1344 and prior to 1355, of which there is, however, no record as yet. This document is also reproduced in Krung go'i bod sa gnas kyi lo rgyus yig tshang phyogs bsdus, ed. 'Phrinlas chos-grags (Lhasa: Bod-1jongs mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1986), 250-52, where it is dated to the year 1343. In the Bod kyi lo rgyus yig tshags dang gzhung yig phyogs bsdus dwangs shel me long, ed. Bkra-shis dbang-'dus (Pe-cin: Mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1989), 213-14, it is dated to 1355. This particular document was on exhibit in September of 1991 in the museum of the Cultural Palace for the Minorities, Beijing, where the caption read that it contained an order of To[gamma]on Temur for Bu-ston to remain in Tibet proper! (41) Petech (1990: 124-25, note 156), where he refers to TAI1 646. It is perhaps preferable to read [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] instead of [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]. (42) TAI 289 has to-shri-mgon, whereas TAI2 207 reads dushri-mgon. He is mentioned again in an entry dated slightly prior to the New Year of 1358, where TAI 299 has to-shrimgon, TAI1 670 tu-shri-mgon, and TAI2 207 du-shri-mgon. The third and last time where he is noted is in an entry for sometime in 1359 in a passage at TAI 315-16 with the reading toshri-mgon, and TAI1 707 and TA[2 224 with but shri-mgon. TAIch 198, 205, 216 transcribe this phrase by daoshigun in every instance. (43) For the former, see above note 4; for Dpa'-bo, see DPA' 1400, although it is absent in the blockprint Of DPA'(P)2 576. This is not to say that the Mongol term jar[gamma]uci was unknown in written Tibetan. We meet with it as "jar-go-che of Dbusgtsang" in the biographical note on Rdo-rje mgon-po; see Dpal-ldan chos-kyi bzang-po's Sde pa g.yas ru byang pa'i rgyal rabs rin po che'i bstar ba, Rare Tibetan Historical and Literary Texts from the Library of Tsepon W. D. Shakabpa, series one (New Delhi, 1974), 173. (44) D. M. Farquhar, The Oirats in the Ming Shih-lu 1403-1446, M.A. diss., Univ. of Washington (Seattle, 1955), 101. (45) Petech (1990: 102). BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS Chen Qingying. Han Zang shiji. Lhasa: Xizang Renmin Chubanshe, 1986. Translation of RGYA. Chen Qingying and Zhou Runnian. Hongshi. Lhasa: Xizang Renmin Chubanshe, 1988. Translation of TSHAL. DPA' Dpa'-bo Gtsug-lag phreng-ba. Chos 'byung mkhas pa'i dga' ston, ed. Rdo-rje rgyal-po. 2 vols. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe, 1986. DPA'(P) Dpa'-bo Gtsug-lag phreng-ba. Chos 'byung mkhas pa'i dga' ston, 2 vols. New Delhi, 1980. Inaba, Sh. and Sato, H. Huran deputeru (Hu-lan deb-ther) - chibetto nendaiki. Kyoto, 1964. Translation of an edited version of TSHAL1. Macdonald, A. "Preambule a la lecture d'un Rgya bod yig tshang." Journal Asiatique CCLI (1963): 53-159. Petech, L. Central Tibet and the Mongols. The Yuan-Sa-skya Period of Tibetan History. Serie Orientale Roma LXV. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1990. RGYA Stag-tshang-pa Dpal-'byor bzang-po. Rgya bod yig tshang chen mo. Ed. Dung-dkar Blo-bzang 'phrin-las. Chengdu: Si-khron mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1985. RGYA(R) Ibid. Rgya bod kyi yig tshang mkhas pa dga' byed chen mo'i dkar chab gdog(!). J.F. Rock manuscript. East Asia Library, University of Washington. RGYA(T) Ibid. Rgya bod yig tshang mkhas pa dga' byed. 2 vols. Thimphu, 1979. Schuh, D. Erlasse und Sendschreiben mongolischer Herrscher fur tibetische Geistliche. Skt. Augustin: Wissenschaftsverlag, 1977. Ruegg, D. S. The Life of Bu ston rin po che. Serie Orientale Roma XXXIV. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1966. SI Si-tu Pan-chen Chos-kyi 'byung-gnas. Bsgrub [b]rgyud karma kam tshang brgyud pa rin po che'i rnam par thar pa rab 'byams nor bu zla ba chu shel gyi phreng ba. Vol. 1, New Delhi, 1972. TAI Ta'i-si-tu Byang-chub rgyal-mtshan. Bka' chems mthong ba don ldan. Rlangs kyi po ti bse ru. Ed. Chab-spel Tshebrtan phun-tshogs. Lhasa: Bodjongs mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1987. Pp. 103-373. TAI1 Ibid. Lha rigs rlangs kyi rnam thar. New Delhi, 1974. Pp. 212-836. TAI2 Ibid. Ta si tu Byang chub rgyal mtshan gyi bka' chems. Lhasa: Bod-ljongs mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1989. Pp. 1-282. TAIch Zanla Awang and Yu Wanshi. Lang shijiazu shi. Ed. Chen Qingying. Lhasa: Xizang Renmin Chubanshe, 1989. Translation of TAI. Tang Chi'an. Yalong zunzhe jiaofa shi. Lhasa: Xizang Renmin Chubanshe, 1989. Translation of YAR. TSHAL Tshal-pa Kun-dga' rdo-rje. Deb ther dmar po. Ed. and comm. Dung d-kar Blo-bzang 'phrin-las. Pre-cin: Mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1981. TSHAL1 Ibid. Gangtok, 1961. Wang Yao. "Nan Song xiaodi zhaoxian yishi kaobian." Xizang yanjiu 1 (1981): 65-76. YAR Yar-lung Jo-bo Sakya-rin-chen. Yar lung chos 'byung. Ed. Dbyangs - can. Chengdu: Si-khron mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1988. YAR1 Ibid. Ed. Ngag-dbang. Lhasa: Bod-ljongs mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1988.