Early Tibetan Toponyms. An Attempt to Identify 'Byi lig of PT 116 and PT 996

Early Tibetan Toponyms: An Attempt to Identify ’Byi lig of P.T. 116 and P.T. 996

Bianca Horlemann

This paper provides an attempt to identify and localise ’Byi lig of P.T. 116 and P.T. 996 which, I argue, designates a monastic establishment of the 8-10th century situated in Southeast Amdo, possibly in modern The bo/Diebu 迭部County in southern Gansu 甘肃 province. The context in which’Byi lig appears in our sources, implies that it was actively involved in the transmission of Chan Buddhist ideas along the Sino-Tibetan border area. Its probable location in between the former influential Chan Buddhist communities of Dunhuang 敦煌 in the north and of the Chengdu 成都 area in Sichuan 四川 in the south, further corroborates this assumption.

I will first discuss the occurrences of ’Byi lig in P.T. 116 and P.T. 996 and analyse the pieces of information provided by these texts. Secondly, I will link the term’Byi lig to several other toponyms occurring in later Tibetan texts on the presumption that they are variant orthographic forms of the original monastic name’Byi lig. Last not least, I will suggest a possible location.

’Byi lig in P.T. 996

P.T. 996 is considered to be one of the four key Tibetan documents concerning the transmission of Chinese Chan Buddhism to Tibet.①1 According to the identifiable persons mentioned in this manuscript, it must be posterior to the mid-9th century and probably pre-dates the early 11th century.②2Marcelle Lalou has been the first to publish a facsimile of the

①　See Broughton 1983: 10.

②　The text provides an account of Spug Ye shes dbyangs who passed away at the age of eighty in circa 838 or 850.

According to Heller (1997: 395) he died in ca. 862, but this seems rather late with regard to Ye shes dbyangs’ abbotship

in Khri kha already in 804. (For more details see the following paragraphs.) Although the mid-11th century is usually

regarded as the time of the sealing of the Dunhuang cave in which the manuscript was found, Rong Xinjiang (1996: 23-48,

1999/2000: 272-75) has argued convincingly for the first decade of the 11th century.

· 114 · 西域歷史語言研究集刊（第五輯）

Figure 1　Map of the Sino-Tibetan border area (B. Horlemann/A. Gruschke)

manuscript and to provide a translation.③3 The text is divided into four sections. The first section relates how the teachings of a certain A rtan hywer, a Chan adherent coming from India to An

③　See Lalou 1939: 505-521. This document has also been studied by many other scholars in connection with the

transmission of Chan Buddhism to Tibet.

· 115 ·Early Tibetan Toponyms: An Attempt to identify’ Byi lig of P.T. 116 and P.T. 996

se/Anxi,④4are transmitted by different Buddhist masters along the Gansu Corridor, i.e. via Sha chu/Shazhou 沙州, Kam chu/Ganzhou 甘州 and Se’u chu/Suzhou 肅州?⑤5down to Tshig tsa Nam ka’i snying po⑥6in Tsongkha 宗喀. In its second section the text provides a short account of the life and qualities of monk Nam ka’i snying po. Here, ’Byi lig is mentioned in connection with witnesses of miracles occurring at the death of Nam ka’i snying po in a hermitage near the Zhong pong and Srin po mountains:⑦7

P.T. 996, fol. 2b, line 5 - fol. 3a, line 1:de’i nub mo nam gI gung la / dben sa’I la ’og gI zhong pong gI rI rgyud nas / srIn

po rI’i bar gI nam ka la ’od chen po gnyIs rgyud chags su byung bas yul phyogs // gsal bar gyur te / nub phyogs su ’das par gyur te / phyog[s] cu ’ByI lIg gI dge ’dun ltam rje dpal gyI rgyal mtshan dang/ ’gwan blo gros las bsogs pa yul myI mang pos mthun par mthong / ...

The night [of Nam ka’i snying po’s death], in the middle of the sky, from the Zhong pong mountains underneath the hermitage, two converging great lights appeared in the sky over the Srin po mountains which illuminated the land and which disappeared towards the west. Dpal gyi rgyal mtshan, the superior of ’Byi lig of the Ten Directions, and ’Gwan blo gros saw it in agreement with many local people.

The third section of P.T. 996 which contains a Buddhist hymn composed by Nam ka’i snying

④　Lalou (1939: 506, 510) identifies An se/Anxi with Kucha in East Turkestan since the seat of the Anxi Grand

Protectorate 安西大都護府 was shifted from Gaochang高昌/Xizhou西州 to Kucha during the early Tang period. Thus

Kucha also became known as Anxi. Another Anxi which is near to former Guazhou瓜州 where the Buddhist Yulin榆林

grottoes are located, was named Anxi apparently only in the early Qing Dynasty. See Wu Songdi 2002: part 1, 339-40, part 2,

178 and Qinding huangyu xiyu tuzhi 《欽定黄輿西域圖志》 4: 1a-2b.

⑤　Chin. Suzhou/modern Jiuquan酒泉 is usually spelled Sug cu in early Tibetan documents, but Se’u cu also occurs.

One might, however, also consider the possibility that Se’u cu is a variant form of Se cu and designates Chin. Xizhou/Turfan

吐魯番. On Se’u cu/Sug cu see Horlemann 2002: 60, n. 28.

⑥　According to Lalou (1939: 507) and Wangdu and Diemberger (2000: 104, n. 427), Tshig tsa Nam ka’i snying

po might be identical with Gnubs/Snubs Nam mkha’i snying po. Both were obviously contemporaries of Khri Srong lde

btsan (755-ca. 800). However, this identification has been doubted since, according to tradition, Gnubs/Snubs Nam mkha’i

snying po was famous as one of the 25 disciples of Padmasambhava and as having collaborated with the Buddhist master

Vairocana in the translation of several Buddhist texts. He is thus considered as a Rdzog chen adherent while Tshig tsa Nam

ka’i snying po was active in Amdo in Chan Buddhist circles; see Karmay 1988: 98-99 and Meinert 2007: 264-65, n. 97.

⑦　Nam ka’i snying po must have passed away in—or close to—the otherwise unknown hermitage of Slar yam

yog near Khri ka. See Lalou 1939: 507. The Zhong pong mountains (and desert) still remain unidentified, but the context

elucidates that they must have been near Khri kha/modern Guide in Qinghai province. The same applies to the Srin po

mountains which, however, are explicitly mentioned in the Mdo smad chos’byung (1987: 217) as forming the border to Khri

ka gong’og.


po, will not concern us here, however the fourth section is again of interest, because it provides a short account of the oeuvre and the death of Spug Ye shes dbyangs. He was an eminent translator and abbot of a monastery in Khri ga/kha (modern Guide in Qinghai) in the late 8th/early 9th century commissioning Buddhist carvings in ’Bis mda’ (804) and Ldan ma brag (816).⑧8These carvings were connected to the then popular Vairocana cult in Central Asia and Northeastern Tibet. The Buddhist scripts that formed the so-called Vairocana cycles apparently also played a role in Chan Buddhist thinking.⑨9According to P.T. 996 Spug Ye shes dbyangs passed away at the Mong yog mda’ hermitage of Nam ka’i snying po near Khri ga/kha. Ye shes dbyangs was thus either a contemporary of Tshig tsa Nam ka’i snying po or posterior to him with the latter alternative seeming more likely.

Regarding ’Byi lig, the main topic of our investigation, we can now deduct the following information from P.T. 996: a sangha named ’Byi lig existed at the time of the death of Tshig tsa Nam ka’i snying po when the superior (dge ’dun ltam rje) of ’Byi lig, a certain Dpal gyi rgyal mtshan,⑩10was one of the witnesses!111of the two miraculous lights appearing at that occasion. Since Nam ka’i snying po’s lifetime was either contemporary or prior to Ye shes dbyangs’ who passed away in the mid-9th century, ’Byi lig monastery must have already existed in the early 9th century if not the late 8th century. That the superior of ’Byi lig is presented as a witness, suggests that he must have been quite well-known and respected at his time, thus lending more credibility to the miracles and attaching more importance to Nam ka’i snying po. Otherwise it would have been quite pointless to call on Dpal gyi rgyal mtshan as a witness. Since the abbot of ’Byi lig monastery is mentioned in connection with a Chan adherent and in a document that is concerned with the transmission of Chan Buddhism, it seems likely that he, as well, was somehow affiliated to Chan.

