Karl Debreczeny--Sino-Tibetan Artistic Synthesis in Ming Dynasty

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

Karl Debreczeny

The term “Sino-Tibetan” is often employed in art historical discourse without ahistorical definition. As a self-explanatory concept, however, the term is nothingmore than a marker of hybridity: it does not indicate how these Chinese and Tibetantraditions come together. This paper examines three Ming dynasty (1368-1644) casesto reach a renewed understanding of Sino-Tibetan synthesis: the first, Fahaisi(“Ocean of the Dharma Temple”), is a metropolitan temple built under court spon-sorship; the second, Qutansi (“Gautama Temple”), is a provincially located templealso built under imperial sponsorship; and the third is, Dabaojigong (“Great Gem-heap Palace”), a temple which is provincially located, but built under local sponsor-ship. The primary distinction to be made in the development of the Sino-Tibetanwall paintings in these three temples is not between metropolitan or provinciallocations, but rather between their imperial and local programs of sponsorship.1

Fahaisi (Fig.1) is located on Mount Cuiwei in the Shijingshan district in thewestern 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 principalpatron was the eunuch Li Tong (d. 1453), who served as yuyongjian, or Director ofImperial Accoutrements.3 Fahaisi thus lies at the artistic core of Ming professionalpainting production because of its patron’s position within the imperial construc-tion apparatus and because of its proximity to the sites of court visual productionin the capital. Fahaisi also lay at the political core of the Ming court as a result of itsinner court sponsorship, which included the reception and patronage of Tibetanhierarchs from Tibet and from the Sino-Tibetan frontier. There has been a traditionalresistance to the notion that Ming courtiers were personally interested in TibetanBuddhism as the Ming is viewed as a “native” dynasty which expended a great dealof energy to reassert an ethnic Chinese identity in the wake of the Yuan dynastyMongol rule. That the early Ming court followed a Mongol precedent in drawing ona Tibetan model for creating an imperial Buddhist vocabulary symbolic of divine ruleis only beginning to be recognized. Tibetan and Newar artisans are thought to haveremained in Beijing after the fall of the Yuan and served in the Ming imperial atelier.4

Thus Fahaisi’s location is important in understanding the appearance of TibetanBuddhist imagery.

The fact that Tibetan borrowings appear specifically at Fahaisi, a small privatetemple on the outskirts of the capital, seems to be a result of the intersecting layersof eunuch bureaucracy at the Ming court at which Li Tong was active, both in theirroles 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 ser-vice in the imperial palace as a eunuch under the Yongle Emperor (r. 1403-1424), thefirst Ming emperor to establish significant and personal ties with Tibetan patriarchsat court. As Li Tong’s title “Director of Imperial Accoutrements” implies, he directlyattended the Emperor’s person. Proximity to emperors such as the Yongle and Xuande(r. 1426-1435) emperors, who showed great enthusiasm for Tibetan Buddhism andrepeatedly met with Tibetan clerics, in all likelihood exposed Li Tong to Tibetan

52 THE TIBET JOURNAL

his own personal practice. The armor on Li Tong’s statue, which was also de-stroyed during the Cultural Revolution, is quite evident in an unpublished photo-graph displayed at the temple. Portraits of eunuch donors were quite commonunder the Ming. This hypothesis is further reinforced by the fact that Li Tong’sportrait statue closely resembled the image of the temple guardian Weituo, paintedon the north wall (Fig.11), who is depicted facing M�r�c� with hands clasped inreverence.19 This would also imply that Li Tong, as the Director of Imperial Accoutre-ments and principal patron of Fahaisi, directly influenced the temple’s pictorialprogram.

Direct evidence of a significant Tibetan presence at Fahaisi is provided by theten Tibetan names on the back of the “Record of Fahaisi” stele.20 The last threeTibetans named there: Rin chen pa, bKra shis gzhon nu, and bKra shis yon tan werekaishan lama, or “founding lamas,” clerics who took part in the preparation andplanning of Fahaisi, and may be responsible for the Tibetan elements in Fahaisi’siconographic program.21 The third name, the “Purely Enlightened CompassionatelyHelpful Great State Preceptor” jingjue ciji daguoshi dPal ldan bkra shis (Bandanzhashi), is the most interesting in the context of this discussion, for he not onlyappears to have played a role in the founding of Fahaisi, but also was both abbot ofQutansi, in Qinghai,22 and founder of Lhun grub bde chen gling, in Gansu, bothprovincially located temples built with imperial sponsorship.

Qutansi (Tib: Gro tshang lha khang, Gro tshang rDo rje ’chang, Go tam sde, orGo’u tam sde) (Fig.12) was founded in 1392 by Sangs rgyas bkra shis (also knownas Lama bSam lo and Karma he Lama) in present day Ledu county, 43 kilometerseast of Xining in modern day Qinghai Province.23 The temple’s location is describedin one of its own dedicatory steles as being on the border connecting with thewestern kingdoms (Tibet)24 and thus at the meeting of the northwest Ming frontierand the eastern border of the Tibetan province of A mdo. An examination of Tibetanchronicles and Chinese imperial records reveals that Qutansi was dependant on theMing court’s support and protection. In turn, its patronage was part of a largerMing Sino-Tibetan border strategy to establish an alliance between the local gov-ernment and the imperial court, and its abbots played a major part in the formulationof early Ming policies toward Tibet.25 The Ming court repeatedly sent eunuchs toinspect and participate in the construction of Qutansi. It was also made seat of theXining Prefectural Buddhist Registry (Xining Senggangsi) during this period andwas granted jurisdiction over 13 other temples and their attached monastic estatesin seven valleys in the surrounding area, which further demonstrates the temple’simportance to the Ming imperial court.26

Although Qutansi was initially founded in 1392, the bulk of its construction onlytook place under imperial patronage in the early 15th century during the tenure ofSangs rgyas bkra shis’s nephew, dPal ldan bkra shis, who is recorded as beingappointed abbot of Qutansi by the Yongle Emperor in 1408.27 dPal ldan bkra shiswas directly involved with Buddhist practice in Beijing and wielded significantinfluence within the National Buddhist Registry, the Senglusi.28 He served as theFifth Karma pa’s translator at court, translated numerous Tibetan texts into Chinese(presumably for Chinese court practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism) and ordainedseveral Ming officials.29 In 1435 the temple of Huguosi was re-built as dPal ldan bkrashis’ residence in Beijing by imperial command,30 and a portrait statue, which is stillextant, was made of dPal ldan bkra shis and installed there.31 Qutansi’s abbots’

SINO-TIBETAN ARTISTIC SYNTHESIS … 53

personal relationship with the Hongwu (r. 1368-1398), Yongle (r. 1403-1424) andXuande (r. 1426-1435) Emperors, as well as their role as mediators in political con-flicts along the northern Sino-Tibetan border may in part explain the Ming court’sclose interest in Qutansi. Related to this imperial sponsorship at Qutansi, an inter-esting passage in the mDo smad chos ’byung describes the wall paintings of agallery (khyams ra’i ldebs bris) at a nearby temple, dGe rgyas bDe chen gling, indGon lung brag (Ch: Guanlong dong), depicting “the manner of the emperor’spatronage of Qutansi and the lords [of Qutansi] going to China.”32

