Karl Debreczeny - Sino-Tibetan Artistic Synthesis in Ming Dynasty

Sino-Tibetan Artistic Synthesis in Ming Dynasty Temples at the Core and Periphery
Karl Debreczeny
The term Sino-Tibetan is often employed in art historical discourse without a historical definition. As a self-explanatory concept, however, the term is nothing more than a marker of hybridity: it does not indicate how these Chinese and Tibetan traditions come together. This paper examines three Ming dynasty (1368-1644) cases to reach a renewed understanding of Sino-Tibetan synthesis: the first, Fahaisi (Ocean of the Dharma Temple), is a metropolitan temple built under court sponsorship; the second, Qutansi (Gautama Temple), is a provincially located temple also built under imperial sponsorship; and the third is, Dabaojigong (Great Gemheap Palace), a temple which is provincially located, but built under local sponsorship. The primary distinction to be made in the development of the Sino-Tibetan wall paintings in these three temples is not between metropolitan or provincial locations, but rather between their imperial and local programs of sponsorship.1 Fahaisi (Fig.1) is located on Mount Cuiwei in the Shijingshan district in the western suburbs of Beijing, site of the Yuan (1279-1368) and Ming imperial capitals. According to two stele of 1443 that record the founding of Fahaisi,2 the principal patron was the eunuch Li Tong (d. 1453), who served as yuyongjian, or Director of Imperial Accoutrements.3 Fahaisi thus lies at the artistic core of Ming professional painting production because of its patrons position within the imperial construction apparatus and because of its proximity to the sites of court visual production in the capital. Fahaisi also lay at the political core of the Ming court as a result of its inner court sponsorship, which included the reception and patronage of Tibetan hierarchs from Tibet and from the Sino-Tibetan frontier. There has been a traditional resistance to the notion that Ming courtiers were personally interested in Tibetan Buddhism as the Ming is viewed as a native dynasty which expended a great deal of energy to reassert an ethnic Chinese identity in the wake of the Yuan dynasty Mongol rule. That the early Ming court followed a Mongol precedent in drawing on a Tibetan model for creating an imperial Buddhist vocabulary symbolic of divine rule is only beginning to be recognized. Tibetan and Newar artisans are thought to have remained in Beijing after the fall of the Yuan and served in the Ming imperial atelier.4 Thus Fahaisis location is important in understanding the appearance of Tibetan Buddhist imagery. The fact that Tibetan borrowings appear specifically at Fahaisi, a small private temple on the outskirts of the capital, seems to be a result of the intersecting layers of eunuch bureaucracy at the Ming court at which Li Tong was active, both in their roles as the controllers of the imperial construction apparatus, the Ministry of Works, and as the official imperial envoys to the Tibetan patriarchs. Li Tong entered service in the imperial palace as a eunuch under the Yongle Emperor (r. 1403-1424), the first Ming emperor to establish significant and personal ties with Tibetan patriarchs at court. As Li Tongs title Director of Imperial Accoutrements implies, he directly attended the Emperors person. Proximity to emperors such as the Yongle and Xuande (r. 1426-1435) emperors, who showed great enthusiasm for Tibetan Buddhism and repeatedly met with Tibetan clerics, in all likelihood exposed Li Tong to Tibetan
52 THE TIBET JOURNAL his own personal practice. The armor on Li Tongs statue, which was also destroyed during the Cultural Revolution, is quite evident in an unpublished photograph displayed at the temple. Portraits of eunuch donors were quite common under the Ming. This hypothesis is further reinforced by the fact that Li Tongs portrait statue closely resembled the image of the temple guardian Weituo, painted on the north wall (Fig.11), who is depicted facing Mrc with hands clasped in reverence.19 This would also imply that Li Tong, as the Director of Imperial Accoutrements and principal patron of Fahaisi, directly influenced the temples pictorial program. Direct evidence of a significant Tibetan presence at Fahaisi is provided by the ten Tibetan names on the back of the Record of Fahaisi stele.20 The last three Tibetans named there: Rin chen pa, bKra shis gzhon nu, and bKra shis yon tan were kaishan lama, or founding lamas, clerics who took part in the preparation and planning of Fahaisi, and may be responsible for the Tibetan elements in Fahaisis iconographic program.21 The third name, the Purely Enlightened Compassionately Helpful Great State Preceptor jingjue ciji daguoshi dPal ldan bkra shis (Bandan zhashi), is the most interesting in the context of this discussion, for he not only appears to have played a role in the founding of Fahaisi, but also was both abbot of Qutansi, in Qinghai,22 and founder of Lhun grub bde chen gling, in Gansu, both provincially located temples built with imperial sponsorship. Qutansi (Tib: Gro tshang lha khang, Gro tshang rDo rje chang, Go tam sde, or Gou tam sde) (Fig.12) was founded in 1392 by Sangs rgyas bkra shis (also known as Lama bSam lo and Karma he Lama) in present day Ledu county, 43 kilometers east of Xining in modern day Qinghai Province.23 The temples location is described in one of its own dedicatory steles as being on the border connecting with the western kingdoms (Tibet)24 and thus at the meeting of the northwest Ming frontier and the eastern border of the Tibetan province of A mdo. An examination of Tibetan chronicles and Chinese imperial records reveals that Qutansi was dependant on the Ming courts support and protection. In turn, its patronage was part of a larger Ming Sino-Tibetan border strategy to establish an alliance between the local government and the imperial court, and its abbots played a major part in the formulation of early Ming policies toward Tibet.25 The Ming court repeatedly sent eunuchs to inspect and participate in the construction of Qutansi. It was also made seat of the Xining Prefectural Buddhist Registry (Xining Senggangsi) during this period and was granted jurisdiction over 13 other temples and their attached monastic estates in seven valleys in the surrounding area, which further demonstrates the temples importance to the Ming imperial court.26 Although Qutansi was initially founded in 1392, the bulk of its construction only took place under imperial patronage in the early 15th century during the tenure of Sangs rgyas bkra shiss nephew, dPal ldan bkra shis, who is recorded as being appointed abbot of Qutansi by the Yongle Emperor in 1408.27 dPal ldan bkra shis was directly involved with Buddhist practice in Beijing and wielded significant influence within the National Buddhist Registry, the Senglusi.28 He served as the Fifth Karma pas translator at court, translated numerous Tibetan texts into Chinese (presumably for Chinese court practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism) and ordained several Ming officials.29 In 1435 the temple of Huguosi was re-built as dPal ldan bkra shis residence in Beijing by imperial command,30 and a portrait statue, which is still extant, was made of dPal ldan bkra shis and installed there.31 Qutansis abbots
SINO-TIBETAN ARTISTIC SYNTHESIS
53
personal relationship with the Hongwu (r. 1368-1398), Yongle (r. 1403-1424) and Xuande (r. 1426-1435) Emperors, as well as their role as mediators in political conflicts along the northern Sino-Tibetan border may in part explain the Ming courts close interest in Qutansi. Related to this imperial sponsorship at Qutansi, an interesting passage in the mDo smad chos byung describes the wall paintings of a gallery (khyams rai ldebs bris) at a nearby temple, dGe rgyas bDe chen gling, in dGon lung brag (Ch: Guanlong dong), depicting the manner of the emperors patronage of Qutansi and the lords [of Qutansi] going to China.32 Qutansi (Fig.13), like Fahaisi, is Chinese in architecture, with a mixed Chinese and Tibetan painting and statuary program. However, when discussing the artistic program at Qutansi as it existed in the Ming period one must be careful to distinguish late 14th and early 15th century Ming works from later 18th century Qing restorations, which are extensive. Relying on Tibetan and Chinese sources, which include five bilingual stele dated to the first quarter of the 15th century, and comparing them to extant material at Qutansi, one can begin to sketch a chronology for the temple. The mDo smad chos byung gives an account of the founding and initial painting and sculpture program of Qutansi, whose imagery is recorded as being largely Indo-Tibetan:
In the four directions were erected earth-subduing stupas, and the principal images of the central chapel (Qutandian) were the Buddhas of the Three Times and their close disciples (the Eight Major Bodhisattvas).33 In the left flanking Hall of the Protectors (mgon khang) were statues (bur sku) of Four-Armed Mahkla and Pajarantha Mahkla together with attendants. In the wall paintings (ldebs bris) were Six-Armed Mahkla with his retinue of seventy-five forms of Mahkla, and Four-Armed Mahkla with attendants resided here together with the blessed [image of] Dharmarja, which, during a battle, the chapel steward had requested to put its right foot down on the ground. Because it had an [image of] A phyi ma, it is known as the A phyi Protector Chapel.34 In the right-flanking chapel was the Great Sa skya Stupa. In the paintings on its sides (logs ris) were Vajradhara inside each of four gates which themselves resembled dnyukaaka stupas. And in sequence were countless assemblies of deities of the Anuttara Tantra class and the three other tantra classes (Kriy, Cary, and Yoga), such as Klacakra, Savara, Hevajra, and a form of Bhairava according to the sKo tradition; many tutelary deities (yi dam) of the rNying ma class such as Vajrakla, the Four Guardian Kings, various Dharma-protectors, Guardians of the Ten Directions, together with Great Nga on the tips of light rays; and the pillars on the [different] levels which appeared to be supported by the many hands of offering deities, etc. These things are renowned as apparitions of miraculous form. Qutansis abbot sKal bzang pa said that these were intended as auspices for the construction of the Vajradhara Chapel. Because the present deities do not match with the earlier ones, and as it is said that there is a descriptive catalog of the destruction and renovation made by Kwa ring Ngag dbang phun tshogs lhun grub, I wonder if it was changed at that time.35
Qutandian (Tib: dBus su lha khang), the main hall described above, was damaged by an earthquake, and repaired and expanded in 1782. The murals as they currently appear inside Qutandian are believed to be Ming works while the outer vestibule was added in the late 18th century. Iconographic evidence within the wall paintings themselves supports this assessment as the inside of the hall contains primarily bKa brgyud imagery and to a lesser degree some Sa skya imagery, such as the FourArmed Mahkla, primary protector of the bKa brgyud order, and Gur gyi mgon po (Pajarantha), primary protector of the Sa skya order, flanking the door on the
54 THE TIBET JOURNAL south wall.36 This is significant to the dating of the painting, as Qutansi was originally a bKa brgyud temple but with close ties to the Sa skya until it came under the dGe lugs order by the mid-15th century.37 If Qutandian had been repainted later, under dGe lugs stewardship, one would expect to find some evidence of dGe lugs influence. While none is present inside the hall, dGe lugs imagery is evident outside in the later 18th century vestibule. The only wall paintings within Qutandian executed in an outwardly Chinese manner are small scenes of the Fifty-three Visits of Sudhana (Fig.14) which run along the lower register of the east and west walls, where the figures are clearly dressed as Chinese courtiers. Cleverly hidden within the 14th visit in an architectural panel used as a cartoush is a previously unnoticed Tibetan inscription in dbu med which contains a Yongle reign date (1403-1424), confirming an early Ming date for the painting of the murals, though slightly later than the halls founding in 1392. However Tibetan in iconography, the imagery within Qutandian may appear at first glance Chinese painters hands are revealed in numerous small details such as skull crown of Pajarantha, which is painted in the same manner as Chinese Mingwang found in Fahaisi and Pilusi, being strung together through the eye sockets. Other such details, such as elaborate knots in the white sashes of the inner robes of the deities on the side walls of Baoguongdian, are clearly derived from a Chinese repertoire and can be found throughout the entire Qutansi complex, confirming Chinese painters hands both in the Chinese imagery of the outer gallery as well as in the Tibetan imagery of the halls themselves. The presence of a Tibetan inscription within the Sudhana narrative further suggests the possibility of a Tibetan presence within thus team of painters from the imperial atelier who were able to function on such a sophisticated level in both visual idioms. Of the imagery described in the mDo smad chos byung as being within the A phyi Protector Chapel, which is found at the south-east corner of Qutandian, only the Six-Armed Mahkla survives on the north wall (Fig.15). This is also the favored bKa brgyud form of Six-Armed Mahkla, suggesting a pre-mid 15th century painting for this chapel as well. Against the east wall is a long dais, behind which are three more recently painted flaming halos, presumably once the background for the now lost statues of Four-Armed Mahkla, Pajarantha, and Dharmarja.38 Neither the Great Sa skya Stupa nor the wall paintings survive within the westernflanking chapel as they are described in the mDo smad chos byung. The mDo smad chos byung goes on to describe the second and third stages of construction and ornamentation of Qutansi during the early 15th century:
