Tibetan Involvement with Wutai shan
Figure 8. Depiction of Wutai shan. Dunhuang Cave 61, West Wall. China; Mogao Caves, Dunhuang, Gansu Province.
Tibetan interest in Wutai shan was expressed as early as the Tibetan imperial period (seventh-ninth century), when Tibet arose as one of the greatest military powers of Asia and the first significant cultural interactions between Tibet and China were recorded. According to one early Tibetan historical source, the [page 10] Testament of Ba (BazhéSba bzhed), Tibetan envoys returning from China circa 755 made a long detour in order to return via Wutai shan.14 Also it is said that several eighth-century figures prominent in the establishment of Buddhism in Tibet, such as the Indian master Vimalamitra, one of the founding figures of the early Tibetan DzokchenRdzogs chen meditation tradition, were said to have “set out for Wutai shan.”15 Later historians, such as the famous Tibetan scholar Butön RinchendrupBu ston rin chen grub (1290-1364) in his Bde gshegs bstan pa’i gsal byed chos kyi ’byung gnas, projected back contemporary interest in Wutai shan to the imperial period, writing that the first Tibetan emperor, Songtsen GampoSrong btsan sgam po (ca. 569-649; r. 617-650), went to Wutai shan and built one hundred and eight temples there.16 Early Tibetan interest in Wutai shan is also corroborated in more contemporary Chinese official histories such as the Old Tang Dynasty History (Jiu tangshu), which records that in 824 the Tibetan emperor requested a map of Wutai shan from the Tang court.17 Shortly afterward in the 830s, the earliest depictions of Wutai shan in murals at Dunhuang, an important Buddhist center of activity and a trade site along the Silk Route bordering Tibet, China, and Central Asia, were being painted when the Tibetan [page 11] empire occupied the area.18 Tibetans would, therefore, have been aware to some degree of Chinese associations with Mañjuśrī at Wutai shan since at least the ninth century.
Although many of these early images of Wutai shan were simple and schematic, by the tenth century sophisticated topographic devotional paintings of Wutai shan appeared in the caves of Dunhuang, like the main mural in Cave 61 (Fig. 8).19 In this wall painting on China’s northern frontier with Tibet and Mongolia, many of the inscriptive and visual conventions for depicting the topographic, historical, and miraculous narrative landmarks of Wutai shan, which also appear in the panoramic map dated 1846 in this exhibition (Cat. 1), are already established.20 Thus, this nineteenth-century map is part of a larger visual tradition of depicting Wutai shan as the pure realm of Mañjuśrī, one that stretches back nearly a millennium. Topographically, these maps are also closely related to woodblock maps that were printed in the local gazetteers of Wutai shan, which first started being published in the seventh century and continue to appear up to the present day (Fig. 9).21 However, more than just conveying geographical information, these panoramic images of Wutai shan are devotional in nature, and, as Dorothy Wong puts it, they “translate a religious ideology, a cosmography into pictorial form of a landscape in a reconstructed space analogical to reality.”22
Tangut Western Xia (Xixia, 西夏)
During the early eleventh and twelfth centuries Wutai shan was becoming very popular in this same area among groups with close cultural, political, and economic ties to Tibet, like the Tanguts, who took over the Dunhuang area in 1036. The [page 12] Tangut Empire of Western Xia (Xixia, 西夏) was a multi-ethnic state located along the Silk Route that included large Chinese and Tibetan subject populations and drew heavily on Chinese cultural models in establishing its own imperial culture. Buddhism served to legitimize the Tangut state and engendered lavish imperial patronage, which consciously included an active mixture of Chinese and Tibetan clergy.23 The prominent place that Mañjuśrī held within the Chinese imperial cult, coupled with his role as protector of the state, would have made involvement at Wutai shan a natural step in the development of Tangut Buddhist state ideology. Also Wutai’s close association with Flower Garland (avataṃsaka, Huayan, (華嚴) Buddhism, to which the Tanguts were especially devoted, further assured Tangut interest in Wutai shan.24 The Tangut rulers not only patronized many sites at Wutai shan but even went so far as to build their own Wutai shan complex in the Helan Mountains (Helan shan, 賀蘭山) to the west of their capital some time in the eleventh century, calling it “Northern Wutai shan,” where major temples on Wutai shan like Qingliang si (清涼寺) and Foguang si (佛光寺; Fig. 4, no. 1) were re-created.25 This was not a strategy unique among peoples of Inner Asia, whose access to Wutai shan were limited due to the complex political relations with China. The Khitans of the Liao dynasty (遼, 907-1125) also built their own surrogate site well within their borders, calling it “Little Wutai shan,” and much later the Mongols would also follow suit, building their own “Little Wutai shan.”26
By the late twelfth to early thirteenth century, as Wutai shan became increasingly important to Tibet, Tibetans began to write the site back into accounts of their ancient history.27 For instance Nyangrel Nyima ÖzerNyang ral nyi ma ’od zer (1136-1204), a famous treasure revealer of the NyingmaRnying ma order, who wrote several influential accounts of the lives of Padmasambhava and the Tibetan “religious kings” of the eighth century, included an account of the divine conception of the Tibetan tsenpobtsan po, Tri SongdetsenKhri srong lde btsan (742-796), through the intersession of Mañjuśrī from Wutai shan [page 13] in China, in order to convert the people and establish Buddhism in Tibet.28 This is significant as it was the emperor Tri SongdetsenKhri srong lde btsan who built Tibet’s first monastery and declared Buddhism the Tibetan state religion. The implication is that these important steps toward establishing Buddhism in Tibet were the direct result of Mañjuśrī’s activities. Tri SongdetsenKhri srong lde btsan himself came to be considered an emanation of Mañjuśrī, indicated by Mañjuśrī’s identifying implements, the book and sword, at his shoulders (Cat. 30).29
PadampaPha dam pa
Figure 10. Padampa SanggyéPha dam pa sangs rgyas. Tibet; c. 13th century. Copper alloy; Height: 25 cm (9.75" h. x 7.25" w. x 5.625" d.). Nyingjei Lam Collection. L2005.9.51 (HAR68480).