Qutansi (Fig.13), like Fahaisi, is Chinese in architecture, with a mixed Chinese andTibetan painting and statuary program. However, when discussing the artisticprogram at Qutansi as it existed in the Ming period one must be careful to distin-guish late 14th and early 15th century Ming works from later 18th century Qingrestorations, which are extensive. Relying on Tibetan and Chinese sources, whichinclude five bilingual stele dated to the first quarter of the 15th century, and compar-ing them to extant material at Qutansi, one can begin to sketch a chronology for thetemple. The mDo smad chos ’byung gives an account of the founding and initialpainting and sculpture program of Qutansi, whose imagery is recorded as beinglargely Indo-Tibetan:

In the four directions were erected earth-subduing stupas, and the principal images ofthe central chapel (Qutandian) were the Buddhas of the Three Times and their closedisciples (the Eight Major Bodhisattvas).33 In the left flanking Hall of the Protectors(mgon khang) were statues (’bur sku) of Four-Armed Mah�k�la and Pa�jaran�thaMah�k�la together with attendants. In the wall paintings (ldebs bris) were Six-ArmedMah�k�la with his retinue of seventy-five forms of Mah�k�la, and Four-ArmedMah�k�la with attendants resided here together with the blessed [image of] Dharmar�ja,which, during a battle, the chapel steward had requested to put its right foot down onthe ground. Because it had an [image of] A phyi ma, it is known as the “A phyi ProtectorChapel.”34 In the right-flanking chapel was the Great Sa skya Stupa. In the paintings onits sides (logs ris) were Vajradhara inside each of four gates which themselves re-sembled d�nyuka�aka stupas. And in sequence were countless assemblies of deities ofthe Anuttara Tantra class and the three other tantra classes (Kriy�, Cary�, and Yoga),such as K�lacakra, �a�vara, Hevajra, and a form of Bhairava according to the sKotradition; many tutelary deities (yi dam) of the rNying ma class such as Vajrak�la, theFour Guardian Kings, various Dharma-protectors, Guardians of the Ten Directions,together with Great N�ga 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. Qutansi’s abbot sKalbzang pa said “that these were intended as auspices for the construction of the VajradharaChapel.” Because the present deities do not match with the earlier ones, and as it is saidthat there is a descriptive catalog of the destruction and renovation made by Kwa ringNgag 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 damagedby an earthquake, and repaired and expanded in 1782. The murals as they currentlyappear inside Qutandian are believed to be Ming works while the outer vestibulewas added in the late 18th century. Iconographic evidence within the wall paintingsthemselves supports this assessment as the inside of the hall contains primarilybKa’ brgyud imagery and to a lesser degree some Sa skya imagery, such as the Four-Armed Mah�k�la, primary protector of the bKa’ brgyud order, and Gur gyi mgon po(Pa�jaran�tha), primary protector of the Sa skya order, flanking the door on the


south wall.36 This is significant to the dating of the painting, as Qutansi was origi-nally a bKa’ brgyud temple but with close ties to the Sa skya until it came under thedGe 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 lugsinfluence. While none is present inside the hall, dGe lugs imagery is evident outsidein the later 18th century vestibule. The only wall paintings within Qutandian ex-ecuted in an outwardly Chinese manner are small scenes of the “Fifty-three Visits ofSudhana” (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 withinthe 14th visit in an architectural panel used as a cartoush is a previously unnoticedTibetan 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 laterthan the hall’s founding in 1392. However Tibetan in iconography, the imagerywithin Qutandian may appear at first glance Chinese painters hands are revealed innumerous small details such as skull crown of Pa�jaran�tha, which is painted in thesame manner as Chinese Mingwang found in Fahaisi and Pilusi, being strung to-gether through the eye sockets. Other such details, such as elaborate knots in thewhite 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 theentire Qutansi complex, confirming Chinese painters’ hands both in the Chineseimagery of the outer gallery as well as in the Tibetan imagery of the halls them-selves. The presence of a Tibetan inscription within the Sudhana narrative furthersuggests the possibility of a Tibetan presence within thus team of painters from theimperial atelier who were able to function on such a sophisticated level in bothvisual idioms.

Of the imagery described in the mDo smad chos ’byung as being within the Aphyi Protector Chapel, which is found at the south-east corner of Qutandian, onlythe Six-Armed Mah�k�la survives on the north wall (Fig.15). This is also the fa-vored bKa’ brgyud form of Six-Armed Mah�k�la, suggesting a pre-mid 15th cen-tury painting for this chapel as well. Against the east wall is a long dais, behind whichare three more recently painted flaming halos, presumably once the background forthe now lost statues of Four-Armed Mah�k�la, Pa�jaran�tha, and Dharmar�ja.38

Neither the Great Sa skya Stupa nor the wall paintings survive within the western-flanking 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 ofconstruction and ornamentation of Qutansi during the early 15th century:

In the lifetime of the Yongle and Xuande emperors, the official (dpon po) bSam gtanbzang po erected images of ��kyamuni and Vajradhara… In particular patents whichwere clear expressions of praise over a period of time and a self-arisen image of theBuddha were given [by the Yongle Emperor] to dPal ldan bzang po (dPal ldan bkrashis), and a chapel a day’s distance from the palace was built with state funds to houseit. The statue resided in the Jo khang of Blazing Jewel Light (Baoguangdian) as the chiefimage.39 After that, on the walls are pictures of the rainbows that variously appearedlike globes, pillars and wheel spokes when the temple praised as “Hall for Protectingthe Nation” (Srid skyong gling) (Longguodian) was founded by the emperor Xuande(gong ma Zon te) in fulfillment of his father’s wishes.40 By the power of the king’s faithan 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


that to fulfill the wishes of the Emperor’s heart, [the image] came from the land of thegods 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 paintedarchitectural decor on its double-eaved hip-gabled roof appears to have kept itsoriginal Yongle period Chinese designs.41 Like Qutandian, the wall paintings in Bao-guangdian also appear to be a mixture of bKa’ brgyud and Sa skya imagery with thesame striking set of Four-armed Mah�k�la and Pa�jaran�tha Mah�k�la flankingeither side of the door. Further, bKa’ brgyud patriarchs appear on the rear wall, suchas a Karma pa (Fig.16) and a Zhwa dmar (Fig.17).42 All that suggests that this hallwas also painted before the dGe lugs takeover by the mid-15th century. The de-scription given in the dedicatory stele of the casting of the hall’s central image, agilt-bronze Buddha, states that the statue was first made by artisans in the Mingimperial atelier in Beijing and then sent west by the Yongle Emperor as an offeringto dPal ldan bkra shis.43 In fact it would seem that Qutansi was once well-appointedwith gilt bronzes produced at the Ming court in a Tibetan manner, such as a nearlife-sized Bodhisattva with a Yongle reign mark (1403-1424), once part of a set ofeight 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 theHall of Protection of the Nation (Srid skyong gling), called “Hall of National Pros-perity” (Longguodian) in Chinese, was built as Yongle’s memorial hall, a statementreiterated in the bilingual dedicatory Imperial Bestowal of Qutansi’s Rear HallStele, dated 1427.44 The hall contains a “Long Life to the Emperor” inscription on awooden placard (Huangdi wan sui pai) which records that it was “built in the 9thday of the 2nd month of the 2nd year of Xuande (1427) by Meng Ji, Shang Yi, ChenXiang and Yuan Qi, eunuchs of the Director of Imperial Accoutrements (yuyong-jian).”45 Thus we know that Li Tong’s predecessor as Director of Imperial Accou-trements, Meng Ji, was sent by the Ming court to personally supervise the con-struction of Longguo Hall. Such a high-ranking officer of the imperial constructionapparatus as Meng Ji was almost certainly accompanied by high-ranking mastercraftsmen from the imperial atelier, and Longguodian’s architectural workmanshiphas been favorably compared to other inner court productions by eunuchs, such asFahaisi, our first case study, and the Rulaidian of Zhihuasi in Beijing.46 Shang Yiwas a eunuch within the Directorate of Imperial Accoutrements, whose name alsoappears on Fahaisi’s dedicatory bell, pointing to another connection between theconstruction of Qutansi and Fahaisi within the Directorate of Imperial Accoutre-ments.47