In the lifetime of the Yongle and Xuande emperors, the official (dpon po) bSam gtan bzang po erected images of kyamuni and Vajradhara In particular patents which were clear expressions of praise over a period of time and a self-arisen image of the Buddha were given [by the Yongle Emperor] to dPal ldan bzang po (dPal ldan bkra shis), and a chapel a days distance from the palace was built with state funds to house it. The statue resided in the Jo khang of Blazing Jewel Light (Baoguangdian) as the chief image.39 After that, on the walls are pictures of the rainbows that variously appeared like globes, pillars and wheel spokes when the temple praised as Hall for Protecting the Nation (Srid skyong gling) (Longguodian) was founded by the emperor Xuande (gong ma Zon te) in fulfillment of his fathers wishes.40 By the power of the kings faith an image of Vajradhara descended from the sky. The statue [which was installed there] is renowned among the Chinese as a relic of the Yongle Emperor. It is recorded in a stele
55
that to fulfill the wishes of the Emperors heart, [the image] came from the land of the gods for the benefit of sentient beings of the human realm.
The Hall of Blazing Jewel Light (Tib: Jo khang rin chen od bar, Ch: Baoguangdian), built in 1418, does not appear to have undergone major repairs and the painted architectural decor on its double-eaved hip-gabled roof appears to have kept its original Yongle period Chinese designs.41 Like Qutandian, the wall paintings in Baoguangdian also appear to be a mixture of bKa brgyud and Sa skya imagery with the same striking set of Four-armed Mahkla and Pajarantha Mahkla flanking either side of the door. Further, bKa brgyud patriarchs appear on the rear wall, such as a Karma pa (Fig.16) and a Zhwa dmar (Fig.17).42 All that suggests that this hall was also painted before the dGe lugs takeover by the mid-15th century. The description given in the dedicatory stele of the casting of the halls central image, a gilt-bronze Buddha, states that the statue was first made by artisans in the Ming imperial atelier in Beijing and then sent west by the Yongle Emperor as an offering to dPal ldan bkra shis.43 In fact it would seem that Qutansi was once well-appointed with gilt bronzes produced at the Ming court in a Tibetan manner, such as a near life-sized Bodhisattva with a Yongle reign mark (1403-1424), once part of a set of eight at Qutansi, now kept in the Qinghai Provincial Museum (Fig.18). In the above description from the mDo smad chos byung it is implied that the Hall of Protection of the Nation (Srid skyong gling), called Hall of National Prosperity (Longguodian) in Chinese, was built as Yongles memorial hall, a statement reiterated in the bilingual dedicatory Imperial Bestowal of Qutansis Rear Hall Stele, dated 1427.44 The hall contains a Long Life to the Emperor inscription on a wooden placard (Huangdi wan sui pai) which records that it was built in the 9th day of the 2nd month of the 2nd year of Xuande (1427) by Meng Ji, Shang Yi, Chen Xiang and Yuan Qi, eunuchs of the Director of Imperial Accoutrements (yuyongjian).45 Thus we know that Li Tongs predecessor as Director of Imperial Accoutrements, Meng Ji, was sent by the Ming court to personally supervise the construction of Longguo Hall. Such a high-ranking officer of the imperial construction apparatus as Meng Ji was almost certainly accompanied by high-ranking master craftsmen from the imperial atelier, and Longguodians architectural workmanship has been favorably compared to other inner court productions by eunuchs, such as Fahaisi, our first case study, and the Rulaidian of Zhihuasi in Beijing.46 Shang Yi was a eunuch within the Directorate of Imperial Accoutrements, whose name also appears on Fahaisis dedicatory bell, pointing to another connection between the construction of Qutansi and Fahaisi within the Directorate of Imperial Accoutrements.47 Supporting evidence which further expands our understanding of the eunuch Meng Jis role in the construction of Qutansi is found in a set of Chinese archival records of successive generations of imperial edicts for donations to the temple (Gong jiefeng chiyu daibei qing gong dice) which states: During the Yongle period imperial envoys such as the eunuch Meng and commander Tian Xuan, respecting the imperial edict(s) to build the two halls, Baoguang and Longguo, and erected a stele record (beiji).48 Thus one can see that eunuch envoys were sent repeatedly to supervise the expansion of Qutansi and that the Director of Imperial Accoutrements Meng Ji was responsible for both the construction of Baoguangdian, completed in 1418, and Longgoudian, completed in 1427. It further suggests that both halls, as well as the front gate, covered galleries, and bell and drum towers com-
56 THE TIBET JOURNAL pleted in 1427, were all part of a larger single construction project started under the Yongle emperor, continued under Hongxi (1424-1426) and completed early in the reign of the Xuande emperor, always under the watchful eye of the Director of Imperial Accoutrements, and thus a project of some considerable importance to the imperial court. No major repairs are recorded for Longguo Hall, except for roof work performed in the 1940s. The Tibetan wall paintings in Longguo Hall, such as images of the Buddhas of the Three Times on the rear wall flanked by deities of the four classes of tantras including: Guhyasamja Majuvajra, Vajrabhairava, Guhyasamja, Hevajra, Klacakra, Cakrasavara and Mahmy (Fig.19) (both forms of Savara, which was the focus of practice at Qutansi in both the Sa skya and bKa brgyud traditions)49 are thought to date to its initial founding in 1427.50 Again the iconography of these deities is that favored by the bKa brgyud order, suggesting that the paintings were done within 25 years of the halls completion. Paintings of the various forms of rainbow light described in the mDo smad chos byung for the Xuande era (1426-1435) stage of construction still remain a striking feature throughout Qutansi (Fig.20). With tight wave patterns and strong color contrasts, they stylistically more closely resemble what one might find in Central Asian sites than the soft pastels and gentle curves of rainbow-light forms found in imperial court productions such as the famous Yongle hand-scroll dated 1407. Furthermore, the temple once housed a green silk hanging scroll mounted on paper (2.5 x 1.4 m) commemorating the installment of the halls central image, the Vajradhara statue previously mentioned, with a Chinese inscription in the left corner which reads: A sketch of the great Vajradhara installation and worship on the 9th day of the 2nd month of the 2nd year of Xuande (1427) in Xinings Qutansi.51 This was a colossal bronze statue of Vajradhara installed in Longguo Hall, weighing some 1800 jin (about 900 kilos), which became Qutansis main image. It is from this image that Qutansi derives one of its Tibetan names: Gro tshang rDo rje chang. Thus we have the construction, almost certainly by the Ming imperial court atelier, of an architecturally Chinese hall with a Tibetan Buddhist image, associated with the Yongle emperors person, installed as its principal image.52 Qutansi is especially famous for its 400 square meters of extant murals along the covered gallery, which depict the life of kyamuni Buddha (Fig.21), and whose style is described by the Chinese scholar Jin Weinuo as being related to both Chinese and Tibetan [traditions], but with Chinese brushwork, heavy colors and blue-green landscape styles predominating.53 This gallery was also built in 1427, probably as part of the same Xuande-period construction program as Longguodian, overseen by the court eunuch Meng Ji. Interestingly, architectural features identical to Longguodian, down to the distinctive animals which decorate the roof-line (Fig.22), appear throughout the first section of the covered gallery, such as in Mys Dream, as if the artists used Longguodian as an architectural model for their depiction of Mys palace. However, only about a third of the extant painting in the gallery (mostly on the east and west walls north of Baoguang Hall up to the large bell and drum towers) is thought to date to the Ming-period; the rest of the gallery was repaired and repainted after 1782, coinciding with the previously cited renovations made to Qutandian. The older Ming works in Qutansis gallery are readily distinguished from the later Qing works by their lighter palette, more open compositions and more refined brush-
57
work. While the Ming works are not signed, some of the Qing painters recorded their names and places of origin, which helps us to date these works. For instance, in one painting (Fig.23) at the north end of the covered gallery near Longguodian, painters cleverly used the tradition of screen-painting inscriptions to record their names and places of birth: Respectfully painted by the hands of He Ji and Han Mu, apprentices of Sun Kegong and Xu Runwen, followers of the Kubao figure painting [school] in Pingban county. Pingban county is in modern Yongdeng county, Gansu Province. In the Ming dynasty it was called Zhuanglangwei but was renamed Pingban in 1724. So while no date is given on the painting, this inscription nonetheless gives us an 18th century date for the painting of this section of Qutansis gallery.54 It is said that Qutansis wall paintings all had fenben (powder pounces or sketches) images that were preserved in the Buddhist Hall of Angli (Angli fotang) but which were destroyed in a fire in the late Qing-period.55 The manner of execution of the Ming-period wall paintings at Qutansi in Longguodian, Baoguangdian and the covered gallery has been described as the same as that of the wall paintings of Fahaisi and consistent with works overseen by the Ming courts Director of Imperial Accoutrements.56 Yet in contrast to the halls of Qutansi, the gallery appears overwhelmingly Chinese in both content and execution with Tibetan elements only appearing in later Qing restorations (Fig.24). The contrasting use of a Chinese style in the outer gallery at Qutansi may be an early reflection of an expressed Tibetan preference for the depiction of the Deeds of the Buddha in a Chinese manner beginning in at least the 15th century, which is recorded in later Tibetan textual sources. For instance the founder of the sMan bris school in the mid 15th century, sMan bla don grub, is said to have painted the Great Deeds of the Buddha (ston pai mdzad thang) which he had copied from a Chinese scroll painting in gNas rnying.57 Jackson (p.111) has speculated that this Chinese model for the Buddhas Deeds may have been sent in connection with a mission to the Ming court during the Yongle reign period (1403-1424), which would only be about 14 years before the painting of the gallery at Qutansi in 1427, both productions of the same court atelier. Perhaps then the gallery murals at Qutansi are an earlier expression (and visual documentation) of this preference for Chinese style depictions of the Life of the Buddha as reflected in the careers later Tibetan painters. This also suggests that the Chinese painters of the imperial court atelier were able to adjust the style and iconography of their paintings between Tibetan (within the halls) and Chinese (in the outer gallery)resulting in some degree of mixingto suit the needs of their Tibetan patrons at Gro tshang rdo rje chang. A similar pattern of Ming imperial involvement in Sino-Tibetan temple-building projects in provincially-located temples is Lhun grub bde chen gling (Longzhu deqinglin), formerly named Da Chongjiaosi, in Minzhou, Gansu, also founded by dPal ldan bkra shis. Its construction and ornamentation are closely detailed in dPal ldan bkra shiss biography, where the temple is clearly described as being Chinese in architecture but ornamented by the court with both Chinese and Tibetan objects and images:
at forty-one, in the Fire-Bird Year (1417), [dPal ldan bkra shis] erected Lhun grub bde chen temple. In the 3rd year of Xuande, the Earth-Monkey Year (1428), in order to repair the temple, two great ministers were given an edict for temple building (i.e.: they were appointed to the job). Another one hundred higher and lower civil officials (mi dpon), 200 higher and lower district officials (sde dpon), 1,100 artisans (bzo rigs pa) of
58 THE TIBET JOURNAL