It is also noteworthy that the apposition phyog[s] cu, i.e. ‘[monastery of] the ten directions,’is added to ’Byi lig’s name. In China, shi fang 十方, ‘ten directions,’ designated—at least since the Song Dynasty (960—1279)!212—so-called‘public’ monasteries. These were public in the sense that they were supposed to be open to all officially ordained Buddhist clergy and were sanctioned and sometimes supported by the state. Furthermore, the abbacies were open to all eminent members of the monastery rather than restricted to disciples of previous abbots. In China, these shi fang monasteries were often the larger, more famous

⑧　See Heller 2002: 38.

⑨　See Heller 1997: 395 and 2002: 38, 45.

⑩　I have not been able to find further references to Dpal gyi rgyal mtshan.

!1　Also the other witness called ’Gwan blo gros remains unidentified.

!2　The designation as shi fang obviously already existed to some extant during the late Tang Dynasty (618-906).

See Foulk 1993: 164-65.


and powerful Buddhist establishments.!313I am not aware whether the Tibetan term phyogs cu was already commonly used as an apposition to monastic names in Tibet during the lifetime of Nam ka’i snying po, i.e. during the late 8th/early 9th century. It might thus have been added to the monastic name of ’Byi lig only later when the document P.T. 996 was composed sometime between the 9th and 11th century. However, the designation also seems to indicate that ’Byi lig monastery must have been quite large and influential in the late 8th/early 9th century and/or at the time of the composition of P.T. 996.

’Byi lig in P.T. 116

P.T. 116 is an extensive manuscript of more than 200 folios and constitutes a collection of excerpts from Chinese Chan texts and other works related to Chan topics.!414Just as P.T. 996, the manuscript must be posterior to the mid-9th century and probably pre-dates the early 11th century.!515Among its recorded sayings of various Chan masters, P.T. 116 also contains one saying that is attributed to a certain ’Byi lig hwa shang:

P.T. 116, pl. 113, fol. 186, ll. 2-3:!616

’byI lIg hwa shang gi bsam brtan gyi mdo las ’byung ba...Quoted from the dhyāna saying of the monk [of] ’Byi lig [monastery] ...

The saying (mdo) of ’Byi lig hwa shang is the fourth last in a list of altogether 18 mostly short sayings of Chan masters, starting and ending with mkhan po Bu cu.!717The introductory sentence of a saying usually has the following format:

!3　See Foulk 1993: 163-64. In a detailed study by Liu (2005: 176-274) of Song Dynasty shi fang monasteries in

contrast to so-called jiayi 甲乙 monasteries, i.e. monasteries in which the abbotship was passed from teacher to student

within one line of transmission, Liu (2005: 185) points out that many monasteries which were affiliated to Chan, already

were or later became shi fang monasteries.

!4　This document has already been studied extensively in particular by Japanese and American scholars such as

Ueyama, Obata, Kimura, Okimoto, Broughton and more recently by Tanaka and Johnson. For brief summaries of relevant

Japanese articles see Ueyama 1983: 327-49. However, ’Byi lig still remains unidentified.

!5　See also n. 2. Demiéville (1979: 7, 9) dates the manuscript to the post-9th century.

!6　See MacDonald and Imaeda 1978, vol. 1.

!7　The collation of these sayings into a list of eighteen is based on formal aspects as well as on context. This

has already been suggested by Lalou (1939: 40, who, however, has grouped them into 14 sayings, probably accidentally

overlooking 4 sayings) as well as by Broughton (1983: 13-15) and Ueyama (1983: 331, where he provides a short summary

of an article published in Japanese already in 1974).


P.T. 116, pl. 111-113, fol. 173-187:mkhan po b’u cu’I bsam rten gyi mdo las ’byung ba’ / … / mkhan po kim hun shen

shI’i bsam rten gyi mdo las ’byung ba / … / mkhan po dzang shen shI’i bsam rten gyi mdo las ’byung ba / … / mkhan po de’u lim shen shI’i bsam rten gyi mdo las ’byung ba / …

Quoted from the dhyāna saying of master (mkhan po) B’u cu… Quoted from the dhyāna saying of Chan master (mkhan po … shen shi) Kim hun… Quoted from the dhyāna saying of Chan master (mkhan po … shen shi) Dzang... Quoted from the dhyāna saying of Chan master (mkhan po … shen shi) De’u lim…!818

It should be noted that whenever we have a proper name of a person in this specific list provided by P.T. 116, it is usually preceded by mkhan po!919which, however, is lacking in the case of ’Byi lig hwa shang. Furthermore, in 10 out of 18 instances, Tib. shen shi, i.e. Chinese chan shi禪師/Chan master, is added to the personal name. Tib. hwa shang/Chin. heshang和尚/monk only occurs in the case of ’Byi lig. It is therefore suggested that ’Byi lig hwa shang actually stands for ’Byi lig gi hwa shang and refers to an unnamed monk who was affiliated to the ’Byi lig monastery mentioned in P.T. 996.@020This would also explain why neither mkhan po nor shen shi were added to ’Byi lig. It also implies that these two terms have not been omitted accidentally.

The fact that P.T. 116—like P.T. 996—is a text documenting Chinese Chan traditions current in Central Asia and the Sino-Tibetan border area, confirms once again that ’Byi lig must have had certain connections to Chan Buddhism. Two of the Chan masters listed in P.T. 116 together with ’Byi lig hwa shang are Bu/Bhu cu who is generally identified as the well known Chinese Chan master Wuzhu 無住 (714-774), and Kim hun/Kim hu who can probably be identified with the famous Korean Chan master Kim Musang (684-762) whose Chinese name

!8　B’u cu is usually identified with Wuzhu, Kim hun with Kim Musang and De’u lim with Niaoke Daolin鳥窠道林

(781-824). Dzang remains unidentified so far. See Broughton 1983: 13, nn. 56, 57.

!9　Mkhan po occurs in 16 out of 18 instances. The only other instance besides ’Byi lig in which mkhan po is

missing, is that of a Chinese layman (rgya’i dge snyen) who obviously originally came from Keng shi/*Chin. jingshi京師,

i.e. the Chinese capital area, as a messenger or envoy (keng shi nas pho nyar mchis pa). On the meaning of Keng shi as a

toponym see, for example, Wangdu and Diemberger 2000: 31, n. 44. However, in his study on the Chan masters mentioned

in P.T. 116, Obata (1976: 28) regards Keng shi as a personal name and refers to P.T. 813 in which rgya’i dge snyen keng shi

nas pho nyar mchis pa also appears. So does Broughton (1983: 13).

@0　Obata (1976: 30) assumes that ’Byi lig is a personal name such as that of mkhan po Mahayan(a). However,

he disregards the fact that ’Byi lig is neither designated as mkhan po nor as shen shi/chan shi. Furthermore, Obata was

obviously not aware of the second occurrence of ’Byi lig in P.T. 996.


was Jin Wuxiang 金無相.@121Both were proponents of Southern Chan and were active in former Yizhou 益州/Tib. Eg chu, i.e. in the greater Chengdu area in Sichuan. While Wuzhu represents the Chan tradition of the Baotang monastery 保唐寺,@222Master Kim is associated with the Jingzhong monastery 凈冢寺.@323Furthermore, Master Kim is probably identical with Gyim hwa shang in the Dba’ bzhed who obviously played an instrumental role in the early transmission of Chan Buddhism to Central Tibet.@424

Concerning the location of ’Byi lig monastery, both P.T. 996 and P.T. 116 point towards the Sino-Tibetan border area of Gansu, Qinghai and Sichuan because these were the areas where the documents originated from, i.e. Dunhuang in Gansu, and where Chinese Chan Buddhist ideas were widely circulated at the time. Also the toponyms mentioned in P.T. 996, such as An se, Sha cu, Kam cu, Se’u cu, Tsong ka and Khri ga etc., confirm this supposition. Furthermore, we find several names of monks and of Chan masters both in P.T. 116 and P.T. 996 who were closely linked to the Sino-Tibetan border area such as Tshig tsa Nam ka’i snying po, Spug Ye shes dbyangs, Bu cu/Chin. Wuzhu and master Kim, i.e. Jin Wuxiang. Apart from their association with monasteries in the greater Chengdu area in Sichuan, both Wuzhu and Kim are also linked to mountain hermitages in Northwest Sichuan on the border to Tibet. We will return to this connection in the paragraph on the localisation of ’Byi lig.