Supporting evidence which further expands our understanding of the eunuchMeng Ji’s role in the construction of Qutansi is found in a set of Chinese archivalrecords of successive generations of imperial edicts for donations to the temple(Gong jiefeng chiyu daibei qing gong dice) which states: “During the Yongle periodimperial envoys such as the eunuch Meng and commander Tian Xuan, respectingthe imperial edict(s) to build the two halls, Baoguang and Longguo, and erected astele record (beiji).”48 Thus one can see that eunuch envoys were sent repeatedlyto supervise the expansion of Qutansi and that the Director of Imperial Accoutre-ments Meng Ji was responsible for both the construction of Baoguangdian, com-pleted in 1418, and Longgoudian, completed in 1427. It further suggests that bothhalls, as well as the front gate, covered galleries, and bell and drum towers com-


pleted in 1427, were all part of a larger single construction project started under theYongle emperor, continued under Hongxi (1424-1426) and completed early in thereign of the Xuande emperor, always under the watchful eye of the Director ofImperial Accoutrements, and thus a project of some considerable importance to theimperial court.

No major repairs are recorded for Longguo Hall, except for roof work performed inthe 1940s. The Tibetan wall paintings in Longguo Hall, such as images of theBuddhas of the Three Times on the rear wall flanked by deities of the four classesof tantras including: Guhyasam�ja Ma�juvajra, Vajrabhairava, Guhyasam�ja, Hevajra,K�lacakra, Cakrasa�vara and Mah�m�y� (Fig.19) (both forms of �a�vara, whichwas the focus of practice at Qutansi in both the Sa skya and bKa’ brgyud tradi-tions)49 are thought to date to its initial founding in 1427.50 Again the iconographyof these deities is that favored by the bKa’ brgyud order, suggesting that thepaintings were done within 25 years of the hall’s completion. Paintings of the variousforms 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 stylisticallymore closely resemble what one might find in Central Asian sites than the soft pastelsand gentle curves of rainbow-light forms found in imperial court productions suchas the famous Yongle hand-scroll dated 1407.

Furthermore, the temple once housed a green silk hanging scroll mounted onpaper (2.5 x 1.4 m) commemorating the installment of the hall’s central image, theVajradhara statue previously mentioned, with a Chinese inscription in the left cor-ner which reads: “A sketch of the great Vajradhara installation and worship on the9th day of the 2nd month of the 2nd year of Xuande (1427) in Xining’s Qutansi.”51

This was a colossal bronze statue of Vajradhara installed in Longguo Hall, weighingsome 1800 jin (about 900 kilos), which became Qutansi’s main image. It is from thisimage 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 theYongle emperor’s person, installed as its principal image.52

Qutansi is especially famous for its 400 square meters of extant murals along thecovered gallery, which depict the life of ��kyamuni Buddha (Fig.21), and whosestyle is described by the Chinese scholar Jin Weinuo as being “related to bothChinese and Tibetan [traditions], but with Chinese brushwork, heavy colors andblue-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 identi-cal 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“M�y�’s Dream,” as if the artists used Longguodian as an architectural model fortheir depiction of M�y�’s palace. However, only about a third of the extant paintingin the gallery (mostly on the east and west walls north of Baoguang Hall up to thelarge bell and drum towers) is thought to date to the Ming-period; the rest of thegallery was repaired and repainted after 1782, coinciding with the previously citedrenovations made to Qutandian.

The older Ming works in Qutansi’s gallery are readily distinguished from the laterQing works by their lighter palette, more open compositions and more refined brush-


work. While the Ming works are not signed, some of the Qing painters recordedtheir 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 theirnames 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, GansuProvince. In the Ming dynasty it was called Zhuanglangwei but was renamed Ping-ban in 1724. So while no date is given on the painting, this inscription nonethelessgives us an 18th century date for the painting of this section of Qutansi’s gallery.54

It is said that Qutansi’s wall paintings all had fenben (powder pounces or sketches)images that were preserved in the Buddhist Hall of Angli (Angli fotang) but whichwere destroyed in a fire in the late Qing-period.55 The manner of execution of theMing-period wall paintings at Qutansi in Longguodian, Baoguangdian and thecovered gallery has been described as the same as that of the wall paintings ofFahaisi and consistent with works overseen by the Ming court’s Director of Impe-rial Accoutrements.56 Yet in contrast to the halls of Qutansi, the gallery appearsoverwhelmingly Chinese in both content and execution with Tibetan elements onlyappearing in later Qing restorations (Fig.24).

The contrasting use of a Chinese style in the outer gallery at Qutansi may be anearly reflection of an expressed Tibetan preference for the depiction of the Deeds ofthe Buddha in a Chinese manner beginning in at least the 15th century, which isrecorded in later Tibetan textual sources. For instance the founder of the sMan brisschool in the mid 15th century, sMan bla don grub, is said to have painted the GreatDeeds of the Buddha (ston pa’i mdzad thang) which he had copied from a Chinesescroll painting in gNas rnying.57 Jackson (p.111) has speculated that this Chinesemodel for the Buddha’s Deeds may have been sent in connection with a mission tothe Ming court during the Yongle reign period (1403-1424), which would only be about14 years before the painting of the gallery at Qutansi in 1427, both productions ofthe same court atelier. Perhaps then the gallery murals at Qutansi are an earlier expres-sion (and visual documentation) of this preference for Chinese style depictions ofthe Life of the Buddha as reflected in the careers later Tibetan painters. This alsosuggests that the Chinese painters of the imperial court atelier were able to adjustthe style and iconography of their paintings between Tibetan (within the halls) andChinese (in the outer gallery)resulting in some degree of mixingto suit theneeds of their Tibetan “patrons” at Gro tshang rdo rje ’chang.

A similar pattern of Ming imperial involvement in Sino-Tibetan temple-buildingprojects in provincially-located temples is Lhun grub bde chen gling (Longzhu de-qinglin), formerly named Da Chongjiaosi, in Minzhou, Gansu, also founded by dPalldan bkra shis. Its construction and ornamentation are closely detailed in dPal ldanbkra shis’s biography, where the temple is clearly described as being Chinese inarchitecture but ornamented by the court with both Chinese and Tibetan objectsand images:

…at forty-one, in the Fire-Bird Year (1417), [dPal ldan bkra shis] erected Lhun grub bdechen temple. In the 3rd year of Xuande, the Earth-Monkey Year (1428), in order torepair the temple, two great ministers were given an edict for temple building (i.e.: theywere appointed to the job). Another one hundred higher and lower civil officials (midpon), 200 higher and lower district officials (sde dpon), 1,100 artisans (bzo rigs pa) of


various kinds, together with 25,000 military corvée laborers (dmag mi’i 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, includ-ing a stele hall, as well as bell and drum towers—identifying the temple as Chinesein architecture and similar in structure to Qutansi. Also listed are numerous textswritten in both Chinese and Tibetan, many images identifiable as Tibetan Buddhistin nature, and liturgical equipment, like a three dimensional golden ma�ala, alloffered with state funds.58 Thus Qutansi is only one example of a larger pattern ofimperial patronage along the Ming-Tibetan frontier.