various kinds, together with 25,000 military corve laborers (dmag mii u lag), etc., were appointed by imperial order. From the treasury (i.e.: state funds) [were made]:
The Tibetan text continues for some three pages with long lists of buildings, including a stele hall, as well as bell and drum towersidentifying the temple as Chinese in architecture and similar in structure to Qutansi. Also listed are numerous texts written in both Chinese and Tibetan, many images identifiable as Tibetan Buddhist in nature, and liturgical equipment, like a three dimensional golden maala, all offered with state funds.58 Thus Qutansi is only one example of a larger pattern of imperial patronage along the Ming-Tibetan frontier. Dabaojigong, a small, late Ming Buddhist temple located in the remote Baisha village, several miles outside of Lijiang (Tib: Jang Sa tham), in northwestern Yunnan, provides a good point of contrast to temples like Qutansi, since it is the product of local sponsorship in an area recognized by official Ming histories as beyond direct imperial control. The temple was built by the Naxi, an ethnic group whose roots are thought to be proto-Tibetan and whose language is classified as belonging to the Tibeto-Burman familywho, by the time of the Ming dynasty, had closely allied themselves politically and culturally with the Chinese, depicting themselves as Chinese officials in official portraiture and keeping records in Chinese.59 Lijiang prefecture (Fig.25) was of strategic importance to the imperial court because key positions between Yunnan, Sichuan and Tibet, which served as the primary route of invasion of Yunnan, were located in the greater Lijiang prefectural jurisdiction. During this period the three main trade routes between Yunnan and Tibet all passed through Lijiang prefecture; thus the Naxi also controlled the Yunnan-Tibet tea-horse trade. The Ming court could only recognize the authority of the local rulers as part of an articulated policy of using them to keep the Tibetans in check and secure the empires southwestern border. As a result of military campaigns during the Ming dynasty, Lijiang prefecture gained areas in northwest Yunnan and southwest Sichuan, largely Tibetan territory, under its jurisdiction. The height of this expansion occurred from the mid-16th to the early- 17th centuries, when the local ruling family began to take an active interest in Tibetan Buddhism, especially the Karma bKa brgyud order, which corresponded to the explosion of temple-building activity. Indeed, the push to construct temples in Lijiang during the Ming dynasty may have been in part to attract major Tibetan patriarchs to the local ruling familys court, and in turn, gain prestige among the local Tibetan community. It is likely that this Naxi interest in Tibetan Buddhism, like that of the Ming court, was based on concepts of esoteric power and sacrosanct rulership. By the early Ming dynasty Tibetan clerics, especially the Karma pas, were considered the masters of esoteric means to power and bestowers of sacral (cakravartin) kingship. Among the Mu rulers during the Ming dynasty the two primary patrons of Tibetan Buddhism were Mu Wang (r.1580-1596), founder of Dabaojigong, and his grandson, Mu Zeng (r. 1598-1646), who is likely to have been responsible for the paintings as they appear now. The accounts in official biographies of the Mu rulers, written in Chinese and first started in the early 16th century, are limited to political/ military exploits, and so it is to Tibetan sources that we must often turn to fill in the details of their religious patronage. The Ninth Karma pas biography states that Mu Wang had a Tibetan Buddhist preceptor named Byang bshes pa. In 1582, the same year as the founding of Dabaojigong, he had expressed his wish to commission a new woodblock edition of the bKa gyur (Tibetan Tripiaka), a monumental task
61
rear of the temple, suggesting that they were possibly painted at the same time by the same workshop. Thus the dating of the Mahmudr lineage painting to circa 1610 to 1630 can be applied to the painting throughout Dabaojigong, presumably as part of Mu Zengs ambitious patronage program of building new temples in Lijiang and linking existing temples to specific Tibetan religious lineages.77 All 13 of the Karma pa temples built in the Lijiang area became branch temples of dPal spungs in sDe dge. dPal spungs was founded as the seat of the Situ lineage, and while many of these satellite temples in the Lijiang area were built before dPal spungs, they only came under its umbrella after its founding.78 Dabaojigong can be counted among the minor bKa brgyud satellite temples in Lijiang though it is the only one to survive relatively intact from the Ming-period. Dabaojigong, that is gem heap, is itself a translation of dPal spungs, glorious heap, which confirms that it was a branch monastery of dPal spungs.79 Further, internal evidence within the painting program in the rear of the temple is consistent with the iconographic programs in temples of the dPal spungs system. Extant Ming wall painting in the Lijiang area from other temples predating Dabaojigong are characterized by Chinese and Bai content, both in style and subject matter, while temples postdating Dabaojigong are marked by the growing dominance of Tibetan themes and painting techniques. Dabaojigong thus seems to play a pivotal role within the chronology of the development of Lijiang wall painting as it is the earliest extant temple that attests to the existence of a local painting workshop having fully absorbed and synthesized the Chinese and Tibetan painting traditions into a unique regional style. CONCLUSION The iconographic and stylistic program of divine Chinese royal imagery subtly accented with Tibetan Buddhist symbols found at Fahaisi can be viewed as an assertion of the patrons identity as a eunuch of the imperial court, and thus identify him, in what was likely to be his own memorial hall, with a form of Buddhism favored by the elite circles of power, and by extension of his participation in a larger imperial program that legitimatized the emperor as a sacral ruler. Complicating the development of models of center versus periphery is the connection between metropolitan and provincially located temples built with Ming court sponsorship such as Qutansi. While Qutansis architecture is Chinese and its outer gallery is dominated by Chinese images, Tibetan imagery dominates inside the halls of the temple which was also executed by court painters. Qutansi can be viewed as a projection of Ming imperial power through a Buddhist visual vocabulary, part of an attempt to gain a foothold along the Ming-Amdo frontier by collaborating with local venerated religious leaders in the construction of this temple. Thus at Qutansi, in remote Qinghai, we find a hall commissioned by the Xuande Emperor as a memorial hall to the Yongle Emperor, built by the same imperial agency which built Fahaisi, but with its central image of Vajradhara, the highest deity in the Tibetan Buddhist pantheon, which was directly associated with the Yongle Emperors person. An imperial formulation of Sino-Tibetan art and architecture is thus suggested by the group of Fahaisi, Qutansi, and Lhun grub bde chen gling, all early Ming temples of Chinese construction decorated with varying quantities of Tibetan imagery, all linked to the Tibetan cleric dPal ldan bkra shis. While one might be tempted to dismiss the Tibetan elements that appear in otherwise Chinese architectural con-
62 THE TIBET JOURNAL texts found at both Qutansi and Lhun grub bde chen gling as simply resulting from their close proximity to the Sino-Tibetan borderin other words as a marker of their regionalism or provincialismthe presence of the metropolitan temple Fahaisi suggests that a more complex and imperially-sponsored formation of Sino-Tibetan art and architecture was operative at these sites.80 In contrast to this imperial program, Dabaojigong can be viewed as a manifestation of the process undergone by the local ruling house of Lijiang to establish an identity as both officials of the Chinese court, and, at the same time, to directly project themselves as legitimate wheel-turning kings of an expanding multi-ethnic territory. This process resulted in the more thorough hybridization of Chinese and Tibetan painting technique and iconography found in the wall paintings at Dabaojigong. Thus the primary distinction to be made in the development of Sino-Tibetan temples considered here is not between metropolitan or provincial locations but rather between imperial and local programs of sponsorship. Despite the very different ways these three sites combine Chinese and Tibetan traditions in their visual programs, a general pattern begins to emerge in reaching a more nuanced understanding of Sino-Tibetan temples based on the visual and textual evidence explored here: the Sino-Tibetan synthesis in painting and sculpture occurs within a Chinese architectural framework, placing all three temples into a Chinese visual context. The principal patrons who build all three temples are either Chinese or closely associate themselves with the Chinese political/cultural sphere; thus it is they who actively show an interest in incorporating Tibetan modes into Chinese visual programs. Of course this is not to suggest that the Tibetans were not actively absorbing Chinese modes and transforming them into their own traditions during the 15th to 17th centuries, as is witnessed by the rise of Karma sgar bris school. Indeed the presence of these temples and their painters no doubt helped foster this movement, as demonstrated by the development of the painting career of the Tenth Karma pa in Lijiang, which is dealt with elsewhere.81 The identification and study of such temples as those considered here, which contain paintings with well documented historical backgrounds attested to in both Tibetan and Chinese sources, as well as supporting internal visual evidence, is vital to the development of the study of Sino-Tibetan painting, which lags far behind the study in western scholarship of other Tibetan painting traditions, for they may eventually serve as chronological benchmarks against which many undated works may be evaluated toward an understanding of the chronological development of these stylistic traditions.
Notes 1. This paper was originally written for a panel for the 2001 meeting of the College Art Association in Chicago on regionalism in Chinese visual culture entitled Geo-historical Issues in the Production of Painted Images, Visual Culture, and Visuality in China. I would like to thank professors Jennifer Purtle, Elliot Sperling, Matthew Kapstein, and Wu Hung for their patient reading and helpful suggestions in bringing this material together. 2. The two stele recording the founding of Fahaisi are: the Record of Fahaisis Imperial Commission Chici Fahaichansi beiji written by Hu Ying, Minister of Rites (libu guangshu), and the Record of Fahaisi Fahaichansiji written by Wang Zhi, Minister of Personnel (libu guangshu). Legible rubbings of both these stele are reproduced in Beijing tushuguan zang Zhongguo lidai shike taben huibian, Vol.51, pp.112-115, and the texts are printed in Beijing Fahaisi, pp.47-48. For a brief biography of Wang Zhi see the
63
Dictionary of Ming Biography, pp.1358-1361. Vice director of the Work Project Office (yingshansuofu) Chen Jinqin made the temples imperially bestowed title stele and the Sragama Stra Pillar Record, which includes the names of the artisan officials (jianggong) who took part in the construction and painting of Fahaisi on the back. The yingshansuofu was an office under the Palace Buildings Office (Jiangzuo si) under the supervision of the Ministrys Bureau of Construction (Yingshan qingli si). (Hucker [1985], p.583). Records regarding Fahaisi also appear in the Rixiajiuwenkao, the Jifutongzhi, and the Shuntianfuzhi (Li Song, p.38). 3. The Directorate of Imperial Accoutrements was one of the 12 major directorates in which palace eunuchs were organized and was responsible for preparing objects for the emperors personal use, as well as presenting memorials for imperial attention that were presented by officials. (Hucker [1985], p.595). Little is known of Li Tong. He does not appear in any primary Ming histories or biographies, which is not surprising, as the Confucian scholars who compiled the official historical records resented the power of eunuchs at court and tended not to include them except as models of bad behavior. We do know from his tomb inscription that Li Tong was originally named Pu An and was from Jiangxi. He entered service in the palace under the Yongle emperor and, as his title yuyongjian implies, directly attended the Emperors person. He accompanied the Yongle emperor on a military inspection tour of the north and accompanied the Xuande emperor in the pacification of Wudingzhou and Xifeng Pass, and, the memorial stele implies, was constantly by the emperors side. In the Zhengtong period Li Tong used his rewards to buy material for the construction of a temple at Mount Cuiwei, which the emperor named Fahaisi, Ocean of the Dharma Temple. Afterwards he constructed Longquansi, Dragon Spring Temple. Early in the Jingtai period (1449-1457) Li Tong received a jade belt and dragon robe (of imperial favor), and died in the fourth year of Jingtai (1453). A legible rubbing of Li Tongs memorial inscription, written by the Minister of Rites Hu Ying, is reproduced in Beijing tushuguan Vol.5, p.188, and the text is printed in Yang Boxian, Beijing Fahaisi, p.53. Li Tong is mentioned in the Dictionary of Ming Biography (p.1361) under the entry for the Minister of Personnel Wangzhi, author of one of the Fahaisi stele, as a senior eunuch. 4. There are numerous accounts of Tibetans and Mongolians remaining in Beijing after the fall of the Yuan to serve the Ming court as is demonstrated in the work of Father Henry Serruys (see for instance: The Mongols in China During the Hongwu Period (1368-1398), and Sino-Mongol During the Ming II. The Tribute System and Diplomatic Missions (1400-1600)). In fact the Yongle Emperor is known in Tibetan sources such as The Blue Annals as Ye dbang, The Prince of Yan; his previous title as the prince of the Beijing area (Yan being an old name for Beijing), suggests that the Yongle Emperor, who was not the crown prince, was well acquainted with Tibetans during his early career in Beijing during the Hongwu era (1368-1398). See Sperling (1983), pp.74-76. Continuity can also be traced in the Tibetan patriarchs who served both the Yuan and the Ming courts. The head of the Sa skya order Kun dga bkra shis rgyal mtshan (1349-1424) played an important political role in both Yuan and Ming court connections with rGyal rtse. He was first sent to rGyal rtse in 1368 by the Yuan court and played a central role in the construction of the rGyal rtse Stupa in the Ming. In fact, a portrait statue of Kun dga bkra shis which shows Chinese influence, together with an account of his visit to the Ming court, can be found in the Lam bras lha khang in rGyal rtse. (Ricca and Lo Bue, p.15, 19, 24. Also see: Gyantse Revisited pp.411-460.) Kun dga bkra shis also received titles from Ming Chengzu, and later, the title dacheng fawang from Yongle in 1413. Visual evidence for this Yuan-Ming continuity in the artistic production of the Ming imperial atelier is the presence of a fully mature Sino-Tibetan artistic synthesis in both bronzes and painting as early as the Yongle period (1403-1424). 5. Weidner, p.55, reproduced in Son of Heaven, pp.116-117. Li Tong also appears as Li Fushan in several inscriptions at Fahaisi, including the first name on the temples dedica-