One of the first historical figures who may have directly linked Tibet and Wutai shan was the South Indian adept Padampa SanggyéPha dam pa sangs rgyas (Padangba Sangjie, 帕當巴桑结, d. 1117; Fig. 10), founder of the Pacification of Suffering tradition, who was said to have traveled in China and lived on Wutai shan for approximately twelve years from about 1086 to 1097, before returning to Tibet to found a monastery.30 Little is recorded about PadampaPha dam pa’s life in China, though his trip to Wutai shan is mentioned in some of the earliest available historical sources on his [page 14] tradition.31 According to a much later biography, in the pure realm of Five-Peak Mountain PadampaPha dam pa actually met the reverend Mañjuśrī and his retinue, and in that realm (Wutai shan) he also achieved and demonstrated many signs of Spiritual Attainment (siddhi) such as suppressing the sun, and the Chinese king together with his ministers bowed respectfully. He also placed many Chinese worthy ones on the sublime path and founded a chapel (tsuklak khanggtsug lag khang, vihāra) there called “Tsitsu SaraTsi tsu sa ra.”32 In the fifteenth-century Blue Annals (Depter NgönpoDeb ther sngon po, written ca. 1476-1478) one of PadampaPha dam pa’s miraculous encounters with Mañjuśrī at Wutai shan is recorded:
When DampaDam pa proceeded to China, he met on the road leading to Wutai shan (Rtse lnga’i ri) an old sage (ṛṣi), carrying a staff made of rattan wood (chushingchu shing). This was a manifestation of Mañjuśrī, who said to him: “In this country there are many epidemics. At Vajrāsana (Bodhgaya, India) there exists a dhāraṇī of Vijaya (Nampar Gyelmarnam par rgyal ma). If you bring it to-day, the epidemics in this country will disappear.” DampaDam pa inquired: “Vajrāsana is far off. From where could I get it today?” The sage replied: “Inside a certain cavity in a rock (Drakkhungbrag khung [cave]) there is a hole (bukpabug pa). Go there and bring it here.” DampaDam pa went toward this cavity, and within an instant was transported to Vajrāsana, and back. Having obtained the dhāraṇī, he pacified the epidemics. After that he again met the Venerable Mañjughoṣa (Jampel Yang’jam dpal dbyangs). The picture depicting his journey to Vajrāsana was drawn by Chinese (artists), and printed copies (of it) have found their way to Tibet. DampaDam pa spent twelve years (in China), preached and propagated the doctrines of the Zhi byed. It is said that (his) Meditative Lineage exists there (in China). Some maintain even that DampaDam pa had died in China.33
Regardless of whether PadampaPha dam pa’s visit to Wutai shan was also an imagined projection back of later Tibetan interest in the sacred mountain, by the Qing period these stories became an important part of Tibetan lore at Wutai shan. This is [page 15] expressed clearly on the panoramic map of Wutai shan (Cat. 1) in which PadampaPha dam pa is depicted sitting in a cave (Fig. 11; Fig. 4, no. 13) holding a staff, not an object usually part of his iconography (Fig. 12), and likely a reference to his encounter with the sage carrying a staff in this story.34 The cave he sits in is labeled in both Tibetan and Chinese as “India Cave” (Gyagar Pukrgya gar phug, Xitian Dong, 西天洞) on the map, a reference to this story of PadampaPha dam pa’s cave serving as a magical portal to India. It is said that today’s visitors can still see a record of Mañjuśrī meeting PadampaPha dam pa at Wutai shan and a stone door panel (dogo lekrdo sgo glegs) of PadampaPha dam pa’s meditation cave there.35
Figure 13. Buddhapālita (Fotuo Poli, 佛陀波利) meets Mañjuśrī. Detail from The Bodhisattva Wensu (Manjusri) on Wutaisan. China; Mogao Caves, Dunhuang, Gansu Province; 975-1025. Silk; 164 cm. high x 107.5 cm. wide. Musée national des Arts asiatiques – Guimet, Pelliot Collection, EO 3588.
This story of PadampaPha dam pa’s meeting with Mañjuśrī disguised as a sage follows typical Chinese narrative formulas of encounters with Mañjuśrī on Wutai shan. In particular, the details of this tale are almost identical to the famous story of another monk from the west, Buddhapālita (Fotuo Poli, 佛陀波利) of Kashmir, who visited Wutai shan about four centuries earlier in 676, which is prominently illustrated on the famous mural of Wutai shan in Cave 61 at Dunhuang (Fig. 8), that predates PadampaPha dam pa’s visit by more than a century.36 This conflation of miraculous stories [page 16] that collapse time is common to both Wutai shan narratives and images, and it may be that this story was added to PadampaPha dam pa’s biography later as Wutai shan grew in the Tibetan imagination.37 Similarly, the Chinese printed images referred to in the Blue Annals as circulating in Tibet may, in fact, illustrate any one of a number of such well-known Chinese stories, such as that of the aforementioned Buddhapālita (Fig. 13).38 Such stories reveal the timeless nature of these miracles, which are at once linked to specific prominent historical figures to provide an air of authenticity and at the same time infinitely repeatable, imbuing a limitless power to the site. Thus the visual inscription of these miracles on the map is not only an immediately accessible record of their occurrence in the past but also holds out the promise of such an experience for the viewer as a worthy pilgrim in the present.
Mongol Yuan (元) Empire
It was the incorporation of Tibet and then China into the larger Mongol empire in the mid-thirteenth century (Fig. 14) that fostered the establishment of a regular Tibetan presence on Wutai shan, for which we have reliable documentation. Wutai shan is located only two-hundred miles southwest of (the imperial court in) Beijing (北京), which became the political center of China under Mongol rule in the thirteenth century. While the Mongol Empire was known for a policy of religious tolerance among the peoples it conquered and for generous patronage across a broad spectrum of faiths, it was the Tibetan tradition that Qubilai Khan (Hubilie, 忽必烈, 1215-1294; Fig. 15) singled out among all the faiths competing for imperial attention as a prominent religion of his court, and Qubilai Khan himself [page 17] came to be seen as an imperial emanation of Mañjuśrī.39 Patronage of several Tibetan traditions was divided up among the Mongol princes and their monasteries flourished as never before.
Figure 15. Qubilai Khan. Album Leaf; ink and color on silk; 23 3/8 x 18 ½ in. National Palace Museum, Taiwan. (After Possessing the Past, p. 264, plate 136).