Dabaojigong, a small, late Ming Buddhist temple located in the remote Baishavillage, 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 oflocal sponsorship in an area recognized by official Ming histories as beyond directimperial control. The temple was built by the Naxi, an ethnic group whose roots arethought to be proto-Tibetan and whose language is classified as belonging to theTibeto-Burman family—who, by the time of the Ming dynasty, had closely alliedthemselves politically and culturally with the Chinese, depicting themselves asChinese officials in official portraiture and keeping records in Chinese.59 Lijiangprefecture (Fig.25) was of strategic importance to the imperial court because keypositions between Yunnan, Sichuan and Tibet, which served as the primary routeof invasion of Yunnan, were located in the greater Lijiang prefectural jurisdiction.During this period the three main trade routes between Yunnan and Tibet all passedthrough Lijiang prefecture; thus the Naxi also controlled the Yunnan-Tibet tea-horsetrade. The Ming court could only recognize the authority of the local rulers as part ofan articulated policy of using them to keep the Tibetans in check and secure theempire’s southwestern border. As a result of military campaigns during the Mingdynasty, Lijiang prefecture gained areas in northwest Yunnan and southwest Sichuan,largely Tibetan territory, under its jurisdiction. The height of this expansion oc-curred from the mid-16th to the early- 17th centuries, when the local ruling familybegan 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 havebeen in part to attract major Tibetan patriarchs to the local ruling family’s court, and inturn, gain prestige among the local Tibetan community. It is likely that this Naxiinterest in Tibetan Buddhism, like that of the Ming court, was based on concepts ofesoteric power and sacrosanct rulership. By the early Ming dynasty Tibetan cler-ics, especially the Karma pas, were considered the masters of esoteric means topower and bestowers of sacral (cakravartin) kingship.

Among the Mu rulers during the Ming dynasty the two primary patrons ofTibetan Buddhism were Mu Wang (r.1580-1596), founder of Dabaojigong, and hisgrandson, Mu Zeng (r. 1598-1646), who is likely to have been responsible for thepaintings 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 thedetails of their religious patronage. The Ninth Karma pa’s biography states that MuWang had a Tibetan Buddhist preceptor named Byang bshes pa. In 1582, the sameyear as the founding of Dabaojigong, he had expressed his wish to commission anew woodblock edition of the bKa’ ’gyur (Tibetan Tripiaka), a monumental task


rear of the temple, suggesting that they were possibly painted at the same time bythe same workshop. Thus the dating of the Mah�mudr� lineage painting to circa1610 to 1630 can be applied to the painting throughout Dabaojigong, presumablyas part of Mu Zeng’s ambitious patronage program of building new temples inLijiang 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 ofdPal 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 dPalspungs, they only came under its umbrella after its founding.78 Dabaojigong can becounted among the minor bKa’ brgyud satellite temples in Lijiang though it is theonly one to survive relatively intact from the Ming-period. “Dabaojigong,” that is“gem heap,” is itself a translation of dPal spungs, “glorious heap,” which confirmsthat it was a branch monastery of dPal spungs.79 Further, internal evidence within thepainting program in the rear of the temple is consistent with the iconographic pro-grams in temples of the dPal spungs system.

Extant Ming wall painting in the Lijiang area from other temples predating Dabao-jigong are characterized by Chinese and Bai content, both in style and subject matter,while temples postdating Dabaojigong are marked by the growing dominance ofTibetan themes and painting techniques. Dabaojigong thus seems to play a pivotalrole within the chronology of the development of Lijiang wall painting as it is theearliest extant temple that attests to the existence of a local painting workshop havingfully absorbed and synthesized the Chinese and Tibetan painting traditions into aunique regional style.

CONCLUSION

The iconographic and stylistic program of divine Chinese royal imagery subtly ac-cented with Tibetan Buddhist symbols found at Fahaisi can be viewed as an asser-tion of the patron’s 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 bythe elite circles of power, and by extension of his participation in a larger imperialprogram that legitimatized the emperor as a sacral ruler. Complicating the develop-ment of models of center versus periphery is the connection between metropolitanand provincially located temples built with Ming court sponsorship such as Qutansi.While Qutansi’s architecture is Chinese and its outer gallery is dominated by Chineseimages, Tibetan imagery dominates inside the halls of the temple which was alsoexecuted by court painters. Qutansi can be viewed as a projection of Ming imperialpower through a Buddhist visual vocabulary, part of an attempt to gain a footholdalong the Ming-Amdo frontier by collaborating with local venerated religious lead-ers in the construction of this temple. Thus at Qutansi, in remote Qinghai, we find ahall commissioned by the Xuande Emperor as a memorial hall to the Yongle Em-peror, built by the same imperial agency which built Fahaisi, but with its centralimage of Vajradhara, the highest deity in the Tibetan Buddhist pantheon, whichwas directly associated with the Yongle Emperor’s person.

An imperial formulation of Sino-Tibetan art and architecture is thus suggestedby the group of Fahaisi, Qutansi, and Lhun grub bde chen gling, all early Mingtemples of Chinese construction decorated with varying quantities of Tibetan im-agery, all linked to the Tibetan cleric dPal ldan bkra shis. While one might be temptedto dismiss the Tibetan elements that appear in otherwise Chinese architectural con-


texts found at both Qutansi and Lhun grub bde chen gling as simply resulting fromtheir close proximity to the Sino-Tibetan border—in other words as a marker of their“regionalism” or “provincialism”—the presence of the metropolitan temple Fahaisisuggests that a more complex and imperially-sponsored formation of Sino-Tibetanart and architecture was operative at these sites.80

In contrast to this imperial program, Dabaojigong can be viewed as a manifestationof the process undergone by the local ruling house of Lijiang to establish an identityas both officials of the Chinese court, and, at the same time, to directly project them-selves as legitimate wheel-turning kings of an expanding multi-ethnic territory. Thisprocess resulted in the more thorough hybridization of Chinese and Tibetan paint-ing technique and iconography found in the wall paintings at Dabaojigong. Thusthe primary distinction to be made in the development of Sino-Tibetan temples con-sidered here is not between metropolitan or provincial locations but rather betweenimperial and local programs of sponsorship.

Despite the very different ways these three sites combine Chinese and Tibetantraditions in their visual programs, a general pattern begins to emerge in reaching amore nuanced understanding of “Sino-Tibetan temples” based on the visual andtextual evidence explored here: the Sino-Tibetan synthesis in painting and sculp-ture occurs within a Chinese architectural framework, placing all three temples intoa “Chinese” visual context. The principal patrons who build all three temples areeither Chinese or closely associate themselves with the Chinese political/culturalsphere; thus it is they who actively show an interest in incorporating Tibetan modesinto Chinese visual programs. Of course this is not to suggest that the Tibetans werenot actively absorbing Chinese modes and transforming them into their own tradi-tions during the 15th to 17th centuries, as is witnessed by the rise of Karma sgar brisschool. Indeed the presence of these temples and their painters no doubt helpedfoster this movement, as demonstrated by the development of the painting career ofthe Tenth Karma pa in Lijiang, which is dealt with elsewhere.81 The identification andstudy of such temples as those considered here, which contain paintings with welldocumented historical backgrounds attested to in both Tibetan and Chinese sources,as well as supporting internal visual evidence, is vital to the development of thestudy of Sino-Tibetan painting, which lags far behind the study in western scholar-ship of other Tibetan painting traditions, for they may eventually serve as chrono-logical benchmarks against which many undated works may be evaluated towardan 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-historicalIssues in the Production of Painted Images, Visual Culture, and Visuality in China.” Iwould like to thank professors Jennifer Purtle, Elliot Sperling, Matthew Kapstein, andWu Hung for their patient reading and helpful suggestions in bringing this materialtogether.