the Mingshilu). He was also a disciple of kya ye shes sent to court, together with Amogha, to serve as kya ye shess envoy and to serve the emperor as state preceptor. bSod nams shes rab received his title jingxiu hongzhi guanding guoshi in 1443, five months before Fahaisi was completed. He lived in Beijing during the construction of Fahaisi at Daziensi, but it is not known when he first arrived at the capital. When he died in 1460 he was elevated to the title guanding chongshan puhui jingxiu hongzhi xitian fozi tianwang. Little is known about the fifth Tibetan donor, Shes rab (Shelaba), except that he received his title hongshan miaozhi guoshi in 1443 (the 8th Year of Zhengtong), the year Fahaisi was completed. Later in 1456 (7th Year of Jingtai) the court expanded Shes rabs title to guanding hongshan miaozhi guoshi. (see: Huang Hao, p.34.) The sixth Tibetan is bSod nams bzang po (Suonan zangbu) who, according to the Mingshilu, came to the capital from Central Tibet in 1432 in order to offer tribute horses. In the Mingshilu he is referred to as Shuzang lama of Du btsang bSod nams bzang po (Wusizang shuzang lama suonan zangbu) (Huang Hao, p.34). In 1448 he was sent by the Ming court as an envoy, together with bKra shis dpal ldan, to King (wang) dPal ldan rgya mtsho in Lingzang, in modern day Sichuan, and was rewarded upon his return with the title state preceptor (guoshi). This time frame would suggest that bSod nams bzang po also lived in Beijing at the time of Fahaisis construction. This is possibly one of two guoshi bSod nams bzang po who appear in dPal ldan bkra shiss biography in connection with rNam rgyal gling (Yuanjuesi), another temple founded by the emperor under dPal ldan bkra shiss direction. However, as it is such a common name, it is impossible to assert this with any certainty. The seventh Tibetan, dPal byor (Banzhuoer), is the dPal byor bzang po (Banzhuoer zangbu) who appears in the Mingshilu. In the beginning he served at court as chanshi, or Religious Master, and in 1445 he was presented with the title qingxin jiexing daguoshi. In the title given on the Fahaisi stele the two characters qingxin are left out. In 1453 his title was expanded to guanding qingxin jiexing daguoshi, and in 1486 he was promoted to xitian fozi tianwang. From the record in the Mingshilu it would appear that he, too, was living in Beijing at the time of Fahaisis construction (Huang Hao, p.35). 21. Huang Hao, p.35. The common Chinese term is kaishan seng. Of the three, only Rin chen ba is known to us. He was originally a monk from Pugangsi Temple of the Universal Principle, and Yongchangsi, Temple of Eternal Prosperity, in Hezhou, Gansu, where his relative Don yod rgyal mtshan held the hereditary garrison post of Hezhouwei, or Hezhou Guard. Don yod rgyal mtshan was the first to serve as dougang, a clerical administrative post, in Hezhou when his family politically controlled the area. Rin chen ba first went to the court in Nanjing in 1378 where he received favor from Ming Taizu. It is not yet known when Rin chen ba went to Beijing, but sometime before 1441 he received the title zhenxiu chanshi when his nephew bKra shis ba inherited this same title while living at Daziensi. Huang Hao (p.35) suggests that Rin chen ba was probably in Beijing during his nephews petition at court to inherit the title and that he probably also stayed at Daziensi. 22. This possible connection was first observed by Huang Hao (p.34) and was further explored by Qian Nan. 23. For more on the founding of Qutansi and Sangs rgyas bkra shis, see Xie Zuo, pp.11-17; and Sperling Notes on the Early history of Gro tshang rDo rje chang and its Relations with the Ming Court, in Lungta, 2000. 24. Imperial bestowal of Qutansi stele of 1425 Tib: rGyal pos mdzad pai Gou tam sdei rdo ring, Ch: Yuzhi Qutansi bei dated the 15th day of the 1st month of the 1st year of Xuande (1425) located at the front of the temple (Reproduced in Xie Zuo, pp.90-95). 25. See Sperling, (op cite), p.10. 26. mDo smad chos byung, p.172, quoting the Sum pai chos byung. 27. The 1408 Qutansi Imperial Decree Stele Tib: Tai Ming rgyal poi lung gis, Ch: Yongle
69
liu nian Qutansi huangdi chiyu bei dated to the 15th day of the 5th month of the 6th year of the Yongle period (1408) (reproduced in Xie Zuo, pp.80-82). The stele states that previously Lama bSam lo spread the teachings of the Buddha and was very loyal/faithful to the emperor (gong mai phyogs su shin du dad pas) and remarks on the special favor to his temple Qutansi by the Yongle emperors father, the Hongwu emperor. Now, it further says, his nephew dPal ldan bzang po (dPal ldan bkra shis) trains in the teachings of [the Fifth Karma pa] De bzhin gshegs pa and understands the meaning of Mahyana, leads the people with a heart of compassion and liberates those on the path to virtue. The text also states that because he upholds the Dharma tradition of his own Lama bSam lo, now I [the Yongle Emperor] express great praise and by special decree make you [dPal ldan bkra shis] abbot of Qutansi. Interestingly while the Chinese says that dPal ldan bkra shis was appointed abbot (zhuchi), the Tibetan text says that he was made the district official of Qutansi (Khyu tam sii sde dpon). This appointment may in fact simply recognize the existing situation of dPal ldan bkra shiss abbotship at Qutansi, as this was true for many of the ceremonial appointments and titles bestowed on Tibetan patriarchs by the Ming court. See: Sperling (1983) and (1980). 28. dPal ldan bkra shis came from a family with long-standing court connections. During the Yuan dynasty one ancestor, Lama Gu rum, was a preceptor to the Mongol court, and another, Sam gha, was an abbot at Wutaishan. dPal ldan bkra shiss uncle Sangs rgyas bkra shis (known in Chinese sources as Lama Sanluo), founder of Qutansi, received titles from the Hongwu Emperor and was the first head of the Xining senggangsi, which was established at the same time. His family were originally members of the Karma bKa brgyud order but also maintained close ties to the Sa skya and dGe lugs orders. dPal ldan bkra shis first met emperor Chengzu in Nanjing in 1404 as an attendant of his teacher, Drung chen pa. He then went with the eunuch Yang Sanbao as part of the official entourage to escort the Fifth Karma pa to Nanjing in 1406 and served as the latters translator at Yongles court. In 1419 he was appointed to the post of senglu chanjiaoan official who manages monks and temples. 29. It is recorded in the mDo smad chos byung (pp.862 & 681) that: In the first year of Xuande (Tib. Zon te), the Fire-Horse Year (1426/7) He resided at Chongguosi (Tib. Khrun gwai sde chen). By imperial order he translated into Chinese such texts as: the Kye rdo rjei sgrub thabs bdud rtsii rgya mtsho [Ocean of Nectar Hevajra Sdhana], Mahcakra, the Jigs byed bcu gsum ma [Thirteen (Manifestations of) Bhairava], the Sarvavijya Vairocana, the Tshe dpag lha dgu rnams kyi dkyil khor gyi cho ga [Ritual for the Nine Deities of Amityusmaala], the Vairavaa Sdhana, the Bar doi ngo sbrod [Introduction to theAntarbhava], together with the rGyud brtag gnyis grel ba [Hevajra Tantra Commentary]. In the Wood-Tiger Year (1434) [dPal ldan bkra shis] gave full ordination vows to such people as the Chinese officials Guo Hui (Tib. Goha hai) and Yuan Qi (Tib. Yon bzhad) at which time he gave teachings in Chinese. In 1442 upon his request 37,000 monks were given their monastic diplomas (dudie). 30. In the Fire-Sheep Year (1427/8) the emperor bestowed upon him the award and honor of a title, and his residence, Chongguosi, was renamed in praise as Da Longshansi (Tib: Tai lung bshen zi). The old temple was repaired, and a new temple with a roof ornament (dbu rtse) and outbuildings (glo bur), together with monks quarters, altogether over five hundred rooms, were raised with state funds. (mDo smad chos byung, p.681) Chongguosi was indeed renamed Da Longshansi in the 4th Year of Xuande (1429), and renamed again Da Longshan huguosi in 1472 (See Chen Nan, p.76). 31. In the Record (of making) of the Memorial Image of dPal ldan bkra shis dPal ldan bkra shiss image is described as a seated image carved from sandalwood, his right shoulder is bare, his hands joined at his chest, bald headed round and fleshy face large ears, his physique is full and round and has a rather graceful bearing. This statue is now housed at Fayuansi. According to the Tibetan inscription on the stele at Da Longshan huguosi

