@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.