On account of this growing interest in Tantric Buddhism among the Mongol elite many Tibetan lamabla mas (guru) started visiting the Mongol court, and when they did so they also visited Wutai shan. It was during the Mongol period that a number of prominent Tibetan historical figures traveled to Wutai shan and contributed to the popularity of the sacred mountain in Tibet. According to Tibetan tradition, Sakya PenditaSa skya paṇḍita Künga GyentsenKun dga’ rgyal mtshan (1182-1251; Cat. 25 & Cat. 26), who was (later?) seen as a Tibetan emanation of Mañjuśrī on Earth (one of the “Three Mañjuśrī of Tibet”), was one of the most influential thirteenth-century Tibetan figures said to have visited Wutai shan.40 A local Tibetan history (dated [page 18] 1884), describes another Wutai shan in miniature recreated in PariDpa’ ri, complete with five peaks, just south of Liangzhou (Gansu Province) where Sakya PenditaSa skya paṇḍita passed away. According to this account, Sakya PenditaSa skya paṇḍita founded the monastery Drakgön Chokga LingBrag dgon mchog dga’ gling in 1246, and praised the site as comparable in beauty to Wutai shan, and even described it as a branch of Wutai.41 This text also lists the main images in the various chapels, including a wall painting depicting the landscape of Wutai shan, drawing a direct visual connection between the ideal and its surrogate.42
The historical record is more clear regarding Sakya PenditaSa skya paṇḍita’s nephew Chögyel Pakpa Lodrö GyentsenChos rgyal ’phags pa blo gros rgyal mtshan (1235-1280), who spent years on Wutai shan composing texts that eulogized Mañjuśrī and the mountain. Schaeffer demonstrates that Pakpa’Phags pa’s poetry of Wutai shan was some of the most influential, such as his one-hundred verse poem: “The Garland of Jewels: Praise to Mañjuśrī at Five-Peak Mountain,” written in 1257.43 Chögyel PakpaChos rgyal ’phags pa (Fig. 5) later became Qubilai Khan’s Imperial Preceptor (dishi, 帝師), the emperor’s chaplain and the highest spiritual authority in the empire. In fact every succeeding Yuan emperor appointed a Tibetan to this supreme religious position in the Yuan government, underscoring the importance with which Tibetan Buddhism was held at the Mongol court.
Figure 16. Mahākāla Hill. 1846 Wutai shan map detail (Cat. 1).
Many other important Tibetan clerics stayed on Wutai shan in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries for protracted time periods, such as Pakpa’Phags pa’s disciple and an influential tantric ritual specialist to Qubilai’s court, Ga Aknyen Dampa Künga DrakSga a gnyan dam pa kun dga’ grags (Danba, 膽巴, 1230-1303), who lived on Wutai shan for close to ten years. DampaDam pa was appointed abbot of Temple of Longevity and Tranquility (Shouning si, 壽寧寺, Takten Dechen Lingrtag brtan bde chen gling; Fig. 4, no. 72), raising the status of that monastery and making it what many consider to be the first Tibetan Buddhist [page 19] establishment on the mountain.44 He was also said to have founded temples at Wutai shan himself.45 DampaDam pa was a key figure within Qubilai Khan’s court for the military application and employment of tantric esoteric power in the service of the Mongol imperium. It was his ritual interventions that were credited for Mongol victories in several key battles, including the final fall of the Southern Song (Nan Song, 南宋, 1127-1279), allowing for the conquering of all of China and the very founding of the Yuan dynasty.46 Later, the same sculpture of the protective deity Mahākāla (Da Heitian, 大黑天) that was made to be used in those destructive rites, which had became a potent symbol of both Qubilai’s rule and the Yuan imperial lineage, was installed at Wutai shan for worship.47 On the map of Wutai shan there is, in fact, a site labeled “Gönpo RiMgon po ri,” or “Mahākāla Hill” (Fig. 16; Fig. 4, no. 49).
Figure 17. The Third KarmapaKarma pa Rangjung DorjéRang byung rdo rje’s visit to Wutai shan. Detail of “The Third Karmapa with episodes from his life.” Ca. late 16th century. 29 ½ x 17 7/8 in. (75 x 45.5 cm). The Hahn Cultural Foundation Collection. Literature: K. Tanaka 1999, vol. 2, no. 47. (After Jackson 2009, Fig. 5.5, p. 93).
Visual records of such visits by Tibetan hierarchs from this period can also be found in Tibetan paintings. For instance, the Third KarmapaKarma pa Rangjung DorjéRang byung rdo rje’s (1284-1339) visit to Wutai shan in 1333/34 during his trip to the Mongol court is depicted in a later sixteenth-century [page 20] biographical painting (Fig.17).48 This painting is one of a set of paintings illustrating “The Third KarmapaKarma pa with Episodes from His Life.” Amid the six episodes depicted from the master’s life in this painting is his meeting with the Yuan emperor in 1332 at lower right and his pilgrimage the following year to Wutai shan at lower left.49 The landscape of Wutai shan’s five peaks are prominently displayed in different colors, dominated by an emanation or vision of Mañjuśrī on his blue lion, which is associated with Wutai shan’s central peak, at center.