this image is contemporary with the images of Tsong kha pa, Phags pa and the Buddhas of the Three Times, the main images at Huguosi (ibid.). The presence of an image produced in the Ming dynasty in Beijing of Phags pa, imperial preceptor to Khubilai Khan, reinforces the notion of a continuity in court interests in Tibetan Buddhism from the Yuan into the Ming Dynasty. For brief articles on the portrait statue of dPal ldan bkra shis and a very grainy photograph see: Bu Liansheng Ming Xuande shi nian diaozao Bandanzhashi xiang Wenwu (1979), No.7, pp.82-86; and Huang Hao, pp.36-37. Another portrait statue of dPal ldan bkra shis was installed at Lhun grub bde chen gling. 32. mDo smad chos byung, p.173. For more on Guanlong gudong see Xie Zuo, pp.16, 18-24. These hisorically valuable paintings do not survive. 33. This would have been the construction of Qutandian during the initial founding of Qutansi in 1392. An imperially-bestowed name board was presented by Emperor Hongwu in 1393. The nye sras, or close disciples here likely refers to the Eight Major Bodhisattvas. 34. A phyi ma is the principal protector of the Bri gung bKa brgyud order as well as a secondary protector of the Karma bKa brgyud. This protector hall would seem to be the small chapel immediately to the left of the front hall, which remains unlabeled in Chinese floor plans of the temple and is simply referred to as Qutans east accompanying hall (Qutan dongpei dian). However there is also a small chapel along the south-western covered galleries to the left of the front hall also labeled a protector hall (hufa tang). According to Xie Zuo (p.4) there are two protector halls, one on either side of the complex, suggesting that these halls, the A phyi ma mgon khang and the hufa tang, refer to separate buildings. While the labeled protector hall along the western wall is one of the smaller structures at Qutansi, it has at least three horizontal inscribed boards (hengbian) dated 1629, 1632, and 1862, imply that the mgon khang was its own focus of patronage at the temple. First built in 1392, the Protector Hall is recorded as having been repaired in 1871 (Xie Zuo, p.4). However the painting program suggests that this was originally a chapel devoted to yi dam (tutelary deities) and later converted into a protector chapel. 35. mDo smad chos byung, pp.171-172. While it has been suggested that only Chinese painting at Qutansi dates to the early Ming, the last lines of the quote above provide evidence that although the extant images no longer match with this earlier description and later renovations were made, Tibetan images were indeed part of Qutansis initial program. And, as we shall see, internal evidence also points to the extant paintings being done before the mid-15th century. 36. Gur mgons appearance does not in itself constitute a Sa skya presence, as this form of Mahkla was absorbed within the bKa brgyud system as a minor protector and does appear in bKa brgyud monasteries and portraits (e.g.: see Dabaojigongs altar screen and portraits of the 13th Karma pa [Jackson (1996), fig. 156 & 157]), yet he is given such prominent wall space in various halls throughout Qutansi, an entire wall panel being devoted to him in not only Qutandian but also Baoguangdian and the large drum tower, as well as being described as one of the three primary sculptural images of the mgon khang in the mDo smad chos byung that one takes immediate note of his strong presence. 37. Sperling (2001), p.8. This is also reflected in the mDo smad chos byung, p.172 (see footnote 49 below). 38. Little else survives in this chapel, except flanking the Six-Armed Mahkla on the lower left there still is a small beautifully painted female deity in long flowing robes mounted on a horse, A phyi ma herself. Opposite her on the south wall also survives a male deity wearing a broad-brimmed hat who is mounted on a lion bearing a hammer and rosary. 39. This would correspond to the construction of Baoguangdian and the bestowal of its main image, a golden Buddha, recorded in a pair of bilingual stele: the Yongle Imperial Decree Stele of 1418 (Tib: rGyal poi lung gis, Ch: Yongle shiliu nian Qutansi huangdi chiyu bei) dated to the 22nd day of the 1st month of the 16th year of the Yongle period (1418), and the Imperial Bestowal of Qutansis Golden Buddha Image Stele (Tib: rGyal pos gser sku la bstod pai rdo ring, Ch: Yuzhi Qutansi jinfoxiang bei) dated to the 1st day of
71
the 3rd month of the 16th Year of Yongle (1418) located in the front of the temple (see Xie Zuo, pp.83-85, and pp.86-89). The stele gives the name of the hall in Chinese as Baoguangdian (Tib: Bu gwong sde) while the mDo smad chos byung gives the Tibetan name Jo khang Rin chen od bar, both mean Blazing Jewel Light, clearly describing the same hall. 40. This would correspond to the founding of Longguodian, described in the bilingual Imperial Bestowal of Qutansis Rear Hall Stele Tib: rGyal pos mdzad pai Gou tam sdei rgyab gyi lha khang gi rdo ring, Ch: Yuzhi Qutansi houdian bei dated the 9th day of the 2nd month of the 2nd year of Xuande (1427) located at the front of the temple (see: Xie Zuo, pp.96-100 for the text). 41. Zhang Yubao and Du Xianzhou Qinghai Ledu Qutansi diaocha baogao, Wenwu (1964) No.5, p.50. It was recently discovered during restoration work that under the plaster of the outside wall of Baoguangdian are also wall paintings. 42. The Karma pa is likely the Fifth Karma pa, De bzhin gshegs pa as the abbot of Qutansi at the time of this halls construction is recorded as having been his personal disciple. For more on dPal ldan bkra shis relationship with the Fifth Karma pa see footnotes 27 & 28. The most likely candidate for the image of the Zhwa dmar is the Second Zhwa dmar mKha spyod dbang po (1350-1405), teacher of the Fifth Karma pa (or alternatively the Third Zhwa dmar Chos dpal ye shes (1406-1452) who would only have been 11 years old when this hall was built). 43. A brief account of the casting of this image is given in the Imperial Bestowal of Qutansis Golden Buddha Image Stele (Tib: rGyal pos gser sku la bstod pai rdo ring, Ch: Yuzhi Qutansi jinfoxiang bei) dated to the 1st day of the 3rd month of the 16th Year of Yongle (1418) and located in the front of the temple (reproduced in Xie Zuo, pp.86-89). In it the Yongle emperor projects himself as a cakravartin ruling over his kingdom; with the thought of creating benefit for all sentient beings, he ordered his artisans to begin the casting of an image of the Buddha in gold. He even evokes the image of King Indrabhti of Uiyana (Yul dbu rgyan gyi rgyal po), an Indian historical model of devout rule, and draws a parallel between Indrabhtis actions in commissioning an image and his own. However, in a story familiar to the making of sacral images across traditions and designed to increase the efficacy of the image: though the artisans worked for a long time they did/ could not complete it until one day when they went out for food, leaving the workshop deserted, and the divine body manifested itself. This frightened and amazed everyone and was seen as a magical manifestation of the powers by the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, thus completing the work in a single casting. At that time the requisite markers of miraculous events in the Tibetan tradition were observed: a sweet smell of otherworldly incense was enjoyed and auspicious light spread. It was this well-proportioned auspicious image that was sent west as an offering to the guanding jingjue hongji daguoshi dPal ldan bzang po (dPal ldan bkra shis). 44. Tib: rGyal pos mdzad pai Gou tam sdei rgyab gyi lha khang gi rdo ring, Ch: Yuzhi Qutansi houdian bei is dated to the 9th day of the 2nd month of the 2nd year of Xuande (1427) and is located at the front of the temple (reproduced in Xie Zuo, pp.96-100). To fulfill the wishes of his father implies that Longguodian was built by the Xuande Emperor as a memorial hall for the Yongle Emperor as part of his funerary rites. I would like to thank Professor Matthew Kapstein for pointing out this connection. However, it would seem from other evidence that both the Baoguang Hall and the Longgou Hall were conceived as part of the same construction project by the Yongle emperor, thus the Xuande emperor would, indeed, have been fulfilling the wishes of his father. 45. The Chinese inscription reads Da Ming Xuande er nian er yue chu jiu ri, yuyongjian taijian Mengji, Shang Yi, Chen Xiang, Yuan Qi jianli. (see: Xie Zuo, pp.57-58; and Qian Zhengkun, p.58). 46. Xie Zuo, p.6, Zhang Yubao and Du Xianzhou, p.51 and Qian Zhengkun, p.58. 47. See: Yang Boxian, p.58. Shang Yi led the way in the rebuilding of Baoguangsi in Beijing in