Occurrences of possibly variant orthographic forms of ’Byi lig

I will now attempt to further substantiate my assumption that ’Byi lig was an important 8th-10th century monastic establishment in the Sino-Tibetan border area by analysing information gained from other, later Tibetan texts. In this context I presume that Bhig tig, ’Big (tig) and Pyi tig are variant orthographic forms of ’Byi lig. The question whether this assumption is linguistically tenable, will be discussed further down.

Let us first consider the information provided by the 15th century Deb ther sngon po (Blue Annals) which is a well-known chronicle by ’Gos Lo tsa ba Gzhon nu dpal. In its section dealing with the second propagation of the Dharma in Tibet, i.e. the spyi dar era, a monastery called Lha rtse Bhig tig appears in connection with the biography of the famous teacher Dgongs pa Rab gsal (ninth/tenth century) who was instrumental in the revival of Buddhism

@1　See Broughton 1983: 12-14.

@2　Baotang monastery was probably located in Shuangliu County in Chengdu Sub-Prefecture; see Li Fangmin 2006:

258 and Adamek 2007: 342, 487 n. 337 (Adamek has revised her earlier assumption (Adamek 2003:37 and 2004: 82) that

Baotangsi was in Zizhou 资/梓州, i.e. ca. 75 km southeast of Chengdu.)

@3　Jingzhong monastery was located in Chengdu City Prefecture. See Adamek 2004: 82 and 2007: 336.

@4　See Wangdu and Diemberger 2000: 48-52, Broughton 1983: 6-8, Kapstein 2000: 71-75 and Faure 2005: 160-162.


in Central Tibet. According to this biography Dgongs pa Rab gsal spent altogether 12 years in Bhig tig before he moved on to his later and better known abode in Dan tig.@525

Deb ther sngon po, p. 90, l. 18-p. 91, l. 4:@626

de gsan nas slar log ste / shar phyogs su lha rtse bhig tig ces bya ba / sngon gyi lha rten mang du bzhugs pa’I dge ’dun gyi gnas shig tu kwa ’od mchog grags pa dang mjal nas / shes rab kyi rol tu phyin pa’i ’bum Tig la sogs pa dang / byang chub sems dpa’i sa la sogs pa mngon pa’i theg pa chen po lo bcu gnyis su gsan nas / …

After having heard this, he [i.e. Dgongs pa rab gsal] turned around once again and after having met with Kwa ’Od mchog grags pa in a monastic establishment in the east called Lha rtse Bhig tig which contained many ancient images of gods, he studied [with him, i.e. Kwa ’Od mchog grags pa] for twelve years the Shes rab kyi rol du phyin pa’i ’bum tig@727etc., the Byang chub sems dpa’i sa@828etc. and the Mngon pa’i theg pa chen po@929…

Apart from providing the information that Dgongs pa Rab gsal spent twelve years in a monastic establishment (dge ’dun gyi gnas shig) called Lha rtse Bhig tig, the Blue Annals also mentions that Bhig tig contained numerous ancient images (sngon gyi lha rten). This confirms that Bhig tig must have been quite old since Bhig tig — or more precisely: its statues—were already considered as‘ancient’ at the time of ’Gos Lo tsa ba Gzhon nu dpal. In Bhig tig, Dgongs pa Rab gsal studied with a certain Kwa ’Od mchog grags pa until he was induced by a dream to move on to Dan tig, north of the Rma chu/Huanghe黄河, near modern Xunhua循化.

Dgongs pa Rab gsal’s teacher Kwa ’Od mchog grags pa is mentioned in the 13th century Me tog phreng ba as one of the monks who was able to escape the persecution of Buddhism at the time of Glang Darma (mid-9th century). When ’Od mchog grags pa was returning from Nepal to Central Tibet, he heard the news of the persecution and thus fled over the ‘northern route’ to Amdo. He later became the abbot of a monastery called Dpal bzangs ’khar chag dril bu.#030

@5　Parallel versions—one with the orthographic form Lha rtse Bhi gtig—are also found in the biography of Dgongs

pa Rab gsal written by the III Thu’u bkwan tulku Blo bzang Chos kyi Nyi ma (1737-1802) and in the Mdo smad chos

’byung. See Watson 1978: 271 and Mdo smad chos ’byung 1987: 17. The dates given for Dgongs pa Rab gsal vary between

821-905, 832-915, 855-939, 881-965 and 892-975. See Stoddard 2004: 63-64.

@6　See the modern Chengdu edition of 1984, vol. 1.

@7　Prajñāpāramitā.

@8　Bodhisattva-bhūmi.

@9　Abhidharma.

#0　See Uebach 1987: 123-27.


We can thus assume that ’Byi lig/Bhig tig continued to be an active and important monastery at least well into the second half of the 9th century if not the 10th century, i.e. during the lifetime of ’Od mchog grags pa and Dgongs pa rab gsal.

Also the Dba’ bzhed, the narrative of the influential Dba’ (variants: Dba’s, Sba, Rba) clan, contains a reference which seems to point towards ’Byi lig/Bhig tig. The edition published by Wangdu and Diemberger probably dates back to the 11th century.#131In its section on the conclusion of the construction of Bsam yas, the first state supported monastic establishment in Central Tibet, and on the training of translators, the Dba’ bzhed mentions a certain ’Big Khyi’u as a translator of Buddhist texts from Chinese into Tibetan.

Dba’ bzhed, fol. 17b, first gloss:The translators from the Chinese language were Lha lung klu gong, […], Lo khyi

chung, ’Big Khyi’u, and Khyi chung.#232

From the Dba’ bzhed we thus learn that a certain ’Big khyi’u was among the early translators of Buddhist texts from Chinese into Tibetan at Bsam yas, i.e. probably during the second half of the 8th century. As ’Big is not a typical Tibetan clan or personal name it seems possible that ’Big khyi’u is not a proper monk’s name but refers to a monk named Khyi’u who was affiliated to a monastery called ’Big, i.e. ’Byi lig /Bhig tig. Furthermore, it seems that the list of the three translators Lo khyi chung, ’Big khyi’u and Khyi chung is corrupted and that in fact all three names designate one and the same person, namely a Lo Khyi chung who is also mentioned in the 12th/13th century Rgya bod kyi chos ’byung rgyas pa as one of the translators at the time of Khri Srong lde btsan.#333The use of the diminutive ’u—as in Khyi’u—is quite common in Classical Tibetan, so that Khyi’u is obviously a variant of Khyi chung. If these assumptions were correct, then we would obtain a further indication that monks from ’Byi lig/Bhig tig played a vital role in the early transmission of Chinese Buddhism to Tibet.

Next we will examine references in three Tibetan religious histories, i.e. in the Sngon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba and in the two Lde’u chos ’byung. Since all three works contain similar and mutually supplementing information regarding our topic, I will analyse them together. The Sngon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba by Nel pa Pandita from 1283#434contains a section on the

#1　See Wangdu and Diemberger 2000: XIV.

#2　I here rely on the translation provided by Wangdu and Diemberger since the Tibetan gloss is written in such small

script in the facsimile that I have not been able to read it.