It was also during Qubilai’s reign that the Great White Stūpa (Fig. 4, no. 40), which became the icon of Wutai shan, was built in 1301 by Pakpa’Phags pa’s protégé, the Nepalese artist Anige (阿尼哥, 1244-1278/1306), who had become head of the Mongol imperial atelier.50 This stūpa is a monumental Himalayan-style architectural landmark, which contrasts with the Chinese temple architecture it towers over (Fig. 18). It is believed to contain one of the miraculously created Buddha relic stūpas of the Indian emperor Aśoka, the archetypal model of the ideal Indian Buddhist sacral ruler (cakravartin). This reliquary on Wutai shan closely resembles another Great White Stūpa dedicated to Mañjuśrī, also built by Anige, in Beijing (Fig. 19) twenty-two years earlier at the founding of the Yuan dynasty in 1279, which was a symbol of Mongol imperial authority.51 The Nepalese Anige was involved in many other [page 21] Mongol court construction projects on Wutai shan, such as Southern Mountain Temple (Nanshan si, 南山寺; Fig. 4, no. 51), which was founded by the Mongol emperor Temür (Öljeitü Khan, r. 1294-1307) in 1297 to generate merit for the emperor’s mother and is one of the most extravagant Mongol court temple constructions ever recorded.52
It is within this context of Mongol rule that the ancient rhetoric of conflating imperial identity with Mañjuśrī was revived and broadened to transcend ethnic proscriptions on rulership, where non-Chinese peoples could declare that they carried heaven’s mandate to rule.53 This ideology can be found stated in Mongol Yuan imperial inscriptions on a Buddhist monument, the Juyong Stūpa Gate (Juyong guan, 居庸关; Fig. 20), built near Beijing in 1354 by the last Mongol emperor to rule China, which states that Qubilai Khan (and by extension the Mongol line of emperors), were emanations of a bodhisattva from the area of Wutai shan (Mañjuśrī) divinely sanctioned to rule the empire:
That blessed Bodhisattva the Emperor Sečen (Qubilai Khan), possessed of vast wisdom...the wise one from the vicinity of Wutaishan... bodhisattvas destined by heaven [to rule]. 54
Tuttle questions the identification of the bodhisattva mentioned in this inscription with Mañjuśrī, and calls into question if Qubilai Khan was regarded as an emanation of Mañjuśrī in his own lifetime.55 However Qubilai does appear to be referred to as Mañjuśrī in a few roughly contemporary Tibetan sources. One of the earliest such references is found in the biography of Urgyanpa Rinchen PelU rgyan pa rin chen dpal (1229/1230-1309) by his student Sönam ÖzerBsod nams ’od zer (b. thirteenth c.), in which UrgyenpaU rgyan pa not only remarks on this notion that Qubilai Khan was viewed by some as an emanation of Mañjuśrī, but even challenges the legitimacy of this divine claim:
The precious lord (UrgyenpaU rgyan pa) said: “Because that Qubilai Khan wields immeasurable power, he has limitless glory. [Thus] there is a prophecy of the appearance of a miraculous emanation of Mañjuśrī in the Mongolian royal line. [However,] having thought about whether or not that is true, I feel that [if it were true, Qubilai would] have subjugated (others) through the meditative concentration (samādhi) of the Lord of Secrets, however there is oppression. If he is really a miraculous emanation of Mañjuśrī, [it should be done] through his glory, not oppression (force).”56
In other words if Qubilai Khan was really the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī incarnate he would not need to use such brute tactics as violence and intimidation. This direct quote suggests that not only was this idea of Qubilai as Mañjuśrī current in Qubilai’s own time, but even contested. Extremely telling in this context is, directly after making this comment UrgyenpaU rgyan pa then travels to Wutai shan, and while his biography describes what he saw and the initiations he gave there, no further mention of Qubilai as Mañjuśrī is made, as if for UrgyenpaU rgyan pa the matter is settled. Another only slightly later fourteenth-century source, TselpaTshal pa’s biography of his father Mönlam DorjéSmon lam rdo rje (1284-1346/7), mater-of-factly characterizes Qubilai as a wondrous manifestation of Mañjuśrī.57 While there maybe some question as to whether or not this association between Qubilai Khan and Mañjuśrī was accepted in his own lifetime, it became firmly established in later centuries and became a touchstone of later imperial authority. Thus Wutai shan became increasingly important within the Buddhist cosmology of China and Inner Asia as a locus of both religious and temporal power, even a source of political legitimation.
Chinese Ming (明) Dynasty
Figure 21. Fifth Karmapa Dezhin ShekpaKarma pa de bzhin gshegs pa (1384-1415). Ca. late 18th–early 19th century. 39 3/8 x 23 5/8 in. (100 x 60 cm). (After Pal 1984, Plate 92).
The conflation of the emperor with the deity Mañjuśrī may have subsided when Mongol rule in China was overthrown, and the Chinese established the native Ming dynasty (明, 1368-1644), and Tibetan Buddhism was not as prominent among the imperial elite; nonetheless, patronage of Tibetan Buddhism continued among the Chinese emperors and their court. Several Chinese Ming monarchs such as the Yongle (永樂, r.1403-1424) and Zhengde emperors were especially known for their devotion to Tibetan Buddhism, much to the dismay of their Confucian advisers, who worked hard to restore Chinese orthodox culture and social values in the wake of Mongol rule.58 This imperial Chinese patronage of Tibetan Buddhism during the Ming period is especially notable at Wutai shan, seen in the renovation and expansion of Clear Understanding Monastery (Xiantong si, 顯通寺, Ngönpar Selwé Lhakhangmngon par gsal ba’i lha khang; Fig. 4, no. 65) by the Yongle emperor in 1406 for the visit of a high Tibetan cleric, the Fifth KarmapaKarma pa (1384-1415), as part of his trip to visit [page 25] the Chinese imperial court (Fig. 21).59 Later the emperor sent a eunuch of the imperial court to have an image of the KarmapaKarma pa made and installed at Xiantong si,60 (Fig. 22) which became a center for the practice of both Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan and can be seen as emblematic of Wutai shan as a unique site for the confluence of these traditions. The neighboring Great White Stūpa (Fig. 18; Fig. 4, no. 40) was also rebuilt in 1407 with donations made on behalf of the Fifth KarmapaKarma pa during his stay on the mountain.61
Later, in 1414, TsongkhapaTsong kha pa’s (Zongkaba, 宗喀巴) famous disciple Shakya YeshéShākya ye shes also stayed at Xiantong si, as well as at Yuanzhao si (圓照寺, Küntu Khyappé LhakhangKun tu khyab pa’i lha khang; founded 1309; Fig. 23; Fig. 4, no. 66).62 Shakya YeshéShākya ye shes (Fig. 6) [page 26] lived on Wutai shan for four years and is credited with building five or six temples there and developing the GelukDge lugs church in both Chinese and Mongolian areas.63 Not long afterward, in 1426, the Chinese Xuande (宣德, r. 1426-1435) emperor officially designated Yuanzhao si’s abbot the manager of Chinese and Tibetan Buddhist affairs on the mountain, effectively making this monastery the first GelukpaDge lugs temple in China.64 While literary evidence suggests that Tibetan oversight of major institutions at Wutai shan, like Xiantong si and Yuanzhao si, had already begun to appear in the fifteenth century under the Chinese in the Ming period, it was under the Manchus that this practice was formally established as imperial court policy in the seventeenth century.65
Figure 24. “Iron Bridge Man” Tangtong GyelpoThang stong rgyal po. Tibet; second half of the 15th century. Copper alloy with pigment. Nyingjei Lam Collection. L2005.9.63 (HAR 68496).