2. The two stele recording the founding of Fahaisi are: the “Record of Fahaisi’s ImperialCommission” Chici Fahaichansi beiji written by Hu Ying, Minister of Rites (libuguangshu), and the “Record of Fahaisi” Fahaichansiji written by Wang Zhi, Minister ofPersonnel (libu guangshu). Legible rubbings of both these stele are reproduced in Beijingtushuguan zang Zhongguo lidai shike taben huibian, Vol.51, pp.112-115, and the textsare printed in Beijing Fahaisi, pp.47-48. For a brief biography of Wang Zhi see the


Dictionary of Ming Biography, pp.1358-1361. Vice director of the Work Project Office(yingshansuofu) Chen Jinqin made the temple’s imperially bestowed title stele and the“S�ra�gama S�tra Pillar Record,” which includes the names of the “artisan officials”(jianggong) who took part in the construction and painting of Fahaisi on the back. Theyingshansuofu was an office under the Palace Buildings Office (Jiangzuo si) under thesupervision of the Ministry’s Bureau of Construction (Yingshan qingli si). (Hucker [1985],p.583). Records regarding Fahaisi also appear in the Rixiajiuwenkao, the Jifutongzhi, andthe Shuntianfuzhi (Li Song, p.38).

3. The Directorate of Imperial Accoutrements was one of the 12 major directorates in whichpalace eunuchs were organized and was responsible for preparing objects for the emperor’spersonal use, as well as presenting memorials for imperial attention that were presentedby officials. (Hucker [1985], p.595). Little is known of Li Tong. He does not appear inany primary Ming histories or biographies, which is not surprising, as the Confucianscholars who compiled the official historical records resented the power of eunuchs atcourt and tended not to include them except as models of bad behavior. We do know fromhis tomb inscription that Li Tong was originally named Pu An and was from Jiangxi. Heentered service in the palace under the Yongle emperor and, as his title yuyongjian implies,directly attended the Emperor’s person. He accompanied the Yongle emperor on a militaryinspection tour of the north and accompanied the Xuande emperor in the pacification ofWudingzhou and Xifeng Pass, and, the memorial stele implies, was constantly by theemperor’s side. In the Zhengtong period Li Tong used his rewards to buy material for theconstruction of a temple at Mount Cuiwei, which the emperor named Fahaisi, “Ocean ofthe 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 (ofimperial favor), and died in the fourth year of Jingtai (1453). A legible rubbing of LiTong’s memorial inscription, written by the Minister of Rites Hu Ying, is reproduced inBeijing 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 entryfor the Minister of Personnel Wangzhi, author of one of the Fahaisi stele, as “a senioreunuch.”

4. There are numerous accounts of Tibetans and Mongolians remaining in Beijing after thefall of the Yuan to serve the Ming court as is demonstrated in the work of Father HenrySerruys (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 BlueAnnals as Ye dbang, “The Prince of Yan;” his previous title as the prince of the Beijingarea (Yan being an old name for Beijing), suggests that the Yongle Emperor, who was notthe crown prince, was well acquainted with Tibetans during his early career in Beijingduring the Hongwu era (1368-1398). See Sperling (1983), pp.74-76. Continuity can alsobe traced in the Tibetan patriarchs who served both the Yuan and the Ming courts. Thehead of the Sa skya order Kun dga’ bkra shis rgyal mtshan (1349-1424) played animportant political role in both Yuan and Ming court connections with rGyal rtse. Hewas first sent to rGyal rtse in 1368 by the Yuan court and played a central role in theconstruction 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 Mingcourt, 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 fromMing Chengzu, and later, the title dacheng fawang from Yongle in 1413. Visual evidencefor this Yuan-Ming continuity in the artistic production of the Ming imperial atelier isthe presence of a fully mature Sino-Tibetan artistic synthesis in both bronzes andpainting 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 LiFushan in several inscriptions at Fahaisi, including the first name on the temple’s dedica-


the Mingshilu). He was also a disciple of ��kya ye shes sent to court, together withAmogha, to serve as ��kya ye shes’s envoy and to serve the emperor as state preceptor.bSod nams shes rab received his title jingxiu hongzhi guanding guoshi in 1443, fivemonths before Fahaisi was completed. He lived in Beijing during the construction ofFahaisi at Dazi’ensi, but it is not known when he first arrived at the capital. When he diedin 1460 he was elevated to the title guanding chongshan puhui jingxiu hongzhi xitian fozitianwang.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 yearFahaisi was completed. Later in 1456 (7th Year of Jingtai) the court expanded Shes rab’stitle 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 bythe Ming court as an envoy, together with bKra shis dpal ldan, to King (wang) dPal ldanrgya mtsho in Lingzang, in modern day Sichuan, and was rewarded upon his return withthe title state preceptor (guoshi). This time frame would suggest that bSod nams bzangpo also lived in Beijing at the time of Fahaisi’s construction. This is possibly one of twoguoshi bSod nams bzang po who appear in dPal ldan bkra shis’s biography in connectionwith rNam rgyal gling (Yuanjuesi), another temple founded by the emperor under dPalldan bkra shis’s direction. However, as it is such a common name, it is impossible to assertthis 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 histitle was expanded to guanding qingxin jiexing daguoshi, and in 1486 he was promotedto xitian fozi tianwang. From the record in the Mingshilu it would appear that he, too,was living in Beijing at the time of Fahaisi’s construction (Huang Hao, p.35).

21. Huang Hao, p.35. The common Chinese term is “kaishan seng.” Of the three, only Rinchen ba is known to us. He was originally a monk from Pugangsi “Temple of the UniversalPrinciple,” and Yongchangsi, “Temple of Eternal Prosperity,” in Hezhou, Gansu, wherehis 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 clericaladministrative post, in Hezhou when his family politically controlled the area. Rin chenba 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 hereceived the title zhenxiu chanshi when his nephew bKra shis ba inherited this same titlewhile living at Dazi’ensi. Huang Hao (p.35) suggests that Rin chen ba was probably inBeijing during his nephew’s petition at court to inherit the title and that he probably alsostayed at Dazi’ensi.

22. This possible connection was first observed by Huang Hao (p.34) and was furtherexplored 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 Relationswith the Ming Court,” in Lungta, 2000.

