Tibetan and Himalayan Library - THL

[1] On the Chinese experience on Wutai shan, see for instance the writings of Raoul Birnbaum (“Buddhist Meditation Teachings and the Birth of ‘Pure’ Landscape Painting in China,” Studies on the Mysteries of Manjusri, “The Manifestation of a Monastery: Shen-Ying’s Experiences on Mount Wu-t’ai in T’ang Context,” “Secret Halls of the Mountain Lords: The Caves of Wu-t’ai,” “Visions of Manjusri on Mount Wutai,” and “Light in the Wutai Mountains”) and Robert Gimello (“Chang Shang-ying on Wu-ta’i Shan” and “Wu-t’ai shan during the Early Chin Dynasty: The Testimony of Chu Pien”). Only very recently have important inroads been published in western scholarship on the Tibetan involvement on Wutai shan: Gray Tuttle, Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2005); and Gray Tuttle, “Tibetan Buddhism at Ri bo rtse lnga/Wutai shan in Modern Times,” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 2 (August 2006): 1-35, http://www.thlib.org?tid=T2723 (a paper originally presented at the 1998 meeting of the International Association of Tibetan Studies held in Bloomington, Indiana); Natalie Köhle, “Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?: Patronage, Pilgrimage, and the Place of Tibetan Buddhism at the Early Qing Court,” Late Imperial China 29, no. 1 (June 2008): 73-119 (based on her 2006 MA thesis); and Wen-shing Chou, “Ineffable Paths: Mapping Wutaishan in Qing Dynasty China,” Art Bulletin 89, no. 1 (March 2007): 108-29. This new generation of scholarship on Wutai shan in late imperial times culminated in the conference “Wutaishan and Qing Culture” with which this exhibition was conceived. As one will see from the many Chinese secondary sources cited here, Chinese interest in Tibetan Buddhism on Wutai shan began to appear in print in the late 1980s and 1990s.

[2] The author would like to thank co-curator of the exhibition Jeff Watt for all of his suggestions, input, and his guidance in mounting the exhibition. Thanks also to Donald Rubin and Caron Smith for their support appointing me the first Rubin Museum of Art curatorial fellow which gave me the opportunity to work on this project. Special thanks to Wen-shing Chou and Gray Tuttle for enthusiastically sharing their materials, and to David Newman for his collaboration creating the on-line interactive digitally decoded 1846 map of Wutai shan. Gene Smith of TBRC and Pema Bhum of Latse Library were both invaluable in locating Tibetan sources, as well as clearing up several questions arising out of the literature. Thanks to Jann Ronis and Alex Gardner, fellow Rubin Foundation Scholars in Residence, for their help in coming to accessible yet faithful translations of Tibetan texts. Thanks to Elliot Sperling, Gray Tuttle, Johan Elverskog, Kristina Dy-Liacco, Helen Abbott and Neil Liebman for their many valuable suggestions in improving this essay. Also thanks to Jessica Klein, Lisa Arcomano, John Monaco, Dudu Etzion, Jennie Coyne, Kathryn Selig-Brown, Kei Tateyama and Zhu Runxiao for their help at various stages of the exhibition and publication.

[3] Wutai shan as a geographic place is not actually a single mountain, but in fact a group of five mountains arranged in a rough semicircular arc, which have been identified with the five peaks of Mañjuśrī’s abode.

[4] The Mañjuśrī astrological system arranges the mountain’s five peaks into a cosmic diagram (maṇḍala, kyinkhordkyil ’khor) format, with each peak placed in a cardinal direction and assigned a corresponding primary color under one of the five Buddha realms: on South Peak (Fig. 4, no. 2) resides a white form of Mañjuśrī called Jñānasattva on a peak of semi-precious stones (turquoise?; blue), associated with the realm of the Buddha Ratnasaṁbhava; on the West Peak (Fig. 4, no. 9) resides a form of Mañjuśrī seated on a lion called Vādisiṁha on a peak made of rubies (red), associated with the realm of the Buddha Amitābha; on the Central Peak (Fig. 4, no. 11) resides a form of Mañjuśrī wielding a sword called Mañjuśrī Nātha on a peak of gold (yellow), associated with the realm of the Buddha Vairocana; on the North Peak (Fig. 4, no. 18) resides a form of Mañjuśrī called Vimala, meaning “Stainless” on a peak of sapphire (green), associated with the realm of Amoghasiddhi; on East Peak (Fig. 4, no. 28) resides a four-armed form of Mañjuśrī called Mañjughoṣa Tikṣṇa on a peak of crystal (white), associated with the realm of Akṣobhya.

[5] Wen-shing Chou, “Maps of Wutai Shan: Individuating the Sacred Landscape through Color,” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 6 (December 2011), http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5713.

[6] Wutai shan’s gazetteer had twenty editions, whereas the next largest Tai Mountain (Tai shan), Emei Mountain (Emei shan, 峨眉山), and Putuo Mountain (Putuo shan, 普陀山) only had half as many with ten each. Gray Tuttle (“Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai Shan in the Qing: The Chinese-language Register,” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 6 [December 2011], http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5721) notes that “not only does the number of Qing gazetteers devoted to Wutai shan exceed those of almost any other site in the empire, but their production was also more closely connected to the imperial court than any other place.” The other three mountains in the set of four great Buddhist mountains of China (si da ming shan, 四大名山), each with their own bodhisattva in residence, are: Putuo Mountain (Putuo shan, 普陀山) in Zhejiang Province (Zhejiang, 浙江省), seat of the Bodhisattva of Compassion (avalokiteśvara); Emei Mountain in Sichuan, seat of the Bodhisattva Samantabhadra; and Jiuhua Mountain (Jiuhua shan, 九華山) in Anhui, seat of the Bodhisattva Ākāśagarbha.

[7] Preface to the Records of Clear and Cool Mountain (Qingliang chuan), dated 1164. Translated by Robert Gimello, “Wu-t’ai shan during the Early Chin dynasty: The Testimony of Chu Pien,” Zhonghua Foxue xue bao 7 (1994): 514.

[8] See Stephen Bokenkamp, “Record of the Feng and Shan Sacrifices,” in Religions of China in Practice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), 251-61.

[9] Taisho 279.10.1b-444c; and Taisho 1185 (Takakusu Junjirō and Watanabe Kaigyoku, eds., Taishō shinshū daizōkyō (Tokyo: Taisho issaikyo kankokai, 1924-32). The trilingual dedication texts are translated at the end of the entry for catalog number 1 (Cat. 1).

[10] Étienne Lamotte, “Mañjuśrī,” T'oung Pao 158 (1960): 61; Mary Anne Cartelli, “On a Five-colored Cloud: The Songs of Mount Wutai,” Journal of the American Oriental Society (Oct 2004): 738. The Flower Garland Sūtra (Avataṃsaka Sūtra) with references to “Clear and Cool Mountain” as Mañjuśrī’s abode in China was translated in 699 for the infamous empress Wu zetian, China’s only female emperor. The political application of Buddhism at the Chinese court reached new heights in the late seventh to early eighth centuries under the empress Wu, who was the first to openly promote herself as a bodhisattva and officially adopt titles and symbols of Buddhist absolute sacral power. Empress Wu zetian went so far as to liken her rule to the millenarian prophesy of the coming of the Future Buddha Maitreya. Wu zetian enjoyed power for almost half a century, and from 690-705 ruled as China’s sole female emperor. Confucian strictures against women’s involvement in politics, let alone female rulership, likely forced her to seek a new ideology to legitimate her power. Subtly interpolated translations of Buddhist texts, such as the Flower Garland Sūtra, with cryptic passages inserted to bolster her claims of divinity, were part of a well coordinated Buddhist campaign of legitimation, reinforcing Wu zetian as a cakravartin ruler and a bodhisattva. For instance an interpolated translation of the Baoyu jing (寶雨經), or Sutra of Precious Rain, was presented at court in 693 with such references. Wu zetian adopted the title “Golden Wheel Cakravartin August Divine Emperor” (Jinlun shengshen huangdi, 金輪生身皇帝) less than two weeks later, and even had the seven jewels of the monarch (baoqi, 寶七) – the symbols of the divinely anointed cakravartin ruler – displayed at court during audiences. This was the first time in Chinese history that a sovereign officially adopted a title and symbols of Buddhist absolute sacral power (Antonio Forte, Political Propaganda and Ideology in China at the End of the Seventh Century [Naples, 1977], 143, fn. 75). On her activity on Wutai shan, see: Tansen Sen, Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade: The Realignment of Sino-Indian Relations, 600-1400 (Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press, 2003), 79-81.

[11] Gyelwo Kyinkang MekyiRgyal bo kyin kang me kyi is transliterated from the Chinese, Jingang Miji Wang (金剛密跡王; William E. Soothill, A Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms: With Sanskrit and English Equivalents and a Sanskrit-Pali Index [London : K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1937], 281; a form of Vajrapāṇi). Other such differences between the Chinese and Tibetan inscriptions can be found on this map, see translations of the trilingual inscriptions in entry for Cat. 1.

[12] The earliest source is probably the History of the Svāyambhū Stūpa (Svāyambhūpurāṇa, Belyül Rangjung Chörten Chenpö LogyüBal yul rang byung mchod rten chen po’i lo rgyus), the date of which is unknown. The earliest dated extant copy appears to be as late as 1522. On the difficulty of dating this text see: Theodore Riccardi, “Some Preliminary Remarks on a Newari Painting of Svayambhūnāth,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 93, no. 3 (Jul.-Sept. 1973): 336, fn. 7. For a summary of this legend, see: Keith Dowman, Power Places of Kathmandu: Hindu and Buddhist Sites in the Sacred Valley of Nepal (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International; London, UK: Thames & Hudson, 1995). Situ PenchenSi tu paṇ chen also made an annotated/critical translation of the Svāyambhūpurāṇa, the History of the Svāyambhū Stūpa (Belyül Rangjung Chörten Chenpö LogyüBal yul rang byung mchod rten chen po’i lo rgyus). See: Hubert Decleer, “Si tu Paṇ chen’s Translation of the Svayaṃbhū Purāṇa and His Role in the Development of the Kathmandu Valley Pilgrimage Guide (gnas yig) Literature,” in Si-tu Paṇ-chen: His Contribution and Legacy, edited by Tashi Tsering et al. (Dharamshala, India: Amnye Machen Institute, 2000), 33-64. For an annotated translation of the Descriptive Catalog of Svāyambhū (Pakpa Shingküngyi Karchak’Phags pa shing kun gyi dkar chag) by Nelungpa Ngawang DorjéNas lung pa ngag dbang rdo rje (b. seventeenth century), see: Keith Dowman, “A Buddhist Guide to the Power Places of the Kathmandu Valley,” Kailash: A Journal of Inter-disciplinary Studies (1981): 183-291.

[13] It is unclear when this association first started, though it is mentioned by the fourteenth century. See Cat. 50.

[14] Bazhé ZhaptakmaSba’ bzhed zhabs btags ma (Bazhé Zhaptakma (Tsenpo Trisong Detsen dang Khenpo Loppön Pemé Dü Dongak Sosor Dzepé Bazhé Zhaptakma)Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma (btsan po khri srong lde btsan dang mkhan po slob dpon padma'i dus mdo sngags so sor mdzad pa'i sba bzhed zhabs btags ma) Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe, 1990), 93; Matthew Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism Conversion, Contestation, and Memory (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000), 72; citing the Testament of Ba (Sba gsal snang, Sba bzhed ces bya ba las sba gsal snang gi bzhed pa bzhugs [Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Beijing, 1980], 8). This passage does not appear in other editions of the Sba bzhed/Sba’ bzhed published by the Austrian Academy of Science (H. Diemberger and Pasang Wangdu, eds., dBa’ bzhed: The Royal Narrative Concerning the Bringing of the Buddha [Vienna: Austrian Academy of Science], 2000) or R. A. Stein, Une chronique ancienne de bSam-yas, sBa-bžed (Paris: Institut des hautes études chinoises, 1961).

[15] Bdud ’joms ’jigs bral ye shes rdo rje [Dudjom Rinpoché], The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism: Its Fundamentals and History, trans. Gyurme Dorje (Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications, 1991), vol. 1, 555. Of course it is quite possible that this reflects more the popularity of Wutai shan at a much later time when these historical texts were written down, in which the contemporary relationship with the mountain was being projected back into the past. Buddhajñānapāda (active eighth century) is also said to have set out for Wutai shan to meet Mañjuśrī (Dudjom Rinpoché, Nyingma School, 495). At about the same time Vimalamitra’s teacher, the master Śrī Siṃha, was said to have studied the doctrines of mantra on the five-peaked mountain of Wutai shan under the outcaste master Bhelakīrti (Dudjom Rinpoché, Nyingma School, 497). Some suggest that Buddhajñānapāda and Śrī Siṃha are one and the same person (Samten Karmay, The Great Perfection (rDzogs chen): A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of Tibetan Buddhism [Leiden; New York: E. J. Brill, 1988], 63, fn. 16). At other times Tibetan masters, such as the treasure revealer (tertöngter ston) Guru Chökyi WangchukChos kyi dbang phyug (1212-1270), traveled to Wutai shan in their dreams to receive teachings from Mañjuśrī (Dudjom Rinpoché, Nyingma School, 763). Later, in the fifteenth century, a Drigung’Bri gung monk ran away to Wutai shan. See: Elliot Sperling, “Early Ming Policy toward Tibet: An Examination of the Proposition that the Early Ming Emperors Adopted a ‘Divide and Rule Policy,’” PhD diss., Indiana University, 1983.