During this period a famous Tibetan cultural hero, the “Iron Bridge Man” (Chakzampa Tangtong Gyelpolcags zam pa thang stong rgyal po, 1361?-1485; Fig. 24) also went to Wutai shan, where he gave a reading transmission of the Litany of the Names of Mañjuśrī (Mañjuśrī [page 27] Nāmasaṃgīti) to an eager congregation of (Chinese?) meditators.66 Tangtong GyelpoThang stong rgyal po stayed on Wutai shan in meditation for eight months, during which time the five forms of Mañjuśrī appeared to him in a series of visions and spoke a prophecy instructing him to build geomantic focal points (often taking the form of stūpas) to suppress the four elements, another activity for which Tangtong GyelpoThang stong rgyal po became famous.67 Tangtong GyelpoThang stong rgyal po’s travels to Wutai shan are mentioned in early biographical materials such as his own edicts (kashokbka’ shog), suggesting that this was not simply a later embellishment.68
Second Conversion of the Mongols
It is at this time in the late sixteenth century that the Mongols underwent a second more deeply rooted conversion to Tibetan Buddhism. From this point on the Mongols would play a key role in the politics of Tibet, Tibetan relations with China, and imperial interest in Tibetan Buddhism into the modern period. Although Tibetan Buddhism was important for the imperial elite, especially during the later Yuan, when the Mongols returned to the steppe their connections with the dharma waned. However, the Mongols did not give up their connections with Tibet entirely, and one ambitious leader, Altan Khan (1507-1582), saw promoting Tibetan Buddhism as a strategy to overcome the tradition of primogeniture and thereby not only legitimate his power locally within Ordos, but also secure trade alliances with the Ming court.69 To this end Altan Khan invited a number of Tibetan teachers, [page 28] among them a famous monk of the relatively new GelukDge lugs monastic order, Sönam GyatsoBsod nams rgya mtsho (1543-1588), to proselytize among his people and was so impressed with the monk’s wisdom that he gave him the title “Oceanic Guru” (dalai lama, Talé Lamata la’i bla ma). The next reincarnation of the Dalai Lama was then recognized in the grandson of Altan Khan, a shrewd political move that bound the Mongols closely to GelukDge lugs interests.
This second conversion of the Mongols was so thorough that Tibetan Buddhism became part and parcel of their identity. This was a historical turning point in Inner Asian politics that would have serious consequences for the following generations. The Mongols became fiercely loyal to the GelukDge lugs order and were instrumental in establishing the Dalai Lama’s political rule over Tibet. Tibetan Buddhism thus became a cultural and political rallying point for the fractured Mongols as well as other Inner Asian groups and once again an important factor in empire building. Interestingly, as Elverskog observes, the last record of Chinese imperial patronage of Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan was made in 1522, which corresponded with the time of the second rise of the Mongols.70 As part of this strategy envisioning a Buddhist reunification of Mongolia, the earliest Mongol source that clearly links Qubilai Khan with Mañjuśrī, the White History (Chaghan Teüke), was “rediscovered” and circulated by Altan Khan’s right-hand man, Khutugtai Secen Khung-Taiji, and attributed to Qubilai Khan himself. However internal evidence suggests that this text dates to the late sixteenth century, when Altan Khan and his allies were embracing Tibetan Buddhism as part of their bid to reestablish the former glory of the Mongol empire.71
Manchu Qing (清) Dynasty
In 1644 the Manchus, another nomadic people from the northeastern steppe, seized power from the Chinese and founded the Qing dynasty 清, 1644-1911), and Tibetan Buddhism was once again made one of the official religions of the empire. Under the Manchus the visual language of Buddhist imperial rule was further refined and the concepts of sacral legitimacy given a finer point, with a special focus on the [page 29] cult of Mañjuśrī. Therefore Wutai shan figured much more prominently in Qing imperial ideology than in previous regimes.72
Manchus as Inheritors of the Mongol Legacy
Manchu interest in Tibetan Buddhism can be traced directly to Mongol patronage in the thirteenth century. Specifically it was the patron-priest relationship between Qubilai Khan and his Tibetan Imperial Preceptor Pakpa’Phags pa that was seen as a powerful model worthy of emulation in the Manchu court of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.73 Lacking the proper bloodlines to claim themselves as the descendants of Qubilai Khan, the Manchu rulers used the Tibetan Buddhist succession mechanism of reincarnation to declare themselves Qubilai Khan’s spiritual inheritors. By promoting themselves as emanations of Mañjuśrī, the Manchu emperors were essentially declaring themselves Qubilai Khan reborn. Wutai shan as Mañjuśrī’s abode was thus at the heart of the Manchu court’s bid for political legitimacy. This is especially significant as the incorporation of the Mongols into the Qing dynasty was critical to the survival of the Manchu Empire, and both the Chinggisid lineage (of Qubilai Khan) and Tibetan Buddhism were powerful symbols in the Mongol political vocabulary of the seventeenth century.74 This was but one of several mutually reinforcing strategies aimed at various subject and neighboring peoples in establishing and solidifying the Manchu’s multi-ethnic [page 30] empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.75 The Manchu rulers, by adopting certain personas, turned themselves into the representatives of the respective cultures, whether Chinese or Mongol, Confucian or Buddhist, legitimizing their position and appropriation of those cultural traditions by denying their image as outsiders who gained possession of them through force.76
Divine Rite to Rule: Emperor as Mañjuśrī
In Mongol sources the Manchu connection to Mañjuśrī starts as early as the first Qing emperor Hongtaiji’s (Bokto Gyelpobog to rgyal po) reign (1626-1643), and shortly before the Manchus completed their conquest of China, Hongtaiji changed their ethnonym from Jurchen to “Manju” (manzu, 满族) in 1635. Thus, an etymology seems to have been engineered to claim its source in the very name “Mañjuśrī.”77 This language also plays into the much earlier Tang indigenous China-Mañjuśrī connection previously referred to. However, it is the Kangxi emperor (康熙, 1662-1723) who first refers to himself as Mañjuśrī in his preface to the officially commissioned Mongolian translation of the Tibetan Buddhist canon (1718-1720):
