¹ “Mkhan po erte ni paN+Di tar grags pa'i spyod tshul brjod pa sgra ’dzin bcud len (Autobiography of Sumba Kanbo Yeshe Baljor)”, in Gsung ’bum (Collected Works), vol. 8, Sata-pitaka 221 (New Delhi, 1975), p. 28b.1-2 (“b” stands for verso; the numbers following the period are the line numbers); Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ’byor, PaN+Di ta sum pa ye shes dpal ’byor mchog gi spyod tshul brjod pa sgra ’dzin bcud len (Autobiography of Sumba Kanbo Yeshe Baljor), Mtsho sngon bod yig gna’ gzhung 3 (Beijing, 2001), p. 72. The latter is a modern reprint of the former. This modern reprint is prone to having typos and to leaving out entire lines and sections. However, the version of the xylograph that is readily accessible (via the Buddhist Digital Resource Center [previously Tibetan Buddhist Resource Center]) was produced using old blocks, resulting in pages that are difficult to read. Sumba Kanbo (T. Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ’byor) is one of the most prolific and influential lamas of eighteenth-century A mdo. Born to Oirat parents, he was invited to Dgon lung Monastery in the Xining River Valley and recognised as the rebirth of Sum pa / Sum b+ha Blo bzang bstan pa'i rgyal mtshan (ca. 1651-1702), an intimate disciple of the Second Lcang skya Ngag dbang blo bzang chos ldan (1642–1714). For more on Sumba Kanbo see Sullivan, Brenton, “The Manner in Which I Went to Worship Mañjuśrī's Realm, The Five-Peaked Mountain (Wutai), by Sumba Kanbo (1704–1788)”, Inner Asia 20, 1 (16 April 2018), pp. 64–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hanung Kim, “Renaissance Man from Amdo: The Life and Scholarship of the Eighteenth-Centry Amdo Scholar Sum pa Mkhan po Ye shes dpal 'byor (1704–1788)” (unpublished PhD, Harvard University, 2018). Rachael Griffiths (Oxford University) has recently completed a translation of the entirety of Sumba Kanbo's autobiography.

² The 11^th day of the first month of the second year of the Yongzheng reign.

³ T. Dgon lung byams pa gling.

⁴ T. A mdo. See note 18 below.

⁵ A brief note in the Deb ther rgya mtsho (Mdo smad chos ’byung) recalls how an important lama from Dpa’ ris gave extensive offerings to the “more than 2,400 monks” at Dgon lung. Brag dgon zhabs drung Dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas, Mdo smad chos ’byung [Deb ther rgya mtsho = Ocean Annals] (Lanzhou, 1982), p. 117.8. Schram, who may be relying upon Chinese sources, says that Dgon lung had 2,500 monks in the lead-up to the Lubsang-Danzin Rebellion. Schram, Louis M.J., The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Border, (ed.) Stuart, Charles Kevin (Xining, 2006), pp. 283, 323Google Scholar.

⁶ Sullivan, Brenton, “The Body of Skyid shod sprul sku: The Mid-Seventeenth Century Ties between Central Tibet, the Oirat Mongols, and Dgon Lung Monastery in Amdo”, Revue d'Etudes Tibétaines 52 (2019), pp. 294–327Google Scholar.

⁷ Naoto, Katō, “Lobjang Danjin's Rebellion of 1723: With a Focus on the Eve of the Rebellion”, Acta Asiatica 64 (1993), pp. 57–80Google Scholar.

⁸ Naoto, Katō, “Warrior Lamas: The Role of Lamas in Lobjang Danǰin's Uprising in Kokonor, 1723–1724”, Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 62 (2004), p. 34Google Scholar; Brenton Sullivan, “The Mother of All Monasteries: Gönlung Jampa Ling and the Rise of Mega Monasteries in Northeastern Tibet” (unpublished PhD, University of Virginia, 2013), pp. 330–331.

⁹ Katō Naoto, “Warrior Lamas”, p. 34; Nian Gengyao, Nian Gengyao Man Han zouzhe yi bian 年羹尧满汉奏折译编 (Collected and Translated Manchu and Chinese Memorials of Nian Gengyao), translated by Ji Yonghai, Li Pansheng, and Xie Zhining (Tianjin, 1995), pp. 71–72. My thanks to Wu Lan (Mount Holyoke) for bringing the latter source to my attention.

¹⁰ The 2001 reprint of Sumpa Khenpo's long autobiography has “Chos bzang rin po che”. The older, blockprint edition, on the other hand, has “Chus bzang rin po che”. Both refer to “Chu bzang rin po che”. Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ’byor, PaN+Di ta sum pa ye shes dpal ’byor mchog gi spyod tshul brjod pa sgra ’dzin bcud len, p. 93; “Mkhan po erte ni paN+Di tar grags pa'i spyod tshul brjod pa sgra ’dzin bcud len”, p. 443/36a.6 (the first page number indicates the location in the overall volume. It was provided by a later editor using Arabic numerals. The page number following the slash is internal to the biography itself and is written in Tibetan numerical script).

¹¹ Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ’byor, PaN+Di ta sum pa ye shes dpal ’byor mchog gi spyod tshul brjod pa sgra ’dzin bcud len, pp. 93–94. Thu'u bkwan, in his chronicle of Dgon lung, writes “g.yo sgyus yA ming grong tser gdan drangs nas me zhugs phul”, i.e. they “were tricked, having been invited to the yamen city and ‘burned alive’”.

¹² Nian, Nian Gengyao Man Han zou zhe yi bian, p. 70.

¹³ Ibid., pp. 71, 72.

¹⁴ Some sources distinguish another region to the east and northeast of Dpa’ ris known as Pho rod, which bordered on Alashaa, Inner Mongolia, and which roughly corresponds to today's Tianzhu County 天祝县, Gulang County, 古浪县, and Wuwei City 武威市.

¹⁵ Smith, E. Gene, Among Tibetan Texts: History and Literature of the Himalayan Plateau (Boston, 2001), p. 167Google Scholar.

¹⁶ According to Schram, as many as 300 monks were “beheaded, fled, or were killed”. The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Border, pp. 332–333. See also pp. 24, 317n259. Thu'u bkwan III says that “some thirty guilty monks …” were killed. “Bshad sgrub bstan pa'i byung gnas chos sde chen po dgon lung byams pa gling gi dkar chag dpyod ldan yid dbang ’gugs pa'i pho nya (The Monastic Chronicle of Gönlung Monastery)”, in Gsung ’bum (Collected Works), vol. 2 (Lhasa, 2000), p. 734/46b.4. Sku ’bum was then headed by the nephew of Lubsang-Danzin. Joachim Günter Karsten, “A Study on the Sku-’bum/T'a-Erh Ssu Monastery in Ching-Hai” (unpublished PhD, University of Auckland, 1996), p. 396; Schram, The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Border, p. 319.

¹⁷ ‘Kökenuur’ is the Mongolian name for the giant lake on the northeastern corner of the Tibetan Plateau, referred to in Chinese as Qinghai or Qinghai hu 青海湖 and in Tibetan as Mtsho sngon po. In Chinese-language sources from the Qing ‘Qinghai’ is regularly used to refer to those areas not subject to Qing administration. In this article I use ‘Kökenuur’ in this sense. In the early Qing, it referred to everything beyond the Jishi Mountains, which demarcated the western-most boundary of Shaanxi and later Gansu Provinces. After the Lubsang-Danzin Rebellion and the creation of the Qinghai amban ‘Qinghai’ came to designate those territories inhabited by the Khoshud and other ‘Mongol’ banners. It was administered directly by the amban and in theory separate from the officials of the civil administration of Gansu Province.