#3　See Rgya bod kyi chos ’byung rgyas pa 1987: 302. An identification of Lo Khyi chung with Khyi chung has

also been suggested by Wangdu and Diemberger. For similar confusions and/or contractions of names which are mentioned

together with Lo Khyi chung see Wangdu and Diemberger 2000: 71, nn. 247, 254, 256.

#4　See Uebach 1987: 16.


establishment of Dharma colleges by the Tibetan Emperor Khri Gtsug lde btsan Ral pa can (815-841) in which a Pyi tig pring ka, located in Mdo khams, is mentioned:

Sngon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba, fol. 11b, line 6:#535

mdo ’khams na ’jing gi ra ’go / tre’i ka brag / skam gyi ngang mo ’grin, pyi tig pring ka dang [bzhi]’o…

In Mdo ’khams there were ’Jing gi ra ’go, Tre’i ka brag, Skam gyi ngang mo’grin and Pyi tig pring ka, these four…

The 12th/13th century Lde’u chos ’byung by Lde’u Jo sras [=Lde’u chos ’byung I] contains a parallel section in which it mentions a Dharma college Stong ka chen po in Mdo khams:#636

Lde’u chos ’byung, p. 136, line 9:#737

mdo khams na rjing gi ra mgo dang tre’i ka brag dang spyi thogs ngang mo’grin dang stong ka chen po dang bzhi ’o

In Mdo khams there were Rjing gi ra mgo, Tre’i ka brag, Spyi thogs ngang mo’grin and Stong ka chen po, these four…

In the 12th/13th century Rgya bod kyi chos ’byung rgyas pa by Mkhas pa Lde’u [=Lde’u chos ’byung II] which is presumably an enlarged version of the above-mentioned Lde’u chos’ byung I,#838we find a Dharma college Steng khang chen mo, located in Mdo khams:

Rgya bod kyi chos ’byung rgyas pa, p. 357, line 3:#939

mdo khams na ljang gi ra mgo dang tre’i ka brag dang spyi thog ngang mo’grin dang steng khang chen mo dang bzhi’o

In Mdo khams there were Ljing gi ra mgo, Tre’i ka brag mgo, Spyi thog ngang mo ’grin and Steng khang chen mo, these four…

Although in all three works the monastic names which I believe to refer to ’Byi lig/Bhig tig, are spelled differently, i.e. as

#5　As published in facsimile in Uebach 1987.

#6　Concerning the still uncertain dating and authorship of the Lde’u chos ’byung, see Martin 1997: 44, no. 55 which

contains the references to important studies by van der Kuijp and others.

#7　See the modern Lhasa edition of 1987.

#8　Concerning the dating and authorship of the Rgya bod kyi chos ’byung rgyas pa see Martin 1997: 43-44, no. 54.

#9　See the modern Lhasa edition of 1987.


- Pyi tig pring ka- Stong ka chen po- Steng khang chen mo

It is obvious from the context that they must all refer to the same establishment as Uebach has already pointed out.リ40Stong ka chen po, Steng khang chen mo and Pyi tig pring ka are all listed as one of altogether four Dharma colleges of a certain kind which had been established under the reign of Emperor Ral pa can (815-841) in Mdo khams respectively Mdo smad. These other three monasteries on which we unfortunately lack more specific information, are:

- ’Jing gi ra ’go (Lde’u I) / Ljing gi ra mgo (Lde’u II) / Jing gi ra mgo (Me tog)- Tre’i ka brag (Lde’u I) / Tre’i ka brag (Lde’u II) / Tre’i ka brag (Me tog)- Skam gyi ngang mo ’grin (Lde’u I) / Spyi thog ngang mo ’grin (Lde’u II) / Spyi

thogs ngang mo ’grin (Me tog)

The altogether 30 Dharma colleges (Me tog: chos grwa) which are mentioned as having been institutionalised under the rule of Emperor Ral pa can, are divided into three large groups, i.e.

a) 12 slob sbyong gi gr’a chen po (Lde’u I) / bslab pa’i grwa (Lde’u II) / thos bsam blo sbyong gyi bshad grwa chen po (Me tog)

b) 6 ltangs ’bul gyi grangs [grangs recte grwa] (Lde’u I) / lhar ’bul ba (Lde’u II) / mkhas btsun ltang ’bul gyi kyad grwa (Me tog)

c) 12 smra bcad sems ’chos gyi dra [dra recte grwa] (Lde’u I) / blo sbyong gi grwa (Lde’u II) / smra bcad sems chos kyi sgoms grwa (Me tog)ル41

The Dharma colleges belonging to these three categories are then further subdivided according to regional affiliation, i.e. as belonging either to Dbus, Khams, Mdo khams or Mdo smad (khams). In all three works Stong ka chen po, Steng khang chen mo and Pyi tig pring ka belong to group a) but are located in either Mdo khams (Lde’u I and II) or Mdo smad (Me tog). Since the geographical affiliations of the monasteries to either Khams, Mdo khams or Mdo smad (khams) are rather confusing and also differ in all three works without being of direct

リ　See Uebach 1990: 403.

ル　The Lde’u chos ’byung II further subdivides these monasteries into 8 sgom sa and 4 sgom grwa which poses

certain problems. However, I will not discuss these here since they do not interfere with my hypothesis regarding Pyi tig =

’Byi lig.


concern to our topic, I will disregard this problem here.The above-mentioned division of the Dharma colleges into three distinctive categories

seems to follow a system that has been widely applied in China during the Song Dynasty, i.e. a division into Teaching monasteries, Chin. jiao yuan 教院, Vinaya monasteries, chin. lü yuan 律院, and Meditation monasteries, Chin. chan yuan 禪院.レ42Here, the designations of group a) seem to reflect Teaching monasteries, those of group b) Vinaya monasteries and those of group c) Meditation monasteries. According to this system, Stong ka chen po, Steng khang chen mo and Pyi tig pring ka are all designated as Teaching monasteries. This conforms well with the earlier information that ’Byi lig was a ‘Monastery of the ten directions’ and thus a ‘Public monastery’ since, according to Foulk, in the Chinese system all Teaching monasteries belonged to the class of Public monasteries.ロ43Furthermore, Dgongs pa rab gsal’s long stay of 12 years at ’Byi lig/ Bhig tig in order to study Buddhist texts seems to provide further proof of its status as a Teaching monastery.

One might wonder whether the designation of Pyi tig as a Teaching monastery does not contradict my earlier assumption that ’Byi lig was closely linked to Chan Buddhism. It seems, however, that while the classification as either a Vinaya monastery or a Teaching monastery was already commonly used in Tang China, the designation as a Chan monastery was still rather rare. Although the establishment of specific Chan monasteries had probably already been stipulated in the late 8th/ early 9th century, it seems that only in the Song Dynasty did especially designated Chan monasteries appear on a greater scale.ワ44Thus—during the Tang Dynasty—Chan monks often resided in Teaching monasteries which were shared by different Buddhist sectarian schools. ’Byi lig/ Bhig tig/ Pyi tig probably falls into this category as well.

I am not aware whether these Chinese monastic classifications were also commonly used in Central Tibetan and if so, since when. However, we can assume that they were at least

レ　See Foulk 1993: 165 and Mochizuki 1954-1971, vol. 3, 2.945.

ロ　See Foulk 1993: 165. However, Teaching monasteries are passed over in silence in Liu’s study of Monasteries

of the Ten Directions (2005: 176-274). Instead, Liu (2005: 185-86) stresses that during the Song Dynasty a large number

of Chan monasteries already fell within the category of Monasteries of the Ten Directions whereas Vinaya monasteries

mainly followed the jiayi 甲乙 system (see n. 13) until they were pressured by the imperial government to adopt the shi fang

system.

ワ　During the Early Tang Dynasty Chan followers often either lived in small communities in secluded mountain

areas or within the compounds of the big monastic establishments in the capital area which were usually supported by the

state or by rich donors. Although the latter was more common for the adherents of the Northern Chan school, also many

Southern Chan followers became gradually and increasingly involved with influential political figures and rich donors.