Then Mañjuśrī, the savior of all living forms, [with the] intellect of all the Buddhas, was transformed into human form, and ascended the Fearless Lion Throne of gold; and this was none other than the sublime Emperor Kangxi-Mañjuśrī who assisted and brought joy to the entire vast world...78
Such divine projections went much further than previous Mongol imperial Yuan dynasty claims in inscriptions on Buddhist monuments such as the aforementioned fourteenth-century Juyong Stūpa Gate. The Kangxi emperor [page 31] personally visited Wutai shan five times, an extraordinary number for an emperor, underscoring the close relationship between the new Manchu sovereigns and China’s state protector, Mañjuśrī, who resided there.79 Within depictions of these trips the figures of the Kangxi emperor and Mañjuśrī are subtly conflated, whereby the act of the emperor slaying a tiger is equated with Mañjuśrī’s subjugation of poisonous dragons in subduing the land (Fig. 25; Fig. 4, no. 64).80
Tibeto-Mongolian Control of Wutai shan
Under the Manchu Qing dynasty Wutai shan was given more autonomy in its affairs, functioning in a unique way within the empire, and its Tibetan and Mongolian clergy enjoyed a specially privileged position.81 Shortly after the Qing dynasty was founded the first forty Mongol lamabla mas were sent to Wutai shan in 1655, and the Kangxi emperor is said to have converted ten Chinese Buddhist monasteries into Tibetan and Mongolian institutions in 1683 or 1705, providing them with state financial support.82 The position of head of all religious and temporal affairs for both Tibetan and Chinese Buddhist institutions on Wutai shan was given to a Mongolian practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism, the “Jasagh Lama” (zasag/jasag, Zhasa, 扎萨克, Dzasak Lamadza sag bla ma) with his seat at Pusa ding [page 32] Monastery (Fig. 26; Fig. 4, no. 14).83 As previously mentioned, Pusa ding Monastery had been a focus of imperial patronage since the eighth century and was the centerpiece of Qing imperial patronage on Wutai shan. As the administrative heart of this hierarchy, it is depicted at the center of the woodblock map much larger than the others, and its yellow-tiled rooftops, usually reserved for imperial palaces, stamps the monastery with an imperial identity.84
The first of these imperially appointed overseers of Wutai shan, Ngawang LozangNgag dbang blo bzang (Awang Laozang, 阿王老藏, 1601-1687), commissioned one of the objects in this exhibition (Cat. 13).85 In 1661 Ngawang LozangNgag dbang blo bzang revised the local gazetteer of Wutai shan, printed in 1887, shortly after the woodblock map in this exhibition was made (Cat. 1). It is interesting to note in this context that the map in the Rubin Museum of Art resembles the map contained in this gazetteer (Fig. 9). Ngawang LozangNgag dbang blo bzang also encouraged the writing of the first Mongolian-language guide to Wutai shan in 1667, and the blocks were carved at Ngawang LozangNgag dbang blo bzang’s seat Pusa ding Monastery (Fig. 4, no. 14), where the footprint woodblock (Cat. 13) was also carved and printed.86
The ethnic identity of Ngawang LozangNgag dbang blo bzang is an interesting question, as he is recorded in his official biography as having been born in Beijing in 1601, more than forty years before the Chinese capital city fell to the Manchus. As Tuttle convincingly shows below Ngawang was one of the Mongols who stayed behind after the collapse of the Mongol Yuan dynasty (1368) to serve the Chinese Ming dynasty (1368-1644),87 suggesting that Ngawang LozangNgag dbang blo bzang was likely an ethnic [page 33] Mongol whose family had lived among the Chinese for several centuries.88 As both the text on this object and his biography in the Five-Peak Mountain gazetteer describe him as a lamabla ma (lama, 喇嘛), we know he was primarily identified as a practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism.89 That the Manchu emperors would appoint a Tibetan Buddhist to manage Chinese as well as Tibetan Buddhist affairs at Wutai shan, when even at its height Tibetan and Mongolian monasteries (so-called “yellow temples” [huangmiao, 黄庙]) were outnumbered by Chinese temples (Qingmiao, 青庙) by approximately four to one,90 suggests the prominent position of authority that Tibetan Buddhism held at Wutai shan in particular and the Qing empire in general.
Tuttle enumerates how this newly emphasized importance of Wutai shan in Qing dynasty ideology is clearly reflected in literary production. Although none of the Ming editions of the local gazetteer were state sponsored, all of the Qing editions were, the prefaces now written by Tibetan Buddhists like Ngawang LozangNgag dbang blo bzang. The Manchus also heavily patronized Chinese Buddhist institutions at Wutai shan, and is shown below by Tuttle this language of imperial Mañjuśrī may not have been aimed solely at Tibetans and Mongols. Particularly telling is a passage identified by Köhle in the forward to the 1701 edition to the Chinese gazetteer to Wutai shan, the Record of Clear and Cool Mountain (Qingliang shan zhi) – a widely disseminated Chinese-language document paid for by the Qing state – [page 34] which subtly refers to the Kangxi emperor as Mañjuśrī, and the language is couched in such a way that suggests that it was directed at a Chinese Buddhist readership.91
This is a radical departure from previous thinking, which has always assumed that the Manchu court’s rhetoric of the emperor as Mañjuśrī was only directed at Inner Asian peoples such as Tibetans, Mongolians, and Manchus. However, when the emperor’s former palace was set up as a Tibetan Buddhist temple in Beijing and renamed Yonghe Palace (Yonghe gong, 雍和宫) in 1745, the biography of the court chaplain Changja Rölpé DorjéLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje (Cat. 2) explained that this was to serve the Mongol and Chinese communities.92 Based on this, together with records of regulations for ethnic Chinese practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism, Tuttle suggests that by the eighteenth century the practice of Tibetan Buddhism was encouraged among certain strata of the elite.93
Art and Politics: Changja Rölpé DorjéLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje
Figure 27. Portrait of the Qianlong emperor (r. 1736-1796) as the Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī. Mid-18th century. Emperor's face painted by Giuseppe Castiglione (Lang Shining), (Italian, 1688-1766). China; Qing dynasty; Qianlong reign. TangkaThang ka; ink and color on silk; H: 113.6 W: 64.3 cm. Freer Gallery, Purchase--Anonymous donor and Museum funds, F2000.4.
