Category: Positions

Posted on

Jasagh Lama

Jasagh Da Lama-Jasagh Lama

The term jasagh or yasa originally designated the law code (sometimes referred to as “army order” or “army law”) developed among the Mongols under Chinggis Khan. In addition to laying out laws in general, the code was concerned with the distribution of power among tribal leaders, princes, etc and is described as having secured “secular” control as opposed to religious law (Togan, 149). In the Qing the term jasagh by itself came to refer to certain of the princes within a Mongol banner. These princes were recognized as the descendents of Chinggis Khan.

The terms jasagh dalama (grand prince of the church) and jasagh lama (prince of the church) evolved from the Mongol terms mentioned above. They were created by the Qing court and conferred on the head monks of imperial monasteries, augmenting traditional Tibetan monastic titles such as khanpo (which lack the secular tone of “prince”). Beginning in the Kangxi period, the Jasagh titles combined religious and secular power, drawing on models of combined religious-secular roles from the Ming and the Yuan. Introduced into the Tibetan/Mongolian Buddhist monastic context (in which a Tibetan lama would typically be placed in charge of a community of Mongolian monks) the titles also served to draw together Tibetan and Mongol concepts of authority. (So the titles were simultaneously secular and religious, and resonated strongly with Tibetans and Mongolians.)

Under the Qing, seven large monasteries run by jasagh lamas were designated banner units. They were distinct from secular banners. As the head of such a banner monastery, the jasagh lama or jasagh dalama had administrative and judicial control. In cases where a reincarnated lama presided over more than 800 people, a Jasagh lama was appointed to take charge of the secular aspects of the banner. (Rawski, 254). The jasagh lamas were especially significant in their roles at Wutaishan and at the imperial monastery Yonghegong in Beijing. Starting in the mid-seventeenth century, with the Fifth Dalai Lama’s visit to Beijing, these titles were conferred on Tibetans or Mongolians by Tibetan officials in Lhasa. The designated monks were often sent from Lhasa and served as important liaisons between the Dalai Lama’s government and the court. In addition to overseeing imperial monasteries, jasagh lamas also taught Tibetan language and Buddhism to the imperial families.

Sources:
Rawski, Evelyn. The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions
Togan, Isenbike. Flexibility and Limitation in Steppe Formations: the Kerait Khanate and Chinggis Khan.
Tuttle, Gray. Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China
Tuttle, Gray. “Tibetan Buddhist Intermediaries between the Qing Court and the Tibetan Government.” Presented at AAS Annual Meeting, China and Inner Asia Session 37.

Posted on

Guoshi/State Preceptor

Guoshi (国师)

This is the title that kings and emperors gave to the great monks and lamas. The first Guoshi of the history was in China; in 550, the king of Beiqi (北齐) bestowed the title to a great lama, Fachang (法常). Afterward, while Chinese dynasties had relationships with Tibet in Yuan, Ming and Qing era China, they bestowed the titles of “Fawang (法王)”， “Wang (王)”， “Daguoshi (大国师)”， “Guoshi (国师)”, and so on.

“Guoshi” can be interpreted as “State Preceptor.” The most influential and popular “Guoshi” in Yuan period was P’hags pa, and Bsod names bkra shis had been bestowed with a title of “Guoshi” by the Ming Court in Ming dynasty. Some Chinese historians argue that Chinese empires’ bestowing these titles to the Tibetan lamas represents Chinese empires’ having power over Tibet from the Yuan dynasties. However, according to Hangyu Kim’s “Sino-Tibetan Historical Relationship” (Seoul, 2003), it can be also viewed as cultural exchange, rather than vertical power structure of politics or diplomacy.


Sources:

Hangyu Kim, “Sino-Tibetan Historical Relationship” (Seoul, 2003)

user-1541796064

Posted on

Chanshi

Chanshi 禪師

The title chanshi (禪師) appeared in different contexts during the Ming. In one documented case, the Chinese monk Fudeng (or Miaofeng, 1540-1613), a master builder and renowned monk who enjoyed the patronage of Empress Dowager Li for thirty years during the Wanli (萬曆) reign period, was given the title Huguo chanshi (Protection of the Dynasty Chan Master). He received this title, as well as the position of abbot, after completing the rebuilding of Xiantong monastery (now renamed Da huguo shengguang yongming) at Wutaishan.