[16] “Then the king having gone to Five Peaked Mountain in China built one-hundred and eight temples” (de nas rgyal pos rgya nag ri bo rtse lngar byon nas lha khang brgya rtsa brgyad bzhengs so/). Butön RinchendrupBu ston rin chen grub, Deshek Tenpé Seljé Chökyi JungnéBde gshegs bstan pa’i gsal byed chos kyi ’byung gnas [Butön ChöjungBu ston chos ’byung; History of Buddhism in India and Tibet] (Beijing: Zhongguo Zangxue zhongxin, 1988), 183; Eugéne Obermiller, The History of Buddhism in India and Tibet (New Delhi: Paljor Publications, 1999), 185; Li Jicheng, “Zangchuan Fojiao yu Wutai Shan,” Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 4 (1988): 16.

[17] Dorothy Wong, “A Reassessment of the Representation of Mt Wutai from Dunhuang Cave 61,” Archives of Asian Art 46 (1993): 38; citing the Old Tang Dynasty History (Jiu tangshu), 945, juan 17, Jingzong ji, juan 196, and Tufan zhuan [Liu Xu et al., Jiu Tangshu (Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1975)]).

[18] Simple depictions of Wutai shan from this period can be found in Caves 159, and 361 (Wong, “A Reassessment,” 41). The Tibetan occupation of Dunhuang was from 781-848. During the eighth and ninth centuries the Tibetan empire ruled over large Chinese subject populations in the Hexi area. However, the phrase “Riwo TsengaRi bo rtse lnga” does not seem to appear in the oldest Tibetan documents (eighth-ninth centuries) published in Choix de documents tibetains a la Bibliotheque nationale.

[19] See Wong, “A Reassessment.” Chinese textual evidence suggests that murals of Wutai shan were already being painted in China during the late Tang period (ninth century?). Cave 61 is dated to ca. 947-957, and the major donor was a member of the local ruling Cao family, who were major patrons of Buddhist artistic projects in the area. Interestingly all of the donors listed in this cave are women. See Wong, “A Reassessment,” 28-29, 38. However, members of the Dunhuang Research Academy have recently revised the dating of the paintings in Cave 61 to the fourteenth century.

[20] Chou, “Ineffable Paths,” 116.

[21] For a comparison of the Wutai shan woodblock to a contemporary gazetteer map (printed 1887) see: Chou, “Ineffable Paths,” 109-10.

[22] Wong, “A Reassessment,” 45.

[23] The Tangut emperors presented themselves as sacral cakravartin rulers. The cakravartin, or “wheel turning king,” was a concept of sacral rule in India that was imported into Central and East Asia with Buddhism, whereby conquest was presented as a proselytizing tool, and thus gave the ruler divine sanction to expand his empire. Among the northern nomads the Tangut emperors were known as the Burqan Khan, or “Buddha Khan.” Christopher P. Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire (New York: Facts on File, 2004), 48.

[24] Gimello, “Wu-t’ai shan,” 506.

[25] The first record of Tangut patronage of sites on Wutai shan was in 1007, when the Tangut ruler made offerings at ten temples, and the earliest known references to the Tangut’s “Northern Wutai shan” date to the late eleventh century. Ruth Dunnell, The Great State of White and High: Buddhism and State Formation in Eleventh-century Xia (Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press, 1996), 35-36; Gimello, “Wu-t’ai shan,” 507.

[26] See Isabelle Charleux, “Mongol Pilgrimages to Wutai Shan in the Late Qing Dynasty,” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 6 (December 2011), http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5712; and Gimello, “Wu-t’ai shan,” 507.

[27] See for instance described below, as well as the history of the Pacification of Suffering (Zhijézhi byed) which, according to Dan Martin, also dates to the early thirteenth century, contained in the Zhijé Ngabarchi Sumgyi KorZhi byed snga bar phyi gsum gyi skor (Zhi byed snga bar phyi gsum gyi skor [The Tradition of Pha Dam-pa Sangs-rgyas: A Treasured Collection of His Teachings Transmitted by Thugs-sras-Kun-dga’], ed. with an English introduction by Barbara Nimri Aziz [Thimphu, Bhutan: Druk Sherik Parkhang, 1979]).

[28] Nyangrel Nyima ÖzerNyang ral nyi ma ’od zer, Katang ZanglingmaBka’ thang zangs gling ma (Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe, 1989), 32-33. On the author Nyima ÖzerNyi ma ’od zer, who was himself considered an incarnation of the “Dharma King” Tri SongdetsenKhri srong lde btsan, see: Dudjom Rinpoché, Nyingma School, 755-59. On the writings of Nyima ÖzerNyi ma ’od zer, see Dan Martin, Tibetan Histories: A Bibliography of Tibetan-Language Historical Works (London: Serindia, 1997), 30-32.

[29] Within this context Nyangrel Nyima ÖzerNyang ral nyi ma ’od zer refers to Tri SongdetsenKhri srong lde btsan as “an emanation of Mañjuśrī”: ’phags pa ’jam dpal gyi sprul pa rgyal po khri srong lde’u btsan/ (Nyi ma ’od zer, Katang ZanglingmaBka’ thang zangs gling ma, 32).

[30] According to Tibetan sources he traveled five times to Tibet, and on his fifth trip he traveled on to China for twelve years where he was known as “Bodhidharma.” Later in 1097 he returned to DingriDing ri where he founded a monastery, Dingri LangkhorDing ri glang ’khor (1097), and then passed away in 1117. On PadampaPha dam pa’s life and lineage see: George Roerich, Blue Annals (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1976), 867-78; Jerome Edou, Machig Labdrön and the Foundations of Chöd (Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 1996), 31-38; Chökyi SenggéChos kyi seng ge and GangpaGang pa, Padampa dang Machik Lapdröngyi NamtarPha dam pa dang ma cig lab sgron gyi rnam thar [Biographies of Dampa Sanggyé and Machik Lapdrön] (Xining: Qinghai Nationalities Publishing House, November 1992). Also see Li Jicheng, “Zangchuan Fojiao,” 17.

[31] In the earliest work devoted entirely to the history of the Pacification of Suffering, which dates to the early thirteenth century, contained in the Zhijé Ngabarchi Sumgyi KorZhi byed snga bar phyi gsum gyi skor, only brief mention is made of PadampaPha dam pa’s visit to Wutai shan (vol. 4, p. 325). I would like to thank Dan Martin for bringing this to my attention, as well as the early thirteenth-century dating of the text.

[32] tsi tsu sa ra zhes pa’i gtsug lag khang ’ga’ zhig bzhengs/. “TsitsuTsi tsu” appears to be a transliteration from Chinese (possibly zi zu or zi zai?), and “sarasa ra” from the Sanskrit for temple. Alternatively “TsitsuTsi tsu” could be a phonetic rendering of tsetsukrtse btsugs, “established [on] the peak.” I can find no other reference to this temple, and the most said even in Chinese secondary literature is that “He had a deep influence on Wutaishan’s magnificent temple architecture” (Li Jicheng, “Zangchuan Fojiao,” 18) but without further elaboration. This later elaboration can be found in: Chökyi SenggéChos kyi seng ge, PadampaPha dam pa, 50. A more detailed account of PadampaPha dam pa’s activities on Wutai shan, including the following story in the Blue Annals, can be found in: Chökyi SenggéChos kyi seng ge, PadampaPha dam pa, 49-51 and 55.

[33] Roerich, Blue Annals, 911-12; Depter NgönpoDeb ther sngon po, 809-10. One other reference to PadampaPha dam pa and Wutai shan is found in the Blue Annals: “I will stay with a Jñāna-​dakini on Wutaishan of China” (Roerich, Blue Annals, 898). Interestingly, despite the fact that it is stated that his meditative lineage exists in China (Wutai shan?), there do not appear to be any references to Padampa SanggyéPha dam pa sangs rgyas (Padangba Sangjie, 帕當巴桑结) in Chinese primary sources. He is commonly mentioned in modern Chinese secondary literature as the first historical figure to link Tibet and Wutai shan, but without any details. See for instance: Li Jicheng, “Zangchuan fojiao,” 17; Wang Lu, “Shengdi Qingliang shan zhi,” Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 2 (1990): 22; Wen Jinyu, “Wutai shan zangchuan fojiao yu min zu tuan jie,” Fojiao wen shi 2 (2003): 23.

[34] This staff is part of the woodblock, and can be seen on other printings, such as the one in Helsinki. However the color of the staff is not consistent between block prints. See for instance Harry Halén, Mirrors of the Void: Buddhist Art in the National Museum of Finland: 63 Sino-Mongolian Thangkas from the Wutai Shan Workshops, a Panoramic Map of the Wutai Mountains and Objects of Diverse Origin (Helsinki: National Board of Antiquities, 1987), 147. Note an old bearded sage rides by on a tiger – probably an emanation of Mañjuśrī.

[35] Chökyi SenggéChos kyi seng ge, PadampaPha dam pa, 51.

[36] Cave 61 is thought to date to 947-957. See Wong, “A Reassessment,” 29 and 37. Also see: Yanyi, Guang Qingliang zhuan [Extended History] (Taiyuan: Shanxi renmin chubanshe: Shanxi sheng xin hua shu dian fa xing, 1989), 1111; and Edwin Reishauer, Ennin’s Diary: The Record of a Pilgrimage to China in Search of the Law (New York, NY: Ronald Press Co., 1955), 246-47. The story of Buddhapālita’s encounter with Mañjuśrī is recorded in the gazetteer under the entry for the Vajra Cave (Jingang ku, 金剛窟, Dorjé Pukrdo rje phug; Fig. 4, no. 58).

[37] Evidence suggests that this story of PadampaPha dam pa’s encounter with Mañjuśrī is a later addition. This narrative does not appear in his earlier biographies, but only seems to appear in later sources, such as the Blue Annals (fifteenth century). Another example of such a conflation is the story of a Tang/Song dynasty official who mistakes Mañjuśrī for a lecherous monk and shoots him with an arrow. In later telling the official becomes the Kangxi emperor. See Chou, “Ineffable Paths,” 124.

[38] One such example of an illustration of similar stories is a Chinese stone relief carving dating to the late ninth-tenth century which is inscribed in a suitably generic manor: “A foreign monk from the western country came to pay tribute to the Buddha. Mañjuśrī manifested himself in the body of an old man.” Wong, “A Reassessment,” 48, figure 24.

[39] Christopher P. Atwood, “Validation by Holiness or Sovereignty: Religious Toleration as Political Theology in the Mongol World Empire of the Thirteenth Century,” The International History Review 23, no. 2 (2004): 237-56.

[40] However, early sources do not seem to mention this trip, and only attest to Sakya PenditaSa skya paṇḍita going as far as Liangzhou in Gansu Province (甘肃), where he died. For instance Sakya PenditaSa skya paṇḍita is not mentioned going to Wutai shan in the brief account of his travel to the Mongol empire the fifteenth century Gyabö Yiktsang ChenmoRgya bod yig tshang chen mo, where it records his death at Huanhua Monastery (Tokgi Pakriltog gi spag ri, Huanhua si, 幻化寺) in LetöLas stod (Liangzhou, 涼洲; Peljor ZangpoDpal ’byor bzang po, Gyabö Yiktsang ChenmoRgya bod yig tshang chen mo [Thim phu: Kunsang Topgyel and Mani Dorji, 1979], 15r-15v; [Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe, 1985], 324; Chinese translation, 179). The earliest dated source that I am aware of which mentions Sakya PenditaSa skya paṇḍita visiting Wutai shan is the early sixteenth century poetical telling of his life, the Sapen Tokjö Kelzang LeklamSa paṇ rtogs brjod bskal bzang legs lam, written in 1519, which only mentions that he went there and described what he saw (Sapen Tokjö Kelzang LeklamSa paṇ rtogs brjod bskal bzang legs lam [Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe, 1985], 202-203.) Interestingly, the author of this sixteenth-century account mentions the biography of Sakya PenditaSa skya paṇḍita written by SapenSa paṇ’s personal physician BijiBi ji, which suggests that later sources like this one and the Sakyé DungrapSa skya’i gdung rabs were in part based on contemporary thirteenth-century sources now lost to us, and may not simply be later embellishments (I would like to thank Pema Bhum for bringing this to my attention).

[41] Dongdruk Nyempé LodröGdong drug snyems pa’i blo gros, Lenjü Depzhi Sokkyi KarchakLan jus sde bzhi sogs kyi dkar chag (Gansu Province: Minzu chubanshe, 1988), 59-73 (especially 62); Zhongguo ren min zheng zhi xie shang hui yi and Tianzhu Zangzu Zizhixian wei yuan hui, eds., Tianzhu zangchuan fojiao si yuan gai kung (Tianzhu, 2000), 235-245 (especially 239). This site also has five peaks, just like Wutai shan, and fits into the larger pattern of mirror/surrogate sites described above. Thanks to Gray Tuttle for sharing this information. Could this surrogate site near Liangzhou, where Sa PenSa paṇ died, be the source for the tradition of SapenSa paṇ visiting Wutai shan? Or is this comparison to the beauty of Wutai evidence that he had in fact visited Wutai shan? The historicity of Sa PenSa paṇ’s visit to Five-Peak Mountain remains unresolved.

[42] logs bris su ri wo rtse lnga’i gnas kyi bkod pa yod pa’i lha khang bcas lha khang gsar du bzhengs/. See: Dongdruk Nyempé LodröGdong drug snyems pa’i blo gros, KarchakDkar chag, 64; and Zhongguo, Tianzhu Zangchuan Fojiao, 240.