Embodying Manchu interests in Tibetan Buddhism and Wutai shan was the highest and most influential lamabla ma of Inner Asia and China in the eighteenth century, the Changja HutukhtuLcang skya hu thog thu Rölpé DorjéRol pa’i rdo rje (Zhangjia Hutuketu Ruobi Duoji, 章嘉呼图克图若必多吉, 1717-1786; Cat. 2), who served as the emperor’s personal chaplain and played a leading role in recasting Wutai shan into a Tibetan Buddhist site. While the Dalai Lamas were at the top of the GelukpaDge lugs pa hierarchy, the ChangjaLcang skya Hutukhtus were closest to the imperial throne. They were placed in charge of all GelukDge lugs affairs east of Tibet, putting Rölpé DorjéRol pa’i rdo rje on a par with the other high GelukpaDge lugs pa incarnations: the Dalai Lama, Penchen LamaPaṇ chen bla ma, and the [page 35] Jetsün Dampa HutukhtuRje btsun dam pa hu thog thus of Mongolia. He is best known for the enormous translation projects of the Mongolian and Manchu canons, but his influence in the areas of art and politics was more far reaching. He helped craft Manchu policies regarding Mongolia and Tibet, at times interceding directly with the emperor over political issues. In the realm of art Rölpé DorjéRol pa’i rdo rje had a guiding hand in the formation of the Sino-Tibetan imperial Buddhist style of the Qing dynasty that would come to symbolize Manchu rulership. These works of art were carefully crafted during Qianlong’s reign (1736-1795) in the Chinese court, which put great emphasis on the power of symbols, to bolster Manchu legitimacy as successors to the Yuan Empire.
From childhood the young ChangjaLcang skya incarnation was educated with the imperial princes, among them Kangxi’s grandson, the future Qianlong emperor (Fig. 27). Together they studied Buddhist scripture as well as Chinese, Mongolian, Manchu, and Tibetan. This kind of close contact between monk and emperor from such an early age was unprecedented and allowed Rölpé DorjéRol pa’i rdo rje to take a leading role at court and speak his monastic order’s interests directly into the ear of the emperor. Rölpé DorjéRol pa’i rdo rje’s own incarnation lineage was carefully crafted to reflect that the patron-priest relationship between Qubilai and Pakpa’Phags pa was reborn, quite literally, in Qianlong and himself.94 In 1745 Rölpé DorjéRol pa’i rdo rje initiated Qianlong into the Buddhist rites of the divinely anointed sovereign (cakravartin), as Pakpa’Phags pa did for Qubilai Khan centuries before. Later, when Rölpé DorjéRol pa’i rdo rje translated Pakpa’Phags pa’s biography into Mongolian in 1753, he drew a direct parallel between the two acts, ruminating that he and the emperor had been connected through many lifetimes and states directly that Qubilai was the predecessor of Qianlong in the Mañjuśrī incarnation lineage.95 The Qianlong [page 36] emperor more than any other Manchu ruler realized the potential of patronizing Tibetan Buddhism, as is evidenced by the volume of images produced by the imperial workshops in the Tibetan style under his reign.96 The Qianlong emperor’s own tomb, covered in Tibetan mantras, letters, and symbols (Fig. 28) is a graphic expression of his deep seeded interest in the religion.97
Figure 29. Changja Rölpé DorjéLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje’s burial stūpa. Taming the Ocean Monastery (Zhenhai si). Photograph by Gray Tuttle.
Changja Rölpé DorjéLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje helped the emperor craft a policy toward Tibet and Mongolia that underscored Manchu inheritance of Qubilai’s realm, both politically and symbolically, through the production of religious art, with a special focus on Mañjuśrī. As part of this larger campaign, Changja Rölpé DorjéLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje was an instrumental figure in giving Wutai shan a Tibetan and Mongolian Buddhist identity, which is reflected so clearly on the woodblock map (Cat. 1). Changja Rölpé DorjéLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje spent thirty-six consecutive summers from 1750 until his death in 1786 in meditative retreat on Wutai shan at his seat there, Taming the Ocean Monastery (Zhenhai si, 鎮海寺, Gyatso Dülwé Lingrgya mtsho ’dul ba’i gling; Fig. 29; Fig. 4, no. 37).98 He had oversight of six temples on Wutai shan and was particularly involved with the Pule yuan (普樂院, Kündé Tselkun bde tshal; Fig. 4, no. 22), another important site for the practice of Tibetan Buddhism [page 37] on the mountain.99 Most significant, he wrote a Tibetan guide to Wutai shan, the Pilgrimage Guide to the Pure Realm of Clear and Cool Mountain (Zhing mchog ri bo dwangs bsil gyi gnas bshad), which was also translated into Mongolian and actively promoted pilgrimage to Wutai shan among the Mongols and Tibetans.100 While the guide is largely drawn from the content of Chinese gazetteers, it importantly re-situates Wutai shan into a larger Buddhist cosmology as one of the five “especially excellent sites of empowerment.”101 After his death on Wutai shan in 1786 he was buried at his local seat, Taming the Ocean Monastery, in a white stone stūpa, which became its own focus of pilgrimage (Fig. 29).
Portraits of Emperor as Mañjuśrī
Figure 30. Qianlong emperor as Mañjuśrī, detail of Fig. 27.
