Hanung Kim

Gönlung Jampaling monastery is a Tibetan Buddhist monastery in Northeast Tibet that was founded in the early 17th century and has since developed into one of the most central monasteries in the region. The monastery’s importance has been in line with the growing centrality of Northeast Tibet in the history of Tibetan Buddhist culture. Gönlung monastery emerged as a politically important site due to the relationship that its incarnate lamas had with the Qing dynasty. In 1723, the monastery was destroyed during the Lobsang Danzin’s rebellion, but after its rebuilding in the 18th century, the temple again played a key role in the development of Tibetan Buddhist culture in Central Asia. In the aftermath of the Muslim Dungan Revolt in the mid-19th century, the temple lost some of its former glory, but continued to be a major temple in the region well into the 20th century. Reopened in 1980 after the turmoil of the Cultural Revolution, the temple continues to honor the traditions of Tibetan Buddhist culture today. One of the most important sources for the history of Gönlung monastery is denrab (gdan rabs), a monastic chronicle. This emerged as a unique genre of Tibetan literature especially after the 18th century. Gönlung monastery has a tradition of continuously updating and compiling monastic chronicles after 18th-century Tukwan Lobsang Chökyi Nyima's monastic chronicle, demonstrating the high estimation that members of the temple place on narrating and sharing the history of the temple. By the end of the twentieth century, a total of six temple histories had been written, representing different periods of historical development with different emphases. A detailed analysis and understanding of these texts will shed light on the role that Gönlung monastery played in the development of Tibetan Buddhist culture in Central Asia.

With its territorial expansion and population growth, the Qing dynasty was a remarkable era of the Chinese history for both its economic development and ethnic diversity. Mongols and Tibetans inhabiting northwestern and western parts of the Qing empire were a key to such a development, and Tibetan Buddhism, as a major religious and cultural underpinning for the people, became a matter of interest for the Qing dynasty. Accordingly, the Qing adminstration had devised an institutional apparatus, such as Lifanyuan (Board for the Administration of Outlying Regions), for their control. This paper analyzes a gap between the theoretical and assigned numbers of Tibetan monastics and their actual and bona fide existence in the Tibetan Buddhist world in order to understand the ways in which the Qing dynasty addressed the matters related to Tibetan Buddhism.
The religious population of Tibetan Buddhism comprised two major parts: reincarnate lamas (Tib. sprul sku) and sangha communities. According to the regulation of Lifanyuan, there was a designated quota of the reincarnate lamas during the Qing times. However, the quota does not match with the huge growth of numbers of reincarnate lamas, which can be verified by recent studies by scholars such as Gray Tuttle. This clearly tells the fact that the Qing dynasty did not have a control of the spread of the phenomenon of reincarnate lamas. The more general religious population of Tibetan Buddhism, the sangha communities, shows a similar pattern. The Qing times saw an exponential growth of monk populations of Tibetan Buddhism, which exceeded the growth speed of the general population of Qing. Nevertheless, the Qing administration developed a very limited institutional measures to deal with the phenomenon. It was obvious, however, that the Qing court had been well aware of these two populational developments.
In sum, it can be argued that Qing did not have ability nor intention of controling the population of Tibetan monatics such as reincarnate lamas and sangha communities. The Tibetan Buddhism world had its own initiatives and dynamics for its development during the Qing times.

China’s “Reform and Opening-up” policy in the late 1970s ushered in a new era for the academic activities of Tibetan people, and its development has experienced the vicissitude of times. Such changes in academic activities can be observed in the field of historical studies. This paper attempts an analytical examination of three discrete publications (1991, 2003, and 2016) of General History of Tibet in order to appreciate the development. The first General History of Tibet(Bod kyi lo rgyus rags rim), written in Tibetan by Tibetans and representing the atmosphere of the 1980s, signified revival of the tradition of Tibetan historiography. The second General History (Xizang tongshi), written in Chinese for the first time of such a kind, made Tibetan history a part of Chinese border history. The third General History (Xizang tongshi), published in 13 volumes, was a result of a large-scale project for which a hundred of experts had worked for fourteen years. It solidified the status of Tibetan history as a part of Chinese history. Altogether, the development of these three publications indicates that historical studies of Tibet have reached its unprecedented level, but Tibetan history now exists only as a component of larger Chinese history for China.

In order to have a better understanding of the history of the Qing dynasty, it is necessary to get a better picture of the historical function and the status of Tibetan Buddhism. Even though Qing made use of Tibetan Buddhism politically for its Tibetan and Mongolian relation, it is also a fact that the Qing imperial house including its emperors had their sincere religious faith in Tibetan Buddhism. Changkya Rölpédorjé (Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje) is the very person who can represent this multi-faceted aspect of Tibetan Buddhism in the history of the Qing dynasty. This paper attempts to understand the role of Tibetan Buddhism through tracking and analyzing the activities of Changkya Rölpédorjé based mainly on the contents of his Tibetan biographies. First, Rol pa’i rdo rje was chosen as a new Changkya incarnation because of his non-affiliated status of ethnic identity to prevent Mongolian monopoly of the system. Afterwards, he was educated and raised as a person who epitomizes the level of development of Tibetan Buddhism in the capital area. Second, Changkya Rölpédorjé’s activities related to the Dalai Lamas show that he was not a puppet-like figure orchestrated only by Qing but had his own voice and agenda for the benefit of the Geluk school of Tibetan Buddhism when necessary. Third, Changkya Rölpédorjé’s religious and scholarly activities indicate that he always obliged the Qing government with high-level results which made Tibetan Buddhism as a part of the big machine of the Qing dynasty. In sum, Changkya Rölpédorjé was a symbol of coexistence of Qing and Tibet with his independent mind as well as his cooperative attitude towards Qing.

The reincarnation system of Tibetan Buddhism (Tib. sprul sku) has played an important role not only religiously but also politically in the relationship between Tibet and its neighbors. During the Qing times too, the significance of the reincarnation system continued to increase due to many reasons such as Qing imperial family’s support for Tibetan Buddhism and Qing’s advance into Inner Asia. Former studies on the reincarnation system tended to analyze it mainly from the perspective of the central authorities of the Qing dynasty. This study, however, attempts to deal with the topic from a different angle by using Tibetan source materials. In so doing it is hoped that this study can contribute to more advanced understanding of Qing’s management of Inner Asia.
The reincarnation system of Tibetan Buddhism originated from concepts of Buddhism and became a means of political and economic succession in the Tibetan society from the thirteenth century. During the Qing times, the system gained its popularity throughout Inner Asian territories and its abuse and malfunction began to be criticized by authorities such as the Qianlong (乾隆) emperor in his Discourse on Tibetan Lamas (喇嘛說). Meanwhile, an autobiography of Sumpa Khenpo Yeshe Penjor (1704~1788), who was an incarnate lama himself and active participant in formation of the system, provides another side of details about the developmental aspects of the reincarnation system during the Qianlong times. In sum, local powers began to appropriate the reincarnation system for their own purpose at first, but it began to be taken away by the newly emerging authority of Mongol-Gelug alliance. After some self-purification efforts by Tibetan Buddhist figures, the system finally became under the umbrella of the Qing authority. This is one aspect of a historical development of Inner Asia during the Qing times that can be reconstructed only by Tibetan sources, materials that are abundant but still wait to be explored further.

Although Tibetan rainmaking rituals speak of important aspects of both history and religion, scholars thus far have paid only biased attention to the rituals and performative aspects rather than the abundant textual materials available. To address that issue, this article analyzes a single textual manual on Tibetan rainmaking rituals to learn the significance of rainmaking in late Imperial Chinese history. The article begins with a historical overview of the importance of Tibetan rainmaking activities for the polities of China proper and clearly demonstrates the potential for studying these ritual activities using textual analysis. Then it focuses on one Tibetan rainmaking manual from the 18th century and its author, Sumpa Khenpo, to illustrate that potential. In addition to the author's autobiographical accounts of the prominence of weather rituals in the Inner Asian territory of Qing China, a detailed outline of Sumpa Khenpo's rainmaking manual indicates that the developmental aspects of popular weather rituals closely agreed with the successful dissemination of Tibetan Buddhism in regions where Tibetan Buddhist clerics were active. As an indicator of late Imperial Chinese history, this function of Tibetan rainmaking rituals is a good barometer of the successful operation of a cosmopolitan empire, a facilitator of which was Tibetan Buddhism, in the 18th century during the High Qing era.