1440. Two stele record gifts from 939 eunuchs to Baoguangsi (see: Naquin, pp.183-4 and Beijing tushuguan jiushi zupian, 51:99 & 51:164-165). Shang Yi as Director of Imperial Accoutrements supervised the construction of Da Longfusi in 1452 and his name appears on a set of shuilu paintings dated 1454 (Weidner, p.57). There is also a Shang Yi (d. 1465) listed under the name (hao) Ren Li in the Mingshi renmin suoyin 16/180/4798. Shang Yi was the commander of the Suzhou Guard sent in 1446 as an expeditionary force to strike the Oirat Mongols who had moved into Shazhou, in modern day Dunhuang, Gansu Province (see Dictionary of Ming Biography, pp.766 & 1039). It seems likely that the Yuan Qi mentioned here is the same Chinese official Yuan Qi (Tib: Yon bzhad) to whom dPal ldan bkra shis gave full ordination vows in the WoodTiger Year (1434), seven years after the completion of Longguo Hall (see footnote 29). There does appear in the Mingshi renmin suoyin a Yuan Qi, 1/9/122, 7/82/1993, 15/164/ 4449, and 26/304/7772 (the volume dealing with foreigners). This last entry is dated to the Xuande period, when both of these events were taking place, and suggests that Yuan Qi could be the same Yuan Qi that appears here. 48. The Chinese reads: Yongle nianjian jiefeng qinchai Meng taijian zhihui tianxuan deng feng shengzhijian li Baoguang, Longguo er dian, li you beiji. (Xie Zuo, p.58). 49. This is stated in a later passage in the mDo smad chos byung (p.172) which extols the notion that whichever teachings are most appropriate regarding Cakrasavara yoga, whether they belong to the Sa skya or bKa brgyud doctrinal systems, should be received jointly. 50. Qian Zhengkun, p.58. According to the Qinghai Zangzhuan fojiao siyuan mingjian (p.111) all of these paintings date to the 1430s. Examination of the paintings was made difficult by the large red cloths covering the walls, which are there, according to Mr. Jia of the Qinghai Province Cultural Relics Archeological Research Institute, to protect Chinese sensibilities from the sexual yab yum imagery. 51. Ibid. The Chinese reads: Da Ming Xuande er nian er yue chu jiu ri Xining Qutansi anfeng Dachijingang tuyang. It seems that this painting is also now lost. 52. In Chinese the Longguo Hall is sometimes referred to as the Yongle Hall (Xie Zuo, p.58). 53. huihua fengge xi Han Zang he bi, dan yi gongbi zhong cai, qinglu shanshui fengge wei zhu Zhongguo bihua quanji 34: Zangquan siyuan 4, p.44. 54. See Qian Zhengkun, p.59. Also, according to monks and laymen at Qutansi, both that temple and nearby Yaotaisi were painted by masters of the Sun family, thus this inscription and traditional accounts corroborate each other (ibid.). Another inscription on the opposite side of the gallery reads: Painted by Wang Shu of Yun Wu. Yun Wu is thought to be modern day Minhe county in Qinghai (Qian Zhengkun, p.59). 55. Qian Zhengkun, p.60. Xie Zuo (p.2) gives Fotang nei (Tib: lha khang nang) as an alternate local name for Qutansi. 56. Qian Zhengkun, p.61. 57. Jackson (1996), p.104, quoting Si tu and Be lo (an 18th century source). This Chinese scroll painting in gNas rnying would presumably be the great Chinese [Depiction of the Buddhas] Deeds (rGya mdzad chen po). In 1464 sMan bla don grub also completed murals depicting the Great Deeds of the Buddha in a Chinese style (rGya mdzad chen mo) in the main temple building at bKra shis lhun po (ibid., p.115). About a century later sMan bla don grubs set of Twelve Deeds in turn served as a model for the founder of the sGar bris tradition, Nam mkha bkra shis in 1568 (ibid., pp.173 & 176). 58. The complete description reads: Previously at forty-one, in the Fire-Bird Year (1417), [dPal ldan bkra shis] erected Lhu grub bde chen temple. In the third year of Xuande, the Earth-Monkey Year (1428), in order to repair the temple, two great ministers were given an edict for building the temple (i.e.: they were appointed to the job). Another one hundred greater and lesser civil officials (mi dpon), 200 greater and lesser district officials
73
(sde dpon), 1,100 artisans (bzo rigs pa) of various kinds, together with 25,000 military corve laborers (dmag mii u lag), etc., were appointed by imperial order. From the treasury (i.e.: state funds) [were made]: a great chapel with a squat tower surmounting it (dbu rtse); a drum tower; a bell tower; six side chapels (glo bur); the Hall of Heavenly Kings; a stele hall; etc., all possessing roofs of piled turquoise tiles. Within the great chapel [were]: the Buddhas of the Three Times [statues] together with a courtyard of sixty rooms; an [image of the] arhat Brag ri ma; a Chinese edition of the bKa gyur; the [kya muni [image] within the surmounting squat tower (dbu rtse); [an image of] Amitbha; [an image of] Bhaiajyaguru; [images of] the Eight Bodhisattva Attendants; and a [Tibetan] bKa gyur. Within the north outbuilding to the right [were]: the Bhairava [image], [an image of] Tisthati and [an image of] Karma Yama in sexual union. Within the north outbuilding to the left [were]: a Four-Armed Mahkla [image], a Gur [-gyi mgon po image], and [an image of] Six-Armed Mahkla, each with their own retinue of attendants. Within the first outbuilding to the east [were]: [683] two sets of the bKa gyur of gold with rosary string cloth covers with ivory studded tops, golden book covers, and fasteners in gold on all (of the volumes). In the first outbuilding to the west [was]: a copy of the bsTan gyur modeled on the bsTan gyur which was offered to the emperor by rGyal rong ba Grags pa rgyal mtshan, an upholder of the Bon tenet system, of gray volume wrappings, etc., such as [the two sets] described above. [There were also] seven chapels surrounding the dormitory. In the tantric palace that was associated with the dormitory and an assembly hall was an image renowned as the monasterys Jo bo (kyamuni), which is said to sit without touching its seat and to have come from Java (Tib. Zangs gling). There were such [images] as the Vajradhara of incense wood (spos shing), and a statue of the [Fifth] Karma pa; the lords own (dPal ldan bkra shis) tutelary deity Mahcakra, which was erected as a support; a Four-Armed Mahkla [image]; a Vairavaa image; an image (sku brnyan) of White Tr sitting upon a lotus trunk of gold supported by naga, possessing excellently inset sapphires, rubies, emeralds, and pearls; and from an agate vase set before [the Tr image] a pure gold tree with flowers of five kinds of precious gems on its top; a golden stupa [named] bKra shis sgo mang to [dPal ldan bkra shiss] tutelary deity made one-third of gold and bronze with 250 srang of gold and a mixture of gold and quicksilver applied, fifteen khru in height, together with a crystal pedestal; a palace of Bhaiajyaguru, three dom in height (i.e.: a three-dimensional maala); a Tripiaka in gold; an Avatasaka stra, its Chinese and Tibetan text written in gold, its coverings excellent and beautiful as described before; the mahcakra in the two chapels to the right and left; meditation maala (blos bslang) of the sixty-two deities of savara, the thirteen forms of Bhairava, and the nine deities of Amityus. The four white deities [of each] maala were [made of] ivory. The ivory was painted green and red. The yellow [deities] had a core of white sandalwood. The blue and black [deities] were made of crystal wood (shel shing). In the last east chapel [were]: the Amitbha of incense wood, Maitreya, and Tr. In another three chapels [were] images of the Five Cosmic Buddhas. In the dormitory [were]; his own image (dPal ldan bkra shis); two rnam rgyal stupas of gold; also solid gold images; silver images; a Sugatigarbha image (bum sku); a bronze image; an image of sandalwood and crystal wood; and innumerable thang ka such as embroidered (btags grub), woven (bzo grub), and painted (bris) thang ka. [There was] a solid gold maala form (maal zhing bkod kyi rnam pa) upon which gold was applied, the circumference of which was worked in relief and measured three dom across; similar vessels (kong bu) of solid gold; a gold maala with an ornamental hanging (dra ba dra phyed) with pendent tassels of pearls; seven sets of three cymbals each able to contain three large bre of grain; a vase on a stand with thirty gold flowers, each one dom high, and each of