24. “Imperial bestowal of Qutansi stele of 1425” Tib: rGyal pos mdzad pa’i Go’u tam sde’irdo ring, Ch: Yuzhi Qutansi bei dated the 15th day of the 1st month of the 1st year ofXuande (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 pa’i chos ’byung.27. “The 1408 Qutansi Imperial Decree Stele” Tib: Ta’i Ming rgyal po’i lung gis, Ch: Yongle


liu nian Qutansi huangdi chiyu bei dated to the 15th day of the 5th month of the 6th yearof the Yongle period (1408) (reproduced in Xie Zuo, pp.80-82). The stele states thatpreviously Lama bSam lo spread the teachings of the Buddha and was very loyal/faithfulto the emperor (gong ma’i phyogs su shin du dad pas) and remarks on the special favorto his temple Qutansi by the Yongle emperor’s father, the Hongwu emperor. Now, itfurther says, his nephew dPal ldan bzang po (dPal ldan bkra shis) trains in the teachingsof [the Fifth Karma pa] De bzhin gshegs pa and understands the meaning of Mah�yana,leads the people with a heart of compassion and liberates those on the path to virtue. Thetext 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 [dPalldan 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 (Khyutam si’i sde dpon). This “appointment” may in fact simply recognize the existing situa-tion of dPal ldan bkra shis’s abbotship at Qutansi, as this was true for many of theceremonial 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 theYuan dynasty one ancestor, Lama Gu rum, was a preceptor to the Mongol court, andanother, Sam gha, was an abbot at Wutaishan. dPal ldan bkra shis’s uncle Sangs rgyasbkra shis (known in Chinese sources as Lama Sanluo), founder of Qutansi, received titlesfrom the Hongwu Emperor and was the first head of the Xining senggangsi, which wasestablished 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 ldanbkra 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 entourageto escort the Fifth Karma pa to Nanjing in 1406 and served as the latter’s translator atYongle’s court. In 1419 he was appointed to the post of senglu chanjiaoan official whomanages monks and temples.

29. It is recorded in the mDo smad chos ’byung (pp.862 & 681) that: “In the first year ofXuande (Tib. Zon te), the Fire-Horse Year (1426/7)… He resided at Chongguosi (Tib.Khrun gwa’i sde chen). By imperial order he translated into Chinese such texts as: theKye rdo rje’i sgrub thabs bdud rtsi’i rgya mtsho [“Ocean of Nectar Hevajra S�dhana”],Mah�cakra, the ’Jigs byed bcu gsum ma [“Thirteen (Manifestations of) Bhairava”], theSarvavijya Vairocana, the Tshe dpag lha dgu rnams kyi dkyil ’khor gyi cho ga [“Ritualfor the Nine Deities of Amit�yus�ma��ala”], the Vai�rava�a S�dhana, the Bar do’i ngosbrod [“Introduction to the�Antar�bhava”], 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. Gohaha’i) and Yuan Qi (Tib. Yon bzhad)…” at which time he gave teachings in Chinese. In1442 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 honorof a title, and his residence, Chongguosi, was renamed in praise as Da Longshansi (Tib:Ta’i 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 overfive 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), andrenamed 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 bkrashis’s image is described as “…a seated image carved from sandalwood, his right shoulderis bare, his hands joined at his chest, bald headed round and fleshy face large ears, hisphysique is full and round and has a rather graceful bearing.” This statue is now housedat 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 Buddhasof the Three Times, the main images at Huguosi (ibid.). The presence of an image producedin 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 Yuaninto the Ming Dynasty. For brief articles on the portrait statue of dPal ldan bkra shis anda very grainy photograph see: Bu Liansheng “Ming Xuande shi nian diaozao Bandanzhashixiang” Wenwu (1979), No.7, pp.82-86; and Huang Hao, pp.36-37. Another portraitstatue 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 ofQutansi in 1392. An imperially-bestowed name board was presented by Emperor Hongwuin 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 asecondary protector of the Karma bKa’ brgyud. This protector hall would seem to be thesmall chapel immediately to the left of the front hall, which remains unlabeled in Chinesefloor plans of the temple and is simply referred to as “Qutan’s east accompanying hall”(Qutan dongpei dian). However there is also a small chapel along the south-westerncovered 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 toseparate buildings. While the labeled protector hall along the western wall is one of thesmaller 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 patronageat the temple. First built in 1392, the Protector Hall is recorded as having been repairedin 1871 (Xie Zuo, p.4). However the painting program suggests that this was originallya 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 Chinesepainting at Qutansi dates to the early Ming, the last lines of the quote above provideevidence that although the extant images no longer match with this earlier description andlater renovations were made, Tibetan images were indeed part of Qutansi’s initial pro-gram. And, as we shall see, internal evidence also points to the extant paintings beingdone before the mid-15th century.

36. Gur mgon’s appearance does not in itself constitute a Sa skya presence, as this form ofMah�k�la was absorbed within the bKa’ brgyud system as a minor protector and doesappear in bKa’ brgyud monasteries and portraits (e.g.: see Dabaojigong’s altar screen andportraits of the 13th Karma pa [Jackson (1996), fig. 156 & 157]), yet he is given suchprominent wall space in various halls throughout Qutansi, an entire wall panel beingdevoted 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 khangin 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 (seefootnote 49 below).

38. Little else survives in this chapel, except flanking the Six-Armed Mah�k�la on the lowerleft there still is a small beautifully painted female deity in long flowing robes mountedon a horse, A phyi ma herself. Opposite her on the south wall also survives a male deitywearing 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 mainimage, a golden Buddha, recorded in a pair of bilingual stele: the “Yongle Imperial DecreeStele of 1418” (Tib: rGyal po’i lung gis, Ch: Yongle shiliu nian Qutansi huangdi chiyubei) dated to the 22nd day of the 1st month of the 16th year of the Yongle period (1418),and the “Imperial Bestowal of Qutansi’s Golden Buddha Image Stele” (Tib: rGyal posgser sku la bstod pa’i rdo ring, Ch: Yuzhi Qutansi jinfoxiang bei) dated to the 1st day of


the 3rd month of the 16th Year of Yongle (1418) located in the front of the temple (seeXie Zuo, pp.83-85, and pp.86-89). The stele gives the name of the hall in Chinese asBaoguangdian (Tib: B’u gwong sde) while the mDo smad chos ’byung gives the Tibetanname Jo khang Rin chen ’od ’bar, both mean “Blazing Jewel Light,” clearly describing thesame hall.

40. This would correspond to the founding of Longguodian, described in the bilingual “Im-perial Bestowal of Qutansi’s Rear Hall Stele” Tib: rGyal pos mdzad pa’i Go’u tam sde’irgyab gyi lha khang gi rdo ring, Ch: Yuzhi Qutansi houdian bei dated the 9th day of the2nd month of the 2nd year of Xuande (1427) located at the front of the temple (see: XieZuo, 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 ofthe 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 Qutansiat the time of this hall’s construction is recorded as having been his personal disciple. Formore 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 dmarmKha’ spyod dbang po (1350-1405), teacher of the Fifth Karma pa (or alternatively theThird Zhwa dmar Chos dpal ye shes (1406-1452) who would only have been 11 yearsold when this hall was built).

43. A brief account of the casting of this image is given in the “Imperial Bestowal of Qutansi’sGolden Buddha Image Stele” (Tib: rGyal pos gser sku la bstod pa’i rdo ring, Ch: YuzhiQutansi 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 theYongle emperor projects himself as a cakravartin ruling over his kingdom; with the thoughtof creating benefit for all sentient beings, he ordered his artisans to begin the casting of animage of the Buddha in gold. He even evokes the image of King Indrabh�ti of U�iyana(Yul dbu rgyan gyi rgyal po), an Indian historical model of devout rule, and draws aparallel between Indrabh�ti’s actions in commissioning an image and his own. However,in a story familiar to the making of sacral images across traditions and designed toincrease 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 workshopdeserted, and the divine body manifested itself. This frightened and amazed everyoneand 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 ofmiraculous events in the Tibetan tradition were observed: a sweet smell of otherworldlyincense was enjoyed and auspicious light spread. It was this well-proportioned auspi-cious image that was sent west as an offering to the guanding jingjue hongji daguoshidPal ldan bzang po (dPal ldan bkra shis).