The above-mentioned 8th century Chan masters Kim Musang/Jin Wuxiang and Wuzhu in Sichuan are good examples of

this trend. This might also explain why in a late 8th century text, i.e. in the Lidai fabao ji, the Jingzhong monastery of Kim

Musang is already expressedly designated as a Chan monastery in contrast to a Vinaya monastery. See Collcutt 1983:

172-74, 182-83, Adamek 2004: 82-84, 2007: 352-53, 355-56 and Jorgensen 2005: 479-80.


known and sometimes also applied in the Sino-Tibetan border region. This is also confirmed by Stoddard’s research on the disciples of Dgongs pa rab gsal in the early phyi dar period who eventually split into three groups, i.e. those who concentrated on following the rules of the Vinaya (btsun rgyud), those who concentrated on scholarly pursuits (mkhas rgyud, mkhan slob gyi sde) and those who concentrated on the three activities of thos, bsam and sgom, i.e. meditation.ヰ45Although these Tibetan terms are different from the ones quoted above, the threefold classification is easily discernable. However, since the composition of the two Lde’u chos ’byung and of the Me tog phreng ba was more or less contemporary to the Song Dynasty, the threefold classification system might only have been applied to Tibetan monasteries and monks retrospectively and might not have been in place in Tibet at the time of Emperor Ral pa can in the first half of the 9th century.

That Pyi tig is mentioned as having been first“institutionalised”ヱ46under the reign of Ral pa can during the 9th century whereas ’Byi lig must already have existed during the latter half of the 8th century, is not necessarily a contradiction. It seems quite likely that some, if not many, of the 30 Dharma colleges which were officially recognised and started to receive state funding under Ral pa can’s reign, i.e. were thus “institutionalised,” already existed prior to his rule.

With regard to the linguistic problems involved in the likewise identification of Stong ka chen po with Steng khang chen mo and Pyi tig pring ka I presume that Stong ka chen po and Steng khang chen mo are abridged and corrupted forms of a possible ‘original’ *’B(y)i tig steng ka (chen mo/po), similar to the above-mentioned Pyi tig pring ka. The variations between steng/stong and ka/khang might be easily explained by scribal error which was not unusual if the texts from which the scribes copied, were written in dbu med script. In dbu med the vowels e and o are easily mistaken as well as the tsheg for a ng suffix. Thus, for the same reasons, the scribe probably mistook ‘superscribed sa, ta’ for ‘pa, subscribed ra’ in the case of pring ka and erroneously added the vowel i because he had just written two i in Pyi tig.ヲ47It is also obvious from the many orthographic variations in the names of the other monasteries mentioned together with Stong ka chen po, Steng khang chen mo and Pyi tig pring ka in the two Lde’u chos ’byung and the Me tog phreng ba, that the scribes were not at all familiar with many of the monasteries in Amdo.

Although at first glance the orthographic form‘Pyi tig pring ka’seems to be the most

ヰ　See Stoddard 2004: 72-74. Apart from the two Lde’u chos ’byung and the Me tog phreng ba Stoddard also refers

to the 16th/17th century Myang chos ’byung.

ヱ　See Uebach 1990: 414 where she explains the Tibetan term ’khod bsam/khod bsams accordingly.

ヲ　Uebach (1990: 403) presumes that Pyi tig pring ka in the Me tog phreng ba might be an erroneous contraction of

Spyi thogs ngang mo ’grin/Spyi tho ngang mo ’grin and Stong ka chen po/Steng khang chen mo as occurring in the Lde’u

chos ’byung I and II, but this does not seem very convincing with regard to the fact that the Me tog phreng ba itself lists a

Skam gyi ngang mo’grin instead of a Spyi thogs ngang mo ’grin.


distorted one in comparison to ‘Stong ka chen po’ and ‘Steng khang chen mo,’ it is precisely this form Pyi tig which provides the clue to a possible link with ’Byi lig/Bhig tig. I assume that the variations between the Tibetan spellings of ’byi, i.e. ‘prefix achung, ba, subscribed ya, gigu,’ and of bhig, i.e. ‘ba, subscribed ha, gigu, ga,’ might be due to the uncertainties in early Tibetan spelling as well as the unfamiliarity with this seemingly non-Tibetan word.ン48The same applies to the forms ‘prefix achung, ba, subscribed ya, gigu’ and ‘pa, subscribed ya, gigu.’ However, I am not sure how to account for the change from ‘lig’ to ‘tig,’ i.e. from ’Byi lig to Bhi(g) tig. Thus I can only refer to Marcelle Lalou who, in her study of P.T. 996, already pointed out that the text has many orthographic variations in comparison to later Classical Tibetan.

Based on the alleged identity of ’Byi lig with Bhig tig and Pyi tig and the additional information thus gained from later Tibetan sources, we can tentatively conclude that ’Byi lig/Bhig tig/Pyi tig was a ‘public Teaching monastery’ on the Sino-Tibetan border which existed at least from the second half of the 8th century up to the 9th/10th century. We know that a certain Dpal gi rgyal mtshan was its abbot at the end of the 8th century and that a certain Kwa ’Od mchog grags pa probably taught at the monastery during the second half of the 9th century, one of his disciples being Dgongs pa Rab gsal. Furthermore, there are indications that ’Byi lig/Bhig tig/Pyi tig entertained relations with famous Chinese Chan masters from Chengdu in Sichuan, with Tibetan masters in Khri ka and Dan tig in Northeast A mdo and maybe even with Bsam yas in Central Tibet.

Now I will attempt to link ’Byi lig/Bhig tig/Pyi tig to a certain locality.

Localisation

The scarce information concerning the location of ’Byi lig/Bhig tig/Pyi tig offered by the above-mentioned Tibetan sources can be summarized as follows:

1. All Tibetan sources agree that ’Byi lig/Bhig tig/Pyi tig was situated to the east of Central Tibet, i.e. in Mdo khams or Mdo smad. Although the two toponyms Mdo khams and Mdo smad have not been studied sufficiently yet in connection with the expansion of the Tibetan empire to provide precise delineations, we know at least that ’Byi lig/Bhig tig/Pyi tig must have been located in the area conquered by the Tibetans in the 7th/8th century on the border to China. 49

2. The name ’Byi lig/Bhig tig/Pyi tig seems to be closely related to other names such as

ン　Coblin (2002: 181-83) has pointed out that achung is a diacritic which is used to mark deviations of the standard

pronunciation of a Tibetan letter and was thus often used in transcribing foreign sounds.

　See also Uebach 1990: 405-06.


Dan tig, Yang tig (a place not far from Dan tig), Lok [sic] tig (in the Ganzhou area) and Nam tig which, according to F.W. Thomas, all designate places or people which are found in the area of the Nan shan/Qilian shan 祁連山 down to the Rma chu/Huanghe. He associates these names with a certain Di people since the old Chinese pronunciation of di 狄was *tig.%050Di is usually understood as a Chinese generic term for ‘northwestern barbarians’ who have been mentioned in Chinese sources starting from the Zhou Dynasty (12th-3rd century BC). However, both F.W. Thomas and Wolfram Eberhard, for example, regard them as a proper people. In Thomas’ opinion, the original meaning of di/tig in the Di/Tig language was ‘man’ and the proper self designation of the Di/Tig was Nam (tig). Thus, Dan tig, Yang tig, Bhig tig etc. were originally tribal names and only later changed into place names.%151

Whether the assumptions concerning the Di as a people are correct, is still uncertain, however Thomas’ research clearly suggests to look for ’Byi lig/Bhig tig/Pyi tig in eastern Amdo.%252

3. Fortunately, the two Lde’u chos ’byung together with the Me tog phreng ba provide a piece of information which might enable us to localise ’Byi lig/Bhig tig/Pyi tig more precisely. Although the three designations Stong ka, Steng khang and Pyi tig pring ka vary orthographically, they obviously all refer to a place called either Stong or Steng ka(ng) as already mentioned above. In this case, the form Steng kha recalls the ancient monastic establishment of Dpal shes steng kha dgon pa/Chin. Baxidianga si 跋喜電尕寺 in modern The bo/Chin. Diebu.