them ornamented; one set of cymbals, each one of which one person is needed to hold; an offering bowl made from seven large bre of silver; five sets of silver maala; an enamel maala; five sets of maala finely inset with jewels; seven sets of silver (maala); a flower vase of crystal and agate; many bronze incense burners; many good quality silk banners, parasols, canopies, and other unimaginable implements for worship. Outside the temple compound [there were] two hundred monks quarters (gyan). A large strong wall together with all that was inside was made of laid stone and brick, etc. Though this all passes beyond the realm of the mind, it can be known in detail from [dPal ldan bkra shiss] biography. mDo smad chos byung, pp.682-684. The text says further that a fourth temple, which may also follow this imperial program, rNam rgyal gling (Yuanjuesi) was separately founded by the emperor under the direction of dPal ldan bkra shis, but few details are given. The emperor, the patron of the priest (mchod yon), separately founded another temple called rNam rgyal gling (Yuanjuesi) according to the orders of the lord (dPal ldan bkra shis). The assembly hall and monks residence were roofed. (Chinese tile roofs?) mDo smad chos byung, pp.684. 59. The Naxi and Mosuo are thought by Chinese scholars to descend from the Qiang, and Naxi oral tradition also places their ancestors to the northwest and as living in tents and tending to animals. Also the early presence of Chinese Buddhist temples and the constant reference to the presence of Chinese monks in Lijiang referred to in Tibetan sources further suggest a strong Han Chinese cultural presence. 60. Si tu Pan chen, pp.151 & 180. 61. Feng Zhi, p.57-58. Yang Xuezheng (1995), p.265, who sites the Mingshilu as his source. 62. Naxizu wenzu shi, p.510. In reality he seemed to still act as the power behind the throne for the next ten years for his son, who was not yet in his majority. 63. However when the dGe lugs pa, lead by the Fifth Dalai Lama, later came into conflict with the bKa brgyud pa in the 17th century the Naxi showed themselves militant partisans of the Karma pa. 64. Wanli renwu duanyang yuanman baishu, tuguan gongdezhu Mu Wang zhi. Yuanman can also refer in a Buddhist context to the end of a ritual confession of sin, chanhui. A Qing Dynasty manuscript Lijiangfu zhigao says Dabaojigong was built by the Ming Wanli era Mu tusi. 65. Important internal evidence to the question of the dating of this inscription is the identity of this rDo rje bde chog (Vajra svara) invoked in the first line of the inscription. Is it possibly the initiatory name of the Wanli Emperor (1573-1620) (the first word in the inscription, gong ma, was often used to refer to the emperor), who re-established close ties to the Karma bKa brgyud after the backlash against Emperor Zhengdes (1506-1521) excessive enthusiasm for Tibetan Buddhism at the Ming court under his successor Emperor Shizong (1522-1567). (See: Dictionary of Ming Biography, p.309; and Brook, p.313.) If so, this would confirm the reading of the cyclical date in this inscription to 1583, functioning much like a Chinese reign date. Alternatively, this could also be the initiation name of one of the kings of Lijiang, like Mu Wang, but it does not correspond to any of the Tibetan names of Mu rulers given in the Karma pa rnam thar. Mu Zengs (1597-1646) Tibetan name is known to us through Tibetan sources as Karma Mi pham Tshe dbang bsod nams rab brtan. 66. If one reads the date as 1643, then one could read the second line as a pun: a temple which rivals Lhasa, i.e.: the Potala palace, which was under construction at this time. This would constitute a jab at the Fifth Dalai Lama, who destroyed or forcibly converted many bKa brgyud monasteries at just around this time. I would like to thank Professor Kapstein for suggesting this more nuanced alternate reading. If one accepts this later date, then the inscription could refer to the later painting of Dabaojigong, discussed

the wall painting program was overseen by the Sixth Zhwa dmar, who was in Lijiang at this time and also a painter and may have omitted himself out of deference. This would place the execution of the painting between 1611 (the date of the Tenth Karma pas enthronement) and 1630 (the Sixth Zhwa dmars death), but later rather than earlier, as the Tenth Karma pa was only six in 1611. If the painting was done after the Sixth Zhwa dmars time and overseen by the Tenth Karma pa, it is unlikely that he would have left out his teacher. After all, the very function of a lineage painting is to trace the unbroken transmission of teachings/initiations through an accepted series of masters, from the current holder back to the revered Indian masters. By omitting the Sixth Zhwa dmar he would be severing his own tie to this transmission. An in depth analysis of this painting, and a discussion of the Sixth Zhwa dmar and the Tenth Karma pas presence in Lijiang, including an exploration of the Tenth Karma pas development of a Chinese style of thang ka painting while in Lijiang, are presented elsewhere in Debreczeny Dabaojigong and the Regional Tradition of Ming Sino-Tibetan Wall Painting in Lijiang. forthcoming in Buddhism Between Tibet and China edited by Matthew Kapstein. 77. This internal evidence reminds one of the 1643 reading of the Tibetan inscription found on the north wall of Dabaojigong. Stylistic analysis is difficult to perform due to some degree of over-painting, including an over-layer of some kind of varnish on top of the background landscape which seems to have darkened the overall program. Evidence of this over-painting is most visible where dark pigment overlaps the Tibetan cartouches and partially obscures them. 78. This happened because the leadership of the bKa brgyud was left in shambles after the Fifth Dalai Lamas attack on the Karma bKa brgyud, after which the Tenth Karma pa almost witnessed the total eclipse of his tradition and retreated to Lijiang. It was the sDe dge Si tu lineage who picked up the pieces of the bKa brgyud leadership in Eastern Tibet and Western China. dPal spungs had jurisdiction over branch temples arranged in 70-80 seats distributed in such places as sDe dge, Danke, Kangding, Ba thang, Li thang, Mu li, Dao, Danba, as far as Lijiang in the south and A mdo to the north. The Naxi bKa brgyud monks of Lijiang therefore went to dPal pungs and mTshur phu for study of bKa brgyud doctrine. 79. However, the chronology of Dabaojigongs naming remains unclear as it could not be named after dPal spungs almost 140 years before dPal spungs was built. Interestingly Lijiangs only gazetteer, Lijiangfu zhilue (p.204), written in 1743, does not list Dabaojigong among its temples but does give the name Hufa qielan, an alternate name given for Dabaojigong by Joseph Rock (1947, p.210). It is possible that the temple was originally known as Hufa qielan but was renamed Dabaojigong after it became a branch temple of dPal spungs in the 18th century. 80. This is not to suggest that these temples locations in ethnically Tibetan areas is unrelated to the appearance and degree of Tibetan imagery, as it clearly is, especially in the later 18th century restorations. I merely wish to avoid this oversimplified explanation as the sole reason for the appearance of this Sino-Tibetan synthesis, which seems to be a generally held assumption. 81. Debreczeny The Buddhas Law Among the Jang: The 10th Karma-pas Development of His Chinese Style Thang-ka Painting in the Kingdom of Lijiang Orientations, Vol.34, No.4 (April) 2003, pp.46-53. Please note images 8e and 8f have been switched.
Bibliography
Baoningsi Mingdai bihua. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1995. Beijing tushuguan jiushi zupian (eds.). Beijing tushuguan zang Zhongguo lidai shike taben huibian, Vol.51. Beijing: Zhongguo guji chubanshe, 1990. Cha har dge bshes Blo bzang tshul khrims. rJe thams cad mkhyen pa Tsong kha pa chen poi rnam thar go sla bar brjod pa bde legs kun gyi byung gnas. In Blo bzang tshul khrims Cha
77
har dge bshes kyi gsung bum, Vol. kha. New Delhi: 1971. Chen Hua (ed.). Naxizu shi. Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe, 1994. Chen Nan. Dazi fawang kao. Zhongguo Zangxue Vol. 4 (1996): pp.68-83. Debreczeny, Karl. Dabaojigong and the Regional Tradition of Ming Sino-Tibetan Wall Painting in Lijiang, Yunnan. Forthcoming in Matthew Kapstein (ed.) Buddhism Between Tibet and China. _____. Fahai Temple and Tibetan Influence at the Early Ming Court. MA Thesis, Indiana University, 1997. _____. The Buddhas Law Among the Jang: The 10th Karma-pas Development of His Chinese Style Thang-ka Painting in the Kingdom of Lijiang Orientations, Vol.34, No.4, (April) 2003, pp.46-53. dKon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas. mDo smad chos byung. Gansu: Minzu chubanshe, 1987. Dreyer, Edward. Early Ming China: A Political History 1355-1435. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1982. Feng Zhi. Mingdai Lijiang mushi tusi yu Xizang Gamabapai guanxi shulue. Zangzu lishi zongjiao yanjiu, diyi ji. Zhongguo Zangxue chubanshe, pp.46-70. Fong, Wen C. and James C.Y. Watt. Possessing the Past: Treasures from the National Palace Museum, Taipei. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1996. Goodrich, Carrington and Fang Chaoying (eds.). Dictionary of Ming Biography. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976. Guo Dalie. Naxizu wenhua daguan. Kunming: Yunnan minzu chubanshe, 1999. Gyss-Vermande, Caroline. Demons et merveilles: vision de la nature dans une peinture liturgique de Xve siecle. Arts Asiatiques 43 (1988), pp. 106-122. Huang, Hao. Zai Beijing Zangzu wenwu. Beijing: Minzu chubanshe, 1993. Imaeda, Yoshiro. Ledition du kanjur Tibetain de Jang sa-tham. Journal Asiatique no.cclxx (1982): pp.173-189. Jiang Gao. Yunnan minzu zhuwu wenhua. Kunming: Yunnan daxue chubanshe, 1997. Jin Weinuo. Fahaisi bihua Dishifantian tu (The Indra Iconography of the Wall Paint ings of Fahai Temple) Meishu yanjiu. no.3 (1959): pp.24-27. _____ (ed.). Zhongguo bihua quanji 34: Zangchuan siyuan 4. Tianjin: Tianjin Peoples Art Publishing, 1993. Karma Nges don bstan rgyas. Chos rje Karma pa sku phreng rim byon gyi rnam thar mdor bsdus dpag bsam khri shing. Delhi: Topden Tsering, 1973. Li Song. Beijing Fahaisi. Xiandai foxue 4 (1963): pp.37-42. Li Weiqing. Lijiang Mushi tufu miaoyu bihua chutan. Wenwu no.6, 1960. Li Yumin. Mingshi Renmin suoyin. Beijing: Xinhua shudian, 1985. Lijiang Naxizu zizhixian wenhuaju Lijiang Naxi Dongba wenhua bowuguan (eds.). Lijiang Baisha bihua. Chengdu: Sichuan renmin chubanshe, 1999. Lijiang xian Xianzhibian weihui (ed.). Lijiang fuzhilue. Lijiang Naxizu zizhixian, 1991. Lijiang xianzhi bangongshi (ed.). Mushi Huanpu Lijiang Zhiyuan. No.2 (August, 1988). Little, Stephen. Taoism. Chicago: The Art Institute of Chicago, 2000. Lohai, Sushama (trans.). Lalitavajras Manual of Buddhist Iconography. New Delhi: Interna tional Academy of Indian Culture and Aditya Prakashan, 1994. Ma Lan (ed.). Qinghai wenwu jingpin tuji. Beijing: Zhongguo wenlian chubanshe, 1990. Naquin, Susan. Peking. Temples and City Life, 1400-1900. Berkeley: University of Califor nia Press, 2000. Naxizu jianshi bianxie zu (eds.). Naxizu jianshi. Kunming: Yunnan renmin chubanshe, 1984. Phur lcog ngag dbang byams ba. Grwa sa chen po bzi dang rgyud pa stod smad chags tshul pad dkar phreng bo bzugs so. Lhasa: Tibetan Peoples Publishing House, 1989. Qi Hong (ed.). Fahaisi bihua. Beijing: Zhongguo yuyou chubanshe, 1993. Qian Zhengkun. Qinghai Ledu Qutansi bihua yenjiu. Meishu Yanjiu, (1995) No.5, pp.5763. Qin Lingyun. Minjian huagong shiliao. Beijing: Zhongguo gudian yishu chubanshe, 1958.