In the context of the Ming court’s relations with Tibetans, however, the title chanshi was imbued with additional meaning and significance. Lamas from Honghua temple (弘化寺) in Qinghai were granted the title Puying chanshi (普應禪師) and played a significant role in the military defense of the Ming border with Mongolia. Located on the very fringes of the Ming borderlands, Honghua si played a dual role as a temple and also a fortress with a military garrison and beacon tower serving the Ming empire. The Puying chanshi sent tribute to the Ming court and maintained frequent relations between his Dge lugs pa temple, where Shakya Yeshe’s reliquary stupa resided, and the imperial center.

The founder of Honghua si, Zhang Xingjizangbu (張星吉藏卜, Tib. Seng ge bzang po), was granted the titles of guoshi (國師) and chanshi and the right to pass them down to his successive tuyi (徒裔). The exact meaning of “tuyi” remains unclear. However, another source indicates that at Maying si (馬營寺), a branch monastery near to Honghua si whose name is often confused with the latter, the title chanshi was passed down to the son of a brother. Maying si was associated with the Lingzang (靈藏) tribe, and a Lingzhan jiemu (領占節木, Tib. Rin chen rtse mo) was one of the first recipients of the Puying chanshi title. This type of kinship succession system was unusual for the Dge lugs pa, who are most often linked with succession from master to disciple or by transmigration. In the case of Honghua si, this kinship succession system gave the Buddhist temple an extended role as a politically powerful organization run by a local hereditary tribal leader. Indeed, the Xunhuating zhi (循化廳志) explicitly states that the Tibetan officials at Maying si, granted hereditary chanshi titles by letter of imperial authorization, held authority over local tribal people in addition to the monks in their monasteries. When imperial authorization was revoked in 1727, however, the heads of these temples were demoted to the title Dougang (都綱) and afterwards are said to have controlled only their monasteries, not the local populace.


Sources:

Tomoko Otasaka. 1994. A Study of the Hong-hua-si Temple. Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko. 52: 69-101.
Marsha Weidner. 2001. Imperial engagement with Buddhist art and architecture: Ming variations on an old theme. In Cultural intersections in later Chinese Buddhism. Honolulu: Univesity of Hawai’i. pp. 136-139.

Entry by Stacey Van Vleet

Posted on

Dynastic Preceptor

Dynastic Preceptor: Guoshi (国师)

This is a title that kings and emperors gave to great monks and lamas. The first guoshi in history was in China; in 550, the king of Beiqi (北齐) bestowed the title to a great teacher, Fachang (法常). Afterwards, when China-based dynasties such as the Yuan, Ming and Qing had relationships with Tibet, they bestowed the titles of “Fawang (法王)”， “Wang (王)”， “Daguoshi (大国师)”， “Guoshi (国师)”, and so on. The most influential and popular guoshi in Mongol Empire was ‘Phags pa bla ma.

Posted on

Imperial Preceptor

Imperial Preceptor: di shi 帝師, Tib. ti shri

A government post created during the reign of the Mi nyag/Xixia emperor Renzong (r. 1139-1193), probably in the 1170s. The first known Imperial Preceptor was Boluo xiansheng 波囉顯勝, who may have been a Tibetan. In terms of his rank, his other title was the equivalent to that of an imperial prince. This tendency to treat high-ranking monks as the equals of royalty continued into the Qing dynasty. By the late 12th century, Tibetans appear to have served in this post. The Central Tibetan Gtsang po pa Dkon mchog seng ge and his student ‘Gro mgon Ti shri ras pa were probably the last Imperial Preceptors. The responsibilities of this post included first, serving as the emperor’s chaplain, teacher and consecrator and, more generally, teaching, writing, translating and editing. For instance, the Imperial Preceptor oversaw the Mi nyag revisions of the Tangut and Chinese Buddhist canons.

In the Yuan dynasty, this post was continued, but with an added responsibility of overseeing the political situation in Central Tibet. ‘Phags pa was a State Preceptor (guoshi) from 1260-1270, and then became the first Mongol Imperial Preceptor in 1270. They continued to have important religious roles at the court. ‘Phags pa in particular wrote a large number of texts for the benefit and training of the imperial family, especially Qubilai Khan’s chosen heir Jingim (who died before he could take power). To provide the imperial family with ready service, their official residence (Me tog ra ba) was within the precincts of the imperial palace.