¹⁸ In contemporary parlance ‘A mdo’ is understood as one of the three cultural macro-regions of the Tibetan cultural sphere alongside Khams (‘Eastern Tibet’) and Dbus gtsang (‘Central Tibet’). The exact contours of A mdo are difficult to pinpoint and change over time. In general, however, they correspond to the Tibetan-speaking areas of today's Qinghai, Gansu, and northern Sichuan Provinces. Some Tibetan-language sources from the Qing period distinguish A mdo from the region of Kökenuur to the west and southwest of A mdo whereas others include Kökenuur within A mdo. In this article I use ‘Amdo’ to refer to this larger, cultural region. A mdo does not map neatly onto the geo-political regions designated by Gansu Province or Kökenuur. In addition, I here treat Mdo smad (‘Lower Do’) as synonymous with A mdo. See Tuttle, Gray, “Challenging Central Tibet's Dominance of History: The Oceanic Book, a Nineteenth-Century Politico-Religious Geographic History”, in Mapping the Modern in Tibet: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies (Königswinter 2006), (ed.) Tuttle, Gray (Andiast Switzerland, 2011), pp. 135–172Google Scholar; Oidtmann, Max, “Overlapping Empires: Religion, Politics, and Ethnicity in Nineteenth-Century Qinghai”, Late Imperial China 37, 2 (2016), pp. 70–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eveline Washul, “Rethinking the Places of ‘Mdo smad’ and ‘A mdo’: Literary Mappings of Northeastern Tibet” (Fifteenth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Paris, 2019).

¹⁹ Donald Sutton made this point in his conference paper, “Coexistence in the Sino-Tibetan Borderland: The Songpan Garrison and the Shar khog Monasteries” (Fifteenth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Paris, 2019). He also detailed the variety of relationships that developed between Tibetan leaders and communities with Ming garrisons around Songpan. His analysis has encouraged me to consider more the multiple ways in which the Ming and the Qing may have interacted with minorities, including Tibetan Buddhist lamas and monasteries, along the Gansu-Kökenuur frontier.

²⁰ On the tusi system see Herman, John E., “The Cant of Conquest: Tusi Offices and China's Political Incorporation of the Southwest Frontier”, in Empire at the Margins: Culture, Ethnicity, and Frontier in Early Modern China, (eds.) Crossley, Pamela Kyle, Siu, Helen F. and Sutton, Donald S. (Berkeley, 2005), pp. 135–170Google Scholar.

²¹ Otosaka Tomoko 乙坂智子, “A Study of Hong-hua-si Temple Regarding the Relationship between the dGe-lugs-pa and the Ming Dynasty”, Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 52 (1994); Schram, The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Border, pp. 149–159.

²² Compare the lists of lamas and monasteries who visited the early Qing court and exchanged their old seals in the following. Ikejiri Yōko, “Nai-hisho-in Mongoru-bun Tou-an ni miru 17 seiki amudo tōbu no geruku-ha sho jīn to shinchō (Early contacts between the Gelug monasteries in eastern Amdo and the Qing dynasty from the perspective of Čing ulus-un dotuγadu narin bicig-un yamun-u mongγul dangsa”, Chibetto Himaraya bunmei no rekishiteki tenkai (The Historical Development of Tibeto-Himalayan Civilization), 2018, p. 49; Kung Ling-wei 孔令偉, “Tao Min Zangchuan fo si ru Qing zhi xingshuai ji qi baihou de Menggu yinsu--yi ‘Neige daku dang’ yu ‘Lifanyuan Man-Mengwen tiben’ wei hexin 洮岷藏傳佛寺入清之興衰及其背後的蒙古因素--以《內閣大庫檔》與《理藩院滿蒙文題本》為核心 (The Development of Tibetan Monasteries in Amdo and the Mongolian Factors during Ming-Qing Dynasties: Study on Tibetan Monks in the Manchu-Mongolian Routine Memorials of Lifanyuan)”, Zhongyang yanyuan Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 中央研院歷史語言研究所集刊 86, 4 (February 2015), p. 880. Qutan si 瞿曇寺 was and is located south of the Xining River in what is now Ledu County. Other titles were awarded, too. For example, Hongshan Baoen si 紅山報恩寺, in Zhuanglang 莊浪 (east of present-day Tianzhu County Seat), was given the title of dugang 都綱 in the Ming and maintained it into the Qing. Kung Ling-wei 孔令偉, p. 863.

²³ The most important of these was the Zi na (Ch. Xina 西納) Nang so who was given the title of guoshi in the Ming, a title that his family maintained into the early Qing. Adjacent to the Zi na nang so were the guoshi of the Longben zu 龍奔族, the Jiaerji zu加兒即族, and the Sigemi zu思各迷族. There were also guoshi associated with the Longbu zu 隆卜族, which appears to have herded in the vicinity of Guide, and the Labuer zu 剌卜兒族 (location unclear). Schram, The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Border, p. 306; citing the Xining fu xin zhi. See Yingju, Yang, Xining fu xin zhi 西宁府新志 (New Gazetteer of Xining Prefecture) (Xining, 1988), pp. 472–478Google Scholar.

²⁴ ‘Hehuang’ is a compound of ‘Huang he’ 黃河 (the Yellow River) and ‘Huang shui’ 湟水 (the Xining River). A more restricted understanding of Hehuang is thus the watersheds of these two rivers and the land between them. Here, however, I follow other scholars in including the watershed of the Tao River as well.

²⁵ Gansu Province was carved out of the Ming and early Qing's Shaanxi Province in 1663 when a provincial judge was appointed for the area. Guy, R. Kent, Qing Governors and Their Provinces: The Evolution of Territorial Administration in China, 1644–1796 (Seattle, 2010), p. 401, n101Google Scholar. However, the province appears to have received the name ‘Gansu’ in 1666.

²⁶ Kung Ling-wei 孔令偉, “Tao Min Zangchuan fo si ru Qing zhi xingshuai ji qi baihou de Menggu yinsu”, pp. 863, 874; Kung, Ling-wei, “Transformation of Qing's Geopolitics: Power Transitions between Tibetan Buddhism Monasteries in Amdo, 1644–1795”, Revue d'Etudes Tibétaines 45 (April 2018), pp. 125–132Google Scholar.

²⁷ Kung, “Transformation of Qing's Geopolitics”, pp. 129–130.

²⁸ Kung has called this shift the “Mongolian factor” in the frontier policy of the Qing. In particular, Kung argues that certain Khoshud nobles maintained bases along the fertile, strategic grasslands north of Xining and the Qilian Mountains 祁連山 (Siratala (Ch. Dacaotan 大草潭) and Hongshui bao 洪水堡), which the Qing wished to control for its own interests.

²⁹ Sullivan, “The Body of Skyid shod sprul sku”.

³⁰ T. el chi.

³¹ T. phog.

³² Sullivan, “The Body of Skyid shod spul sku”; Thu'u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma, “Dgon lung gi dkar chag”, p. 779/69a.6.

³³ T. Dge lugs.

³⁴ Sullivan, “Mother of All Monasteries”, Chapter 3. Brenton Sullivan, “Convincing the Mongols to Join Mañjuśrī's Realm: The Diplomacy of the Second Changkya Ngawang Lozang Chöden (1642–1714)”, article manuscript under review.

³⁵ Ibid.

³⁶ Sullivan, “Mother of All Monasteries”, pp. 226–227; Schram, The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Border, pp. 326–327n299.

³⁷ Oidtmann, Max, “A ‘Dog-East-Dog’ World: Qing Jurispractices and the Legal Inscription of Piety in Amdo”, Extrême-Orient, Extrême-Occident 40 (2016), p. 176Google Scholar.

³⁸ Sullivan, “Mother of All Monasteries”, pp. 350n1590, 369n1659; Kung Ling-wei 孔令偉, “Tao Min Zangchuan fo si ru Qing zhi xingshuai ji qi baihou de Menggu yinsu”, pp. 875–876; Kung, “Transformation of Qing's Geopolitics”, pp. 127–128, 134.