[43] In 1257 Chögyel PakpaChos rgyal ’phags pa wrote several important works while residing on Wutai shan; see Kurtis Schaeffer, “Tibetan Poetry on Wutai Shan,” paper given at the “Wutai Shan and Qing Culture” Conference at the Rubin Museum of Art, May 12-13, 2007. On Pakpa’Phags pa at Wutai shan see: Gao Lintao, “Basiba yu Wutai shan,” Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 4 (2000): 25-26, 46; Zhou Zhuying, “Yuandai Dishi Basiba yi guan ta,” Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 4 (2000): 27.

[44] Li Jicheng, “Zangchuan fojiao,” 18; Liu Yao, et al., Wutai shan lüyou cidian (Beijing: Tuanjie chubanshe, 1992), 227.

[45] Gao Lintao, “Basiba,” 26. One of these temples may include Youguo Monastery (Youguo si, 佑國寺, Yülsung Lingyul bsrung gling), founded in 1295. While DampaDam pa’s Tibetan biography has yet to be located (at least one by Ngor Khenchen Sanggyé PüntsokNgor mkhan chen sangs rgyas phun tshogs [1649-1705] is known to exist), several short biographies exist in Chinese sources such as A Comprehensive Registry of the Successive Ages of the Buddhas and the Patriarchs (Fozu lidai tongzai, 佛祖历代通載; written before 1340) and a shorter biography found in the official Yuan imperial history, the Yuanshi (chapter 202). DampaDam pa’s biography in A Comprehensive Registry of the Successive Ages of the Buddhas and the Patriarchs (chapter 22) mentions him building temples on Wutai. In 1293 a temple was built on Wutai shan in his honor for healing the emperor (Li Jicheng, “Zangchuan Fojiao,” 18).

[46] On DampaDam pa see: Elliot Sperling, “Lama to the King of Hsia,” The Journal of the Tibet Society 7 (1987); Elliot Sperling, “Some Remarks on sGa A-gnyan dam-pa and the Origins of the Hor-pa Lineage of the dKar-mdzes Region,” in Tibetan History and Language: Studies Dedicated to Uray Geza on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Ernst Steinkellner (Wien: Arbeitskreis fur Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universitat Wien, 1991), 455-65; Elliot Sperling, “Rtsa-mi Lo-tsa-ba Sang-rgyas Grags-pa and the Tangut Background to Early Mongol-Tibetan Relations,” in Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies Fagernes 1992 (Oslo: Brill, 1994), 801-24; and Herbert Franke, “Tan-pa, A Tibetan Lama at the Court of the Great Khans,” in Orientali Venetiana I, edited by Merio Sabatini (Firenze, Italy: Leo S. Olschki, 1984), 157-80.

[47] What is described as “Pakpa’Phags pa’s” one thousand (jin, 斤) catty bronze sculpture of Mahākāla on Wutai shan is mentioned in Wen Jinyu, “Wutaishan Zangchuan Fojiao,” 23. Four centuries later when the Manchus declared themselves the rightful inheritors of the Yuan legacy they installed this same statue of the protective deity Mahākāla in the Manchu imperial shrine at Mukden in 1635. The 1638 dedicatory inscription reads: “Pakpa’Phags pa lamabla ma had cast the golden image of Gur Mahākāla made the statue an offering at Wutaishan...” Grupper, The Manchu Imperial Cult, 76, fn. 19.

[48] “The Third KarmapaKarma pa with Episodes from his Life,” ca. late sixteenth century (75 x 45.5 cm.), Hahn Cultural Foundation. Tanaka Kimiaki, ed., Art of Thangka from Hahn Kwang-ho Collection, vol. 2 (Seoul: Hahn Foundation for Museum, 1999), 114-15, no. 47. On this painting also see David Jackson, Patron & Painter: Situ Panchen and the Revival of the Encampment Style (New York, NY: Rubin Museum of Art, 2009), 160.

[49] This was probably Toghon Temür (Wenzong, 文宗, r. 1328/9-1332), great grandson of Qubilai Khan. The Mongol emperor Toghon Temür is depicted in a beautiful contemporary cut silk appliqué (kesi, 缂丝) tangkathang ka, a monumental sized Yamantaka maṇḍala in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, closely dateable to circa 1328-1329. Interestingly this deity is also an emanation of Mañjuśrī.

[50] Gao Lintao, “Basiba,” 26. Anige was first brought from Nepal to Tibet for a Mongol imperial commission to construct a reliquary stūpa for Sakya PenditaSa skya paṇḍita in 1260, and so impressed Pakpa’Phags pa that he recommended Anige for service to Qubilai Khan. Anige rose to Supervisor-in-Chief of All Artisans at the Mongol court in 1273, and as the imperial construction apparatus was expanded Anige’s status only rose (on Anige’s life, see Jing Anning, “The Portraits of Khubilai Khan and Chabi by Anige (1245-1306), a Nepali Artist at the Yuan Court,” Artibus Asiae 54, no. 1/2 [1994]: 40-86).

[51] The Manchus also built a Great White Stūpa in Beijing (Beihai Gongyuan, 北海公园) dedicated to Mañjuśrī’s powerful tantric form, Vajrabhairava (Daweide Jingang, 大威德金刚). See Herbert Franke, “Consecration of the ‘White Stupa’ in 1279,” Asia Minor 7, no. 1 (1994): 155-183.

[52] Natalie Köhle, “Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?” (Master’s Thesis, Harvard University, 2006), 73-119. New monasteries built in the Yuan include: Wansheng Youguo Monastery (Wansheng youguo si, 万圣佑国寺), Dayuanzhao Temple (Dayuanzhao si, 大圆照寺), Pu’en Monastery (Pu’en si, 普恩寺), Tiewa Temple (Tiewa si, 铁瓦寺, Lhakhang Chaktokchen Jawalha khang lcags thog can bya ba), Temple of Longevity and Tranquility (Shouning si, 壽寧寺, Takten Dechen Lingrtag brtan bde chen gling), West Shouning Temple (Xishouning si, 西寿宁寺), Protection of the Nation Monastery (Huguo si, 護國寺), Gold Lamp Temple (Jindeng si, 金灯寺), Wanghai Temple (Wanghai si, 望海寺), Spring Water Temple (Wenquan si, 温泉寺), Stone Stupa Temple (Shita si, 石塔寺), and Clear and Cool Monastery (Qingliang si, 清涼寺). Wen Jinyu, “Wutai shan zangchuan fojiao,” 24.

[53] Johan Elverskog, “The Mongolian Big Dipper Sūtra,” The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 29, no.1 (2008): 87-123.

[54] David Farquhar, “Emperor as Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Ch’ing Empire,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 38, no. 1 (1978): 12. The Juyong Stūpa Gate was constructed on the order of the last Mongol emperor in 1345 and its construction was supervised by the Tibetan cleric Namkha SenggéNam mkha’ seng ge (fourteenth c.). Stūpa gates such as these were used to mark the cardinal directions in delineating the sacred space of a city, like those found in the deity palace of a maṇḍala. This gate marked the road that led from the north from Mongolia to the Yuan capital Dadu (大都; Beijing), and a key military victory for the Mongols that gave them control of the North China plain.

[55] The straightforward reading of the Juyong Stūpa Gate inscription by Farquhar has been challenged by Tuttle, “Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai Shan,” 3-5, who points out that the earliest clear identification of Qubilai with Mañjuśrī is in the sixteenth century. Still, for later generations this association was strong, and important in understanding the development of the state Mañjuśrī cult at Wutai shan. On the rest of the Juyong Stūpa Gate inscription see: Yael Bentor, “In Praise of Stupas: The Tibet Eulogy at Chu-Yung-Kuan Reconsidered,” Indo-Iranian Journal 38 (1995): 31-54.

[56] rje rin po che’i zhal nas/ se chen rgyal po de bsags pa tshad med pa mnga’ bas/ zil dpag tu med pa ’dug hor gyi rgyal rgyud la/ ’jam dpal gyi sprul pa ’byon par lung bstan pa de/ ’di yin nam m yin snyam nas/ gsang ba’i bdag po’i ting nge ’dzin gyis mnan pas/ non gyi ’dug ’jam dpal gyi sprul pa yin na zil gyis mi non gsungs//. Sönam ÖzerBsod nams ’od zer, Grub chen u rgyan pa’i rnam par thar pa byin brlabs kyi chu rgyun (Gangtok, 1976), 174; and Tamdrin TsewangRta mgrin tshe dbang, ed. (Lhasa, 1997), 242. While the language is somewhat softer in the Gangtok edition (using yöpayod pa instead of duk’dug), the content is the same for both texts.

[57] Per Sørensen, Guntram Hazod, and Tsering Gyalbo, Rulers on the Celestial Plain: Ecclesiastic and Secular Hegemony in Medieval Tibet. A Study of Tshal Gung thang, vol. 2 (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007), 5b. Both these early references to Qubilai Khan as an emanation of Mañjuśrī were identified by Leonard van der Kuijp in “The Tibetan Expression ‘bod wooden door’ (bod shing sgo) and Its Probable Mongol Antecedent,” in Shen Weirong, ed., Wang Yao Festschrift (Beijing: Science Press 3, 2010), note 89. I would like to thank Professor van der Kuijp for sharing his manuscript before it was published.

[58] The Yongle emperor was the first Ming sovereign to establish significant ties with Tibetan patriarchs, and very recently there has been some acceptance that he was probably a believer in Tibetan Buddhism (see for instance James Watt and Denise Patry Leidy, Defining Yongle: Imperial Art in the Fifteenth- Century China [New York: The Metropolitan Museum, 2005]). The Zhengde Eperor was an enthusiastic patron of Tibetan Buddhism who took his zeal to a level few had dared. Not only did he study Tibetan Buddhist religious practice, but he also studied the Tibetan language. Wuzong (武宗, Rinchen Pendenrin chen dpal ldan, r. 1506-1521) even went so far as to style himself an emanation of the Seventh KarmapaKarma pa (Chödrak Gyatsochos grags rgya mtsho, 1454-1506), and adopted the Tibetan name Rinchen PendenRin chen dpal ldan (Elliot Sperling, unpublished paper presented at Fourth Seminar of the International Association of Tibetan studies, 1985). He built new temples within the Forbidden City (Zijing Cheng, 紫禁城), kept many Tibetan monks around him and even wore monk’s robes at court. This horrified the Confucians, who had to compete with the monks for the emperor’s ear. Much of this is omitted from the official accounts of his reign, which simply say that he was an ineffectual ruler “not interested in culture.” Testament to some of Zhengde’s religious interests are found in the form of an invitation letter sent in 1515 to the Eighth KarmapaKarma pa (Mikyö Dorjémi bskyod rdo rje, 1507-1554) preserved at TsurpuMtshur phu Monastery, and a detailed Tibetan account of the invitation mission in the Khepé GatönMkhas pa’i dga’ ston (See Hugh E. Richardson, “The Karma-pa Sect: A Historical Note. Part I,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1958: 139-64 and “The Karma-pa Sect: A Historical Note. Part II, Appendixes A, B, C,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1959: 1-18).

[59] Köhle, “Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?” 79; Hoong Teik Toh, “Tibetan Buddhism in Ming China” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 2004); Changja Rölpé DorjéLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje, Zhingchok Riwo Dangsilgyi Neshé Depé Pemo Gyejé Ngotsar Nyimé NangwaZhing mchog ri bo dwangs bsil gyi gnas bshad dad pa’i padmo rgyas byed ngo mtshar nyi ma’i snang ba (Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1993), 122-124. A short biography of the Fifth KarmapaKarma pa can be found in the Five-Peak Mountain gazetteer by Zhencheng (1546-1617), Qingliang shan zhi [Record of Clear and Cool Mountain] (Yangzhou: Jiangsu Guangling guji keyin she, 1993 [1596, revised 1661]), 82.

[60] Zhencheng (1546-1617), Qingliang shan zhi, 82; Changja Rölpé DorjéLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje, Zhing mchog ri bo dwangs bsil, 126.

[61] The Great White Stūpa was rebuilt in 1567 by the Chinese empress dowager, and repeatedly in the Qing period by the Mongols (in 1703, 1887, 1895, 1905).

[62] Shakya YeshéShākya ye shes also renovated the Temple of Longevity and Tranquility (Shouning si, 壽寧寺, Takten Dechen Lingrtag brtan bde chen gling; Fig. 4, no. 72) while on Wutai shan. Shakya YeshéShākya ye shes was a personal attendant to TsongkhapaTsong kha pa, the founder of SeraSe ra (Sela, 色拉) Monastery, and the third of three main Tibetan patriarchs received by the Yongle emperor. A short biography of Shakya YeshéShākya ye shes can be found in the Wutai shan gazetteer by Zhencheng (1546-1617), Qingliang shan zhi, 83. A brief account of Shakya YeshéShākya ye shes’s dealings with the Ming court can be found in a history of SeraSe ra Monastery contained within Purchok Ngawang JampaPhur lcog ngag dbang byams pa, Drasa Chenpo Zhi dang Gyüpa Tömé Chaktsül Pekar TrengwoGrwa sa chen po bzhi dang rgyud pa stod smad chags tshul pad dkar ’phreng bo (LhasaLha sa: Tibetan Peoples Publishing House, 1989), 50-58. For more information on Shakya YeshéShākya ye shes and the court, see Elliot Sperling, “The 1413 Ming Embassy to Tsong-kha-pa and the Arrival of Byams-chen chos-rje Sha-kya ye-shes at the Ming Court,” Journal of the Tibet Society 2 (1982): 105-108 and Sperling, “Early Ming Policy toward Tibet,” 146-55; Huang Hao, Zai Beijing de Zangzu wenwu (Beijing: Minzu chubanshe, 1993), 32-33; Heather Karmay, Early Sino-Tibetan Art (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1975), 80-82; 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); and Tshe mchog gling yongs ’dzin ye shes rgyal mtshan, Byang chub lam gyi rim pa’i bla ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa rgyal btsan mdzes pa’i rgyan mchog phul byung nor bu’i phreng ba (New Delhi: 1970).

[63] According to Shakya YeshéShākya ye shes’s biography in the history of SeraSe ra Monastery by Purchok Ngawang JampaPhur lcog ngag dbang byams pa (Purchok Ngawang JampaPhur lcog ngag dbang byams pa, Grwa sa chen po bzhi, 50-51), because Shakya YeshéShākya ye shes’s had cured the emperor from a serious illness “the six great monasteries of Wutai shan…were founded, and in all of those places he spread the practice of the GelukDge lugs order.” Some Chinese sources say five temples, while others say six. Li Jicheng, “Zangchuan Fojiao,” 18; Zhao Hong, “Huangjiao zai Wutai shan de chuanbo,” Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 2 (1988): 17.

[64] Zheng Lin, “Yuanzhao si fojiao jian shi,” Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 1 (1997): 21; Tuttle, “Tibetan Buddhism at Ri bo rtse lnga,” 17. Yuanzhao si was later associated with the Chinese master Qinghai (1922-90) who was a key figure in the recent revival of Tibetan Buddhism among the Chinese at Mount Wutai. See: Tuttle, “Tibetan Buddhism at Ri bo rtse lnga.”

[65] Köhle, “Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?” 80-83.

[66] See Cyrus Stearns, King of the Empty Plain: The Tibetan Iron-bridge Builder Tangtong Gyalpo (Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 2007), 316-20. Tangtong GyelpoThang stong rgyal po was famous for building fifty-eight iron chain-link suspension bridges throughout the Himalayas, hence his epithet “Iron Bridge Man.” According to an inscription on the back of this sculpture in Fig. 24, the image was blessed by Tangtong GyelpoThang stong rgyal po, and thus likely a contemporary “portrait.” The inscription reads: “[This] image of the siddha Tangtong GyelpoThang stong rgyal po contains (blessed) hand-barley of the lord himself” (grub thob thang stong rgyal po'i sku rje rang nyid gyi phyag nas bzhugs so/). This inscription is (miss-)translated as “This is the image of the siddha Thangtong Gyalpo, by his own hand” and stating that he was himself involved in the making of the image in David Weldon and Jane Casey Singer, The Sculptural Heritage of Tibet: Buddhist Art in the Nyingjei Lam Collection (London: Laurence King Publishing, 1999), 184. Sculptures of Tangtong GyelpoThang stong rgyal po said to have made by his own hands were kept in the JokhangJo khang in Lhasa. On Tangtong GyelpoThang stong rgyal po as an artist see Stearns, King of the Empty Plain, 44-46.

[67] Stearns, King of the Empty Plain, 319-20, and 557, fn. 865. Tangtong GyelpoThang stong rgyal po is said to have built one hundred and one stūpas.

[68] Stearns, King of the Empty Plain, 5. The biography translated by Stearns was written considerably after his life (1609). Tangtong GyelpoThang stong rgyal po then went on to meet the Chinese emperor in Beijing, who Stearns identifies as Yingzong (英宗, 1427-1464), emperor of both the Zhengtong (正统, 1436-1449) and Tianshun (天顺, 1457-1464) reigns (Stearns, King of the Empty Plain, 557, fn. 867). However, there is no confirmation of this in Chinese sources.

[69] Another important factor that motivated Altan Khan to invite Tibetan masters was a much more practical one: After the 1571 peace accord smallpox ran rampant due to the newly opened Sino-Mongol markets, and Altan Khan was seeking a tantric ritual cure to suppress the epidemic. Thus neither the reestablishment of the Tibet-Mongol connection or the Mongol conversion to the GelukDge lugs order was far from inevitable, nor was the Third Dalai Lama, the only player in this process, as is often depicted by later historians like the Fifth Dalai Lama. I would like to thank Johan Elverskog for this clarification. See also Johan Elverskog, Our Great Qing: The Mongols, Buddhists and the State in Late Imperial China (Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 2006), 107-108, 111-12. On the smallpox epidemic see: Johan Elverskog, “Tibetocentrism, Religious Conversion and the Study of Mongolian Buddhism,” in The Mongolia-Tibet Interface: Opening New Research Terrains in Inner Asia, eds. Hildegaard Diemberger and Uradyn Bulag (Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2007), 59-81.

[70] This observation was made by Johan Elverskog at the “Wutaishan and Qing Culture” symposium in reaction to David Robinson’s work on the Inner Asian ruling complex and its continuation into Ming, which was then powerfully challenged once the Tibet connection was lost. See: David M. Robinson, “Politics, Force and Ethnicity in Ming China: Mongols and the Abortive Coup of 1461,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 59, no. 1 (June, 1999): 79-123.

[71] According to Atwood, “Validation by Holiness or Sovereignty,” 82, despite Khutugtai Secen’s claim, the text shows no connection in language or themes to real Yuan-era documents. Atwood concludes that the history is likely a late sixteenth-century utopia, retrojected to Qubilai’s time, envisioning Buddhist reunification of Mongolia. Thanks to professors Tuttle and Elverskog for bringing this to my attention.

[72] As Mark Elliot reflected in his comments at the “Wutaishan and Qing Culture” symposium this makes sense considering the way in which the Manchus came to power and exercised authority over a great deal of Buddhist Inner Asia, which the Ming did not.

[73] This is a bit of an oversimplification, as there was also a Chinese Ming-period link in this transmission, Shakya YeshéShākya ye shes (d. 1435), a fifteenth century Tibetan cleric who served as a preceptor to the Chinese emperors Yongle, Xuande, and Zhengtong (正统, 1436-1449). Shakya YeshéShākya ye shes’s role as preceptor at the Chinese court was perceived as important enough that he was recognized by the eighteenth century to be a reincarnation of the thirteenth-century SakyaSa skya Imperial Preceptor Pakpa’Phags pa, thus allowing the GelukpaDge lugs pa to usurp the SakyaSa skya prerogative of serving the emperor. See Sperling, “1413 Ming Embassy ,” 105-108; Elverskog, Our Great Qing.

[74] The Chinggisid lineage refers to the lineal descendants of Chinggis Khan (ca. 1162-1227), founder of the Mongol Empire. Descent from Chinggis Khan was for centuries a crucial factor in rulership throughout Inner and Central Asia, and even a prerequisite for claiming the title “khan” (See James Millward, Ruth Dunnell, Mark Elliot, and Philippe Foret, eds., New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde [London: Routledge, 2004], 96). Both the inheritance to the Chinggis legacy and patronage of Tibetan Buddhism on the Qubilai model were important to Mongolian nation building. Ligdan Khan (LekdenLegs ldan, b. 1588, r. 1604-1634), the last emperor of the Northern Yuan dynasty, aimed at centralizing Mongolian rule. As part of Ligdan’s bid to rebuild the Mongol state he attempted to revive the old Mongol-Tibetan (SakyaSa skya) alliance. In the colophon of the Mongolian translation of the Tibetan tripitika (KangyurBka’ ’gyur) he sponsored, he proclaimed himself Chinggis Khan. He also installed in his capital the Mahākāla image associated with Pakpa’Phags pa and the founding of Qubilai Khan’s empire (see above). Ligdan’s defeat in 1634/5 and the capture of the symbolically significant Mahākāla sculpture was a crucial step in the early development of Manchu power. See Atwood, “Validation by Holiness or Sovereignty,” 334-35. For more on the Mongol threat to the Manchu Empire see: Samuel M. Grupper, The Manchu Imperial Cult of the Early Ch’ing Dynasty: Texts and Studies on the Tantric Santuary of Mahakala at Mukden (PhD diss., Indiana University, 1979). Later, one of the greatest Manchu rulers, the Qianlong emperor (乾隆, 1711-1799), cited their close relationship with Tibetan Buddhism as an important factor in the submission of first the Khalkha Mongols in 1691, and then the return of the Torghut (Kalmuk) Mongols in 1771 (Grupper, The Manchu Imperial Cult, 94).

[75] On Manchu use of indigenous Mongolian political models see Elverskog, Our Great Qing.

[76] On the Manchu emperors taking on various cultural guises see: Wu Hung, “Emperor’s Masquerade – ‘Costume Portraits’ of Yongzheng and Qianlong,” Orientations 26, no. 7 (July/August 1995): 28; J. Rawson, Regina Krahl, Alfreda Murck, and Evelyn Rowski, China: The Three Emperors 1622-1795 (London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2006), 248-51.

[77] Wang Junzhong, Dong Ya Han Zang fojiao yanjiu (Taibei: Dong Da tushu gongsi, 2003), 80-134. Before this the Manchus referred to themselves as the Jurchen and their empire as the Later Jin, after the Jin dynasty (金, 1115-1234) of Inner Asia which conquered North China. Elverskog (“Wutai Shan in the Mongol Literary Imaginaire\,” paper given at the “Wutai Shan and Qing Culture” Conference at the Rubin Museum of Art, May 12-13, 2007) suggests that these models were originally taken from Mongol traditions by the Manchus, and not pushed onto the Mongols by the Manchus, which explains to some degree the Mongol receptivity and success of this program.

[78] Farquhar, “Emperor as Bodhisattva,” 9.

[79] For an in-depth analysis of these visits see Köhle, “Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?”

[80] Chou, “Ineffable Paths,” 124; Chun Rong, “Cifu si,” Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 1 (1999): 22. This is the most often reproduced scene from Kangxi’s Western Tour (Chou, “Ineffable Paths,” 124; and Köhle, “Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?” 93).

[81] Wutai shan was treated as a tributary territory within the Lifanyuan zili, wherein lamabla mas from Beijing, Jehol (Inner Mongolia) and Wutai shan enjoyed a privileged position. Vladimir Uspensky, “Legislation Relating to the Tibetan Buddhist Establishments on Wutai Shan during the Qing Dynasty,” paper given at the “Wutai Shan and Qing Culture” Conference at the Rubin Museum of Art, May 12-13, 2007. This special territorial status of Wutai shan within the Qing Empire can also be seen in the Thirteenth Dalai Lama’s trip to Wutai shan in 1908, where he was able to interact with western diplomats in a way that he was not able to pursue previously as seen in Elliot Sperling, “The Thirteenth Dalai Lama at Wutai Shan: Exile and Diplomacy,” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 6 (December 2011), http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5720.

[82] The Kangxi emperor is generally attributed with converting ten Chinese monasteries to Tibetan Buddhism either in 1683, after his first two tours, or alternately in 1705, shortly after his fourth tour of the mountain. For instance see: Xiao Yu, “Pusading de fojiao lishi,” Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 1 (1996): 13. However as Köhle (“Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?” 77-78, fn. 14) points out, none of the secondary literature that makes this statement cites a primary source, and that this process of conversion was probably a more gradual process where the Chinese, Tibetan and Mongolian traditions co-existed within these institutions.

[83] On the Mongolian title see Atwood, “Validation by Holiness or Sovereignty,” 617-18. For an outline of this title and its Manchu invention, see: Uspensky, “Legislation Relating to the Tibetan Buddhist Establishments.” From 1659 until 1937 Pusa ding Monastery was the seat of a succession of twenty-three Jasagh Lamas: Laozang Danbei (老藏丹贝), Laozang Danba (老藏丹巴), Yuzeng Shucuo (预增竖错), Dansheng Jiacuo (丹生嘉错), Laozang Queta (老藏缺塔), Zhangmu Yangdanzeng (章木样丹增), Quepei Daji (缺培达计), Chenlai Da’erlai (陈赖达尔来), Gailichen Pianer (改利陈片尔), Geshou Quebei (格兽缺培), Lama Nima (喇嘛尼嘛), Zhangmu Yang (章木样), Zhaya (扎亚), Longsang Danpian (罗桑旦片), Awang Qingba (阿旺庆巴), Zhangyang Mola (章样摩拉), Shaoba Chunzhu (少巴春柱), Xiaba Quebei (降巴缺培), Awang Sangbu (阿旺桑布), Jiachan Sangbu (加禅桑布), Luosang Basang (罗桑巴桑), Awang Yixi (阿旺益西). Zhao Peicheng, “Shitan Wutai shan zangchuan fojiao yu jingangshenwu,” Yizhou Shifan Xueyuan xuebao 20, no. 4 (August 2004): 39. According to Zhao the first six were imperially appointed from Protection of the Nation Monastery (Huguo si, 護國寺), Chongguo Monastery (Chongguo si, 崇國寺) in Beijing, whereas subsequent appointments were made by the Dalai Lama (Zhao Peicheng, “Shi tan Wutai shan zangchuan fojiao”). Huguo si (“Protection of the Nation Monastery”) was a center for Tibetan Buddhism in Beijing in the Ming and Qing periods.

[84] Interestingly, the other main imperially sponsored temple, Tailu Monastery (Tailu si, 臺麓寺), headed by the “Da Lama” (da lama, 大喇嘛), appears tiny in the bottom right corner of the map (Fig. 4, no. 70). The colorings on other printings of the map, such as the one in Helsinki, plot the ten imperial monasteries more carefully, giving them each yellow roves. See Chou, “Ineffable Paths,” 109.

[85] On Ngawang LozangNgag dbang blo bzang see: Toh, “Tibetan Buddhism in Ming China,” 229-37; Jie Lüe, “Qingliang laoren Awang Laozang ta ming,” Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 1 (1996): 35-36; Cui Zhengsen, “Qingliang laoren Awang Laozang,” Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 3 (1999): 27-30.

[86] Farquhar, “Emperor as Bodhisattva,” 30. There is a possible error in the date of the colophon of the Mongol edition, and may actually date to 1721.

[87] Tuttle, “Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai Shan.” Ngawang LozangNgag dbang blo bzang was originally from Höhhot, now the capital of Inner Mongolia. On the Mongol use of the surname Jia (賈), see Farquhar, “Emperor as Bodhisattva,” 8, note 17, quoting David Robinson’s work on Ming military records. Also see Henry Serruys, Sino-J̌ürčed Relations during the Yung-Lo Period, 1403-1424 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1955); “Remnants of Mongol Customs during the Early Ming,” Monumenta Serica 16 (1957): 137-90; “Mongols Ennobled During the Early Ming,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 22 (December 1959): 209-60; “A Manuscript Version of the Legend of the Mongol Ancestry of the Yongle Emperor,” Analetica Mongolica 8 (1972); Sino-Mongol Relations during the Ming vol. 1-3 (Bruxelles: Institut belge des hautes études chinoises, 1967; rpt. 1980); The Mongols in China during the Hung-wu period, 1368-1398 (Bruxelles: Institut belge des hautes études chinoises, 1980); and The Mongols and Ming China: Custom and History, ed. Francoise Aubin (London: Variorum Reprints, 1987).

[88] It has also been suggested that he was ethnically Chinese (Toh, “Tibetan Buddhism in Ming China,” 231, fn. 3) or even a Manchu (Gao Lintao, “Huangjiao zai Wutai shan de chuanbo,” Cangsang 1-2 [2004]: 96). However, further supporting evidence that Ngawang LozangNgag dbang blo bzang was a sinocized Mongol is suggested by the fact that his own teacher was a Sinocized Mongol lamabla ma, Lozang Tenpé GyeltsenBlo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan (1632-1684), who had entered service under the Ming. See Köhle, “Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?” M.A. Thesis, 14, fn. 23, citing the Zhencheng (1546-1617), Qingliang shan zhi, juan 7, 24b.

[89] His biography in the local gazetteer of Wutai shan, the Record of Clear and Cool Mountain (Qingliang shan zhi), records that he became a monk at age ten, received ordination at age eighteen, and investigated thoroughly and understood yoga of esoteric Buddhism (Yujia mifa, 瑜伽密法; 10岁出家，18岁受具戒，究明瑜伽密法。). See Zhencheng, Qingliang shan zhi, 102-103.

[90] According to a Chinese census taken in 1956 there were 124 temples and monasteries, ninety-nine being Chinese Buddhist, and twenty-five Tibetan and Mongolian. It does not say how these affiliations were designated, or how institutions that incorporated both traditions were counted. See Wang Xiangyun, “Wutai shan yu zangchuan fojiao,” Tsinghua University, http://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/docsn/lsx/learning/Meeting/Complete/wangxiangyun.pdf, 6 [no longer available].

[91] Tuttle, “Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai Shan.” This passage was first identified by Natalie Köhle in her M. A. Thesis, “Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?” 25-31; and Köhle, “Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?” 87.

[92] This was the Yongzheng emperor’s (雍正, 1678-1735, r. 1722-1735) former palace. See Tukwan Chökyi NyimaTu’u bkwan chos kyi nyima, Changja Rölpé Dorjé NamtarLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje’i rnam tar (Gansu Province: People’s Publishing House, 1989), 220.

[93] For more on Tibetan Buddhist temples in Beijing see: Susan Naquin and Chün-fang Yü, Pilgrims and Sacred Sites in China (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992), 341-45, 584-91. Note that Naquin (Pilgrims and Sacred Sites in China, 341, 584) treats Tibetan Buddhism as a foreign religion, comparing them to the Catholics, and like them were forbidden to proselytize among the Chinese, and its spread to the Chinese lay community discouraged. Rather it was to foreigners like Mongol Bannerman, Manchus, and (Manchu) court members that they ministered to. Nonetheless she counts fifty-three Tibetan Buddhist temples in the greater Beijing area in the late eighteenth century.

[94] This included adjusting the Changja Rölpé DorjéLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje’s incarnation lineage to include both the thirteenth century SakyaSa skya Imperial Preceptor to Qubilai Khan, Pakpa’Phags pa, and the fifteenth-century cleric to the Chinese Ming court, Shakya YeshéShākya ye shes, thus allowing the GelukpaDge lugs pa to usurp the SakyaSa skya prerogative of serving the emperor.

[95] E. Gene Smith, “Introduction,” in The Collected Works of Thu’u-bkwan blo-bzang-chos-kyi-nyi-ma vol. 1, 1-12 and appendix I and II (Delhi: Ngawang Gelek Demo, 1969), 6. Qubilai is also clearly placed within Qianlong’s incarnation lineage written by the Sixth Penchen LamaPaṇ chen bla ma. See Vladimir Uspensky, “The Previous Incarnations of the Qianlong Emperor According to the Panchen Blo bzang dpal ldan ye shes,” in Tibet, Past and Present: Tibetan Studies I, Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies Leiden 2000, edited by Henk Blezer (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 221 and 225.

[96] Patricia Berger, “Preserving the Nation: The Political Use of Tantric Art in China,” in Latter Days of the Law: Images of Chinese Buddhism 850-1850, edited by Marsha Weidner (Spencer: Spencer Museum of Art, 1994), 118.

[97] For a discussion of the Qianlong emperor’s tomb, see: Francoise Wang-Toutain, “Qianlong’s Funerary Rituals and Tibetan Buddhism: Preliminary Reports on the Investigation of Tibetan and Lantsa Inscriptions in Qianlong’s Tomb,” in Studies in Sino-Tibetan Buddhist Art. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Tibetan Archaeology & Art, Beijing, September 3-6, 2004, edited by Xie Jisheng, Shen Weirong, and Liao Yang (Beijing: China Tibetology Publishing House, 2006), 130-69.

[98] Zhou Zhuying, “Zhenhai si de jian zhu yu cai su yi shu,” Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 4 (2003): 15-22. First he resided at the Cave of Sudhana (Shancai dong, 善財洞, Norzang Druppuknor bzang sgrub phug; Fig. 4, no. 69), Vajra Cave (Fig. 4, no. 58), and Pusa ding (Fig. 4, no. 14), then later made Taming the Ocean Monastery (Fig. 4, no. 37) his regular residence. Zhao Peicheng, “Shi tan Wutai shan Zangchuan Fojiao,” 39; Xiao Yu, “Zhangjia Hutu yu Wutai shan Fojiao,” Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 4 (1990): 13. On Changja Rölpé DorjéLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje’s tenure on Wutai shan see: Ma Lianlong, “Sanshe Jiangjia Guoshi zhu xi Wutai shan shi lue,” Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 3 (1989): 35-38; Xiao Yu, “Zhangjia Hutu,” 13-17; and Wang Jianmin, “Zhenhai si Zhangjia Ruobi Duoji lingta kaolüe,” Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 1 (2002): 35-41.

[99] Changja Rölpé DorjéLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje had jurisdiction over six monasteries on Wutai shan: Taming the Ocean Monastery (Fig. 4, no. 37), the Pule yuan (Fig. 4, no. 22), Jifu Monastery (Jifu si, 集福寺, Getsok Lingdge tshogs gling), Cifu si (慈福寺, Jamgé Lingbyams dge gling; Fig. 4, no. 21) – where the map (Cat.1) was made, Wenshu Monastery (Wenshu si, 文殊寺), and Guanghua Monastery (Guanghuahou si, 廣化睺寺, Yongdül Lingyongs ’dul gling). The Jasag lamabla ma managed the other twenty. Wang Lu, “Wutai shan yu Xizang,” Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 4 (1995): 25; Wen Jinyu, “Wutai shan Zangchuan Fojiao,” 26.

[100] Changja Rölpé DorjéLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje, Zhing mchog ri bo dwangs bsil gyi gnas bshad. On its Mongolian translation, see: Walther Heissig, Die Pekinger lamaistischen Blockdrucke in mongolischer Sprache; Materialien zur mongolischen Literaturgeschichte (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1954), 163-65. However, it is unclear if this Mongolian text is indeed a direct translation of Changja Rölpé DorjéLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje’s text, or an adaptation connected with Tukwan Chökyi NyimaTu’u bkwan chos kyi nyima. I would like to thank Gene Smith for this information. Changja Rölpé DorjéLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje’s guide was more recently translated into Chinese: Wang Lu, “Shengdi Qingliang shan zhi,” 7-48.

[101] Bodhimaṇḍa in the center, Wutai shan in east, Potala in south, Udyana in west, and Shambhala in north. Chou, “Ineffable Paths”; and Wen-shing Chou, “Fluid Landscape, Timeless Visions, and Truthful Representations: A Sino-Tibetan Remapping of Qing-Dynasty Wutai Shan,” paper given at the “Wutai Shan and Qing Culture” Conference at the Rubin Museum of Art, May 12-13, 2007.

[102] ’jam dpal rnon po mi’i rje bor/ rol pa’i bdag chen chos kyi rgyal/ rdo rje’i khri la zhabs brtan cing/ bzhed don lhun grub skal ba bzang/. See for instance: in the Freer-Sackler Gallery (F2000.4); and the National Palace Museum, Cultural Relics of Tibetan Buddhism Collected in the Qing Palace (Hong Kong: Forbidden City Press, 1992), pl. 32.

[103] Patricia Berger, “The Jiaqing Emperor’s Magnificent Record of the Western Tour,” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 6 (December 2011), http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5711.

[104] Berger, “Preserving the Nation,” 161-63, and figure 55. The (carving and) worship of this stone image was presided over by Changja Rölpé DorjéLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje (Wang Jianmin, “Zhenhai si Zhangjia Ruobi Duoji lingta kaolüe,” 36; Ma Lianlong, “Sanshe Jiangjia Guoshi,” 36). For more on potential Chinese audiences for imperial activity on Wutai shan, including Tibetan Buddhist, see Tuttle, “Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai Shan,” 17-20.

[105] On Lord McCartney’s 1793 embassy, see: James Hevia, Cherishing Men From Afar: Qing Guest Ritual and the Macartney Embassy of 1793 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995); and Uspensky, “The Previous Incarnations.”

[106] The Fifth Dalai Lama’s History of Tibet (1643) says that the Mongol leader who placed him in power, Gushri KhanGüüshi Khan (1582-1655), ruled over a unified Tibet, not the Dalai Lama himself. Later Tibetan sources (for example, Dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas, Domé ChöjungMdo smad chos ’byung [History of Amdo] [Gansu: Minzu chubanshe, 1987]) are very clear that the Dalai Lama was only given control of the thirteen myriarchies of central Tibet, the same as the SakyaSa skya and PakmodruPhag mo gru in the thirteenth-fourteenth and fourteenth-early seventeenth centuries. Some later Tibetan historians (for example, Shakabpa) claimed that the Fifth Dalai Lama ruled a much greater territory analogous to the old Tibetan Empire. See: Derek Maher, “An Examination of a Critical Appraisal of Tsepön Shakabpa’s One Hundred Thousand Moons,” paper given at the International Association of Tibetan Studies, Bonn, Germany, August 27-September 2, 2006; Derek Maher, “The Dalai Lamas and State Power,” Religion Compass 1, no. 2 (2007): 260-788. I would like to thank Gray Tuttle for this clarification. On the Dalai Lama’s identification with Avalokiteśvara, see Ishihama Yumiko, “On the Dissemination of the Belief in the Dalai Lama as a Manifestation of the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara,” Acta Asiatica 64 (Jan. 1993): 38-56; and Matthew Kapstein, “Remarks on the Maṇi bKa’-’bum and the Cult of Āvalokiteśvara in Tibet,” in Tibetan Buddhism: Reason and Revelation, edited by Steven D. Goodman and Ronald M. Davidson (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 79-94. On the Fifth Dalai Lama’s participation/compliance in the Mongol violence that brought him to power, see: Elliot Sperling, “‘Orientalism’ and Aspects of Violence in the Tibetan Tradition,” in Imagining Tibet: Perceptions, Projections, and Fantasies, edited by Thierry Dodin and Heinz Rather (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2001).

[107] This is indicated by the small Amitābha Buddha’s head peaking out of the emperor’s turban.

[108] There are two letters addressed to the founder of the Qing (Gongma Gyelpo HongdiGong ma rgyal po hong di) in the collected letters of the Fifth Dalai Lama (published separately as correspondence of the Fifth Dalai Lama to persons in China, Tibet, Mongolia, and so forth: Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho, Rgya bod hor sog gi mchog bar pa rnams la ’phrin yig snyan ngag tu bkod pa rab snyan rgyud mang [Xining: Minzu chubanshe, 1993]). The first letter (pp. 91-93) is undated (the 1640 letter?), and a second letter (pp. 168-71) is dated to 1655, both of which refer to the Manchu ruler (referred to within the text as the “lord” in a title combining Mongolian and Tibetan: Bokto GyelpoBog to rgyal po [Hongtaiji]) as the Mañjughoṣa emperor (Jamyang Gongma’jam dbyangs gong ma). This reference to Mañjuśrī likely stems from the prophecy contained in the Bka’ thang zangs gling ma (by the treasure revealer Ngadak Nyangrel Nyima ÖzerMnga’ bdag nyang ral nyi ma ’od zer – see footnote 28 above), which the Fifth Dalai Lama was quite fond of. There is also a 1640 entry in the Fifth Dalai Lama’s autobiography (vol. 1, f. 94r) which refers to him sending one a letter to Hongtaiji (who he again refers to as the Bokto GyelpoBog to rgyal po), but it is not clear if this is in reference to the same letter. I would like to thank Gene Smith for this information. There is also documentary evidence that suggests Tibetan lamas were proselytizing in Manchu territories in the early seventeenth century. One can trace Manchu aspirations to rule in the Mongol model to Qing Taizi (r. 1616-1626) and his relationship to his lama, Olug Darhan Nangso, from whom he received initiation prior to 1621. See Grupper, The Manchu Imperial Cult, 51. On Manchu use of indigenous Mongolian models see Elverskog, Our Great Qing.

[109] This interpretation is strongly suggested by the fact that the Fifth Dalai Lama wrote into the biography of the Third Dalai Lama (the great proselytizer of Tibetan Buddhism among the Mongols), which he was writing on route to the Qing court, a prediction of Manchu rule in China. Elverskog, “Wutai Shan in the Mongol Literary Imaginaire\.”

[110] On this secret biography of the Sixth Dalai Lama see: Piotr Klafkowski, “Dharmatala’s History of Buddhism in Mongolia as an Unknown Account of the Life of the Sixth Dalai Lama,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarm Hungaricae 34, nos. 1-3 (1980): 69-74; and Michael Aris, Hidden Treasures and Secret Lives: A Study of Pemalingpa, 1450-1521, and the Sixth Dalai Lama, 1683-1706 (London; New York: Kegan Paul, 1989), 198-99.

[111] Wang Xiangyun, “Wutai Shan,” 8; Wen Jinyu, “Wutai shan Zangchuan Fojiao,” 25. The monasteries in question are: Rāhula Temple (Luohou si, 羅睺寺, Drachendzingyi Lhakhangsgra gcan ’dzin gyi lha khang), Temple of Longevity and Tranquility (Shouning si, 壽寧寺, Takten Dechen Lingrtag brtan bde chen gling), Sanquan Monastery (Sanquan si, 三泉寺, Chupmik Sumdré Lingchub mig gsum ’dres gling), Yuhua Monastery (Yuhua si, 玉花寺), Qifo si (七佛寺, Sanggyé Rapdün Gönsangs rgyas rabs bdun dgon), Vajra Cave (Jingang ku, 金剛窟, Dorjé Pukrdo rje phug), Cave of Sudhana (Shancai dong, 善財洞, Norzang Druppuknor bzang sgrub phug), Pu’an Monastery (Pu’an si, 普安寺), Tailu Monastery (Tailu si, 臺麓寺), Yongquan Monastery (Yongquan si, 湧泉寺). On Seven Buddha Monastery see Bai Fusheng, “Xiaoji Wutai shan Qifo si” [Seven Buddhas Monastery at Wutai shan], Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 3 (1999): 36-38. However, as Köhle, “Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?,” 77-78, points out, while this conversion of ten monasteries is a commonly stated in secondary literature, none cite primary sources.

[112] See Wang Xiangyun, “Wutai Shan,” 6; Zhao Peicheng, “Shi tan Wutai shan Zangchuan Fojiao,” 39. Is Pu’an si (普庵寺) the same as Pu’an si (普安寺; Fig. 4, no. 55)? The vast majority (twenty-one) were GelukDge lugs institutions: Pusa ding Monastery (Pusa ding, 菩薩頂, Jangchup Sempé Porbyang chub sems dpa’i spor), Rāhula Temple (Luohou si, 羅睺寺, Drachendzingyi Lhakhangsgra gcan ’dzin gyi lha khang), Guanghua Monastery (Guangren si, 廣仁寺), Guanghua Monastery (Guanghuahou si, 廣化睺寺, Yongdül Lingyongs ’dul gling), Tailu Monastery (Tailu si, 臺麓寺), Pushou Monastery (Pushou si, 普壽寺, Künpak Lingkun dpag gling), Temple of Longevity and Tranquility (Shouning si, 壽寧寺, Takten Dechen Lingrtag brtan bde chen gling), Qifo si (七佛寺, Sanggyé Rapdün Gönsangs rgyas rabs bdun dgon), Sanquan Monastery (Sanquan si, 三泉寺, Chupmik Sumdré Lingchub mig gsum ’dres gling), Santa Monastery (Santa si, 三塔寺, Chörten Sumpé Lingmchod rten gsum pa’i gling), Cave of Avalokiteśvara (Guanyin dong, 观音洞, Chenrezikkyi Pukspyan ras gzigs kyi phug), Yuhua Pond (Yuhua chi, 玉花池), Tiewa Temple (Tiewa si, 铁瓦寺, Lhakhang Chaktokchen Jawalha khang lcags thog can bya ba), Yongquan Monastery (Yongquan si, 湧泉寺), Yunai Temple (Yunai an, 魚耐庵), Nange Temple (Nange miao, 南閣庙), Pu’an Monastery (Pu’an si, 普安寺), Jinhua si (金华寺), Yuanzhao si (圓照寺), Jifu Monastery (Jifu si, 集福寺, Getsok Lingdge tshogs gling), Cifu si (慈福寺, Jamgé Lingbyams dge gling). On Cifu si, see Chun Rong, “Cifu si.” All eighteen Tibetan and Mongolian monasteries on the woodblock map are singled out for gazetteer-style entries on the digitally decoded map: Rubin Museum of Art, “Wutaishan Map Blockprint,” http://wutaishan.rma2.org/rma_viewer.php?image_id=1&mode=info.

[113] On Tibetan shaped stūpas on Wutai shan, see: Wang Hongli, “Zangchuan fo ta de xingzhi ji qi tedian,” Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 3 (2001): 18-20; and Xiao Yu, “Wutai shan zhi ta,” Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 1 (2002): 45-48.

[114] The full name of the cave is the “Cave of the Bodhisattva Sudhana” (Jangchup Sempa Zhünnu Norzanggi Druppukbyang chub sems dpa’ gzhun nu nor bzang gi sgrub phug). See: Setri Ngawang TendarSe kri ngag dbang bstan dar, Dangsil Riwo Tsengé NeshéDwangs bsil ri bo rtse lnga’i gnas bshad (Beijing: Krong ko’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2007), 66.

[115] Yellow robes with orange trim are the color coding used as an ethnic marker of Chinese practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism on Wutai shan (see Cat. 10-12 and Fig. 36). Tuttle, Tibetan Buddhists in the Making, 212-14; Tuttle, “Tibetan Buddhism at Ri bo rtse lnga”; and Tuttle, “Gazetteers and Golden Roof-tiles: Publicizing Qing Support of Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai Shan,” paper given at the “Wutai Shan and Qing Culture” Conference at the Rubin Museum of Art, May 12-13, 2007.

[116] The name of the founder of Shifang Hall on Wutai shan is the high-ranking monk Lozang MenlamBlo bzang sman lam (Amo Luosang Manlong, 阿摩洛桑曼隆). See Luosang Danzhu and Popa Ciren, Anduo gucha chanding si (Lanzhou: Gansu minzu chubanshe, 1995), 249; Suonan Cao, “Wutai shan yu zangchuan fojiao,” Xizang min su 3 [1999]: 5. On Shifang Hall, see: Li Shiming, “Luohou si yu Shifang tang” [Luohou Monastery and Shifang Hall”], Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 1 (1998): 29; Cai Hong, “Shifang Tang” [Shifang Hall], Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 1 (1999): 23-25. Lhündrup Dechen LingLhun grub bde chen gling Monastery was founded in 1417 in in Minzhou (Minzhou, 岷州), Gansu Province, by Pelden TrashiDpal ldan bkra shis, abbot of Drotsang Dorjé ChangGro tshang rdo rje ’chang (Qutan si, 瞿曇寺). Its construction and ornamentation are closely detailed in Pelden TrashiDpal ldan bkra shis’s biography (Domé ChöjungMdo smad chos ’byung [History of Amdo], 682-84), where it is clearly described as being Chinese in architecture (with bell and drum towers) but ornamented by the Ming court with both Chinese and Tibetan objects and images. See Karl Debreczeny, “Sino-Tibetan Synthesis in Ming Dynasty Wall Painting at the Core and Periphery,” The Tibet Journal 28, nos. 1 and 2 (Spring and Summer 2003[b]): 49-108. Choné Trashi Chönkhor LingCo ne bkra shis chos ’khor gling Monastery was founded by Chögyel PakpaChos rgyal ’phags pa and his patron Qubilai Khan in 1269, and later converted to a GelukDge lugs institution in 1459. ChonéCo ne expanded significantly in the eighteenth century under Manchu patronage, when the blocks for the Tibetan canon (KangyurBka’ ’gyur and TengyurBstan ’gyur) was carved, for which the monastery became famous. Monks from ChonéCo ne would travel to Shifang Hall on Wutai shan to teach, and monks from Shifang Hall would also go to ChonéCo ne for advanced studies.

[117] Paul K. Nietupski, “Bla brang Monastery and Wutai Shan,” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 6 (December 2011), http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5718.

[118] “ri bo rtse lnga’i nub ḥphu li thi” (’Jam dbyangs rgyal mtshan, Rgyal ba kaḥ thog pa’i lo rgyus mdor bsdus [Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe, 1996], 168). “ḥphu li thi” may be a Tibetan transliteration for the Chinese name of Wutai shan’s western peak, Puli tai (菩利台). However the western peak’s name is Guayue Peak (Guayue feng, 挂月峰). Katok Dorjé DenKaḥthog rdo rje gdan Monastery, founded in 1159 by Kadampa DeshekKa dam pa bde gshegs (1122-1192) in DegéSde dge, is one of the six major monasteries of the NyingmaRnying ma order with one-hundred and twelve branch monasteries spread across Tibet, Sikkim, Yunnan, Inner Mongolia, and Wutai shan in Shanxi Province. Situ PenchenSi tu paṇ chen’s visit to the Wutai shan branch is mentioned by Alexander Berzin, “Nyingma Monasteries,” in Chö-Yang, Year of Tibet Edition (Dharamsala, India, 1991), 32, without citing his source. On KatokKaḥthog Monastery, see: ’Jam dbyangs rgyal mtshan, Rgyal ba kaḥ thog pa’i lo rgyus mdor bsdus (branch monasteries, 166-68); ’Jigs med bsam grub, “Sde mgon khang gyi lo rgyus [History of Sde mgon khang],” in Khams phyogs dkar mdzes khul gyi dgon sde so so’i lo rgyus gsal bar bshad pa nang bstan gsal pa’i me long, vol. 1. (neibu) [Kangding and Beijing: Krung goʼi bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1995), 97-135.

[119] Elverskog, “Wutai Shan in the Mongol Literary Imaginaire\.”

[120] First identified by Chou, “Ineffable Paths,” 119. However, Charleux (“Mongol Pilgrimages to Wutai Shan in the Late Qing Dynasty”), identifies this as Mañjuśrī’s birthday and an image of Mañjuśrī in the palanquin. For a Tibetan account of festivals on Wutai shan written in 1799, less then fifty years before the panoramic woodblock map (Cat. 1) was printed, see: Yangchen Gawé LodröDbyangs can dga’ ba’i blo gros (1740-1827), Riwo Tsenga Jelkapkyi Netö GurRi bo rtse lngar mjal skabs kyi gnas bstod mgur [A Praise of Riwo Tsenga: Songs Made on the Occasion of Visiting There; Origins of Great Buddhist Festivals Observed There], in the Collected Works of A kyA yongs ’dzin dbyangs can dga’ ba’i blo gros, volume 2 (kha) (Gansu Province: Sku ’bum par khang, 1799), 51-58.

[121] See Zhao Peicheng, “Shi tan Wutai shan Zangchuan Fojiao,” 39-40; and Wang Bin, and Guo Chengwen, “Wutai shan jingang wu ji lamam miao daochang,” Wutai shan yanjiu, no. 2 (1989): 33.

[122] Isabelle Charleux, “Trade, Art and Architecture on the Mongols’ Sacred Mountain,” paper given at the “Wutai Shan and Qing Culture” Conference at the Rubin Museum of Art, May 12-13, 2007; Shi Beiyue, “Fomu Dong” [Buddha Mother Cave], Wutai Shan (2007): 44-48.

[123] At Gilubar juu (Houzhao si, 后召寺; Shanfu si, 善福寺). Isabelle Charleux, Temples et monastères de Mongolie-intérieure (Paris: Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques: Institut national d’histoire de l’art, 2006), 96, 156, fig. 54, and CD no. 136; Charleux, “Trade, Art and Architecture on the Mongols’ Sacred Mountain”; Setri Ngawang TendarSe kri ngag dbang bstan dar, Dwangs bsil ri bo rtse lnga, 114-15.

[124] For instance a new Tibetan-language guide to Wutai shan: Dangsil Riwo Tsengé NeshéDwangs bsil ri bo rtse lnga’i gnas bshad, or A Pilgrimage Guide to Clear and Cool Five-Peak Mountain, was just published in 2007.

[125] Seven are enumerated in Chou, “Ineffable Paths,” 126, fn. 11. Several printings have been published and studied in Europe, China, and America: F. A. Bischoff, “Die Wu T’ai shan darstellung von 1846,” in Arbeitskreis fur Tibetische und Buddhistische studien (Wein: Universitat Wein, 1983); Halén, Mirrors of the Void; Chun Rong, “Cifu si”; Chou, “Ineffable Paths”; and Chou, “Maps of Wutai Shan.”

[126] Chou, “Ineffable Paths,” 119.

[127] A number of these sites are identified and discussed by Chou, “Ineffable Paths.” The black-lobed hat depicted on the figure emanating out of the Tāranātha Stūpa can be most clearly seen in the Helsinki printing (see Chou, “Maps of Wutai Shan,” Image 6) and can be compared to nineteenth-century depictions of hats worn by the First Mongol Jetsün DampaRje btsun dam pa, Zanabazar (1635-1723), such as seen in Berger, “Preserving the Nation,” 129, fig. 2. In essence then, it is the Mongol Jetsün DampaRje btsun dam pa who is depicted emanating out of the Tāranātha Stūpa, branding Wutai shan with a Mongol identity.

[128] Chou, “Ineffable Paths”; and Chou, “Maps of Wutai Shan.”

[129] As Chou (“Ineffable Paths” and “Maps of Wutai Shan”) points out, this is unlike the coloring of other published versions of this woodblock print, such as the one in Helsinki, which is hand colored reminiscent of popular Chinese New Year Woodblock print (nianhua, 年畫) of Shanxi Province. The coloring of the copy in the Library of Congress conforms more to Chinese conventions of landscape depiction (Chou, “Ineffable Paths”).

[130] The Tibetan spells “ro bi” instead of “ri bo.” Such a basic mistake in such a prominent place on this work suggests that the colorist who re-copied the titles that were covered over with heavy pigment was not Tibetan literate. In the Chinese epigraphic tradition the dated colophon is extremely important, and it is unlikely that a Chinese artist would have forgotten to recopy this section. This differs from Chou’s reading in “Maps of Wutai Shan,” who sees a Tibetan hand at work.

[131] Special thanks to David Newman for all of his work on the design of this valuable digital resource and to Professor Gray Tuttle for sharing his photographs of Wutai shan.

[132] The poetic Tibetan title for this map comes from the old Chinese name for Wutai shan, “Clear and Cool Mountain” (Qingliang shan, 清涼山, Riwo Dangsilri bo dwangs bsil), which is the name of Wutai shan’s gazetteer, Record of Clear and Cool Mountain (Qingliang shan zhi; composed in 1596 and revised in 1661). Riwo DangsilRi bo dwangs bsil is also the name used for Wutai shan in the title of Changja Rölpé DorjéLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje’s Tibetan guide to Wutai shan, Zhingchok Riwo Dangsilgyi Neshé Depé Pemo Gyejé Ngotsar Nyimé NangwaZhing mchog ri bo dwangs bsil gyi gnas bshad dad pa’i padmo rgyas byed ngo mtshar nyi ma’i snang ba, from whence this map title probably comes. Interestingly the Chinese title for the map simply calls the site “Wutai shan,” its more common appellation. The Mongolian title follows the Tibetan, not the Chinese: Composition of the Land of Cool-Clear Mountain (Serigün tungγalaγ aγula-yin oron-u jokiyal; see below).

[133] The three realms of being or world realms are: the desire realm (Döpé Kham’dod pa’i khams, kāmadhātu), the form realm (Zuk Khamgzugs khams, rūpadhātu), and the formless realm (Zukmekyi Khamgzugs med kyi khams, ārūpyadhātu).

[134] The three buddha bodies are: dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, and nirmanakaya.

[135] Here Mañjuśrī takes the role of the guru, or teacher, who embodies the three jewels. While one’s teacher might be described this way, it is unusual for a deity.

[136] Rinpoché Nyingpö ZungRin po che snying po’i gzungs = Mañjuśrī-​dharma-​ratnagarbha-​dhāraṇī Sūtra ([Wenshu shili fa] Baozang tuoluoni jing, [文殊師利法]寶藏陀羅尼經)? Interestingly the Tibetan version of the text being quoted here (Rinpoché Nyinpo ZungRin chen snying po gzungs) does not mention Mañjuśrī or Wutai shan (the Sanskrit version of the Mañjuśrī-​dharma-​ratnagarbha-​dhāraṇī Sūtra is no longer extant). Etienne Lamotte has argued that the Chinese translation of the Flower Garland Sūtra was “falsified” to assign Mañjuśrī a dwelling place on Mount Wutai, just as accounts of Chinese history were refashioned long after the actual events to legitimize the bodhisattva’s long tenure on the mountain. See: Mary Anne Cartelli, “On a Five-colored Cloud: The Songs of Mount Wutai,” The Journal of the American Oriental Society (Oct 2004).

[137] Gyelwo Kyinkang MekyiRgyal bo kyin kang me kyi is transliterated from the Chinese, Jingang miji wang (金剛密跡王; Soothill, Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms, 281; a form of Vajrapāṇi). That the Tibetan text on the map does not use the common Tibetan name for this deity is likely because this passage of the text is a Chinese interpolation that does not exist in the Tibetan (see footnote 10 above). It also suggests that the text on the map was first written in Chinese and then translated into Tibetan.

[138] The Chinese texts says “there is a country called ‘Great China’” which is omitted here.

[139] Around large Mongolian monasteries were special lama communities called ayimag. Around Amurbayasqulangtu Monastery in northern Khalkha (Mongolia), a monastery built in honor of the Jebtsundamba Khutukhtu, were six or so such lama communities, one of which was Sangga or Sanggai. Five to six hundred lamas lived here. This, most likely is the Sangga-yin monastic community that is referred to. I would like to thank Brian Baumann, who translated the Mongolian text on this map, for explaining this Mongolian term to me.

[140] Takhurétā khu re is the Mongolian name Da Khüriye, or “The Great Monastery” of the Jebtsundamba incarnations, founded in 1654, which became the core of the capital of Mongolia, modern day Ulaanbaatar (see Atwood, “Validation by Holiness or Sovereignty,” 566.) Interestingly Chun Rong, “Cifu si”; and Chou, “Ineffable Paths,” take the text to say: “the disciple of Jebtsundamba from the Great Kingdom of China (dazhenna, 大震那)…” However I believe this to be in error, the Chinese text rather reading Dakuwei (大窟圍), reflecting the Tibetan reading “TakhuréTā khu re” (Da Khüriye). This previous reading of the Chinese text by Chun Rong, and followed by Chou, “Ineffable Paths,” inserts a loaded modern political meaning into this nineteenth-century text, calling Mongolia part of China. Chou has since revised her translation provided here.

[141] This would be Cifu si (慈福寺, Jamgé Lingbyams dge gling; Fig. 4, no. 21).

[142] ro bo dwangs bsil kyi gnas bkod// dus gsum rgyal kun kun nas bsngags pa’i khams// khams gsum bar snang snang byed ’od ’phros sku// sku gsum gzugs ston ston pa ’jam dpal mchog/ mchog gsum rang nyid nyid du gyur bar ’dud// phal po che’i mdo las// ’di nas byang shar mtshams gyi gnas shig na// ri bo dwangs bsil zhes bya’i gnas yod de// sngon chad rgyal sras mang po de na bzhugs// da lta rgyal sras ’phags pa ’jam dpal gyi// ’khor gyi byang chub sems pa khri phrag bcas// de du bzhugs nas dam pa’i chos kyang gsungs// zhes pa dang / yang rin po che snying bo’i gzungs las// rgyal bo kyin kang me kyi la// bcom ldan ’das kyis bka’ stsal pa// nga mya ngan las ’das pa’i ’og tu ’dzam bu gling gi byang shar gyi mtshams su ri bo rtse lnga zhes pa’i gnas chen yod de// ’jam dpal gzhon nus der ’gro ’chag dang ’dug gnas byed cing ’gro ba thams cad gyi don du chos gsungs so// grangs med pa’i lha klu sde brgyad ’khor dang bcas pa rnams bsnyen bkur byed zhes pa la sogs pa’i mdo rgyud du ma nas bsngags pa’i gnas mchog ’di nyid kyi bkod pa mdor bsdus tsam bris pa// ’di la mthong thos dran reg gi ’brel ba ’thob tsad tshe rabs kun tu rje btsun ’jam pa’i dbyangs kyis rjes su ’dzin pa’i rgyur dmigs te// ri bo rtse lnga’i byams dge gling gi bla brang du// dad ldan sbyin bdag tā khu re’i rje btsun dam pa’i zhabs gras sangga’i ’as mag gi brkos pa dge slong lhun grub zhes bya bas rgyu yon sbyar ste ta’i ching to’u kwang rgyal bo khri bzhugs lo nyer drug pa’i sa ga zla ba’i tshes bco lnga’i nyin par spar du brkos pa’o// //skyabs mchog ’jam dbyangs gnas bkod ’di// gang dang gang la mchod byas pa// de dang de ru mi mthun phyogs// zhi nas bde skyid dar bar shog/ //bkra shis par gyur cig/ // mangalam//.

[143] Wutai shan Shengjing Quantu. Shiyue: sanshi zhufo cheng qingliang, fazhao sanjie ji wanfang, wenshu bianhua tong fansheng, sanbao zhuxian ji cishen, zhenrong jiuzai qingliangjing. Renren jingli wu suoguan. Da Huayanjing yun, dongbei fang you chu min Qingliangshan, cong xi yi lai zhu pusa zhongyu zhongzhi zhu, xianyou pusa ming wenshu shili, qi juanshu zhu pusa zhong yi wanren, ju chang zai qizhong er yan shuofa. You baozang tuoluoni jing yun, fo gao jingang miji wang yan, wo miedu hou yu ci nan zhan buzhou dongbei fang, you guoming da zhen na, qi zhong you shan, ming yue wuding, wenshu tongzi lvxing juzhu, wei zhu zhongsheng yu zhong shuofa, ji you wuliang tianlong ba bu wei rao gong yang, si yan ke shen’ ai. Ci wutai yi xian shan tu, wei neng jinq xiangxi, si fang shang shi fan chao qingliang shengjing, ji jian ci shan tu, wen jiang pusa ling yan miaofa zhe, jin sheng neng xiao yiqie zainan jibing, hen fu hen shou, fu lu mian chang, ming zhong zhi hou, sheng yu youfu zhidi, jie lai pusa cihua ’er’ de ye. Gu da ku wei zhizong danbafo zhi tu sanga a mage, ming ge long long zhu, da fa yuan xin, qinshou kezao ciban, yi shi sifang shangshi. Ru you dafa touxin, yin ci shantu zhe, ze gongde wuliang yi. Translated by Wen-shing Chou. This is a corrected translation from her 2007 “Ineffible Paths” article.

[144]

(1) Om suvasti. (2) γurban čaγ-un (3) ilaγuγsan bükün ber (4) sayišiyaγsan oron (5) γurban oron-u gegen (6) ǰabsar-i geyigülün (7) üiledügči bey-e-(8)tü, γurban bey-e-yin (9) düri-yi üǰegülüg(10)či, degedü blam-a (11) Manǰuširi, γurban (12) erdeni-yin mön činar (13) čiγuluγsan-a mörgümüi (14) Quvayangki nom-dur (15) ögülügsen anu: Ende-(16)eče umar doron-a (17) oron nigen-dür, (18) Tungγalaγ serigün (19) aγula kemegdekü oron (20) bui büged, uruγsida (21) olan bodisadu-a tegün-(22)dür orošiγsan bui (23) edüge qutuγtu (24) Manǰuširi nökör (25) bodisung, tümen (26) toγatan-luγ-a selte (27) orošiǰu nom nomlaγaǰu (28) bölöge. basa Erdeni ǰirüken (29) toγtaγal-ača, Kin Kang-(30)mi-gi qaγan-dur ilaǰu (31) tegüs nögüčigsen ber ǰarliγ (32) bolur-un: barinirvan (33) boluγsan-u qoyin-a Jambudib-(34)un umar doron-a yin ǰab (35) sar-dur, Tabun üǰügür (36) dabaγaγula kemegsen bui (37) oron tegündür ǰalaγu (38) Manǰuširi orošiǰu (39) qamaγ amitan-u tusadur (40) nom nomlaqui-dur toγo(41)laši ügei tngri (42) luus naiman ayimaγ-a (43) nökör selte-ber, ergün (44) kündelel-i üiledkü terigü(45)ten-i olan sudur dandar-(46)ača sayišiyaγsan oron (47) egünü ǰokiyal-i tobčilan (48) ǰiruγsan egüni üǰükü (49) sonosqu duradqu kötül(50)čiküy-yin barilduγ-a-yi (51) oluγsan, törül tutum (52) bükün-e getülgegči metü (53) …..-daγan (54) bariqu-yin šiltaγan-dur (55) ǰoriǰu, süsüg tegüldür (56) öglige-yin eǰeni-i Yeke (57) Küriyen-ü, boγda (58) Rǰebcun-damba-yin (59) šabi, Sengge-yin ayimaγ (60) seyilbürči gelüng Lhunrub (61) -yin (62) asaraltu buyantu -un -tü (63) seyileǰü ergübe. manggalam.

Dayičing ulus-un törü gereltü-yin qorin ǰurγuduγar on-u dörben sarayin arban tabun-u erkim sayin edür-e.

Translated by Brian Baumann. Unfortunately a Mongolian Unicode font is not available at this time to record the actual inscription here as done in Tibetan and Chinese above, so transliteration will have to suffice.

[145] One of Rölpé DorjéRol pa’i rdo rje’s most significant contributions to the production of religious images was the composition and engraving of several Tibeto-Mongolian iconographic guides with his teacher Erdeni Nomyn Khan, which were the most authoritative of the eighteenth century: the Collection of Images of Tibetan Buddhist Deities (Lamajiao Shengxiangji, 喇嘛教聖像集) and Guide to the Sacred Images of All the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas (Zhufo Pusa Shengxiangzan, 諸佛菩薩聖像贊), also called simply the Guide to the Sacred Images of All the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas (Sku brnyan sum brgya) which established the Sino-Tibetan iconic forms for the next two hundred years. His own image is interestingly enough included in this collection of images for veneration, depicting himself with the same attributes as Pakpa’Phags pa. Not a case of self aggrandizement, this was rather in recognition of himself as a symbol of Manchu legitimization, sublimating himself to his role as Pakpa’Phags pa incarnate, and by extension re-affirming Qianlong in his role as Qubilai. See: Blanche Christine Olschak and Thupten Wangyal, Mystic Art of Ancient Tibet (Boston, MA: Shambhala, 1973), no. 53; and Sushama Lohia, Lalitavajra’s Manual of Buddhist Iconography (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1994), 98, no. 53. In his role in the production of images at court Changja Rölpé DorjéLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje again bears some resemblance to Pakpa’Phags pa, who was entrusted by Qubilai Khan to establish an Imperial Buddhist image for the Yuan dynasty, and groomed his protégé Anige for the task of its formation and the oversight of its execution in the imperial workshops.