This monastery is situated ca. 1 km northwest of Steng ka/Chin. Dianga 電尕 township in The bo/Diebu County in South Gansu and just a few kilometres from today’s border to Rnga ba TQAP/Chin. Aba zangzu qiangzu zizhizhou 阿壩藏族羌族自治州 in Sichuan Province.

%0　According to Karlgren di read d’iek. See Ulving 1997, no. 1181.

%1　See Thomas 1948: 52-61.

%2　If we look at Chinese sources referring to the early history of the The bo/Diebu area, we come across another

Di 氐 people (unlike the Di 狄/Tig mentioned above) which also appear in Chinese texts starting from the Zhou Dynasty

(12th-3rd century BC). The Old and Middle Chinese pronunciation of this character would have read tiər/tiei. They are thus

not identical with the Di狄/Tig mentioned above who are usually associated with the area north of the Rma chu/Huanghe

whereas the Di/Tiei territory is found south of the river. However, their territories might have overlapped. Presumingly, the

Di/Tiei were a settled, agrarian people at least since the late Eastern Zhou Dynasty (770-221 BC) and especially flourished

during the 4th century AD when they established several local regimes, including the so-called Qiuchi 仇池 regime in

the Wudu 武都 area which is situated on the ’Brug chu/Chin. Bailongjiang 白龍江/Baijiang白江in modern Longnan 隴

南 Prefecture in southernmost Gansu. A record of the early 6th century describes the houses of the Qiuchi Di as having

mansions, orchards and storehouses, made of earthen walls and wooden boards. They were known to weave cloth, to

raise pigs, cattle, horses and donkeys and to use advanced agricultural techniques. The bo/Diebu County is about 250 km

northwest of modern Wudu and is supposed to have been within the domain of the Qiuchi Di. See Eberhard 1942: 378-83,

Littig, 2000: 5, 24, 30, Ma 2006:8-12 and Karlgren in Ulving 1997, no. 6969.


According to tradition Steng kha dgon was established only in the 13th century by a disciple of ’Phags pa Blo gros rgyal mtshan (1235-1281), i.e. Dpal shes rab ’bar, who was a native of Diebu.%353However, as we know from the Mdo smad chos ’byung, many of the Buddhist establishments which are supposed to have been ‘founded’ by ’Phags pa and his disciples, had already existed long before they were converted into Sa skya pa monasteries.%454In fact, the Mdo smad chos ’byung quotes an oral tradition with regard to Steng kha dgon which claims that Dpal shes rab ’bar (13th c.) was a ‘disciple’of Dgongs pa rab gsal (9th/10th century).%555Of course Dpal shes rab ’bar cannot have been his direct disciple because of the time lapse of ca. 300 years between them. However, this oral tradition recalls the claim in the Blue Annals and in the Me tog phreng ba that Dgongs pa rab gsal had spent 12 years at Bhig tig monastery, i.e. as I assume, at (Pyi tig) Steng kha dgon. It seems thus not unlikely that Dpal shes rab ’bar as a native of The bo/Diebu had studied in Bhig tig monastery/Steng kha dgon in his youth and that during Dpal shes rab ’bar’s time Dgongs pa rab gsal was still revered at this monastery. Thus, the above-mentioned oral tradition provides a further indication that Dpal shes rab ’bar only initiated a conversion of the probably already existing and very ancient Steng kha dgon into a Sa skya pa monastery after he had become a follower of ’Phags pa.

Modern The bo/Diebu is actually known as a stronghold for Bon religion. 12 Bon monasteries are still — or better: again — existing in the greater The bo/Diebu area with four of them allegedly dating back to at least the 9th/10th century, i.e. more or less contemporary to ’Byi lig/Bhig tig monastery. Rtsa ri’i bon dgon/Chin. Zhari benjiaosi 扎日苯教寺/Zare benjiaosi 咱熱苯教寺, for example, is supposed to have been founded by two Bon practitioners from Central Tibet at the end of the reign of Khri Srong lde btsan (742-c. 800).%656The early existence of Tibetan Bon monasteries in The bo/Diebu confirms that this area has — from early on — been an important place for religious activities. Furthermore, The bo/Diebu was most probably the seat of a Tibetan garrison during the 8th/9th century as we will see further down. Thus, we might presume that the local religious institutions catered to both Bon and Buddhist adherents from early on, especially since the co-existence of both Bon and Buddhist establishments in locations which were big and wealthy enough to support a large number of clergy, was not uncommon.%757

From early on, Chinese rulers took an interest in the The bo/Diebu area which from today’s

%3　See Mdo smad chos ’byung 1987: 735, Pu 1990: 545-47 and Gruschke 2001, vol. 2, 50-51.

%4　See Mdo smad chos ’byung 1987: 20-21. For other ancient monasteries in the The bo area which probably

already existed before they were converted by Sa skya pa adherents, see van Spengen 2006: 220 n. 87, 221 n. 98.

%5　See Mdo smad chos ’byung 1987: 735-36.

%6　See Li 1998: 145-47, 150-51 and Tsering Thar 2003: 249.

%7　The Mdo smad chos ’byung (1987: 735) contains evidence that Bon and Nying ma pa monks sometimes even

shared one and the same monastery; see also Li 1998: 144.


point of view seems to be so far off and still quite unaccessible. Today The bo/Diebu can be reached either from Klu chu county/Chin. Luqu 碌曲 in the northwest or from ’Brug chu county/Chin. Zhouqu 舟曲 in the southeast. However, also a north-south connection from Lintan/Taozhou 洮州 and Co ne/Chin. Zhuoni 卓尼 via The bo/Diebu to Mdzod dge/Chin. Ruo’ergai 若爾蓋 in Nga ba and Zung chu/Songpan 松潘 exists and apparently has been in use at least since the Tang Dynasty.%858Apart from a favourable description in Chinese sources as an area with a mild climate which permitted agriculture and the growth of fruit trees and which was known for its resources of metal—probably copper—in the nearby mountains,%959The bo/Diebu was obviously of significant strategic and military value. Thus the Chinese and the Tibetans competed for the military domination over this area from the 7th century onwards. According to the 11th century Zizhi tongjian《資治通鑑》the Tibetans plundered and conquered Diezhou in ca. 676/77 and the Chinese were not able to regain control before 857, only to lose it again to the local tribes as well as to the Hunmo/Wenmo 渾末/温末^060probably in 862.^161The Tang (618-906) and the Northern Song Dynasty (960-1278) repeatedly attempted to keep a military garrison or outpost in The bo/Diebu and at times even established a separate prefecture called Diezhou 叠州 with its official seat in The bo/Diebu.^262However, during most of its history The bo/Diebu was only under nominal Chinese control, administratively belonging either to Fang-芳/Fen- 芬, Tao-洮 or Minzhou 岷州.^363Thus, during the late 8th to mid-9th century of the documented existence of ’Byi lig/Bhig tig/Pyi tig, The bo/Diebu seems to have been under Tibetan domination and thereafter under the control of more or less ‘local’ and already substantially tibetanized political forces. This conforms well with the information that ’Byi lig/Bhig tig monastery was ‘institutionalised’ under the rule of emperor Ral pa can and was still an active Tibetan monastery during the 9th/10th century at the time of Dgongs ba rab gsal.

Thus, contrary to the post-14th century situation, when The bo/Diebu appears to have become a backwater of Taozhou under the rule of the Co ne tusi, The bo/Diebu probably was a local—

%8　See Minzhou zhi 4:24r (p. 225) and Taozhou ting zhi 1907: 723.

%9　See the early 9th century Yuanhe junxian zhi 39: 26v-29r (pp. 622-23) and the early 18th century local history

Minzhou zhi 4:24r (p. 225). The bo/Diebu’s metal resources had already been mined under the Northern Zhou Dynasty

(557-581). The 11th century Xin Tangshu 4: 1037 also mentions that The bo/Diebu produced incense which it offered as

tribute.