Qin Lingyun (ed.), Beijing Fahaisi Mingdai bihua. Beijing, 1958. Qinghai sheng wenhua ding (eds.). Qutansi. Chengdu: Sichuan kexue jishu chubanshe & Xin -jiang keji weisheng chubanshe, 2000. Ricca, Franco and Erberto Lo Bue. The Great Stupa at Gyantse: A Complete Tibetan Pan -theon of the Fifteenth Century. London: Serindia Publ., 1993. Richardson, H.E. The Karma-pa Sect. A Historical Note. Part I Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 1958. pp.139-164 & Part II Apendix A,B,C 1959. pp.1-18. ____. Chos-dbyings rdo-rje, the Tenth Black Hat Karma-pa. In High Peaks, Pure Earth: Collected Writings on Tibetan History and Culture. London: Serindia Publications, 1998, pp.499-515. Rock, Joseph F. The Ancient Na-khi Kingdom of Southwest China vol. I & II. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947. Sperling, Elliot. Notes on the Early history of Gro-tshang Rdo-rje-chang and its Relations with the Ming Court, Lungta 14, Spring 2001, pp.77-87. ____. The 5th Karma-pa and Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Tibet and the Early Ming. In Tibetan Studies in Honour of Hugh Richardson, Michael Aris and Aung San Suu Kyi (eds.), Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1980. ____. The 1413 Ming Embassy to Tsong-kha-pa and the Arrival of Byams-chen chos-rje Shakya ye-shes at the Ming Court. The Journal of the Tibet Society, II (1982). ____. Early Ming Policy Toward Tibet: An Examination of the Proposition that the Early Ming Emperors Adopted a Divide and Rule Policy. Ph.D. Diss. Indiana University, 1983 _____. The Szechwan-Tibet Frontier in the Fifteenth Century. in Ming Studies No.26 (Fall 1988), pp.37-55. _____. Two Early Ming Missives to Karma-pa Hierarchs. Forthcoming in Tashi Tsering et al (eds.) Tibetan Studies in Honour of Rai Bahadur Athing T. D. Densapa. Si tu Pan chen Chos kyi byung gnas. Bsgrub rgyud karma kam tshang brgyud pa rin po chei rnam par thar pa rab byams nor bu zla ba chu shel gyi phreng ba. New Delhi: D. Gyaltsan & Kesang Legshay, 1973. Thorp, Robert (ed.). Son of Heaven: Imperial Arts of China. Seattle: Son of Heaven Press, 1988 Tshe mchog gling yongs dzin Ye shes rgyal mtshan. Byang chub lam gyi rim pai bla ma brgyud pai rnam par thar pa rgyal mtshan mdzes pai rgyan mchog phul byung nor bui phreng ba. New Delhi: 1970. Tserangja [Tse-ring rgal] (ed.). Se-ra theg-chen-gling (Chinese: Sela Dacengzhou, English: Sera Thekche ling, [sic]). Beijing: Nationalities Press, 1995. Tsai, Shih-shan Henry. The Eunuchs in the Ming Dynasty. Albany: State University of NY Press, 1996. Tse dbang lha mo. Bod du bKa brgyud pai grub mthai srol phyes shing yun nan sa khul du ji ltar khyab ba. (The Introduction of bKa brgyud religious order in Tibet and how it penetrated and spread in Yunnan province) Yunnan Zangxue yanjiu lunwen ji. Kunming: Yunnan minzu chubanshe, 1995. pp.76-115. Wang Haihang and Chen Yaolin. Pilusi Bihua. Hebei: Hebei meishu chubanshe. 1984 Weidner, Marsha (ed.). Latter Days of the Law: Images of Chinese Buddhism 850-1850. Spencer Museum of Art: University of Kansas. 1994 Wu Jun. Anduo zhengjiaoshi. Gansu: Gansu Peoples Press. 1989 Xi Yuhua and Wang Xiaosong. Mushi tusi yu Zang chuan fojiao Gaju jiaopai fayuan guanxi qiantan. In Yunnan Zangxue Yanjiu Lunwenji, 2, Gu Kerong (ed.) Kunming: Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe, 1997. Xie Zuo. Qutansi. Xining: Qinghai renmin chubanshe, 1982. Yang Boxian (ed.). Beijing Fahaisi. Beijing: Beijing Huatian luyou guoji guanggao gongsi, 1994. _____ (ed.). Fahaisi bihua. Beijing: Zhongguo minzu sheying chubanshe, 2001.
79
Yang Xuezheng. Zangzu, Naxizu, Pumizu de Zangchuan fojiao. Kunming: Yunnan renmin chubanshe, 1994. _____. Xizang fojiao zai Yunnan de chuanbo he yingxiang. Yunnan zangxue yanjiu lunwen ji. Kunming: Yunnan minzu chubanshe, 1995. pp.256-278. Yang Zhou (ed.). Lijiang si shi bihua. Yunnan minzu minjian yishu. Kunming: Yunnan renmin chubanche, 1985, pp.49-58. Yang Zhou (ed.). Baizu, Naxizu de simiao bihua Yunnan minzujian wenxue yishu. Kunming: Yunnan renmin chubanshe, 1985. pp.243-249. Yunnansheng bianji weiyuanhui (ed.). Naxizu shehui lishi diaocha. Kunming: Yunnan renmin chubanshe, 1983. Yunnansheng qunzhong yishu guan (ed.). Yunnan minzu minjian yishu. Kunming: Yunnan renmin chubanshe, 1994. Zhang Yubao and Du Xianzhou. Qinghai Ledu Qutansi diaocha baogao. Wenwu (1964) no.5, p.50. Zhang Tingyu. Mingshi. Beijing: Xinhua shudian, 1974. Zhou Qiyu (ed.). Yunnan Fojiao yishu. Kunming: Yunnan jiaoyu chubanshe, 1991. Zhuma Yingzhui. Jian shu Ming Qing shiqi Dian xibei de Minzu guanxi. In Yunnan Zangxue Yanjiu Lunwenji, 2, Gu Kerong (ed.), Kunming: Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe, 1997. pp.262272.

Karl Debreczeny - Sino-Tibetan Artistic Synthesis in Ming Dynasty

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Karl Debreczeny - Sino-Tibetan Artistic Synthesis in Ming Dynasty

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Sino-Tibetan Artistic Synthesis in Ming Dynasty Temples at the Core and Periphery

SINO-TIBETAN ARTISTIC SYNTHESIS

SINO-TIBETAN ARTISTIC SYNTHESIS

SINO-TIBETAN ARTISTIC SYNTHESIS

58 THE TIBET JOURNAL

SINO-TIBETAN ARTISTIC SYNTHESIS

SINO-TIBETAN ARTISTIC SYNTHESIS

68 THE TIBET JOURNAL

SINO-TIBETAN ARTISTIC SYNTHESIS

70 THE TIBET JOURNAL

SINO-TIBETAN ARTISTIC SYNTHESIS

72 THE TIBET JOURNAL

SINO-TIBETAN ARTISTIC SYNTHESIS

74 THE TIBET JOURNAL

76 THE TIBET JOURNAL

SINO-TIBETAN ARTISTIC SYNTHESIS

78 THE TIBET JOURNAL

SINO-TIBETAN ARTISTIC SYNTHESIS

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi