AltAn QAγAn (1507-1582) of the tümed mongols And the stAg lung Abbot Kun dgA’ bKrA shis rgyAl mtshAn (1575-1635)* Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp Gray Tuttle harvard university Columbia university this article introduces new sources on Altan Khan’s encounters with the stag lung abbot Kun dga’ bkra shis, simultaneous with his better-known meeting with bsod nams rgya mtsho, to whom he gave the title Dalai Lama. Tāranātha’s 1601 biography of his teacher Kun dga’ bkra shis and that written in 1609 by the Stag lung hierarch’s heir to leadership, Ngag dbang rnam rgyal (1571-1626), detail the invitation Altan Qaγan of the Tümed Mongols extended to Kun dga’ bkra shis in 1576 and its aftermath. this narrative starts with an ethnic tibetan, born in Kha rag on the dbus-gtsang border and better known as Tāranātha1, Kun dga’ snying po bkra shis rgyal mtshan (1575-1635)2, as his name in religion reads in full, who recorded aspects of the religious legacy that his Indian teachers had transmitted to him in a work titled the Seven Instruction Lineages.3 This precocious * Written in celebration of our fellow traveler E. Sperling and of his efforts to unravel portions of the complex history of the Tibetan people, this paper to some extent weaves a further pattern on his well known essay on Tibetan-Mongol relations during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries [see below n. 22]. We wish him many more years of following our common passion. 1 The otherwise elusive Indian Paṇḍita Jvālanātha had apparently given him this “nickname” during one of Tāranātha’s visionary experiences; see his undated Gsang ba’i rnam thar cung zad rgyas pa, Jo nang rje btsun tā ra nā tha’i gsung ’bum dpe bsdur ma, vol. 2/45, Mes po’i shul bzhag, vol. 44, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2008), 268. In the early 1590s, he received a letter, written in Sanskrit, from a south Indian king by the name Palabhadra in which he was apparently addressed as Tāra guru; see Rgyal khams pa tā ra nā thas bdag nyid kyi rnam thar nges par brjod pa’i deb gter shin tu zhib mo ma bcos lhug pa’i rtogs brjod [stod cha], Jo nang rje btsun tā ra nā tha’i gsung ’bum dpe bsdur ma, vol. 1/45, Mes po’i shul bzhag, vol. 43, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2008), 107. 2 Still in need of confirmation, the possibly exact date of his passing, “the twenty-eighth day of the nag- month of the wood-female-pig year”, is given in Ngag dbang blo gros grags pa’s (1920-1975) Jo nang chos ’byung zla ba’i sgron me, ed. Btsan lha Ngag dbang tshul khrims and She Wanzhi (Beijing: Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1992), 59, and, probably not independently, in Re sa Dkon mchog rgya mtsho, “Jo nang kun mkhyen tā ra nā tha’i rtogs brjod nyung ngu,” Bod ljongs nang bstan 1 (1998), 33. This would correspond to May 15, 1635. In this essay, all dates are calculated with the aid of the Tabellen in d. schuh, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der tibetischen Kalenderrechnung, Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, Supplement Band 16 (Wiesbaden: Franz steiner Verlag, 1973). 3 Bka’ babs bdun ldan gyi brgyud pa’i rnam thar ngo mtshar rmad du byung ba rin po che’i khungs lta bu’i gtam, Jo nang rje btsun tā ra nā tha’i gsung ’bum dpe bsdur ma, vol. 33/45, Mes po’i shul bzhag, vol. 75, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2008), 370 ff. [= D. Templeman, ed. and tr., The Seven Instruction Lineages. Bka’ babs bdun ldan (Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1983), 75 ff.]. See also his undated translation- cum-paraphrase of the *Vajrasu-marga by *Māhasukhavajra, *Śāntigupta and others in [Bka’ babs bdun 462 leonard van der kujip and gray tuttle treatise deals with seven important lineages along which tantric lore and teachings had been handed down in India and Nepal, and subsequently transmitted to the Tibetan cultural area. He had completed this work in Rnam rgyal rab brtan, in 1599, when he was “close to twenty- five.” At this time, Tāranātha stood on the cusp of transitioning to become a famous and prolific scholar of truly astonishing breadth and genius, who belonged to the Jo nang pa school of Tibetan buddhism. rnam rgyal rab brtan is variously called a hermitage (dben sa) or a religious citadel (chos rdzong) and it was located on the grounds of Stag lung, the mother monastery of the Bka’ brgyud pa school’s Stag lung sect. earlier, in 1573, Kun dga’ bkra shis rgyal mtshan [we will henceforth refer to him as Kun dga’ bkra shis], Stag lung’s sixteenth abbot, had embarked on a project to enlarge his monastery and Rnam rgyal rab brtan was part of this grand plan. Towards its realization, he had hired numerous Tibetan and Newar artisans and craftsmen, but it was a long drawn-out process and Rnam rgyal rab brtan was still being furbished and refurbished in the late 1590s. To be sure, the south Indian Buddhaguptanātha (?1520-?1600) and several other visitors from the Indian subcontinent, including Nirvāṇaśrī and Purṇavajra, were the main sources of inspiration and information for Tāranātha’s Seven Instruction Lineages.4 during their stay with him, they had related orally much of the subcontinent’s religious lore to which they had been privy and this ultimately served to inform a variety of his studies, including his celebrated religious history of the Buddhism of India of 1609, for which he was to gain great fame. In late 1590, he had met and received in his hermitage of Byang chub chen po the itinerant yogi Buddhaguptanātha. The latter apparently enjoyed simplicity, for Tāranātha pointedly remarks that Buddhaguptanātha had been averse to staying with the local landed aristocracy.5 he does dang ldan pa’i man ngag gi gzhung] Rdo rje lam bzang po, Jo nang rje btsun tā ra nā tha’i gsung ’bum dpe bsdur ma, vol. 20/45, Mes po’i shul bzhag, vol. 62, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2008), 217-229. A similar, undated work that was indirectly composed by him consists of notes taken by his student Ye shes rgya mtsho on six such transmissions; see Bka’ babs drug ldan gyi khrid yig ’phags yul grub pa’i zhal lung, Jo nang rje btsun tā ra nā tha’i gsung ’bum dpe bsdur ma, vol. 39/45, Mes po’i shul bzhag, vol. 81, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2008), 102-178. 4 For much of what follows, see the first part of his autobiography that extends to the year 1604, Rgyal khams pa tā ra nā thas bdag nyid kyi rnam thar nges par brjod pa’i deb gter shin tu zhib mo ma bcos lhug pa’i rtogs brjod [stod cha], 124-133. Finally, for Tāranātha’s connections with various Indic travelers, see Lobsang Shastri, “Activities of Indian Paṇḍitas in Tibet from the 14th to the 17th Century,” Tibet, Past and Present: Tibetan Studies I. PIATS 2000: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, ed. H. Bleezer et al. (Brill: Leiden 2000), 136-140, and now also D. Templeman, “’South of the Border’: Tāranātha’s Perceptions of India,” The Tibet Journal [The Earth Ox Papers] XXXIV-XXXV (2009-10) ed. R. Vitali, 231-242. And for Buddhaguptanātha, see D. Templeman, “Buddhaguptanātha: A Late Indian Siddha in Tibet,” Tibetan Studies, ed. h. Krasser et al., vol. II (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1997), 955-965. 5 See his biography of Buddhaguptanātha of circa 1601 in Grub chen buddha gupta’i rnam thar rje btsun nyid kyi zhal lung las gzhan du rang rtog dri mas ma sbags pa’i yi ge yang dag pa, Jo nang rje btsun tā ra nā tha’i gsung ’bum dpe bsdur ma, vol. 34/45, Mes po’i shul bzhag, vol. 76, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2008), 119 ff. See also Rgyal khams pa tā ra nā thas bdag nyid kyi rnam thar nges par brjod pa’i deb gter shin tu zhib mo ma bcos lhug pa’i rtogs brjod [stod cha], 72-74. altan qaγan and the stag lung abbot kun dga’ bkra shis rgyal mtshan 463 not divulge how long he had hosted the aged master, but he did record that he had received a very considerable number of instructions and initiations from him. Buddhaguptanātha ended up living in the south Tibetan town of Skyid grong for some three months, then went for pilgrimage to the Kathmandu Valley, and that done, left for the subcontinent proper. Tāranātha writes at the end of his narrative proper, that he was still alive and well when he was writing his master’s biography: “I heard it said that he presently lives in a place near Devikoṭa.” After a little less than six years, Tāranātha met a certain Nirvāṇaśrī in early October of 1596 and this yogi from India’s eastern regions stayed with him for about one and half months. During this time, he was able to help Tāranātha understand some unidentified historical and doctrinal details that had remained unclear or incomplete from what Buddhaguptanātha had told him earlier.6 Tāranātha adds that this visit “came to be of exceedingly great benefit” (shin tu thogs che bar byung). Subsequently, two Bengali paṇḍitas, Gang ba kun dga’, that is, Purṇānanda, and Byams pa kun dga’, that is, Prayamānanda/Pryamānanda (sic)7, then paid him a visit and they had many unspecified conversations about various topics, including of course religion. Tāranātha points out, no doubt with some satisfaction, that they were quite delighted at how knowledgeable he was and also appeared to have used the term paṇḍita for him! In 1598, they met again, in Byang chub chen po, and conversed “day and night” for some ten days; he writes that: de dag grub mtha’ nang par ’dug kyang pha mes kyi chos rig la yang zhen che bar ’dug cing phyi rol pa’i lha gcig gnyis bsten gyin ’dug pas dbang chos sogs ni ma zhus / rig pa’i gnas thams cad la shin tu mkhas par ’dug pas dogs gcod mang du bgyis shing bstan bcos than thun ’dra bsgyur / bha ra ta dang rā ma ya na la sogs pa’i lo rgyus kyang mang du thos / Although they were of the insider [Buddhist] philosophical persuasion, they were also quite attached to the Vedic religion of their paternal ancestors, and since they relied on two unique external [non-Buddhist] deities, I did not request empowerments and religious instruction of them. Since they had quite an expertise in all the domains of knowledge, I effected multiple eliminations of doubts and translated a few tracts. I heard a great deal about the chronicles (lo rgyus) of the [Mahā]bharata, the Rāmayaṇa, etc. as well. One result of having listened to tales from the latter two was that he had concrete visions of their main protagonists, Hanuman, as a monkey as large as the mountain at which his retreat was built, and Bhīma. Hanuman is of course one of the central characters of the Rāmayaṇa and, among many other things, is known to have moved a mountain, and the Mahābharata’s Bhīma was the second of the five Paṇḍava brothers, who is well-known for his strength and military prowess. 6 He also mentions them in this vein in his biography of Buddhanāthagupta where he calls them this man’s spiritual brothers (mched grogs); see Grub chen buddha gupta’i rnam thar rje btsun nyid kyi zhal lung las gzhan du rang rtog dri mas ma sbags pa’i yi ge yang dag pa, 123. 7 The reading “Pryamānanda” is found in the Rtag bstan phun tshogs gling xylograph of the autobiography; see Collected Works, vol. 1 (Leh: C. Namgyal and Tsewang Taru, 1982), 137. Whether or not either sanskrit name translates tibetan byams pa kun dga’ is moot. indeed, pryama/ā is a virtual ghost word and Tāranātha may very well have originally intended *Priyānanda. Tibetan byams pa renders among several other sanskrit terms the more common maitri. 464 leonard van der kujip and gray tuttle A native of India’s western regions, Purṇavajra arrived at his residence of Bsam sdings around the middle of 1597.8 The year before, the ruler of Rgyal mkhar rtse – his name seems to have been Nam mkha’ lhun grub - and his wife gifted Tāranātha a place for meditation (sgrub sde) in Bsam sdings as well an estate for its maintenance. Tāranātha, who was staying there as well, was able to ask him many questions, the nature of which he, again, unfortunately does not specify. He writes in his autobiography that before the completion of the Seven Instruction Lineages, Kun dga’ bkra shis, his beloved master and “abbot”, who had ordained him a novice and a monk, had given him the oral transmission (lung) of what had remained of an earlier, unfinished transmission of Phag mo gru Rdo rje rgyal po’s (1110-1170) collected writings as well as the same for most of Rje Ri bo che’s writings – Rje Ri bo che is to be identified as Sangs rgyas dbon Grags pa dpal (1251-1296), who founded the Stag lung monastery of Khams ri bo che in 1276.9 Thereafter, young Tāranātha left for Rnam rgyal rab brtan where he also met one whom he simply calls the Sprul pa’i sku or “the Re-embodiment” – he seems to have been the great artist Sman thang pa Blo bzang rgya mtsho.10 Tāranātha was a regular visitor of Stag lung and, as we now know, wrote several important studies at or near this institution. For example, when he was staying in Rnam rgyal rab brtan, he also composed a very large, two-volume commentary on his very own versified study of a praise of the tantric deity Cakrasaṃvara.11 He completed this tract on May 25/26 or June 24/25, 159712, and registers its title immediately after what he calls his Bka’ babs bdun ldan gyi bla ma brgyud pa’i rnam thar. Indeed, the monastery and Kun dga’ bkra shis occupied special places in his life as well as in the lives of, for example, Jo nang Kun dga’ grol mchog (1507- 1566), Tāranātha’s pre-embodiment, and those of his teachers Jo nang Kun dga’ dpal bzang po (1513-1595), the erstwhile abbot of Jo nang monastery, and Byams pa lhun grub, to name but a few. Kun dga’ grol mchog, too, had been a frequent visitor of Stag lung and had served in the capacity of “confessor” when Rnam rgyal bkra shis (1524-1563), the fifteenth abbot of stag lung, was ordained a monk in 1542 and, similarly, he was also at stag lung giving instructions 8 Inspired by Purṇavajra, he wrote his versified praise of the tantric deity Cakrasaṃvara sometime between eighth and tenth day of the sa ga (*vaiśakha) month, April 24/25-16/27, of 1597; see his Bde mchog bstod chen Jo nang rje btsun tā ra nā tha’i gsung ’bum dpe bsdur ma, vols. 17/45, Mes po’i shul bzhag, vols. 59, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2008), 1-30. 9 Rgyal khams pa tā ra nā thas bdag nyid kyi rnam thar nges par brjod pa’i deb gter shin tu zhib mo ma bcos lhug pa’i rtogs brjod [stod cha], 161-2. 10 For various painters called Sprul sku Sman thang pa, see D.P. Jackson, A History of Tibetan Painting (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1996), index, 443. 11 see his Bde mchog bstod chen gyi rang ’grel phan bde’i rgya mtsho [Stod/Smad cha], Jo nang rje btsun tā ra nā tha’i gsung ’bum dpe bsdur ma, vols. 17-8/45, Mes po’i shul bzhag, vols. 59-60, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2008). The versified praise is found in vol. 17/45 [59] as a preface to this work (on pp. 1-30). 12 The colophon of the text states that he completed it on the tenth day of the snron (jyaiṣṭha) luni-solar month [= month no. 5], whereas the autobiography dates its completion to the tenth day of the sa ga (vaiśākha) luni-solar month [= month no. 4]! For the latter, see Rgyal khams pa tā ra nā thas bdag nyid kyi rnam thar nges par brjod pa’i deb gter shin tu zhib mo ma bcos lhug pa’i rtogs brjod [stod cha], 128. altan qaγan and the stag lung abbot kun dga’ bkra shis rgyal mtshan 465 to his successor Kun dga’ bkra shis and had even served as his “abbot” when the latter received his lay person’s and novitiate vows in 1543. There is indeed plenty of evidence to suggest that Kun dga’ bkra shis had a special interest in doctrines associated with the Jo nang school, ideas that were to play such crucial roles in Tāranātha’s intellectual development. Indeed, on August 23 or 24, 1582, the seven year old Tāranātha had journeyed to Chos lung Byang rtse, the institution Kun dga’ grol mchog had founded near Jo nang monastery, where he received his first ordination as a novice from Kun dga’ bkra shis, who had come to this institution for this purpose. This was the beginning of a relationship that was to last some twenty-three years. It was at the age of twenty-six, some four years before Kun dga’ bkra shis’ passing on March 19, 1605, that Tāranātha paid his ultimate respects to his master by writing the story of his life.13 In many respects, this work adds greater depth and detail to some of the narratives we encounter in the biographical study of Kun dga’ bkra shis that was written by Ngag dbang rnam rgyal (1571-1626), his successor and the seventeenth abbot of Stag lung, who included it in his large 1609 history of the Stag lung sect.14 there is no evidence that ngag dbang rnam rgyal used Tāranātha’s earlier biography and this would explain why they differ in many places where details are concerned. Needless to say, these biographies surely deserve an in-depth study on their own terms, but this would obviously fall beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, we will focus on their narratives of the invitation Altan Qaγan15 of the Tümed Mongols extended to him in 1576 and its aftermath. In so doing, we will take as our point of departure the much better known account of the meeting of Bsod nams rgya mtsho (1543-1588) – some contemporaries called him ”the supreme re-embodiment (sprul sku)”, the “all-knowing re-embodiment of ’Bras spungs monastery”, or simply “the re-embodiment of ’Bras spungs” - and Altan Qaγan. this meeting resulted in bsod nams rgya mtsho being given the dalai lama title and marked the onset of the rise of the institution of the Dalai Lama, which Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho (1617-1682) fully consolidated during his tenure as Dalai Lama V. The usual Tibetan source for this is found in Bsod nams rgya mtsho’s biography that was written, we can be sure, without much disinterest by dalai lama V in 1646.16 This biography 13 see Dpal ldan bla ma’i rnam thar ’phrin las rgya mtsho rnam par rgyas pa, Jo nang rje btsun tā ra nā tha’i gsung ’bum dpe bsdur ma, vol. 38/45, Mes po’i shul bzhag, vol. 80, ed. Dpal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib ’jug khang (Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2008), 72-149. 14 see Stag lung chos ’byung, ed. Thar gling Byams pa tshe ring, Gangs can rig mdzod 22 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang, 1992), 531-555. To be noted is that Ngag dbang rnam rgyal registers Tāranātha first among Kun dga’ bkra shis rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’s disciples, and refers to him as ’Jam mgon Mchog gi sprul pa’i sku [Kun dga’ snying po]. This suggests that Tāranātha was already a famous scholar at this time, which is the implication of the epithet ’Jam mgon. 15 We follow his biography—see below n. 20—in designating him Qaγan instead of simply Qan. The Tibetan sources that we have used for this paper call him, when using a Mongol loanword, Khan, Khān, and Gan, where only Khān might be a reflex of Qaγan rather than of Qan. 16 see his Rje btsun thams cad mkhyen pa bsod nams rgya mtsho’i rnam thar dngos grub rgya mtsho’i shing rta (Dolanji: Tashi Dorje, 1982), 1-217 [= ed. Ser gtsug nang bstan dpe rnying ’tshol bsdu phyogs sgrig khang, vol. 11 (Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig dpe skrun khang, 2009), 1-160], and also Z. Ahmad, Sino-Tibetan Relations in the Seventeenth Century, Serie Orientale Roma XL (Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1970), 86-98, and especially the analysis in Satō Hisashi, 466 leonard van der kujip and gray tuttle is itself based on several others sources that are no longer, or not yet, available to a present-day reader; these are17: 1. Sprul sku ’Phreng kha ba Dpal ldan blo gros bzang po’s Rnam thar lha’i rgyal po zhus pa’i skal ldan shing rta, up to the year 1570.18 2. Sprul sku ’Phreng kha ba Dpal ldan blo gros bzang po’s biography-in-verse up to Bsod nams rgya mtsho’s fifteenth [= fourteenth] year. 3. Bsod nams ye shes dbang po’s (1556-1592) itineraries (lam yig) in verse and prose of bsod nams rgya mtsho’s voyage to mdo khams. 4. Mkhar nag Lo tsā ba Dpal ’byor rgya mtsho’s complete biography of Bsod nams rgya mtsho. 5. Gzhu khang Rab ’byams pa Dge legs lhun grub’s Rnam thar dad pa’i go ’byed. Of these, only an incomplete manuscript of Mkhar nag Lo tsā ba’s chronicle of the Dge lugs pa school is extant, and it includes a very brief, capsule biography of Bsod nams rgya mtsho and provides no details about the preliminaries to and the events that transpired during his stay at the Qaγan’s encampment.19 Perhaps not entirely insignificant is the circumstance that he does not indicate pre-embodiments. A place called Mkhar nag is found in Rnga ba County in Khams, Sichuan Province, and it is quite possible that the lo tsā ba–translator hailed from this place. In his biography, Dalai Lama V adds that his sources did have conflicting chronologies (lo tshigs) of events, that he took the one given in ’Phreng kha ba’s writings as his point of departure, and that he also relied upon the oral information given to him by his teachers, such as ’Khon ston Dpal ’byor lhun grub (1561-1637)20, Zhang mkhar Lo tsā ba ’Jam dpal rdo rje, and others. In the entry for the year 1571 of the Dalai Lama V’s work, “Altan Qaγan” is variously written and/or designated as al than rgyal po and al than chos kyi rgyal po, the latter of which of course anticipates his “conversion” to Buddhism. And it is there related that the aging Qaγan awoke to the Buddhist faith in 1571 through the influence of a certain ’Dzo dge [= Mdzod dge] A seng bla ma - we do not know the identity of this lama – though Mdzod dge is an area in what is now northern Rnga ba county [A ba xian], which itself is located in southern Amdo.21 this was the “Daisansedai darairama to arutanhan no kaishū no tame ni [The Meeting of the Third Dalai Lama and Altan Qan],” Tōyōshi kenkyū 42 (1983), 79-109. 17 dalai lama V, Rje btsun thams cad mkhyen pa bsod nams rgya mtsho’i rnam thar dngos grub rgya mtsho’i shing rta, 216-217 [= ed. Ser gtsug nang bstan dpe rnying ’tshol bsdu phyogs sgrig khang, 160]. 18 He was affiliated with ’Bras spungs – he calls the monastery the “divine realm (zhing khams) of Avalokiteśvara” - and appears to have been a disciple of Dge ’dun rgya mtsho (1475-1542), who was posthumously recognized as Dalai Lama II, and the famous artist Sman bla Don grub. He wrote at least two short pieces on iconometry, an ornate ka-’phreng poem, and a work on technology, the Bzo rig pa’i bstan bcos mdo rgyud gsal ba’i me long. These were published in Bde bar gshegs pa’i sku gzugs kyi tshad kyi rab tu byed pa yid bzhin nor bu (Leh: T. Sonam and D.L. Tashigang, 1985), 49-56, 56-58, 58-60, 61-83. 19 see his Dga’ ldan chos ’byung dpag bsam sdong po mkhas pa dgyes byed, tbrc.org, no. W18611, 33b-35b. 20 For a brief study of this man, see J.I. Cabezón, “The Life and Lives of ’Khon ston dpal ’byor lhun grub,” The Tibet Journal [The Earth Ox Papers] XXXIV-XXXV (2009-2010 [2010]), R. Vitali, ed., 209-230. 21 See also the relevant passages in K. Kollmar-Paulenz, Erdeni tunumal neretü sudur. Die Biographie des Altan qaγan der Tümed-Mongolen: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der religionspolitischen Beziehungen zwischen der Mongolei und Tibet im ausgehenden 16. Jahrhundert, Asiatische forschungen, band 142 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2001), 116-117, 266-267, n. 314, and J. Elverskog, The Jewel Translucent Sūtra altan qaγan and the stag lung abbot kun dga’ bkra shis rgyal mtshan 467 very year in which he had also negotiated a richly rewarding peace with Ming China for the first time. Thereafter, sometime in 1574, the Qaγan sent envoys to invite Bsod nams rgya mtsho, who considered the offer, but did not make definite arrangements at the time. The only envoy in this embassy to be mentioned by name was a certain minister (blon po) na ga tse bo22, who does not appear in any of the other sources that we were able to use for this essay. Leaving his Dga’ ldan pho brang residence in ’Bras spungs sometime in the eleventh luni-solar month of 1577, Bsod nams rgya mtsho met en route the Hor-Mongol chieftain (dpon) Karma dpal in the ’Dam gzhung area where they had previously met some twenty years ago in 155823– the chieftain was no doubt given his name by a Karma Bka’ brgyud pa hierarch and he thus figures, to little surprise, in inter alia the biographies of Rgyal tshab IV Grags pa don grub (1547-1613) and Karma pa IX Dbang phyug rdo rje (1556-1601/3).24 He then in a rather leisurely fashion traveled onward until he arrived at the Qaγan’s encampment. The two men finally met on June 19, 1578, and the rest is relatively well known history. truth be told, whatever talents and charisma bsod nams rgya mtsho may have had, it cannot really be said that these are in any way reflected by his pen, for his writings, very few as they are and collected in one volume, suggest that he was mainly keen on composing short manuals on ritual practice.25 He himself does not seem to have left behind a record of his meeting with the Qaγan, but his oeuvre does contain two short texts that are of marginal importance to this event. The first is a brief religious instruction to a Rgya le Chos mdzad Chos bzang ’phrin las, which he wrote in Rwa sgreng monastery while he was en route to Sog yul, “Mongolia”, and the other, dated October 4, 1582, is a kind of versified obituary of Altan Qaγan, which Bsod nams rgya mtsho composed when he was staying at Byams pa gling monastery in Chab mdo.26 this was a bit after the fact, for the Qaγan’s passing appears to have taken place on January 13, 1582. Finally, he must have felt quite at home in the area. He traveled far and wide in Khams, Amdo, (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 129-130, n. 204. For Mdzod dge and A Seng bla ma, see Lha mo’i ngag dbang sbyin pa, Mdzod dge gling dkar stod kyi bzhag sdom pa’i lo rgyus srid zhi’i legs tshogs ’phel tshul bkra shis sgo mang ’byed pa’i rin chen gser gyi lde mig (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2007), 80. 22 Ed. Ser gtsug nang bstan dpe rnying ’tshol bsdu phyogs sgrig khang, 129, wrongly has na gtso bo. This man is not mentioned in Altan Qaγan’s biography, for which see above n. 20. 23 For this place and this Western Mongol (hor stod) chief, see E. Sperling, “Notes on References to ’Bri gung pa-Mongol Contact in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries,” Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5thSeminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, vol. 2, Ihara Shōren and Yamaguchi Zuihō, eds., (Narita: Naritasan Shinshoji, 1992), 741 ff. 24 See, for example, Si tu Paṇ chen Chos kyi ’byung gnas and ’Be Lo tsā ba Tshe dbang kun khyab, Sgrub brgyud karma kaṃ tshang brgyud pa rin po che’i rnam par thar pa rab byams nor bu zla ba chu shel gyi phreng ba [History of the Karma Bka’ brgyud pa Sect], vol. 2 (new delhi, 1972), 123, 158, 178. Karma Dpal resided well to the northeast of Lhasa in the ’Dam Ko khyim and Dkar po sgo areas. 25 see his Gsung ’bum, ed. Ser gtsug nang bstan dpe rnying ’tshol bsdu phyogs sgrig khang (Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig dpe skrun khang, 2010). 26 gsung ’bum, 353-354, 363-364. for the latter, see dalai lama V, Rje btsun thams cad mkhyen pa bsod nams rgya mtsho’i rnam thar dngos grub rgya mtsho’i shing rta, 202-203 [= ed. Ser gtsug nang bstan dpe rnying ’tshol bsdu phyogs sgrig khang, 149-150]. The passing of the Qaγan is noted as follows: “He intuited with clarity that Altan Qaγan had passed beyond the world.” (al than rgyal po ’jig rten pha rol tu gshegs pa mngon par mkhyen pas gzigs te /…). 468 leonard van der kujip and gray tuttle and what is now Inner Mongolia, and never returned or perhaps even really felt inclined to return to Central Tibet given the political situation in Central Tibet, with the Gelukpa under siege. One of his teachers in Central Tibet was Bod mkhar ba Maitri don grub (1526-1587)27, who, in 1572, had transmitted to him the Tshar tradition of the Sa skya pa “path-and-result” (lam’bras) precepts that had been formulated by Bod mkhar ba’s own master Tshar chen Blo gsal rgya mtsho (1502- 1566). And Mi pham chos kyi rgya mtsho recorded in his 1596 biography of Bod mkhar ba, in an entry for the years 1586 to 1587, that the latter was visited by a series of auspicious, premonitory dreams in which Bsod nams rgya mtsho and Altan Qaγan played important parts.28 In late 1587, Bsod nams rgya mtsho was invited by the Qan of the Khar chin (< Mon. Qaračin) Mongols whom he then met at a place where, as we are told, there were still traces to be found of the old Yuan summer capital of Shang to (< Ch. Shangdu). There, in distant Inner Mongolia, he ultimately passed away on the twenty-sixth day of the nag (*caitra) month, that is, on April 22, 1588. We learn from the biography of Karma pa IX, who was present for this occasion, that funerary ceremonies were held in ’Bras spungs in 1589.29 Kun dga’ bkra shis and bsod nams rgya mtsho did not have much to do with one another even though they moved in similar circles. Indeed the Stag lung pa abbot figures only once in the Dalai Lama V’s biography of Bsod nams rgya mtsho. There we read in an entry for the year 1582 that, earlier, when bsod nams rgya mtsho was staying in dga’ ldan chos ’khor gling, Kun dga’ bkra shis had paid him a visit.30 The Stag lung abbot was somewhat despondent and at a loss, because things were not going very well with him and he was not having much success with his travels. But after Bsod nams rgya mtsho had publicly praised him and his Stag lung pedigree, things went much better “on account of having opened a gateway for his work” (‘phrin las kyi sgo phye bas). It would thus appear that, at some unspecified time, Kun dga’ bkra shis had arrived at some sort of an impasse and that Bsod nams rgya mtsho was able somehow to comfort him and perhaps use whatever influence he may have had on the communities in the area. As we will see below, it may very well be that this particular meeting was noted in the relevant narrative of Kun dga’ bkra shis’ travels in Amdo and beyond in the biographies that we will discuss below. 27 dalai lama V, Rje btsun thams cad mkhyen pa bsod nams rgya mtsho’i rnam thar dngos grub rgya mtsho’i shing rta, 169 [= ed. Ser gtsug nang bstan dpe rnying ’tshol bsdu phyogs sgrig khang, 123]. 28 Rje btsun rdo rje ’chang chen po mai tri don grub rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po’i rnam par thar pa dad pa’i spu long rab tu g.yo ba, Lam ’bras slob bshad, vol. 4 (Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre, 1983-1985), 107-109. bod mkhar ba is mentioned twice more in dalai lama V, Rje btsun thams cad mkhyen pa bsod nams rgya mtsho’i rnam thar dngos grub rgya mtsho’i shing rta, 197, 208 [= ed. Ser gtsug nang bstan dpe rnying ’tshol bsdu phyogs sgrig khang, 145, 154]; the first occurs in an entry for the year 1579, where we learn that he was among those individuals, including A seng Bla ma, who tried to persuade him to return to Central tibet. 29 Si tu Paṇ chen and ’Be Lo tsā ba, Sgrub brgyud karma kaṃ tshang brgyud pa rin po che’i rnam par thar pa rab byams nor bu zla ba chu shel gyi phreng ba, vol. 2, 201. 30 dalai lama V, Rje btsun thams cad mkhyen pa bsod nams rgya mtsho’i rnam thar dngos grub rgya mtsho’i shing rta, 203 [= ed. Ser gtsug nang bstan dpe rnying ’tshol bsdu phyogs sgrig khang, 150]. We believe that both texts wrongly have sngar ldan chos ’khor gling – sngar ldan is indeed meaningless. altan qaγan and the stag lung abbot kun dga’ bkra shis rgyal mtshan 469 Bsod nams rgya mtsho’s subsequent busy travel schedule may of course be interpreted as refractions of the politics of religion and its economic aspects. Aside from monasteries that belonged to his school of the Dge lugs pa and were built in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, many of the places that he visited had also been locales where his alleged precursors such as ’Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan (1235-1280) and Byams chen Chos rje Shākya ye shes (1354-1436) had stayed at one time or another.31 indeed, something very similar can be observed when we examine the itinerary of Karma pa IV Rol pa’i rdo rje (1340-1383) when he journeyed to the distant Yuan court in the early 1360s, for we notice that he visited most of the places where especially his immediate predecessor Karma pa III Rang byung rdo rje (1284-1339) had stayed, had taught, and had created bonds of religious affiliations.32 Dalai Lama V used two sources in support of his contention that there existed a special spiritual relationship between ’Phags pa and Byams chen Chos rje, on one hand, and Bsod nams rgya mtsho, on the other. The first was allegedly made by Paṇ chen Dge ’dun grub pa (1391-1474), himself posthumously recognized as Dalai Lama I, which Dalai Lama V had come across “in some” (‘ga’ zhig tu) unspecified study of his life33, and he recovered the other from Sprul sku ’Phreng kha ba’s biographical sketch of Bsod nams rgya mtsho. The “unspecified study” of Dge ’dun grub’s life cites “many early, reliable documents” (sngon yig tshang khungs ma mang po) in which it was stated that, when ’Phags pa met Qubilai Qaγan, he had foretold him their future connection as one “a king who has ‘gold’ as his name” and himself as having the name of “made of water”; to be sure, these names point to Mongol altan and tibetan rgya mtsho, as in Bsod nams rgya mtsho! And in the second, Dalai Lama V writes that the Sprul sku34: …rje btsun sa skya pa chen po’i rnam ’phrul du bshad cing zhal gyis kyang bzhes pa yin par ’dug / ’phags pa rin po che ni glang ri thang pa dang se ston ri pa sogs kyi sku’i skye ba dang / sku tshe phyi ma thams cad mkhyen pa bsod nams rgyal mtshan se ra byams chen chos rje sogs su ’khrungs pa’i rim pa ’dug … 31 For the places where ’Phags pa stayed, see especially the colophons of his writings that are indicated in ishihama yumiko and fukuda yoichi, A Study of the Grub mthaḥ of Tibetan Buddhism, vol. 4, On the Chapter on the History of Mongolian Buddhism of Thuḥu bkwan’s Grub mthaḥ, studia tibetica, no. 11 (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1986), 52-72. For a study of Byams chen Chos rje’s biography, which includes the places he had visited en route to and during his return voyage from the court of the Yongle Emperor (r. 1402-1414), see Laba punzuo [Lhag pa phun tshogs], Daci fawang shijia yeshi (Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe, 2012). 32 See, for example, the routes taken by them, including the ones of their earlier re-embodiment Karmapa II Karma Pakshi (1204/6-1283), when they traveled to China as delineated in their biographies that are contained, for example, in Tshal pa Kun dga’ rdo rje’s (1309-1364) Deb ther dmar po, ed. dung dkar Blo bzang ’phrin las (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1981), 87 ff. 33 We find nothing of the kind in Shen Weirong’s excellent study of his life, Leben und historische Bedeutung des ersten Dalai Lama dGe ’dun grub pa dpal bzang po (1391-1474). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der dGe lugs pa-Schule und der Institution der Dalai Lamas, Monumenta Serica Monograph Series XLIX (Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2002). 34 dalai lama V, Rje btsun thams cad mkhyen pa bsod nams rgya mtsho’i rnam thar dngos grub rgya mtsho’i shing rta, 175-176 [= ed. Ser gtsug nang bstan dpe rnying ’tshol bsdu phyogs sgrig khang, 128-129]. see also the translation in Yishi – sanshi dalai lama juan, tr. Chen Qingying and ma lianlong (Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe, 2006), 224-225. 470 leonard van der kujip and gray tuttle …had stated [?Bsod nams rgya mtsho] to be an emanation (rnam ’phrul) of the great lord Sa skya pa, Sa chen Kun dga’ snying po (1092-1158) and this appears to have been acknowledged by him as well. The precious ’Phags pa was a re-birth (sku’i skye ba) of Glang ri thang pa Rdo rje seng ge (1054-1123) and Se ston Ri pa etc., and his later re-births (sku tshe phyi ma) appear to be a succession of such re-births (‘khrungs) as the All-knowing bsod nams rgyal mtshan (1312-1375), Se ra Byams chen Chos rje, etc… he goes on to say that there may indeed be some prima facie problems relating to the idea that Sa chen, Zhang ’Gro ba’i mgon po (1121-1193), and Mnga bdag Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer (1124-1192) appeared at the same time and that theirs was a re-birth sequence that did not follow from one life to another. Fortunately, a passage from scripture comes to the rescue. The Buddha himself had taught in the Avataṃsakasūtra35 that just as the single moon can reflect itself simultaneously in different pools of water, so there could also be simultaneous re-embodiments that have one single origin, in this case, Avalokiteśvara! In contrast, the versified biography of Altan Qaγan, which is the primary Mongol source for the events leading up to the meeting between him and Bsod nams rgya mtsho and the meeting itself, lists four envoys, including a certain Stag lung Nang so36, who had been sent to invite Bsod nams rgya mtsho sometime in 1574. Possibly a speaker of Central Tibetan, the Stag lung Nang so was perhaps connected in one way another with Stag lung monastery, although we cannot rule out the possibility that “Stag lung” was simply a toponym of an area in Amdo and that it would not therefore necessarily indicate such a connection with the Central Tibetan monastery. Indeed, Ngag dbang rnam rgyal nowhere mentions this office in his large history of the Stag lung tradition. The interpretation of the term nang so and the competence associated with this office are not easily determined. As an institution, the nang so appears to have had its origins during the Mongol occupation of Tibet, when, according to L. Petech, it designated something like the position of secretary in the hierarchy of the proxy government at Sa skya monastery.37 recently, Rin chen sgrol ma examined it as a title for a high, governing official as used in, but certainly not specific to, the Amdo region, but we should be aware that nang so can also indicate a place, an office, to which one can go.38 Even though the text states that the party “went diligently and 35 Van der Kuijp thanks his student Ian MacCormack who kindly informed him of the relevant passage in the Avataṃsakasūtra; see Bka’ ’gyur, ed. Krung go’i bod rig pa zhib ’jug lte gnas kyi bka’ bstan dpe sdur khang, vol. 35 (Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2006), 822. 36 See Kollmar-Paulenz, Erdeni tunumal neretü sudur. Die Biographie des Altan Qagan der Tümed- Mongolen, 279-281, and elverskog, The Jewel Translucent Sūtra, 139-140, who has “1575”, a confusion that is discussed by Kollmar-Paulenz. 37 see Central Tibet and the Mongols: the Yüan Sa-Skya period of Tibetan history, serie orientale roma, vol. LXV (Rome: Instituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. 1990), 132. 38 See her “Lo rgyus dang ’brel nas mdo smad nang so’i skor rags tsam gleng ba,” Mtsho sngon mi rigs slob chen rig deb 1 (2011), 35-49, and, more specifically for the office of the nang so in the reb gong/ Re skong region, her “Mdo smad reb gong rong bo nang so dang der ’brel yod kyi lo rgyus skor la gsar du dpyad pa,” Krung go’i bod rig pa 1 (2010), 63-81. For an example of nang so used in the sense of an office or bureau, see Zhwa dmar IV Chos grags ye shes’ (1453-1524) biography of ’Gos Lo tsā ba Gzhon nu dpal (1392-1481) of 1517 in Dpal ldan bla ma dam pa gzhon nu dpal gyi rnam par thar pa yon tan rin po che’i