[146] For similar paintings in the Freer-Sackler Gallery, DC see a maṇḍala of Cakrasamvara F1905.66 (HAR 69615), http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/singleObject.cfm?ObjectNumber=F1905.66 and http://www.himalayanart.org/image.cfm?icode=69615.

[147] See Zhao Peicheng, “Shitan Wutai shan zangchuan fojiao yu jingangshenwu,” 40; and Wang Bin and Guo Chengwen, “Wutai shan jingang wu ji lamam miao daochang” [Buddhist Monastery Rites and Vajra Dance at Mt. Wutai], Wutai shan yanjiu, 33. Also see Charleux, “Mongol Pilgrimages to Wutai Shan in the Late Qing Dynasty.”

[148] Zhao Peicheng, “Shitan Wutai shan zangchuan fojiao yu jingangshenwu,” 40; Wang Bin and Guo Chengwen, “Wutai shan jingang wu ji lamam miao daochang,” 33.

[149] Chou, “Ineffable Paths,” 119. This festival is also called Mañjuśrī’s birthday; see for instance Charleux (“Mongol Pilgrimages to Wutai Shan in the Late Qing Dynasty”), who identified the image in the palanquin as Mañjuśrī.

[150] Dharmatāla, Rosary of White Lotuses, in Phur lcog ngag dbang byams ba, Grwa sa chen po bzhi dang rgyud pa stod smad chags tshul pad dkar ’phreng bo bzhugs (Lhasa: Tibetan Peoples Publishing House, 1989), 339.

[151] zhabs rje ’di bcom ldan ’das myang ngan la bda’ dus kyis zhabs rje yin rgya kar nas rib o rtse lngar gdan drangs nas tshes grangs bzang po la phu sa ’eng na spar du bskos ba yin/ dge’o// mangalam//.

[152] See Zhencheng (1546-1617), Qingliang shan zhi, 29-30, which mentions autumn of 1582 (the ren wu year [tenth year] of the Wanli era [Ming Wanli renwu qiu, 明万历壬午秋]). The Gazetteer entry, which follows the entry for the Great White Stūpa reads (discrepancies between the RMA image text and the gazetteer/stele are highlighted in yellow): 佛足碑 在大塔左侧。 按《西域記》云，摩竭陀國波吒釐精舍中有大石，釋迦佛所遗雙足迹，其長一尺六寸，廣六寸，千輻輪相，十指皆現，華文卍字，寶瓶魚劍之状，光明炳焕。昔佛北趣拘尸那城，将示寂滅，回顧摩竭陀國，蹈此石上，告阿難言﹕“吾今最後，留此足跡，以示眾生。有能見者，生大信心，贍禮供養，滅無量罪，常生佛前。云云。后外道辈嫉心除之愈显。如是八番，文彩如故。”唐贞观中，玄奘法师自西域图写持歸，太宗敕令刻石祖庙，以福邦家。至明万历壬午秋。少林嗣祖沙门威县明成、德州如意，一夕一梦莲花，一梦月轮现于塔际。既觉，各言所梦，异之。及晓，少室僧正道持佛足图贻之。及展，见是双轮印相，喜曰：“此梦真也。”遂倾囊，兼募众立石，时孟秋既望也。是夕，众闻空中珠佩杂乐之声。出户视之，神灯点点，此圣神嘉赞也。镇澄赞：“巍巍大雄，浩劫忘功。神超化外，迹云寰中。刹尘混入，念劫融通。开兹觉道，扇以真风，竭诸有海，烁彼空濛。岩中留影，石上遗踪。碎身作宝，永益群首。稽首佛陀，悲愿何穷。 Fo zu bei zai data zuoce. An <Xiyueji> yun, mojietuo guo bozha’ao jingshe zhong you dashi, shijiafo suo yi shuangzu ji, qi chang yichi liu cun, guang liucun, qian fu lun xiang, shi zhi jiexian, huawen 卍 zi, baoping yujian zhi zhuang, guangming bing huan. Xi fo bei qu ju shi na cheng, jiang shi jimie, huigu mojietuo guo, dao ci shi shang, gao A’nan yan: “wu jin zuihou, liu ci zuji, yi shi zhongsheng. You neng jian zhe, sheng da xingxin, zhanli gongyang, mie wuliang zui, chang sheng fo qian. Yun yun. Hou wai dao bei ji xin chu zhi yu xian. Ru shi ba fan, wen cai ru gu. ” Tang Zhenguan zhong, Xuanzang fashi zi xiyu tu xie chi gui, Taizong ji ling ke shi zumiao, yi fu bang jia. Zhi min Wanli renwu qiu. Shaolin sizu shamenwei xian Mincheng, Dezhou Ruyi, yi xi yi meng lianhua, yi meng yue lun xian yu ta ji. Ji jue, ge yan suo meng, yi zhi. Ji xiao, shao zhi seng zhengdao chi fozutu yizhi. Jizhan, jian shi shuanglun yinxiang, xi yue: “ci meng zhen ye.” Sui qin nang, jian mo zhong li shi, shi meng qiu ji wang ye. Shi xi, zong wen kong zhong zhu pei za yue zhi sheng. Chu hu shi zhi, shen deng dian dian, ci shengshen jia zhan ye. Zhencheng zan: “wei wei da xiong, hao jie wang gong. Shen chao hua wai, ji yun huan zhong. Sha chun hun ru, nian jie rong tong. Kai zi jue dao, shan yi zhen feng, jie zhu you hai, shuo bi kong meng. Yan zhong liu ying, shi shang ji zong. Sui shen zuo bao, yong yi qun shou. Ji shou fotuo, bei yuan he qiong. Also see: Siegbert Hummel, “Die Fusspur des Gautama-Buddha auf dem Wu-T’ai-Shan,” Asiatische Studien /Etudes Asiatiques 25 (1971): 389-406.

[153] Xuanzang (玄奘), Datang xiyu ji (大唐西域記). Xuanzang’s (c. 596-664) record of his seventeen-year long trip to India, where he went to study and gather Buddhist scriptures. Written in 646 at the behest of the emperor, Xuanzang’s journey through over one hundred and thirty-eight states in Central Asia and India, remains one of our most valuable records of those regions in the seventh century.

[154] Sahasrāra, cakra-caraṇatā: the second of the thirty-two marks (lakṣaṇa) of a great personage or perfected being.

[155] The fourth of the auspicious signs in the footprint of Buddha.

[156] The four kinds of minor marks found on the feet among the eighty minor marks of a Tathāgata.

[157] An ancient kingdom and city, near Kasiah, one hundred eighty miles north of Patna; the place where Śākyamuni died.

[158] 按《西域記》云，摩竭陀國波吒釐精舍中有大石，釋迦如來所履，雙跡猶存，其長一尺八寸，廣六寸，俱有千輻輪相，十指皆現，華文卍字，寶瓶魚劍之状。昔者如來趣拘尸那城，将示寂滅，回顧此石，告阿難曰﹕“吾今最後，留此足跡，示末世眾生。若得親見，信心。贍禮供養者，滅無量生死重罪，常生人天勝處，福壽延年，遠諸惡事，常獲吉祥。”玄裝法師西域請來刻石供養。欽命總理五臺山大喇嘛阿王老藏捐貲畫利。 An <Xiyueji> yun, mojietuo guo bozha’ao jingshe zhong you dashi, Shijia Rulai suolv, shuangji you cun, qi chang yichi bacun, guang liucun, ju you qian fu lun xiang, shizhi jiexian, huawen 卍 zi, baoping yujian zhi zhuang. Xi zhe Rulai qu ju shi na cheng, jiang shi jimie, huigu cishi, gao Anan yue: “wu jin zuihou, liu ci zuji, shi mo shi zhongsheng. Ruo de qinjian, xingxin. Zhan li gongyang zhe, mie wuliang shengsi zhongzui, changsheng ren tian sheng chu, fu shou yan nian, yuan zhu e shi, chang huo ji xiang.” Xuanzang fashi zi xiyu qing lai keshi gongyang. Qin ming zongli Wutai shan dalama Awang Laozang juan ci hua li. Thanks to Wang Yudong for his help in correcting my transcription and translation of this abraded text.

[159] This painting is part of a larger set depicting the previous incarnations of the Penchen LamaPaṇ chen bla ma, one of the main hierarchs of the GelukDge lugs monastic order. On this composition also see Giuseppe Tucci, Tibetan Painted Scrolls, I and II (rpt. Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co., 1980), 414.

[160] rje btsun chos kyi rgyal po tsong kha pas/ rdo rje ’jigs byed dbang dang gdams pa gnang/ phyag drug mgon po bsnyen bsgrub be bum la/ lhad zhugs bsal mdzad mkhas grub dge legs dpal//.

[161] It is possible that the five forms of Mañjuśrī may be related to TsongkhapaTsong kha pa’s five visions of Mañjuśrī.

[162] For a brief discussion of the historicity of Sakya PenditaSa skya paṇḍita visiting Wutai shan, see above essay and footnote 40.

[163] In 1732 SituSi tu set up a workshop for painters and had the artist Trinlé RappelPhrin las rab ’phel of KarshöKar shod trace and sketch older painting(s) of the Eight Great Bodhisattvas originally painted by the great artist Könchok PendéDkon mchog phan bde of ÉE. Könchok PendéDkon mchog phan bde was a painter of the MenriSman ris school who had been active over one century earlier as court artist of the Ninth KarmapaKarma pa and teacher of Namkha TrashiNam mkha’ bkra shis, founder of the Encampment painting tradition. The tracings of his paintings were then painted by artists from KarshöKar shod at SituSi tu’s request. Not only does this set point to the existence of strong Chinese figural and compositional elements in pre-Encampment style painting in the court of the Ninth KarmapaKarma pa in the sixteenth century but also indicates what kind of models SituSi tu selected in the revival of this artistic style. See David Jackson, Patron & Painter: Situ Panchen and the Revival of the Encampment Style (New York, NY: Rubin Museum of Art, 2009), 10-11, 121-23, and 223.

[164] Yeshe Tsogyal, The Life and Liberation of Padmasambhava (Berkeley: Dharma Publishing, 1978); Gustave-Charles Toussaint, Le Dict de Padma: Padma Thang yig Ms. de Lithang, Bibliothèque de l’Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises 3 (Paris: Librairie Ernest Leroux, 1933), 152-54; cited by Köhle, “Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?” M. A. Thesis, 10, fn. 14.

[165] Desi Sanggyé GyatsoSde srid sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, Tibetan Elemental Divination Paintings: Illuminated Manuscripts from the White Beryl of Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho: With the Moonbeams Treatise of Lo chen Dharmaśrī, commentary and translation by Gyurme Dorje (London: John Eskenasi, 2001), 19-59.

[166] A set of seven paintings of this unusual theme, otherwise unknown to me in Tibetan Buddhism, can be found in the Palace Museum in Beijing. Thanks to Jeff Watt for this identification and bringing this set in Beijing to my attention. Another painting in the RMA collection of Mañjuśrī Arapachana C2006.31.5 (HAR 65662) with narrative scenes in the corners, each labeled; may belong to a related thematic set.

[167] There is also a painting of Maitreya in the Rubin Museum of Art (C2006.66.34 HAR 1111) of similar size and general appearance in the RMA which has been identified by some as belonging to the same set (see for instance: http://www.himalayanart.org/image.cfm?icode=1111), and it has even been suggested that both these works date to the Tangut period (eleventh to early thirteenth century). However in comparing these two paintings closely one notices that the painters who produced the Maitreya composition had a good grasp of how a Chinese landscape is built up with layers of ink, using specific specialized brush techniques, such as the “axe” texture stroke, while the painters of the Mañjuśrī painting here employ no recognizable Chinese brushwork in this simple blue-green landscape of only distant Chinese inspiration, such as can be seen in the rocks framing the foreground. Also, as already noted in Rhie and Thurman (Marylin Rhie and Robert Thurman, eds., Worlds of Transformation: Tibetan Art of Wisdom and Compassion [New York, NY: Tibet House, 1999], 198-200, no. 33), the composition of the landscape in the Maitreya painting is more consistent with paintings of Chinese forms of Avalokiteśvara, such as Water Moon Guanyin (Shuiyue Guanyin, 水月观音), opening even this identification of the central deity to question. It is almost as if within the same workshop there are two sets of painters at work, one Chinese-trained who provided the ink landscape and the three large attendant figures at the bottom (such as the boy sudhana), and another Tibetan-trained who painted the main figure of this red Maitreya, bearing his distinctive identifying attributes stūpa and ewer, as well as the surrounding narrative scenes. Evidence of this hypothesis is visible on the main figure, where green pigment has abraded away to reveal the same Tibetan painting notations visible in the Mañjuśrī painting presented here. The early dating of these paintings to the eleventh-early thirteenth century also seems unlikely, for while certain archaic forms such as the hats of the attendant figures in the Mañjuśrī painting do appear, the landscape conventions employed are consistent with much later Chinese painting, such as those of the eighteenth century.