^0　The Chinese character wen 溫of Wenmo should have a mouth radical, kou 口, instead of a water radical. On the

complicated history of the Hunmo/Wenmo see Horlemann 2007: 84-85, n. 10.

^1　See Zizhi tongjian in Tongjian tufan shiliao, pp. 19, 20, 221, 285, 287.

^2　In the late 11th century the Chinese general Wang Shao claimed to have re-established and pacified Diezhou.

^3　The bo/Diebu was frequently renamed by the Chinese and the official seat of Diezhou shifted between different

places. For example, Diebu was also known as Hechuan合川 during the Tang Dynasty.


if not regional—economic and religious centre with considerable military strategic significance from at least the 6th to the 14th century.^464

Furthermore, a location of ’Byi lig/Bhig tig/Pyi tig in The bo/Diebu on the border to North Sichuan seems also very likely in view of the monastery’s obvious connection to the Chan masters Wuzhu and Kim as stated in P.T. 116. As has been mentioned before, both Chan masters are supposed to have spent several years meditating in mountain hermitages in Northwest Sichuan. Kim, for example, lived for several years in the Tiangu 天谷 Mountains in modern Guan 灌County^565northwest of Chengdu. These mountains were situated in the contested Sino-Tibetan border region and only later did Kim come down to Chengdu on the request of the provincial official and Chan adherent Zhangqiu Jianqiong章仇兼瓊.^666Wuzhu is known to have spent 7 years (ca. 759-766) on the Sino-Tibetan border in the Baya 百崖 mountains west of Canya 蚕崖 pass which during the 8th century probably belonged to Mao 茂 prefecture which is still further northwest of Chengdu. Despite the alleged remoteness of Wuzhu’s hermitage, his religious fame spread all the way to Chengdu just as Kim’s had done.^767Thus, Kim’s and Wuzhu’s religious influence as Chan masters very likely also reached the area north of their respective hermitages, i.e. North Sichuan and South Gansu where ’Byi lig might have been situated.

Conclusion

The evidence provided by P.T. 996 and P.T. 116 already suggests that ’Byi lig refers to an important Buddhist Teaching monastery in Amdo which also functioned as a significant link for the transmission of Chinese Chan Buddhism in the Sino-Tibetan border area. This notion is further enhanced if we accept a possible identification of ’Byi lig with Bhig tig and Pyi tig of later Tibetan sources.

From a linguistic point of view my assumption that ’Byi lig, Bhig tig and Pyi tig pring ka all refer to the same place, remains rather questionable. Also my hypothesis that ’Byi lig/Bhig tig/Pyi tig was situated in The bo/Diebu and might be identical with Steng ka dgon, remains speculative and might be impossible to prove for lack of sources. Yet, I hope my endeavour might draw more attention to the importance of the study of early Tibetan toponyms in the Sino-Tibetan border area in order to enhance our knowledge not only of the political and

^4　For a description of the political and economic situation of the The bo area in the late 19th and early 20th century

see van Spengen 2006.

^5　According to Tan (vol. 5, 1982: 65-66) modern Guan County was situated in mid-8th century Pengzhou 彭州.

^6　See Adamek 2007: 337, 483 n. 285.

^7　See Adamek 2007: 337, 354-55, 358-59, 484 n. 289, 492 n. 431.


religious history of A mdo and Khams but also of early imperial Tibet.

Bibliography

Adamek, W.L. 2007. The Mystique of Transmission: On an Early Chan History and its Contexts. New York:

Columbia University Press.

——2004. The Lidai fabao ji《歷代法寶記》(Record of the Dharma-Jewel through the ages). In S. Heine

and D. S. Wright (eds) The Zen Canon. Understanding the Classic Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

81-106.

——2003. Imagining the portrait of a Chan master. In B. Faure (ed.) Chan Buddhism in Ritual Context.

London: Routledge Curzon, 36-73.

Bacot, J. et al. 1940. Documents de Touen-houang relatifs à l’histoire du Tibet. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste

Paul Geuthner.

Brag dgon Dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas 1987. Mdo smad chos ’byung [=A mdo chos ’byung]. Lanzhou蘭州:

Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang.

—— 1989. Anduo zhengjiao shi 《安多政教史》 [Chinese Translation of the A mdo chos ’byung]. Lanzhou:

Gansu chubanshe 甘肃出版社.

Broughton, J. 1983. Early Ch’an Schools in Tibet. In R.M. Gimello and P.N. Gregory (eds) Studies in Ch’an

and Hua-yen. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1-68.

Coblin, W.S. 2002. On certain functions of ‘a-chung in early Tibetan transcriptional texts. Linguistics of the

Tibeto-Burman Area 25.2, 169-83.

Demiéville, P. 1979. L’introduction au Tibet du Bouddhisme sinisé d’après les manuscrits de Touen-houang.

In M. Soymié (ed.) Nouvelles Contributions aux Etudes de Touen-houang. Genève: Librairie Droz, 1-16.

Eberhard, W. 1942. Kultur und Siedlung der Randvölker Chinas. Leiden: Brill.

Faure, B. 2005. Ch’an master Musang. A Korean monk in East Asian context. In R.E. Buswell (ed.) Currents

and Countercurrents: Korean Influences on East Asian Buddhist Traditions, Honolulu: University of

Hawai’i Press, 153-172.

Foulk, T. G. 1993. Myth, ritual, and monastic practice in Sung Ch’an Buddhism. In P.B. Ebrey and P.N.

Gregory (eds) Religion and Society in T ’ang and Sung China. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press,

147-208.

’Gos Lo tsa ba Gzhon nu dpal 1985. Deb ther sngon po. Chengdu成都: Si gron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2

vols.

Gruschke, A. 2001. The Cultural Monuments of Tibet’s Outer Provinces-Amdo, Volume 2. The Gansu and

Sichuan Part of Amdo. Bangkok: White Lotus.

Heller, A. 1997. Buddhist images and rock inscriptions from Eastern Tibet, VIIIth to Xth century, part IV. In E.

Steinkellner (ed.) Proceedings of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Graz

1995, Tibetan Studies, vol. I. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 387-403.


—— 2002. The paintings of Gra thang: history and iconography of an 11th century Tibetan temple. The Tibet

Journal XXVII 1&2: 37-70.

Horlemann, B. 2007. The relations of the eleventh-century Tsong kha tribal confederation to its neighbour

states on the silk road. In M.T. Kapstein and B. Dotson (eds.) Contributions to the Cultural History of Early

Tibet. Leiden: Brill, 79-101.

—— 2004. Aufstieg und Niedergang der Tsong-kha-Stammeskonföderation im 11./12. Jahrhundert an der

Schnittstelle von Tibet, China und Zentralasien [The Rise and Fall of the Tsong kha Tribal Confederation in

the 11th/12th Century at the Crossroad of Tibet, China and Central Asia]. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

—— 2002. A re-evaluation of the Tibetan conquest of eighth century Shazhou/Dunhuang. In H. Blezer (ed.)

Tibet, Past and Present. Tibetan Studies 1. Proceedings of the 9th Seminar of the International Association

for Tibetan Studies, Leiden 2000. Leiden: Brill, 49-66.

Jorgensen, J. 2005. Inventing Hui-neng, the Sixth Patriarch. Hagiography and Biography in Early Ch’an.

Leiden: Brill.

Kapstein, M.T. 2000. The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism. Conversion, Contestation, and Memory. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Lalou, M. 1939. Document tibétain sur l’expansion du Dhyāna chinois. Journal Asiatique CCXXXI, 505-21.

—— 1939-50. Inventaire des manuscrits tibétains de Touen-houang conserves à la Bibliothèque Nationale.

Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient, 3 vols.

Lde’u Jo sras 1987. Lde’u chos ’byung [I], Chos-’dzoms (ed.). Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang.

Li Fangmin 李芳民 2006. Tang Wudai fosi jikao 《唐五代佛寺輯考》. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan 商務

印書館.