A graphic part of this politically charged Tibetan Buddhist imagery produced at court under Rölpé DorjéRol pa’i rdo rje was the overt depiction of the Qianlong emperor as an emanation of Mañjuśrī (Fig. 30) and, by extension, of Qubilai Khan. In these paintings the attributes of Mañjuśrī are clearly displayed: the Book of Transcendental Wisdom (Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra) and the sword that cleaves through the dark clouds of ignorance, resting on lotus blossoms at his shoulders. This is the traditional iconographic formula used to identify someone as the emanation of a deity or as the reincarnation of a predecessor in Tibetan Buddhist art. Further, in the Mañjuśrīmulakalpa, Mañjuśrī is described as “the great cakravartin-chief (the divinely anointed ruler)...he holds a great wheel which is turning...” reflected by the wheel (cakra) held in Qianlong’s own hand. Reinforcing this message are inscriptions in Tibetan on the front of the paintings, which states directly that the Qianlong emperor depicted here is:
Ṭīkṣṇa-Mañjuśrī, the great being (mahātma) who manifests as lord of men, king of Buddhist Law (dharma), may he be steadfast on the vajra throne, and [his] wishes be spontaneously fulfilled, and may he have great fortune.102
Seated prominently, in a large nimbus above the figure of the Qianlong emperor as Mañjuśrī incarnate, is Changja Rölpé DorjéLcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje with an inscription “tsawé lamartsa ba’i bla ma,” or “root guru,” reinforcing their spiritual relationship and validating Qianlong’s role as Mañjuśrī, and Qubilai Khan. There is textual evidence that the conflation between Qianlong and Qubilai expressed in these paintings was known in Rölpé DorjéRol pa’i rdo rje and Qianlong’s lifetime. Moreover, their active part in promoting this politico-religious rhetoric can be found in the ChangjaLcang skya’s own writings, such as the aforementioned translation of Pakpa’Phags pa’s biography (1753), where it is stated outright. Like his grandfather the Qianlong emperor visited Wutai shan many times, and as Berger suggests it was likely around the time of his first tour of Wutai shan in 1750 that these images of Qianlong as Mañjuśrī began to be painted.103
It has been long assumed that these images of Qianlong as Mañjuśrī produced at the imperial court were only directed at a very small audience who could decode such cryptic iconography. But as Berger reveals, a large replica of the famous miraculous “true image” of Mañjuśrī on his lion at Wutai shan’s Shuxiang Monastery (Shuxiang si, 殊像寺; Fig. 4, no. 42) commissioned by the Qianlong emperor in 1761, which was placed in public view at Baoxiang Monastery (Baoxiang si, 寶相寺) outside Beijing (Fig. 31), was known in local Chinese folklore as an image of the Qianlong emperor as Mañjuśrī, suggesting that ordinary Chinese were well aware of this visual message as well.104 That the British diplomat Lord McCartney was told by a Tartar (Mongol) official during his 1793 embassy that the Qianlong emperor was an incarnation of Qubilai Khan also suggests that this association was well known.105 [page 40]
a. Royal Inheritance through Reincarnation in Tibet: The Fifth Dalai Lama
Such use of royal Buddhist imagery was not an isolated incident during this period. At almost exactly the same time as the founding of the Qing Empire in the mid-seventeenth century in China, a very similar language of divine inheritance, the succession of past glorious empires through reincarnation, was being employed in Tibet. The Fifth Dalai Lama (1617-1682; Fig. 32), who came to power through Mongol military might in the 1640s, identified himself as an incarnation of the Bodhisattva of Compassion, Avalokiteśvara.106 This was a politically loaded choice, because not only was [page 41] Avalokiteśvara the patron deity of Tibet but also because the founder of the Tibetan Empire, Songtsen GampoSrong btsan sgam po (ruled 617-650), was considered his emanation (Fig. 33).107 By asserting himself as an emanation of Avalokiteśvara, the Dalai Lama was symbolically declaring that his was a divine kingship and more specifically that he was in the lineage of the Tibetan emperor who first united Tibet and thus positioned himself as the rightful inheritor of the old Tibetan Empire. To reinforce this association he built his own massive seat of power on the same hill (Red Hill [Marpo Ridmar po ri]) where once stood the palace of the Tibetan emperors of old and named it “Potala” (Fig. 34) after the earthly abode of Avalokiteśvara, Mount Potalaka. Some of the first instances of the Manchu emperors being referred to as the “Mañjughoṣa emperors” is found in a letter from the Fifth Dalai Lama to the Qing founder (Hongtaiji) in 1640s and 1650s,108 and one cannot help but wonder at the timing of the Dalai Lama’s use of such language in this communication to another ruler during his own rise to power, with the subtext reading “Tibet is ruled [page 42] by Avalokiteśvara (me) in the west, and China is ruled by Mañjuśrī (you) in the east – separate but equal.”109
Sixth Dalai Lama’s Exile on Wutai shan
Figure 35. Sixth Dalai Lama Tsangyang GyatsoTshangs dbyangs rgya mtsho (1683–1706/1746). Mongolia, 18th century. Mineral pigments on cloth; 29.5" h. x 14" w. Rubin Museum of Art C2004.37.2 (HAR 65384).
While the promotion of the cult of Mañjuśrī at Wutai shan by the Manchus could also be interpreted as an attempt to counteract the influence of the Fifth Dalai Lama among the Mongols, his own lineage and monastic order soon became heavily invested in Wutai shan. Many Tibetans and Mongolians believe that his successor, the Sixth Dalai Lama, Tsangyang GyatsoTshangs dbyangs rgya mtsho (1683-1706/1746; Fig. 35), a popular and controversial historical figure who was supposed to have died in custody en route to the imperial capital, secretly lived out his days in meditation in a cave at Wutai shan (Fig. 4, no. 63).110 The death of the Fifth Dalai Lama was kept hidden by his successor’s regent for many years, and the boy identified as his reincarnation was by then not interested in living the life of a renunciate. Instead he preferred archery and the company of women to his religious duties, and is fondly remembered to this day among Tibetans for his love poetry. This outraged the Kangxi emperor, who considered him illegitimate and ordered his arrest. As he traveled under armed guard toward Beijing he fell ill and died near lake Kokonnor in AmdoA mdo (Eastern Tibet, modern-day Qinghai Province [青海]), some suggest by poison. However, a secret biography (written in 1757) edited by [page 43] a Mongolian monk alleges that the Sixth Dalai Lama was spared by the Mañjughoṣa emperor, himself a bodhisattva, and allowed to live in exile on Wutai shan, meditating in a cave with his female attendant. This site, the Cave of Avalokiteśvara (Guanyin dong, 观音洞, Chenrezikkyi Pukspyan ras gzigs kyi phug; Fig. 4, no. 43), continues to be a very popular pilgrimage destination for both Tibetans and Mongolians.
Note Citation for Page
Karl Debreczeny, “Wutai Shan: Pilgrimage to Five-Peak Mountain,” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 6 (December 2011): , http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5714 (accessed ).
Note Citation for Whole Article
Karl Debreczeny, “Wutai Shan: Pilgrimage to Five-Peak Mountain,” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 6 (December 2011): 1-133, http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5714 (accessed ).
Debreczeny, Karl. “Wutai Shan: Pilgrimage to Five-Peak Mountain.” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 6 (December 2011): 1-133. http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5714 (accessed ).
- The Mountain
- Early Political Significance
- Tibetan Identification with Wutai shan
- Tibetan Involvement with Wutai shan
- Tibetan and Mongolian Monasteries on Wutai shan
- Mongol Interests in Wutai shan
- “Wutai shan: Pilgrimage to Five-Peak Mountain” Catalog
- Specify View:
- Specify Format:
- Cite This Article
- Citation Help
- Back to Issue 6
- Back to JIATS