³⁹ Kung Ling-wei 孔令偉, “Tao Min Zangchuan fo si ru Qing zhi xingshuai ji qi baihou de Menggu yinsu", pp. 861–862. Kung writes, “the relationship between the Qing emperor and the lamas of Tao and Min tended to belong to the category of lord and vassal and were not the so-called pure ‘priest-patron’ (mchod yon) relationship” (p. 862). Similarly, Max Oidtmann has written with regard to the Xunhua sub-prefect's relations with surrounding Tibetans and Mongols, “in dealings with the reincarnate monks of the region, I have located no document in which the Xunhua magistrate referred to himself as a patron or disciple”. Max Gordon Oidtmann, “Between Patron and Priest: Amdo Tibet under Qing Rule, 1792–1911” (unpublished PhD, Harvard University, 2014), p. 431.

⁴⁰ See Li Wenjun 李文君, “Mingdai Xihai Mengu shouling Buerhai shiji kaobian 明代西海蒙古首领卜儿孩事迹考辨 (An Analysis of the Ming Dyansty Ruler of the Xihai Mongols Buerhai)”, Neimenggu shehui kexue 内蒙古社会科学, n.d., http://www.xjass.com/ls/content/2010-12/12/content_180300.htm (accessed 16 January 2013).

⁴¹ Yang Yingju, Xining fu xin zhi, pp. 816–817 (juan 卷 31).

⁴² With the important exception of the Mongol Prince of Henan, on which see Nietupski, Paul, Labrang Monastery: A Tibetan Buddhist Community On The Inner Asian Borderlands, 1709–1958 (Lanham, MD, 2011), pp. 120–121Google Scholar; Diemberger, Hildegard, “Tashi Tsering: The Last Mongol Queen of ‘Sogpo’ (Henan)”, Inner Asia 4 (2002), pp. 197–224Google Scholar.

⁴³ Instead it became a staging ground for Qing military engagements farther away in Xinjiang and in Central Tibet. Petech, Luciano, “Notes on Tibetan History of the 18th Century”, T'oung Pao 52, 4/5 (1966), p. 289CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁴ Wesley Byron Chaney, “Land, Trade, and the Law on the Sino-Tibetan Border, 1723–1911” (unpublished PhD, Stanford University, 2016), p. 51.

⁴⁵ The year 1739 appears to have been a bad year. Yang Yingju, Xining fu xin zhi, p. 835 (juan 32); also, p. 818 (juan 31) and p. 840 (juan 32); Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ’byor, PaN+Di ta sum pa ye shes dpal ’byor mchog gi spyod tshul brjod pa sgra ’dzin bcud len, p. 215; also, pp. 194, 275, 565, passim. Perdue writes, “during at least nine out of the thirty harvest seasons for which we have data [for Gansu in the eighteenth century], the figure for the average provincial harvest was below 7 [i.e., below adequate for subsistence], indicating that significant regions faced disaster. Even in the most abundant years, certain counties always needed relief supplies”. Perdue, China Marches West, p. 361.

⁴⁶ See, for instance, Yang Yingju, Xining fu xin zhi, pp. 838–839 (juan 32), 531 (juan 20).

⁴⁷ Schram, The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Border, pp. 163–164.

⁴⁸ Yang Yingju, Xining fu xin zhi, pp. 817–818 (juan 31).

⁴⁹ Ibid., pp. 818–819 (juan 31).

⁵⁰ T. Lcang skya Rol pa'i rdo rje.

⁵¹ Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ’byor, PaN+Di ta sum pa ye shes dpal 'byor mchog gi spyod tshul brjod pa sgra ’dzin bcud len, pp. 148–149.

⁵² Ch. “shanmen” 山門. The Xining fu xin zhi has shankai 山開, which is a typo. Yang Yingju, Xining fu xin zhi, p. 845 (juan 32).

⁵³ The Tibetan translates this as “chos ’dul khrim sngar ltar bcos,” i.e. “the dharma['s] Vinaya rules are to be made as before”.

⁵⁴ Yongzheng Emperor 雍正皇帝, “Shizong Xian Huangdi yuzhi wenji 世宗憲皇帝御製文集 (Collected Writings of Emperor Shizong, Xian)”, in Siku Quanshu (Digital Wenyuange Edition) 文淵閣四庫全書電子版 (Dizhi wenhua chuban youxian gongsi, 2007), juan 60, pp. 12b-13a. For the Tibetan, see Chab ’gag rta mgrin, Bod yig rdo ring zhib ’jug: Zangwen beiwen yanjiu 藏文碑文研究 (Research on Tibetan-language Steles) (Lhasa, 2012), pp. 297–298. I have never seen the original stele, nor have I ever seen the Tibetan printed in a pre-modern source. The Tibetan transliteration of Youning si is “Yig nyin zi”. Dungkar Lozang Trinlé also gives the Tibetan transliteration of the new name bestowed upon Dgon lung, although, oddly, he spells it differently: Dbyig gnyen dgon. Dung dkar tshig mdzod chen mo (Beijing, 2002), pp. 216b–17.

⁵⁵ T. Mdo smad. Here it is more or less synonymous with ‘A mdo’.

⁵⁶ Thu'u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma, Lcang skya rol pa'i rdo rje rnam thar (Biography of Changkya Rolpé Dorjé) (Lanzhou, 1989), p. 312. Emphasis added. Tuguan Luosangquejienima 土观⋅洛桑却吉尼玛 (Thu'u bkwan Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma), Zhangjia guoshi Ruobiduoji zhuan 章嘉国师若必多吉传 (Biography of the National Preceptor Changkya Rölpé Dorjé), (translated) Chen Qingying 陈庆英 and Ma Lianlong 马连龙 (Beijing, 2007), p. 139. Gene Smith mistranslates this crucial term--tsi pen--as “imperial authority”. Among Tibetan Texts, pp. 139–140.

⁵⁷ Daniel B. Stevenson, “Sanctioned and Forbidden Zones: Monastery Registration, Imperial Plaques, and the Hereditary and Public Abbacy Systems”, in Serving the Buddhas in Song Dynasty China: Monastic Life and Culture, 960–1279 ce, forthcoming. My thanks to Stevenson for sharing with me an early draft of this important essay.

⁵⁸ Stevenson, “Sanctioned and Forbidden Zones", p. 3; Walsh, Michael J., Sacred Economies: Buddhist Monasticism & Territoriality in Medieval China, The Sheng Yen Series in Chinese Buddhist Studies (New York, 2010), pp. 78–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Timothy Brook writes that the institutionalisation of ‘universal registers’ for clergy (zhouzhi wence周治文冊) was an innovation of the Ming Hongwu Emperor. “At the Margin of Public Authority: The Ming State and Buddhism”, in Culture and State in Chinese Society: Conventions, Accomodations, and Critiques, (eds.) Theodore Huters, R. Bin Wong and Pauline Yu (Stanford, CA, 1997), pp. 164–165. See also Twitchett, Denis Crispin, “Monastic Estates in T'ang China”, Asia Major 5, 2 (1956), p. 130Google Scholar; Ch'en, Kenneth, “Economic Background of the Hui-Ch'ang Suppression of Buddhism”, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 19, 1–2 (1956), pp. 97–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁹ Stevenson, “Sanctioned and Forbidden Zones”, pp. 3–4.

⁶⁰ Ibid., pp. 19–20; Schlütter, Morten, “Vinaya Monasteries, Public Abbacies, and State Control of Buddhism under the Northern Song (960–1127)”, in Going Forth: Visions of Buddhist Vinaya: Essays Presented in Honor of Professor Stanley Weinstein, (ed.) Bodiford, William M. (Honolulu, 2005), p. 139Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Brook, “At the Margin of Public Authority”, pp. 168–169.

⁶² Grand Secretariat Archives of the Institute of History and Philology at Academia Sinica. Document number 038107-001. Cited in Kung Ling-wei 孔令偉, “Tao Min Zangchuan fo si ru Qing zhi xingshuai ji qi baihou de Menggu yinsu”, p. 858n11. See also p. 864n45.

⁶³ Brook, “At the Margin of Public Authority”, p. 180.

⁶⁴ Goossaert also points out the frequent reversals made to Qing policy that are reflected in the Da Qing huidian shili. Goossaert, Vincent, “Counting the Monks. The 1736–1739 Census of the Chinese Clergy”, Late Imperial China 21, 2 (2000), p. 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁵ Goossaert does not see any evidence that this census, enacted at the end of the Yongzheng reign and the beginning of the Qianlong one, affected Tibetan Buddhists in any way. Goossaert, “Counting the Monks", p. 46. However, there apparently was a census of Tibetan Buddhists done at the same time (i.e. in 1737). The Sheng wu ji, originally written in 1842, says that the Lifan yuan carried out a census in Qianlong 2 (1737). Wei Yuan 魏源 (1794–1857), Sheng wu ji 聖武記 (Beijing, 1984), p. 226. And Shi Shouyi's Lama suyuan剌麻溯源of circa 1890, gives the same census figures as the Sheng wu ji: 302,500 for Dbus and 13,700 for Gtsang. http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/X88n1668_001 (accessed June 2018). These are the figures cited by such scholars as Rockhill and Stein: Rockhill, William Woodville, “Tibet. Geographical, Ethnographical, and Historical Sketch, Derived from Chinese Sources”, The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 23, 1–2 (1891), pp. 13–14Google Scholar; Stein, R. A., La civilisation tibétaine (Paris, 1962), p. 111Google Scholar; Stein, R. A., Tibetan Civilization, (translation) Driver, J. E. Stapleton (Stanford, CA, 1972), pp. 139–140Google Scholar. Dpal bzang bdang bdus at the Tibetan Academey of Social Sciences has suggested to me that the Lifanyuan statistics would have been provided by the Tibetan bka’ shag (the Tibetan government's council of ministers). Personal communication, October 2012.

⁶⁶ Brag dgon zhabs drung Brag dgon zhabs drung Dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas, Mdo smad chos ’byung, 103.18; Xiangyun Wang, “Tibetan Buddhism at the Court of Qing: The Life and Work of lCang-skya Rol-pa'i-rdo-rje (1717–1786)” (unpublished PhD., Harvard University, 1995), p. 178. Grwa tshang Monastery and probably several of the other monasteries implicated in the rebellion were also issued plaques. Pu Wencheng 蒲文成, Gan Qing Zangchuan fojiao siyuan 甘青藏传佛教寺院 (Xining, 1990), p. 158.

⁶⁷ Yang Yingju, Xining fu xin zhi, p. 846.

⁶⁸ Stevenson, “Sanctioned and Forbidden Zones”, pp. 17–28. My discussion of Ten Directions Monasteries that follows derives from Stevenson's overview unless otherwise noted.

⁶⁹ See also Schlütter, “Vinaya Monasteries”.

⁷⁰ Stevenson, “Sanctioned and Forbidden Zones”, p. 19.

⁷¹ Rgyal sras ’Jigs med ye shes grags pa, “Dgon lung byams pa gling gi mtshon dgon ma lag dang bcas pa'i bca’ khrims phan bde'i ’dab rgya bzhad ba'i snang byed (Gönlung Jampa Ling: The Charter of the Mother Monastery and Its Branches: The Sun That Brings Forth the Lotus Blooms of Benefit and Happiness)”, in Gsung ’bum (Collected Works), vol. ’a (24) (n.p. [Lhasa], 1737) (this print is held at the library of the Research Institute for Ethnology and Anthropology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, on the campus of Minzu University, Beijing), p. 28b.2-4.

⁷² T. spyi ba.

⁷³ T. sgar sgom sde. “Sgar” is short for “sgar ba”, “encampment”. Here it refers to a type of fixed, local, monastic estate overseen in succession by a lama and his chosen apprentice, often a nephew. See Schram, The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Border, pp. 308–309; Karsten, “A Study on the Sku-’bum/T'a-Erh Ssu Monastery in Ching-Hai”, p. 345n7.

⁷⁴ T. dge 'dun bgres ba rnams. At Dgon lung, at least, this appears to have been a select group of six or seven elders.

⁷⁵ T. Gung thang Dkon mchog bstan pa'i sgron me.

⁷⁶ See Zhiguanba•Gongquehudanbaraoji, Anduo zhengjiao shi 安多政教史 (Political and Religious History of Amdo; Mdo smad chos ’byung), (translation) Wu Jun, Mao Jizu and Ma Shilin, Gansu sheng shaoshu minzu guji congshu (Lanzhou, 1989), p. 72.

⁷⁷ Vasubandhu, L'Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu, (translation) Louis de La Vallée Poussin, 2nd edition (Bruxelles, 1971), Par (“Tome”) I, Chapter 1, p. 12 (ch. 1, verses 7 c-d).

⁷⁸ This is Asaṅga's Yogācārabhūmi-bhūmivastu. The relevant line continues, “having no conceptions, one has encountered death”. The implication in this context is that talk, “conceptions”, gossip, and so on are the stuff of suffering and samsara. Zhu chen Tshul khrims rin chen (ed.), Bstan ’gyur (Derge Tanjur (Delhi, 1982), vol. tshi, pp. 442/221b.1-2. This corresponds to Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭, Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新修大藏經 (Tokyo, 1924), no. 1579, p. 370c.

⁷⁹ Brag dgon zhabs drung Dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas, Mdo smad chos ’byung, p. 68.11-18.

⁸⁰ However, sometimes their wishes were not heeded. For instance, the first abbot in the post-Lubsang-Danzin period, Sum pa chos rje phun tshogs rnam rgyal (r. 1729-34), was chosen by the former steward of Lcang skya's estate, Ba yan nang so, against the wishes of Thu'u bkwan II and, allegedly, Lcang skya himself. Thu'u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma, “Dgon lung gi dkar chag”, p. 738/48b.4. Cited in Smith, Among Tibetan Texts, p. 168. Note that Lcang skya III was still only a child at this time, and so Ba yan may have been spiting only Thu'u bkwan and not his own charge. On Bayen see Marina Illich, “Selections from the Life of a Tibetan Buddhist Polymath: Chankya Rolpai Dorje (Lcang Skya Rol Pa'i Rdo Rje), 1717–1786” (unpublished PhD, Columbia University, 2006), p. 423.

⁸¹ The position of governor of Gansu was eliminated in 1764, after which the governor-general oversaw administration of the province. Guy, Qing Governors and Their Provinces, p. 216.

⁸² The jarghuchi was either a representative of the amban's office or perhaps of the Lifanyuan 理藩院. Luciano Petech, China and Tibet in the Early 18th Century (Leiden, 1972), pp. 256–257.

⁸³ Thu'u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma, Lcang skya rol pa'i rdo rje rnam thar, pp. 318–319.

⁸⁴ Cf. Sperling, Elliot, “Awe and Submission: A Tibetan Aristocrat at the Court of Qianlong”, The International History Review 20, 2 (1998), p. 331CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁵ Yi Tai 伊泰 and Zhang Yanyu 張延玉, (eds.), Da Qing huidian (Yongzheng chao) 大清會典（雍正朝）(Collected Statutes of the Yongzheng Reign), Jindai Zhongguo shiliao congkan san bian: di 77–79 ji 761–790 (Taibei xian Yonghe shi, 1995), juan 3, vol. 1 (761), pp. 194–203. See also J. J. M. (Jan Jakob Maria) de Groot, Sectarianism and Religious Persecution in China: A Page in the History of Religions (Taipei, 1970), pp. 103–104; Bai Wengu 白文固, “Ming Qing de Fanseng senggangsi shulüe 明清的番僧僧纲司述略 (A Sketch of the Tibetan Buddhist Offices of Clerical Supervision in the Ming and Qing Dynasties)”, Zhongguo Zangxue 1 (1992), p. 134.

⁸⁶ Brook, “At the Margin of Public Authority”, p. 166, citing a sixteenth-century county gazetteer from Zhejiang.

⁸⁷ Ibid.

⁸⁸ Ibid., pp 171–172.

⁸⁹ Ge Yinliang 葛寅亮, (ed.), Jinling fancha zhi 金陵梵剎志 (The Jinling Gazetteer of Buddhist Monasteries) (Jinshan Hongtian si 金山江天寺, 1936), juan 2, p. 13b. Cited in Cai Rang 才让, “Ming Hongwu dui Zangchuan fojiao de zhengce ji qi xiangguan shishi kaoshu 明洪武对藏传佛教的政策及其相关史实考述 (An Investigation of the Ming Hongwu Reign Policies Toward Tibetan Buddhism and Their Related Historical Events)”, Xizang yanjiu 西藏研究, 2 (91) (May 2004), p. 44a; Bai Wengu 白文固, “Ming Qing de Fanseng senggangsi shulüe 明清的番僧僧纲司述略 (A Sketch of the Tibetan Buddhist Offices of Clerical Supervision in the Ming and Qing Dynasties)”, p. 134.

⁹⁰ T. Sangs rgyas bkra shis. He was known in Chinese as Sanla 三剌 among other names. See Sperling, Elliot, “Notes on the Early History of Gro-Tshang Rdo-Rje-’chang and Its Relations with the Ming Court”, Lungta 14 (2001), pp. 77–87Google Scholar.

⁹¹ Elsewhere it is said that the Dafo si 大佛寺 in Xining housed the Senggang si. Schram, The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Border, p. 571; Jian, Yang 杨健, Qing wangchao fojiao shiwu guanli 清王朝佛教事务管理 (Beijing, 2008), p. 466Google Scholar.

⁹² This would seem to be analogous to the dugang of a Senggang si. Yang Jian 杨健, Qing wangchao fojiao shiwu guanli, pp. 450–451.

⁹³ It appears that there were cases of father to son inheritance of temples and accompanying Ming titles, too. Schram, The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Border, p. 309; Kung, “Transformation of Qing's Geopolitics”, p. 127. Schram is here talking about “karwa” (T. sgar ba). He seems to be incorrect in stating that karwa was a title granted by the Ming Court.

⁹⁴ Yang Jian 杨健, Qing wangchao fojiao shiwu guanli, pp. 472–473.

⁹⁵ Yang Yingju, Xining fu xin zhi, juan 15, p. 386.

⁹⁶ Aixinjueluo Hongli, “Qinding Da Qing huidian zeli 欽定大清會典則例 (Imperially Commissioned Collected Statutes and Substatutes of the Great Qing)”, in Siku quanshu (Digital Wenyuange Edition) (Dizhi wenhua chuban youxian gongsi, 1789), juan 142–144, pp. 96b.1–97b.6; Qingdai gebuyuan zeli: Qinding lifanyuan zeli 清代各部院則例: 欽定理藩院則例 (Regulations of Each Board and Court of the Qing Dynasty: The Imperially Sanctioned Regulations of the Court of Colonial Affairs), vol. 2 (Hong Kong, 2004), 700 / juan 56, p. 7; Ji Yuanyuan 季垣垣, (ed.), Qianlong chao neifu chaoben Lifan yuan zeli 乾隆朝内府抄本《理藩院则例》 (Imperial Household Department of the Qianlong Reign Edition of the Regulations of the Court of Colonial Affairs) (Beijing, 2006), pp. 136–137.

⁹⁷ Sullivan, “Mother of All Monasteries”, p. 350; Qingdai gebuyuan zeli: Qinding lifanyuan zeli, 2:700 (juan 56, 7). Gong Jinghan 龔景瀚 and Li Benyuan 李本源, “Xunhua ting zhi 循化廳志 (Gazetteer of Xunhua Subprefecture)”, in Zhongguo fangzhi ku 中國方志庫 (Digital Treasury of Chinese Gazetteers) (Airusheng 愛如生, 1844), juan 5, “tusi”. Yang Jian 杨健, Qing wangchao fojiao shiwu guanli, pp. 445–446; Kung Ling-wei 孔令偉, “Tao Min Zangchuan fo si ru Qing zhi xingshuai ji qi baihou de Menggu yinsu”, pp. 877–878.

⁹⁸ Kung Ling-wei 孔令偉, “Tao Min Zangchuan fo si ru Qing zhi xingshuai ji qi baihou de Menggu yinsu”, p. 862.

⁹⁹ Yi Tai 伊泰 and Zhang Yanyu 張延玉, Yongzheng huidian, juan 142, p. 95. On the Lifanyuan see Ning Chia, “The Li-Fan Yuan in the Early Ch'ing Dynasty” (unpublished PhD, The Johns Hopkins University, 1992).

¹⁰⁰ T. Mdzo mo mkhar.

¹⁰¹ T. Zi na bsam ’grub gling. In present-day Huangzhong County, 26 kilometres north of the county seat, and a few kilometres north of the Xining River.

¹⁰² T. Grwa tshang dgon. Located in Huangyuan County, approximately 15 kilometres west-northwest of the county seat.

¹⁰³ This is said to be located near the Zi na nang so's monastery. Yuanjue si is also said to be in Jingyang chuan, which may be in present-day Datong County. Yang Yingju, Xining fu xin zhi, p. 376 (juan 15) and p. 487 (juan 19).

¹⁰⁴ T. Bya khyung.

¹⁰⁵ T. Sems nyid.

¹⁰⁶ T. Gro tshang lha khang gau tam sde.

¹⁰⁷ Also written as 弘通寺, this was located south of Nianbai. Li Tianxiang 李天祥 and Jing Chaode 景朝德, (eds.), “Nianbai suo zhi 碾伯所志”, in Qinghai difang jiuzhi wuzhong 青海地方旧志五种 (1989), p. 102.

¹⁰⁸ Unidentified. This may be associated with the Yangerguan “clan” (zu), which is said to be in Bayanrong County 巴燕戎縣, 290 li southeast of Xining. Yang Yingju, Xining fu xin zhi, p. 485 (juan 19).

¹⁰⁹ T. ’Phags pa zi; also known as Bkra shis chos ’khor gling. Located in present-day Minhe County 民和縣. Pu Wencheng 蒲文成, Gan Qing Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, pp. 26–27.

¹¹⁰ This appears to be an alternate spelling for Guanghui Monastery 廣惠寺, i.e. Gser khog.

¹¹¹ Aixinjueluo Hongli, “Qinding Da Qing huidian zeli”, pp. 96b.1–97b.6.

¹¹² Oidtmann, “Between Patron and Priest”, p. 405. Guide was not made into a subprefecture until 1791. Oidtmann, “Overlapping Empires”, p. 48. It may be that “Guide Subprefecture" was added to this imperial decree by the compilers of the Qinding Da Qing huidian zeli.

¹¹³ The Zi na nang so had established ties with the Ming Dynasty that persited into the Qing. See Ban Shinichiro, “Arutan hān ikō no Mongoru no amudo shinshutsu to amudo Chibetto hito tsuchi tsukasa no geruku-ha e no sekkin (The Mongolian Advance into Amdo from the Reign of Altan Qaγan and the Rapprochement between Local Amdo Tibetan Native Officials and the Dalai Lama's Gelukpa Sect: The Case of the Lords of Zina in Xining)”, Toyo Gakuho (Journal of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko) 97, 4 (March 2016), pp. 1–25.

¹¹⁴ Kung has shown that the Qing also gradually eliminated the tribute missions emanating from the older, entitled lamas from Minzhou. Kung Ling-wei 孔令偉, “Tao Min Zangchuan fo si ru Qing zhi xingshuai ji qi baihou de Menggu yinsu”, p. 861.

¹¹⁵ Goossaert, “Counting the Monks”, p. 42.

¹¹⁶ Yi Tai 伊泰 and Zhang Yanyu 張延玉, Yongzheng huidian, vols. 774, pt.1, juan 102, p. 11a (6785).

¹¹⁷ Yang Yingju, Xining fu xin zhi, p. 386 (juan 15).

¹¹⁸ Isabelle Charleux, Temples et monastères de Mongolie-Intérieure, Archéologie et histoire de l'art 23 (Paris, 2006). Goossaert, “Counting the Monks”, p. 46n15. Goossaert is citing Charleux's doctoral dissertation.

¹¹⁹ These are said to be stored in prefectural archives. Wa Ye and Joseph W. Esherick, Chinese Archives: An Introductory Guide, China Research Monograph 45 (Berkeley, Center for Chinese Studies, Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, 1996), p. 92; Yang Jian 杨健, “Qingdai Zangchuan fojiao dudie zhidu chutan 清代藏传佛教度牒制度初探 (Preliminary Investigation of Ordination Certification System for Tibetan Buddhism of the Qing Dynasty)”, Fojiao zai xian 佛教在线, 3 August 2011, http://www.fjnet.com/fjlw/201108/t20110803_183303.htm (accessed March 2018). This online publication appears to draw from or reproduce the following, although I do not have the latter on hand to verify this: Yang Jian 杨健, Qing wangchao fojiao shiwu guanli, p. 474ff.

¹²⁰ T. Bya khyung.

¹²¹ T.Gro tshang dgon bkra shis lhun po; Ch. Yaocaotai si 藥草台寺.

¹²² Yang Yingju, Xining fu xin zhi, p. 905 (juan 34).

¹²³ Qinghai sheng bianji zu, ed., Qinghai Tuzu shehui lishi diaocha 青海土族社会历史调查 (An Investigation of the Social History of the Tu Ethnicity of Qinghai) (Xining, 1985), p. 48. See also Pu Wencheng 蒲文成, Gan Qing Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, p. 76.

¹²⁴ Yang Jian 杨健, Qing wangchao fojiao shiwu guanli, p. 472; Bai Wengu 白文固, “Ming Qing de Fanseng senggangsi shulüe 明清的番僧僧纲司述略 (A Sketch of the Tibetan Buddhist Offices of Clerical Supervision in the Ming and Qing Dynasties)”, p. 138. Bai Wengu also claims that Chongjiao Monastery 崇教寺 in Minzhou retained the use of the term senggang.

¹²⁵ Ch. xiangzuo 襄佐 (from T. phyag mdzod).

¹²⁶ Dgon lung's senggang are also said to have sat on the monastery's own eleven-member general council (Ch. jiwaang [T. spyi ba nang [chen]]), which comprised the steward or treasurer of the monastery's General Management Office, the two disciplinarians, the two senggang, and the six “elders” (laomin 老民). Only one who had first served as a disciplinarian or senggang was eligible to become an “elder”. One of my informants who studied at Dgon lung in the 1940s recalls there being a 12-member ruling council that consisted of the steward/treasurer of the General Management Office (T. spyi phyag mdzod), the two disciplinarians, two laoye 老爷 (“Elders” or “Sirs”), and seven elders (Ch. laozhe 老者). It is tempting to equate these “laoye” with the senggang, but I have not yet been able to resolve this incongruity.

¹²⁷ Chaney, “Land, Trade, and the Law on the Sino-Tibetan Border, 1723–1911”, p. 82.

¹²⁸ Yang Jian 杨健, Qing wangchao fojiao shiwu guanli, p. 473.

¹²⁹ Yongzheng Emperor 雍正皇帝, Shizong Xian Huangdi shilu 世宗憲皇帝實錄 (Veritable Records of Emperor Shizong, Xian), Dahongling Edition 大紅綾本 of the No. 1 Archives in Beijing, available via Scripta Sinica, n.d., juan 20, p. 31a. Cited in Wengu, Bai and Zhanlu, Xie, “Qingdai lama yidanliang zhidu tantao 清代喇嘛衣单粮制度探讨 (An Inquiry into the Qing Dynasty Food, Vestment, and Registration Certificate Allowance System)”, Zhongguo Zangxue 3 (2006), p. 57Google Scholar. A more extensive depiction of this bygone era of monastic rule in Qinghai is given in Yang Yingju, Xining fu xin zhi, p. 385 (juan 15).

¹³⁰ Yang Yingju, Xining fu xin zhi, pp. 816–817 (juan 31) and pp. 530–531 (juan 20).

¹³¹ Aixinjueluo Hongli, “Qinding Da Qing huidian zeli”, pp. 94a.6–95a.4. This also appears in the Ji Yuanyuan 季垣垣, Qianlong chao neifu chaoben Lifan yuan zeli, pp. 135–136.

¹³² The subjects of the monastery. On lha sde see Paul Nietupski, “Labrang Monastery's Corporate Estates (Labrang)”, The Tibetan and Himalayan Library, http://places.thlib.org/features/15472/descriptions/80 (accessed 13 April 2013).

¹³³ Sumba Kanbo writes ‘Mdo Khams’, which I have interpreted to mean what we today think of as A mdo and Khams. Elsewhere Sumba Kanbo groups together ‘A mdo’, ‘Southern Khams’ and ‘Middle Khams’ in his discussion of ‘Lower Greater Tibet’ (Smad kyi Bod chen); thus, it seems likely that Sumba Kanbo is here referring to both/all of what we now understand as A mdo and Khams.

¹³⁴ Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ’byor, Mtsho sngon gyi lo rgyus sogs bkod pa'i tshangs glu gsar snyan (Zi ling, 1982), pp. 25–26; Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ’byor, The Annals of Kokonor [Being a partial translation of the Mtsho sngon gyi lo rgyus sogs bkod pa'i tshangs glu gsar snyan zhes bya ba], (translation) Ho-Chin Yang, Uralic and Altaic Series 106 (Bloomington, 1997), p. 50. Emphasis added. Thu'u bkwan III wrote something very similar in his chronicle for Dgon lung Monastery. Thu'u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma, “Dgon lung gi dkar chag”, p. 728/48b.1-2.

¹³⁵ However, the source does not report that these monks received cash allowances like their counterparts in Liangzhou. Lai Hui-min 赖惠敏, Qianlong Huangdi de hebao 乾隆皇帝的荷包 (Emperor Qianlong's Purse) (Bejing, 2016), p. 388. Bai Wengu and Xie Zhanlu give the same figures, citing the 1822 Qinghai shiyi jielüe 青海事宜節略 (Summary of Qinghai Affairs). Bai Wengu and Xie Zhanlu, “Qingdai lama yidanliang zhidu tantao”, p. 58.

¹³⁶ Yang Yingju, Xining fu xin zhi, p. 386 (juan 15).

¹³⁷ For instance, the monastic charter for Dgon lung's erstwhile branch monastery of Kan chen describes some of the ritual and financial responsibilities of Kan chen's “estates” (gzhi ka). Ngag dbang ’phrin las rgya mtsho, Smin grol III, “Theg chen thar pa gling gi bca’ yig mu tig gi phreng mdzes (The Charter of [Kanchen] Thekchen Tharpa Ling: the Beautiful Pearl Necklace)” (1758), line 29 (manuscript held at Kan chen Monastery in Huzhu County, Qinghai). Sumba Kanbo continued to make references to existing “divine communities” in his writings: Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ’byor, PaN+Di ta sum pa ye shes dpal ’byor mchog gi spyod tshul brjod pa sgra ’dzin bcud len, p. 557; Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ’byor, “Dgon sde ’ga’ zhig gi bca’ yig blang dor snyan sgron (An Inquiry Regarding What is to be Accepted and What is to be Rejected for a Few Monasteries)”, in Gsung ’bum (Collected Works), vol. 8, Śata-piṭaka (New Delhi, 1975), p. 128/12b.7.

¹³⁸ For instance, see Sullivan, Brenton, “Monastic Customaries and the Promotion of Dge lugs Scholasticism in A mdo and Beyond”, Asian Highlands Perspectives 36 (2015), pp. 84–105Google Scholar.

¹³⁹ Chaney, “Land, Trade, and the Law on the Sino-Tibetan Border, 1723–1911”, p. 86.

¹⁴⁰ Yang Yingju, Xining fu xin zhi, p. 532 (juan 20).

¹⁴¹ T. spyi'i sa las shing las.

¹⁴² “Mkhan po erte ni paN+Di tar grags pa'i spyod tshul brjod pa sgra ’dzin bcud len”, p. 635/133a.2-3. Emphasis added. The last sentence of the passage is difficult to translate because no subject is given. I am thankful to Rachael Griffiths (personal communication, 8 August 2019) for help in translating that sentence, although I have made some modifications and assume responsibility for any faults in the translation.

¹⁴³ The document is damaged, allowing the reader to make out only “Kangxi forty- ”. The image of this document is in the possession of Wes Chaney (Bates College). I would like to thank Chaney for bring to my attention and sharing with me this document.

¹⁴⁴ Tuttle, Gray, “Local History in A Mdo: The Tsong Kha Range (ri rgyud)”, Asian Highlands Perspectives 6 (2010), pp. 23–97Google Scholar; Gray Tuttle, “An Unknown Tradition of Chinese Conversion to Tibetan Buddhism: Chinese Incarnate Lamas and Parishioners of Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries in Amdo”, Zangxue Xuekan 藏学学刊 (Journal of Tibetology), 2014. See also the related term xianghuo 香火.

¹⁴⁵ The seller's name is Lan Eighty 藍八十 or Lan Eighty Bao 藍八十保. The buyer appears to be a fellow member the community, Lansijiataer 藍思加他尔. Monguors have the custom of naming children after the age of their grandmother when born. According to Schram, the local Chinese also named children after the age of their grandfather when born. Given the location of Chos bzang Monastery, however, I surmise that the inhabitants there are mostly Monguor and Tibetan, not Chinese. Schram, The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Border, pp. 210, 229, 239.

¹⁴⁶ It is not clear whether the wheat is to be paid to the monastery or to the other party in the agreement. The character that I am translating as “road” (Ch. lu 路) is written in a script unfamiliar to me. “Road” therefore is my best guess.

¹⁴⁷ Archive numbers 463001-5-89-3-4, 463001-5-89-3-4, and 463001-5-89-1-2, respectively. My thanks to Wu Lan (Mount Holyoke College). They are scans kept at the Qing History Project (Qingdai lishi gongcheng) in Beijing.

¹⁴⁸ T. Grwa tshang dgon Dga’ ldan chos ’khor gling. Pu Wencheng 蒲文成, Gan Qing Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, pp. 158–160.

¹⁴⁹ For an overview of the difference between the ‘market litres’ and other measures used in Xining and surrounding areas and how they compare with the “official” measures found further east, see Wu Mu 武沐, “Qingdai Hezhou duliangheng zhiqian dimu jisuan danwen ji fangfa 清代河州度量衡制钱地亩计算单位及方法 (Units and Methods of Calculating Weights and Measures, Currency, and Land Area in Qing-Dynasty Hezhou)”, Xibei minzu daxue xuebao (Zhexue shehui kexue ban) 西北民族大学学报 （哲学社会科学版）3 (2004), pp. 24–29.

¹⁵⁰ Pu says that Grwa tshang became a branch of Dgon lung's in 1743 when the Third Chu bzang Lama was serving as Grwa tshang's abbot. These are loose (and late) grounds for declaring Grwa tshang a branch of Dgon lung's. In any case, both of these monasteries shared in common a history of intimate connections with Khoshud patrons. Pu Wencheng 蒲文成, Gan Qing Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, p. 158.

¹⁵¹ Perdue, Peter C., “The Qing State and the Gansu Grain Market, 1739–1864”, in Chinese History in Economic Perspective, (eds.) Rawski, Thomas G. and Li, Lillian M. (Berkeley, 1992), pp. 100–125Google Scholar.

¹⁵² Professor Elliot Sperling helped me by bringing this source to my attention.

¹⁵³ Qinghai sheng bianji zu, Qinghai Tuzu shehui lishi diaocha; Qinghai sheng bianji zu 青海省编辑组 (Editorial Group) and “Zhongguo shaoshu minzu shehui lishi diaocha ziliao congkan” xiuding bianji weiyuanhui 《中国少数民族社会历史调查资料丛刊》修订编辑委员会, (eds.), Qinghai sheng Zangzu Mengguzu shehui lishi diaocha 青海省藏族蒙古族社会历史调查 (Investigation of the Social History of Qinghai's Tibetan and Mongol Nationalities), Guojia minwei Minzu wenti wu zhong congkan zhi 5; Zhongguo shaoshu minzu shehui lishi diaocha congkan 95 (Beijing, 2009).

¹⁵⁴ For instance, it claims that all of the first three ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa incarnations served as abbot at Dgon lung, when in fact only the Second ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa did so. Qinghai sheng bianji zu, Qinghai Tuzu shehui lishi diaocha 青海土族社会历史调查 (An Investigation of the Social History of the Tu Ethnicity of Qinghai), p. 53. Likewise, it assigns to the year 1874 Dgon lung's destruction by Hui Muslim forces, an event that actually took place in 1866.

¹⁵⁵ Qinghai sheng bianji zu, Qinghai Tuzu shehui lishi diaocha, p. 52. See also p. 101. The modern gazetteer of Huzhu gives 49,000 mu. Huzhu Tuzu zizhi xian xian zhi bianzuan weiyuanhui (Editorial Committee), Huzhu Tuzu zizhi xian xian zhi, p. 160.

¹⁵⁶ Pu Wencheng 蒲文成, Gan Qing Zangchuan fojiao siyuan, p. 77.

¹⁵⁷ The authors of the Qinghai Tuzu shehui lishi diaocha list “Kanbu fo” as one of the “nine minor incarnate lamas” of Dgon lung. However, Nyi ma ’dzin's list of the nine does not include such a name nor does his list of other incarnate lamas who regularly stayed at Dgon lung. The same is true for two other names found therein: Yangsha fo 羊沙佛 and Forijun fo 佛日郡佛 (see the following note). Per Nyi ma ’dzin Ngag dbang legs bshad rgya mtsho, Bshad sgrub bstan pa'i ’byung gnas chos sde chen po dgon lung byams pa gling gi gdan rabs zur rgyan g.yas ’khyil dung gi sgra dbyangs (The Place Where Originated Expounding on and Practicing the Dharma: An Addition to the [Record of] the Succession of Abbots of the Great Religious Establishment Gönlung Jampa Ling, the Sound of the Clockwise-turning Conch Shell) (n.p.: s.n., n.d.), pp. 122–125; Qie'er Nimazeng Awanglexuejiacuo 癿尔⋅尼玛增⋅阿旺勒雪嘉措 [per nyi ma ’dzin ngag dbang legs bshad rgya mtsho], Youning si xuzhi: Youxuan faluo yin 佑寧寺續志：右旋法螺音 (Continuation of the Gazetteer of Youning Monastery: The Sound of the Clockwise-Turning Dharma Conch), (translation) Xie Zuo 谢佐, (2006), pp. 60–62.

¹⁵⁸ The Chinese given is Forijun 佛日郡. However, the modern gazetteer of Huzhu gives “Heerjun” 贺尔郡, which appears to be a transliteration of the Tibetan Hor skyong. Huzhu Tuzu zizhi xian xian zhi bianzuan weiyuanhui (Editorial Committee), Huzhu Tuzu zizhi xian xian zhi, p. 160.

¹⁵⁹ The Chinese given is Rudeng 如登. However, the modern gazetteer of Huzhu gives “Jiadeng” 加登, which may be a transliteration of the Tibetan “Rgya tig”.

¹⁶⁰ Qinghai sheng bianji zu (Editorial Group), Qinghai Tuzu shehui lishi diaocha, p. 52.

¹⁶¹ On the unreliable nature of such figures in the pre-Communist period see Wu Mu 武沐, “Qingdai Hezhou duliangheng zhiqian dimu jisuan danwen ji fangfa”.

¹⁶² In addition, for each mu of land, the tenant is said to have paid ten liang 两of (canola) oil and 10 jin of hay. For every dan of land rented, the tenant had to give the monastery two days worth of chopping firewood in return as well as ten sacks (dai袋) of earth (for constructing buildings). Qinghai sheng bianji zu, Qinghai Tuzu shehui lishi diaocha, p. 52; Huzhu Tuzu zizhi xian xian zhi bianzuan weiyuanhui (Editorial Committee), Huzhu Tuzu zizhi xian xian zhi, p. 160.

¹⁶³ The communist authors of the Investigation of the Social History of Qinghai Monguors also inform us that Dgon lung was not tolerant of late payers: “Prior to Liberation, Dgon lung also had tools for punishment and a prison. If there were incidents of peasants owing rent or interest, then he would be arrested, tied up and beaten or punished with corvée labour. For more serious [cases], they were sent to the [Chinese] government for punishment”. Qinghai sheng bianji zu, Qinghai Tuzu shehui lishi diaocha, p. 11. The missionary Louis Schram corroborates this.

¹⁶⁴ Huzhu Tuzu zizhi xian xian zhi bianzuan weiyuanhui (Editorial Committee), Huzhu Tuzu zizhi xian xian zhi, p. 187.

¹⁶⁵ There is no indication that all of Dgon lung's 37,000 mu of land was entirely made up of cultivated land. It is quite likely that some of this land was used for lumber or not used for any economic gain at all.

¹⁶⁶ Pu Wencheng gives figures from the 1950s or earlier for a handful of monasteries in Huzhu.

¹⁶⁷ Huzhu Tuzu zizhi xian xian zhi bianzuan weiyuanhui (Editorial Committee), Huzhu Tuzu zizhi xian xian zhi, p. 119.

¹⁶⁸ Lawrence, C. H. (Clifford Hugh), Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 3rd edition (Harlow and New York, 2001), pp. 123–127Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁹ Rgyal sras ’Jigs med ye shes grags pa, “Dgon lung byams pa gling gi mtshon dgon ma lag dang bcas pa'i bca' khrims”, p. 36b.6.

¹⁷⁰ See note 132 above.

¹⁷¹ Mi Yizhi, Qinghai lishi gaikuang (chu gao), p. 164.

¹⁷² Chaney, “Land, Trade, and the Law on the Sino-Tibetan Border, 1723-1911”, p. 85.

¹⁷³ Yongzheng Emperor 雍正皇帝, Shizong Xian Huangdi shilu 世宗憲皇帝實錄 (Veritable Records of Emperor Shizong, Xian), juan 20, p. 31b.

¹⁷⁴ Turrell V. Wylie and ’Jam dpal chos kyi bstan ’dzin ’phrin las, The Geography of Tibet According to the ’Dzam-gling-rgyas-bshad, (trans.) Wylie (Roma, 1962), p. 109; Dkon mchog rgyal mtshan, Dbal mang paN+Di ta, “’Jam dbyangs bla ma rje btsun bstan pa'i sgron me'i rnam par thar pa brjod pa'i gtam dad pa'i pad+mo bzhad pa'i nyin byed”, in Gsung ’bum (Collected Works of Gung thang III Dkon mchog bstan pa'i sgron me), vol. 8 (Lhasa, 2000), pp. 702/75b.6-703/76a.2. Qinghai sheng bianji zu, Qinghai Tuzu shehui lishi diaocha, p. 47. This latter source suggests that Dgon lung had three thousands monks before it was destroyed by a Muslim army. As noted above, however, this is not a particularly reliable source for the pre-twentieth century.

¹⁷⁵ Miller, Robert James, Monasteries and Culture Change in Inner Mongolia (Wiesbaden, 1959), p. 72Google Scholar; Chia, “The Li-Fan Yuan in the Early Ch'ing Dynasty”, pp 225–226.

¹⁷⁶ Charleaux writes that, for the imperial monastery, “the Lifan yuan [Court of Colonial Affairs] enacted an ordinance fixing the status and income of the monastery, appointed its administrators, gave an official title to the monastery and ordination certificates to a quota of monks. When monastic communities were created ex nihilo, every banner was ordered to send monks and money to support them. Besides the imperial monasteries, other large monasteries received an official title with a wooden board”. “Buddhist Monasteries in Southern Mongolia”, in The Buddhist Monastery: A Cross-Cultural Survey, (eds.) Pichard, Pierre and Lagirarde, François (Paris, 2003), p. 358n23Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁷ Qingdai gebuyuan zeli: Qinding lifanyuan zeli, 2:700 (juan 56, 7).

¹⁷⁸ Sullivan, “Monastic Customaries and the Promotion of Dge lugs Scholasticism in A mdo and Beyond”.

¹⁷⁹ Oidtmann, “A ‘Dog-East-Dog’ World”, p. 155.

¹⁸⁰ Particularly the monasteries and communities between and having frequent relations with Rong bo and Bla brang bkra shis ’khyil Monasteries.

¹⁸¹ Oidtmann, “Between Patron and Priest”, p. 454.

¹⁸² Ibid., p. 411.

¹⁸³ Ibid., p. 451.

¹⁸⁴ Ibid., pp. 443, 448–449.

¹⁸⁵ Ibid., p. 460.

¹⁸⁶ Ibid., p. 470.

¹⁸⁷ Ibid., p. 468.

¹⁸⁸ This was the Bse tshang lama of Gter lung Monastery.

¹⁸⁹ Oidtmann, “Between Patron and Priest”, p. 473.

¹⁹⁰ Nayanceng, who served in the region as governor-general and as amban in the early nineteenth century, employed the same rhetoric as Nian Gengyao in writing about the monasteries of his day, and he threatened those institutions with the same punishment as those suffered by Gönlung in 1724. Oidtmann, “Overlapping Empires”, p. 62.

¹⁹¹ Since it meant undermining the civil administration of Xunhua and Guide Subprefectures. Oidtmann, “Between Patron and Priest”, p. 452.

¹⁹² Guy, Qing Governors and Their Provinces, pp. 209, 215–217.

¹⁹³ Chaney, “Land, Trade, and the Law on the Sino-Tibetan Border, 1723–1911”, p. 17.

¹⁹⁴ Rgyal sras ’Jigs med ye shes grags pa, “Dgon lung byams pa gling gi mtshon dgon ma lag dang bcas pa'i bca' khrims”, p. 38a.3-4. Here the word “Oirat” (Sog) is probably a vestige of earlier times (prior to the Lubsang-Danzin Rebellion), although it could be a reference to the local Monguor tusi (more often referred to as ‘Hor’).

¹⁹⁵ Schram, The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Border, pp. 353, 477.

¹⁹⁶ Oidtmann, meanwhile, finds that Qing officials were annoyed by the incessant politicking of such lamas and monasteries. It is not clear what explains these conflicting conclusions (perhaps they were “taking delight in” and profitting from an otherwise unpleasant task and thus spoke of their experiences in different ways depending on the audience).

¹⁹⁷ Schram, The Monguors of the Kansu-Tibetan Border, p. 315. Other examples of lamas and monasteries pleading their cases before Qing or Republican Chinese officials can be found on pp. 335, 337, 339, 343, 344, 345, 349, 353, 384, 477.

¹⁹⁸ Chaney, “Land, Trade, and the Law on the Sino-Tibetan Border, 1723–1911”, pp. 1–2.

¹⁹⁹ This is one of the takeaways from Oidtmann's study (“Between Patron and Priest”) of legal cases in Xunhua Subprefecture (especially Chapter 6).

²⁰⁰ This is particularly true for the latter two, Gser khog and Dgon lung. For the “Three Great Monasteries of the North” (dgon pa che ba gsum; chos sde chen po gsum) see Shes rab dar rgyas, Rje ngag dbang blo bzang chos ldan dpal bzang po'i rnam par thar pa mu tig ’phreng ba (Biography of the Glorious Lord Ngakwang Lozang Chöden: A Rosary of Pearls) (1729), p. 76b.1 (this print available at Cultural Palace of Nationalities in Beijing); Thu'u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma, “Dgon lung gi dkar chag”, p. 717/38a.3.

²⁰¹ Oidtmann refers to this as one of the paradoxes of Qing involvement in the region. Another he refers to is the beginning of the creation of a Tibetan ethnic identify vis-à-vis Hui Muslims. Oidtmann, “Between Patron and Priest”, p. 411. Lobsang Yongdan used the phrase “northern” and “southern” monasteries to refer to these groups of monasteries in a comment made at the meeting of the International Association for Tibetan Studies in Paris (2019). I found that to be a useful distinction for thinking about the monasteries of Pari.