Li Shunqing 李順慶 1998. Benjiao zai Gannan zangqu de chuanbo yu fazhan 《苯教在甘南藏區的傳播與發

展》. Xibei minzu yanjiu 《西北民族研究》 22, 143-56.

Littig, I.B. 2000. Bicultural Governance: An Institutional Analysis of the Former Qin Kingdom under the Rule

of Pu Jian (338-385). PhD thesis, Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Liu Changdong 劉長東 2005. Songdai fojiao zhengce lungao 《宋代佛教政策論稿》. Chengdu: Sichuan

chubanshe 四川出版社.

Ma Changshou 馬長壽 2006. Di yu Qiang 氐與羌Guilin桂林: Guangxi shifan daxue chubanshe 廣西師範大

學出版社.

Macdonald, A. and Imaeda, Y. (eds.) 1978. Choix de Documents Tibétains conservés à la Bibliothèque

Nationale. Vol. 1. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale.

Martin, D. 1997. Tibetan Histories. A Bibliography of Tibetan-Language Historical Works. London: Serindia.

Meinert, C. 2007. The conjunction of Chinese Chan and Tibetan Rdzogs chen thought: reflections on the

Tibetan Dunhuang Manuscripts IOL Tib J 689-1 and PT 699. In M.T. Kapstein and B. Dotson (eds.)

Contributions to the Cultural History of Early Tibet. Leiden: Brill, 239-301.

Meisezahl, R.O. 1985. Die große Geschichte des tibetischen Buddhismus nach alter Tradition. Sankt Augustin:


VGH Wissenschaftsverlag.

Minzhou zhi《岷州志》1968, comp. by Wang Yuanjiong 汪元絅 and Tian Ersui 田而穟 (1702). In Xinxiu

fangzhi congkan 《新修方志叢刊》, Xibei fangzhi zhi 34 《西北方志》志三十四. Taipeh: Taiwan

xuesheng shuju 臺灣學生書局.

Mkhas pa Lde’u 1987. Lde’u chos ’byung rgyas pa [II], Chab-spel Tshe-brtan Phun-tshogs (ed.). (Lhasa:) Bod

ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang.

Mochizuki Shinko 1954-1971. Mochizuki Bukkyō daijiten. 11 vols. Kyoto: Sekai seiten kanko kyokai.

Obata Hironobu 1976. Pelliot tib. n° 116 bunken ni mieru shozenji no kenkyū. Zenbunka kenkyūsho kiyō 8

(Aug. 1976), 1-31.

Pu Wencheng 蒲文成 (ed.) 1990. Gan Qing zangzu fojiao siyuan 《甘青藏族佛教寺院》. Xining西寧:

Qinghai renmin chubanshe 青海人民出版社.

Qinding huangyu xiyu tuzhi 《欽定皇輿西域圖志》 1965, comp. by Fu Heng 傅恒 (d. 1770) et al. 5 vols.

Taipeh: Wenyou shudian 文友書店.

Rong Xinjiang 榮新江 1999/2000. The nature of the Dunhuang cave library and the reasons for its sealing.

Cahiers d’Extreme Asie 11, 247-75. (Translation of his original Chinese article from 1996.)

—— 1996. Dunhuang cangjingdong de xingzhi ji qi fengbi yuanyin 《敦煌藏經洞的性質及其封閉原因》.

Dunhuang Tulufan yanjiu 2, 23-48.

Stoddard, H. 2004. “Rekindling the flame”, a note on royal patronage in tenth century Tibet. In Cüppers, C.

(ed.) The Relation between Religion and State (chos srid zung ’brel) in Traditional Tibet. Proceedings of a

Seminar held in Lumbini, Nepal, March 2000. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 49-104.

Tan Qixiang 譚其骧 (ed.) 1982-1987. The Historical Atlas of China/Zhongguo lishi ditu ji 《中國歷史地圖

集》. 8 vols. Beijing: Zhongguo ditu chubanshe 中國地圖出版社.

Tanaka, K.K./Robertson R.E. 1992. A Ch’an text from Tun-huang: implications for Ch’an influence on Tibetan

Buddhism. In S.D. Goodman and R.M. Davidson (eds.) Tibetan Buddhism: Reason and Revelation. Albany:

State University of New York Press, 57-78.

Tang Kaijian 湯開建and Liu Jianli 劉建麗1986. Songdai Tufan shiliaoji (yi) 《宋代吐蕃史料集 (一)》.

Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe 四川民族出版社.

Taozhou ting zhi 《洮州廳志》 1970, comp. by Zhang Yandu 張彥篤 et al. (1907). In Zhongguo fangzhi

congshu 中國方志叢書, Huabei difang 華北地方, vol. 349. Taipeh: Chengwen chubanshe 成文出版社.

Tsering Thar 2003. Bonpo monasteries and temples in Tibetan regions in Qinghai, Gansu and Sichuan. In S.G.

Karmay and Y. Nagano (eds) A Survey of Bonpo Monasteries and Temples in Tibet and the Himalaya. Bon

Studies 7. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.

Thomas, F.W. 1948. Nam. An Ancient Language of the Sino-Tibetan Borderland. London: Oxford University.

—— 1951. Tibetan Literary Texts and Documents concerning Chinese Turkestan, Part II. London: Luzac &

Company (for the Royal Asiatic Society).

——1955. Tibetan Literary Texts and Documents concerning Chinese Turkestan, Part III. London: Luzac &


Company (for the Royal Asiatic Society).

Uebach, H. 1987. Nel-pa Paṇḍitas Chronik Me-tog Phreṅ-ba. München: Kommission für Zentralasiatische

Studien, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

——1990. On Dharma-Colleges and Their Teachers in the Ninth Century Tibetan Empire. In P. Daffina (ed.)

Indo-Sino-Tibetica. Studi in onore di Luciano Petech. Rom: Bardi, 393-417.

Ueyma D. 1983. The study of Tibetan Ch’an manuscripts recovered from Tun-huang: a review of the field

and its prospects. In W. Lai and L. Lancaster (eds.) Early Ch’an in China and Tibet. Berkeley: Berkeley

Buddhist Studies Series, 327-49.

Ulving, T. 1997. Dictionary of Old and Middle Chinese. Bernhard Karlgren’s Grammata Serica Recensa

Alphabetically Arranged. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Van Spengen, W. 2006. Chone and Thewu: territoriality, local power, and political control on the southern

Gansu-Tibetan frontier; 1880-1940. In Ch. Klieger (ed.) Tibetan Borderlands, Proceedings of the tenth

Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Oxford 2003. Leiden: Brill, 209-230.

Wangdu, P. and Diemberger, H. 2000. Dba’ bzhed. The Royal Narrative Concerning the Bringing of the

Buddha’s Doctrine to Tibet. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Watson, C.E. 1978. The second propagation of Buddhism from Eastern Tibet according to the ‘Short

biography of dGongs-pa Rab-gsal’ by the Third Thukvan bLo-bzang Chos-kyi Nyi-ma (1737-1802).

Central Asiatic Journal XXII No. 3-4, 263-85.

Wu Songdi 吳松弟 (ed.) 2002. Liang Tangshu dilizhi huishi 《兩唐書地理志匯釋》. Hefei 合肥: Anhui

jiaoyu chubanshe 安徽教育出版社.

Xin Tangshu 《新唐書》 1975, comp. by Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 (1060). In Ershisi shi 二十四史, 10 vols.

Beijing: Zhonghua shuju 中華書局.

Yuanhe junxian zhi 《元和郡县志》 1987, comp. by Li Jifu 李吉甫 (813). In Siku quanshu 四库全書, vol.

468. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe 上海古籍出版社.

Zizhi tongjian 《資治通鑑》 1982, comp. by Sima Guang 司馬光 (1086). In Tongjian Tubo shiliao 通鑑吐蕃

史料. Lhasa: Xizang renmin chubanshe 西藏人民出版社.

Early Tibetan Toponyms. An Attempt to Identify 'Byi lig of PT 116 and PT 996

Documents

Transcript of Early Tibetan Toponyms. An Attempt to Identify 'Byi lig of PT 116 and PT 996