Since its establishment in 1682, the Lamo Dechen Monastery of Amdo has been one of the leading Tibetan Buddhist institutions in Amdo’s history. Its significance is further highlighted by the political and religious activities of its two major incarnation lineages, namely Zhapdrung Karpo and Lamo Serti. This essay sheds new light on the importance of this lesser-known monastery and its temporal and spiritual authorities by centering on the successive generations of incarnate lamas. The essay begins by offering basic information on the monastery, including its historical background, current situation, and connection to Central Tibet. It then outlines the lives of Zhapdrung Karpo and Lamo Serti and their successors up to the current lineage holders. The goal is to demonstrate the changing fortunes and significance not only of the institution of the incarnate lamas, but also of the role of the Lamo Dechen Monastery in Amdo history. It is hoped that this preliminary discussion will encourage scholars in the field to examine this unique monastery and its prelates in more detail to better understand the convoluted dynamics found in the history of Amdo.

Sum pa Ye shes dpal 'byor, the polymath monk scholar from eighteenth-century Amdo, has attracted considerable academic attention thanks to the wide range of his scholarly achievements well represented in his writings. Although some of publication of his individual works and a xylographic reproduction of their collection have appeared, the reader-friendly typeset version of his entire Collected Works has long been a desideratum. Recently the Office of Tibetan Language Working Committee of Gonghe County in Qinghai, China, has finally met that demand after four years' solid editorial and publishing efforts. This article offers a useful introduction to this new publication of Sum pa Ye shes dpal 'byor's Collected Works. Following a brief overview of the publication project, the article deals with the pros and cons of the new publication, which is based on Sum pa Ye shes dpal 'byor's own intent and concept for his Collected Works. In the Appendix, this article also offers a comparative table on the locations of each work in both the new publication of the collection and the original xylographic Collected Works to facilitate all readers' use and enjoyment of this new publication.

As contiguous entities to each other, Tibet and China have maintained the relationship, both for good or ill. The first half of the 18th century was a turning point in terms of politics for two entities. This was the period when Qing dynasty took an expansionist policy over the western frontiers of China proper after the victory over the Chinese mainland, and Tibet was one of the main targets of the assimilation. Pho-lha-nas Bsod-nams-stobs-rgyas (1689-1747) was a preeminent politician who played an important role in the relationship with Qing China in this period, and this is attested by Qing records pertaining to him. In the corresponding parts from the Veritable Records of Qing dynasty, Pho-lha-nas had been depicted as a pro-Qing loyalist all the way. Since he could represent whole Tibet by his political status, we can say that those Qing narratives reflect the facets of the general Qing viewpoint over Tibet as a whole. And such a viewpoint has seemed to be inherited even to the scholars in China of our own time. However, through analyzing other sources such as Mi-dbang-rtogs-brjod, we can be aware of the fact that the Qing narratives were predicated on a biased point of view. On the Tibetan Civil War (1727 —1728), Qing records described it as a confrontation between pro- and anti-Qing powers, but through Tibetan sources, we can find that this is not the case. The shrewd Qing policy for elimination of the Lhasa based vested interests may be the reason for the transformation of the historical fact. After the civil war, this policy had been embodied through Pho-lha-nas and the potential power which could be represented by Dai Lama had been excluded from the political scene. In this period, Pho-lha-nas had received continuous extolments from the Qing government and he actually gratified the demands of Qing. Based on such Qing records, many Chinese scholars regard Pho-lha-nas as both a loyalist and a patriot of China. But in his biography, Mi-dbang-rtogs-brjod, many incidents indicate that this is not the case either: The dissension concerning the problem of the sects in Tibetan Buddhism sometimes brought about his strong hostility against the Qing government; Ambans and Qing military forces stationed in Lhasa was another source which made Pho-lha-nas and Tibentans feel offended. All these could be the evidence which could disprove the historical status of Tibet and its people in Qing records. In conclusion, the narratives in the Qing veritable records only represent the interests of Qing and those contents are far from being the objective historical narratives. Making a comparison between the Qing veritable records and Tibetan sources, we could discover the other side of Qing policies, which was aggressive and elaborate rather than merely opportunistic. As for Pho-lha-nas, the appreciation of his political merits should be conducted based on the viewpoint that he rendered great services just for Tibet and its people, not much for Qing or China.