However, their role was broader than merely serving the imperial family. The Imperial Preceptors had more political responsibilities (for Tibet) than they had in the Mi nyag dynastic period. For instance, they would issue decrees, under the emperor’s authority to both protect and command monasteries in Tibet. Moreover, they directed all Buddhist establishments in the Yuan empire and were charged with promoting Buddhism in the empire. They oversaw routine Buddhist ceremonies and special rituals upon the enthronement and funerals of the emperors. They held rituals and dedicated stupas to the protection of the state and its subjects, in general terms or in specific instances, such as to prevent flooding. During the preceptorship (1327-1329) of Kun dga’ legs pa’i ‘byung nas rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po, officials concerned about the expenses of Buddhist ceremonies successfully petitioned the emperor to abolish the Du gongde shi (central office in charge of Buddhist affairs). The elimination of this office temporarily reduced the power of the imperial preceptor, though the office was restored sometime between 1333-1358 when Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po was the Imperial Preceptor.

List of Imperial Preceptors in the Yuan Dynasty*
1270-1273 1) ‘Phags pa
1273-1279/1282 2) Rin chen rgyal mtshan (1235-1279/1282), ‘Phags pa’s younger step-brother, came to Beijing in 1269 with ‘Phags pa
1282-1286 3) Dharmapâla rakshîta (1268-1287), ‘Phags pa’s nephew
1286-1294 4) Ye shes rin chen (1248-1294), ‘Phags pa’s disciple
1294-1303 5) Grags pa ‘od zer (1246-1303), ‘Phags pa’s disciple
1304-1305 6) Rin chen rgyal mtshan (1258-1305), ‘Phags pa’s disciple
1305-1314 7) Sang rgyas dpal (1267-1314), Grags pa ‘od zer’s nephew
[c. 1312] Sga A gnyan Dam pa Kun dga’ dgrags (1230-1303), ‘Phags pa’s disciple, was posthumously declared Imperial Preceptor
1315-1327 8) Kun dga’ blo gros rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po (1299-1327), Sa skya ‘Khon family member
1322/1323-1325 9) Dbang phyugs rgyal mtshan (?-1325), concurrent and acting Imperial Preceptor, while Kun dga’ blo gros rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po was in Tibet
1327-1329 10) Kun dga’ legs pa’i ‘byung nas rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po (1308-1329), Sa skya family member
1329 11) Rin chen grags [bkra?] shis, also appointed as Tai situ (Great Minister of Education)
1333-1358 12) Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po (1310-1358), stepbrother of Kun dga’ blo gros rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po, Sa skya ‘Khon family member
1361-1362 13) Bsod names blo gros rgyal mtshan (1332-1362), grand-nephew of ‘Phags pa
c. 1368 14) Rnam rgyal dpal bzang po, Imperial Preceptor at end of Yuan rule of China; sent emissary to Ming Court in 1372
*Of these, only three (#9, 11, 14) do not have clear connection to ‘Phags pa as either related family members or direct disciples.

Sources:
Ruth Dunnel. The Hsia Origins of the Yüan Institution of Imperial Preceptor. Asia Major. Third Series, Vol. 5, part 1, 1992, pp. 85-111.
Elliot Sperling, Rtsa-mi lo-tsa-ba Sangs-rgyas Grags-pa and the Tangut background to early Mongol-Tibetan relations,” PIATS6 Oslo, 801-824 & “‘Lama to the King of Hsia’” The Journal of the Tibet Society, vol. 7, 1987, pp. 31-50.
Herbert Franke.1978. From tribal chieftain to universal emperor and god: the legitimation of the Yuan dynasty, Sitzungsberichte – Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Munchen: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Focus on pp. 52-79.
Rinchen trashi. “Tibetan Buddhism and the Yuan Royal Court.” Tibet Studies. 1-26.
Wang Yao and Chen Qingying. Xizang lishi wenhua cidian/ Bod kyi lo rgyus rig gnas tsig mdzod. Xizang renmin chubanshe/Zhejiang renmin chubanshe, 1998, pp. 66-67. Listing of imperial preceptors.
Luciano Petech. 1980. Sang-ko, a Tibetan statesman in Yüan China. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae 34:193-208.

Entry by Gray Tuttle 1/29/07