44. Tib: rGyal pos mdzad pa’i Go’u tam sde’i rgyab gyi lha khang gi rdo ring, Ch: YuzhiQutansi 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). “Tofulfill the wishes of his father” implies that Longguodian was built by the XuandeEmperor as a memorial hall for the Yongle Emperor as part of his funerary rites. I wouldlike to thank Professor Matthew Kapstein for pointing out this connection. However, itwould seem from other evidence that both the Baoguang Hall and the Longgou Hall wereconceived as part of the same construction project by the Yongle emperor, thus theXuande 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, yuyongjiantaijian Mengji, Shang Yi, Chen Xiang, Yuan Qi jianli.” (see: Xie Zuo, pp.57-58; and QianZhengkun, 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 andBeijing tushuguan jiushi zupian, 51:99 & 51:164-165). Shang Yi as Director of ImperialAccoutrements supervised the construction of Da Longfusi in 1452 and his name ap-pears 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 forceto 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 Wood-Tiger 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 tothe Xuande period, when both of these events were taking place, and suggests that YuanQi could be the same Yuan Qi that appears here.

48. The Chinese reads: “Yongle nianjian jiefeng qinchai Meng taijian zhihui tianxuan dengfeng 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 thenotion that whichever teachings are most appropriate regarding Cakrasa�vara yoga,whether they belong to the Sa skya or bKa’ brgyud doctrinal systems, should be receivedjointly.

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 madedifficult by the large red cloths covering the walls, which are there, according to Mr. Jiaof the Qinghai Province Cultural Relics Archeological Research Institute, to protectChinese sensibilities from the sexual yab yum imagery.

51. Ibid. The Chinese reads: “Da Ming Xuande er nian er yue chu jiu ri Xining Qutansi anfengDachijingang 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 weizhu…” Zhongguo bihua quanji 34: Zangquan siyuan 4, p.44.

54. See Qian Zhengkun, p.59. Also, according to monks and laymen at Qutansi, both thattemple and nearby Yaotaisi were painted by masters of the Sun family, thus this inscrip-tion and traditional accounts corroborate each other (ibid.). Another inscription on theopposite side of the gallery reads: “Painted by Wang Shu of Yun Wu.” Yun Wu is thoughtto 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 alternatelocal 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 theBuddha’s] Deeds” (rGya mdzad chen po). In 1464 sMan bla don grub also completedmurals depicting the Great Deeds of the Buddha in a Chinese style (rGya mdzad chenmo) in the main temple building at bKra shis lhun po (ibid., p.115). About a century latersMan bla don grub’s set of Twelve Deeds in turn served as a model for the founder of thesGar 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] erectedLhu 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 forbuilding the temple (i.e.: they were appointed to the job). Another one hundredgreater and lesser civil officials (mi dpon), 200 greater and lesser district officials


(sde dpon), 1,100 artisans (bzo rigs pa) of various kinds, together with 25,000military corvée laborers (dmag mi’i u lag), etc., were appointed by imperial order.From the treasury (i.e.: state funds) [were made]: a great chapel with a squat towersurmounting 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 turquoisetiles. 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; aChinese edition of the bKa’ ’gyur; the [��kya muni [image] within the surmount-ing squat tower (dbu rtse); [an image of] Amit�bha; [an image of] Bhai�ajyaguru;[images of] the Eight Bodhisattva Attendants; and a [Tibetan] bKa’ ’gyur. Withinthe 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 outbuild-ing to the left [were]: a Four-Armed Mah�k�la [image], a Gur [-gyi mgon po image],and [an image of] Six-Armed Mah�k�la, each with their own retinue of attendants.Within the first outbuilding to the east [were]: [683] two sets of the bKa’ ’gyur ofgold 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 offeredto the emperor by rGyal rong ba Grags pa rgyal mtshan, an upholder of the Bontenet system, of gray volume wrappings, etc., such as [the two sets] describedabove. [There were also] seven chapels surrounding the dormitory. In the tantricpalace that was associated with the dormitory and an assembly hall was an imagerenowned as the monastery’s Jo bo (��kyamuni), which is said to sit withouttouching 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 lord’s own (dPal ldan bkra shis) tutelary deity Mah�cakra, whichwas erected as a support; a Four-Armed Mah�k�la [image]; a Vai�rava a image; animage (sku brnyan) of White T�r� sitting upon a lotus trunk of gold supported bynaga, possessing excellently inset sapphires, rubies, emeralds, and pearls; andfrom an agate vase set before [the T�r� image] a pure gold tree with flowers of fivekinds of precious gems on its top; a golden stupa [named] bKra shis sgo mang to[dPal ldan bkra shis’s] tutelary deity made one-third of gold and bronze with 250srang of gold and a mixture of gold and quicksilver applied, fifteen khru in height,together with a crystal pedestal; a palace of Bhai�ajyaguru, three ’dom in height(i.e.: a three-dimensional ma�ala); a Tripi�aka in gold; an Avata�saka s�tra, itsChinese and Tibetan text written in gold, its coverings excellent and beautiful asdescribed before; the mah�cakra in the two chapels to the right and left; medita-tion ma�ala (blos bslang) of the sixty-two deities of �a�vara, the thirteen formsof Bhairava, and the nine deities of Amit�yus. The four white deities [of each]ma�ala 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 madeof crystal wood (shel shing). In the last east chapel [were]: the Amit�bha of incensewood, Maitreya, and T�r�. In another three chapels [were] images of the FiveCosmic 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 Sugati-garbha 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 ma�ala form (ma�al zhingbkod kyi rnam pa) upon which gold was applied, the circumference of which wasworked in relief and measured three ’dom across; similar vessels (kong bu) of solidgold; a gold ma�ala with an ornamental hanging (dra ba dra phyed) with pendenttassels of pearls; seven sets of three cymbals each able to contain three large bre ofgrain; 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 tohold; an offering bowl made from seven large bre of silver; five sets of silverma�ala; an enamel ma�ala; five sets of ma�ala finely inset with jewels; sevensets of silver (ma�ala); a flower vase of crystal and agate; many bronze incenseburners; many good quality silk banners, parasols, canopies, and other unimagin-able implements for worship. Outside the temple compound [there were] twohundred monks’ quarters (gyan). A large strong wall together with all that wasinside was made of laid stone and brick, etc. Though this all passes beyond the realmof the mind, it can be known in detail from [dPal ldan bkra shis’s] biography. mDosmad chos ’byung, pp.682-684.

The text says further that a fourth temple, which may also follow this imperial pro-gram, rNam rgyal gling (Yuanjuesi) was separately founded by the emperor under thedirection of dPal ldan bkra shis, but few details are given.

The emperor, the patron of the priest (mchod yon), separately founded anothertemple called rNam rgyal gling (Yuanjuesi) according to the orders of the lord (dPalldan bkra shis). The assembly hall and monks’ residence were roofed. (Chinese tileroofs?) mDo smad chos ’byung, pp.684.

59. The Naxi and Mosuo are thought by Chinese scholars to descend from the Qiang, andNaxi oral tradition also places their ancestors to the northwest and as living in tents andtending to animals. Also the early presence of Chinese Buddhist temples and the constantreference to the presence of Chinese monks in Lijiang referred to in Tibetan sourcesfurther 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 parti-sans of the Karma pa.

64. “Wanli renwu duanyang yuanman baishu, tuguan gongdezhu Mu Wang zhi.” Yuanmancan also refer in a Buddhist context to the end of a ritual confession of sin, chanhui. AQing Dynasty manuscript Lijiangfu zhigao says Dabaojigong “was built by the MingWanli era Mu tusi.”

65. Important internal evidence to the question of the dating of this inscription is theidentity of this rDo rje bde chog (Vajra ��vara) invoked in the first line of the inscrip-tion. Is it possibly the initiatory name of the Wanli Emperor (1573-1620) (the first wordin the inscription, “gong ma,” was often used to refer to the emperor), who re-estab-lished close ties to the Karma bKa’ brgyud after the backlash against Emperor Zhengde’s(1506-1521) excessive enthusiasm for Tibetan Buddhism at the Ming court under hissuccessor 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 thisinscription to 1583, functioning much like a Chinese reign date. Alternatively, this couldalso be the initiation name of one of the kings of Lijiang, like Mu Wang, but it does notcorrespond to any of the Tibetan names of Mu rulers given in the Karma pa rnam thar.Mu Zeng’s (1597-1646) Tibetan name is known to us through Tibetan sources as KarmaMi 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 templewhich 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 convertedmany bKa’ brgyud monasteries at just around this time. I would like to thank ProfessorKapstein for suggesting this more nuanced alternate reading. If one accepts this laterdate, 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 atthis time and also a painter and may have omitted himself out of deference. This wouldplace the execution of the painting between 1611 (the date of the Tenth Karma pa’senthronement) and 1630 (the Sixth Zhwa dmar’s death), but later rather than earlier, asthe Tenth Karma pa was only six in 1611. If the painting was done after the Sixth Zhwadmar’s time and overseen by the Tenth Karma pa, it is unlikely that he would have leftout his teacher. After all, the very function of a lineage painting is to trace the unbrokentransmission of teachings/initiations through an accepted series of masters, from thecurrent holder back to the revered Indian masters. By omitting the Sixth Zhwa dmar hewould 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 pa’s presence in Lijiang,including an exploration of the Tenth Karma pa’s development of a Chinese style ofthang ka painting while in Lijiang, are presented elsewhere in Debreczeny “Dabaojigongand the Regional Tradition of Ming Sino-Tibetan Wall Painting in Lijiang.” forthcomingin Buddhism Between Tibet and China edited by Matthew Kapstein.

77. This internal evidence reminds one of the 1643 reading of the Tibetan inscription foundon the north wall of Dabaojigong. Stylistic analysis is difficult to perform due to somedegree of over-painting, including an over-layer of some kind of varnish on top of thebackground landscape which seems to have darkened the overall program. Evidence ofthis over-painting is most visible where dark pigment overlaps the Tibetan cartouchesand partially obscures them.

78. This happened because the leadership of the bKa’ brgyud was left in shambles after theFifth Dalai Lama’s attack on the Karma bKa’ brgyud, after which the Tenth Karma paalmost witnessed the total eclipse of his tradition and retreated to Lijiang. It was the sDedge Si tu lineage who picked up the pieces of the bKa’ brgyud leadership in Eastern Tibetand Western China. dPal spungs had jurisdiction over branch temples arranged in 70-80seats distributed in such places as sDe dge, Danke, Kangding, ’Ba’ thang, Li thang, Muli, Dao, Danba, as far as Lijiang in the south and A mdo to the north. The Naxi bKa’ brgyudmonks of Lijiang therefore went to dPal pungs and mTshur phu for study of bKa’ brgyuddoctrine.

79. However, the chronology of Dabaojigong’s naming remains unclear as it could not benamed after dPal spungs almost 140 years before dPal spungs was built. InterestinglyLijiang’s only gazetteer, Lijiangfu zhilue (p.204), written in 1743, does not list Dabaojigongamong its temples but does give the name Hufa qielan, an alternate name given for Dabao-jigong by Joseph Rock (1947, p.210). It is possible that the temple was originally knownas “Hufa qielan” but was renamed “Dabaojigong” after it became a branch temple of dPalspungs in the 18th century.

80. This is not to suggest that these temples’ locations in ethnically Tibetan areas is unre-lated to the appearance and degree of Tibetan imagery, as it clearly is, especially in thelater 18th century restorations. I merely wish to avoid this oversimplified explanation asthe sole reason for the appearance of this Sino-Tibetan synthesis, which seems to be agenerally held assumption.

81. Debreczeny “The Buddha’s Law Among the ’Jang: The 10th Karma-pa’s Developmentof 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.

BibliographyBaoningsi 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 po’i

rnam thar go sla bar brjod pa bde legs kun gyi ’byung gnas.” In Blo bzang tshul khrims Cha


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 BetweenTibet and China.

_____. “Fahai Temple and Tibetan Influence at the Early Ming Court.” MA Thesis, IndianaUniversity, 1997.

_____. “The Buddha’s Law Among the ’Jang: The 10th Karma-pa’s 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: StanfordUniversity Press, 1982.

Feng Zhi. “Mingdai Lijiang mushi tusi yu Xizang Gamabapai guanxi shulue.” Zangzu lishizongjiao yanjiu, diyi ji. Zhongguo Zangxue chubanshe, pp.46-70.

Fong, Wen C. and James C.Y. Watt. Possessing the Past: Treasures from the National PalaceMuseum, 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. “L’edition 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 People’s 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.). Lalitavajra’s 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.57-

63.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 Relationswith the Ming Court”, Lungta 14, Spring 2001, pp.77-87.

____. “The 5th Karma-pa and Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Tibet and theEarly Ming.” In Tibetan Studies in Honour of Hugh Richardson, Michael Aris and AungSan Suu Kyi (eds.), Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1980.

____. “The 1413 Ming Embassy to Tsong-kha-pa and the Arrival of Byams-chen chos-rjeShakya 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 EarlyMing 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 Tseringet 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 poche’i 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 pa’i bla mabrgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa rgyal mtshan mdzes pa’i rgyan mchog phul byung nor bu’iphreng 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 NYPress, 1996.

Tse dbang lha mo. “Bod du bKa’ brgyud pa’i grub mtha’i srol phyes shing yun nan sa khuldu ji ltar khyab ba.” (“The Introduction of bKa’ brgyud religious order in Tibet and how itpenetrated 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. 1984Weidner, Marsha (ed.). Latter Days of the Law: Images of Chinese Buddhism 850-1850.

Spencer Museum of Art: University of Kansas. 1994Wu Jun. Anduo zhengjiaoshi. Gansu: Gansu People’s Press. 1989Xi 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 MinzuChubanshe, 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.


Yang Xuezheng. Zangzu, Naxizu, Pumizu de Zangchuan fojiao. Kunming: Yunnan renminchubanshe, 1994.

_____. “Xizang fojiao zai Yunnan de chuanbo he yingxiang.” Yunnan zangxue yanjiu lunwenji. Kunming: Yunnan minzu chubanshe, 1995. pp.256-278.

Yang Zhou (ed.). “Lijiang si shi bihua.” Yunnan minzu minjian yishu. Kunming: Yunnanrenmin 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 renminchubanshe, 1983.

Yunnansheng qunzhong yishu guan (ed.). Yunnan minzu minjian yishu. Kunming: Yunnanrenmin 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.262-272.

Documents

Karl Debreczeny--Sino-Tibetan Artistic Synthesis in Ming Dynasty