1

Treasure Ho use o f T ibet an Cu lt ure: Cano nizat io n, Pr int ing, and Po wer in t he Derge Pr int ing Ho use

by

Jo sep h Scheier-Do lberg

Submitted to the Committee on Regional StudiesEast Asia in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the A.M. degree in Regional StudiesEast Asia Harvard University

Approved _________________________

Cambridge, Massachusetts May 2nd, 2005

2

CONVENTIONS OF ROMANIZATION I have employed the Wylie system of romanization to transcribe Tibetan words and names. In rare cases that are repeated extensively throughout the following study, I have used simplified, phonetic romanization for the sake of clarity and cleanliness within the text (e.g. Sde dge is rendered as Derge throughout; bsTan pa Tshe ring is rendered as Tenpa Tsering throughout; bka gyur and bstan gyur are rendered as Kanjur and Tanjur throughout.) In such cases, the complete Wylie romanization will be offered in the footnotes upon first appearance of the name. Following general convention, I have in some cases used popular English spellings, such as Lhasa. For Chinese, I have employed the Pinyin system of romanization throughout, except in direct quotes from other sources. Pinyin romanization is followed upon first appearance of a term or name by the Chinese characters where needed. Chinese terms other than proper names are italicized throughout the study, with the exception of the term tusi , which will receive such treatment only upon its first appearance. Because the term tusi is used so extensively throughout the paper, I have opted to leave it unitalicized, for the sake of cleanliness within the text.

3

CONTENTS Conventions of Romanization .................................................................... INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1. CANONIZATION, PRINTING, AND POWER .............................. 1.1 Canonization, Printing, and Power in China ............................. 1.2 Canonization, Printing, and Power in Tibet .............................. i 4 10 13 26

2. THE TUMULT OF THE HISTORICAL MOMENT ............................ 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 DergeA Kingdom in the Margins ......................................... Tumult in Central Tibet............................................................ The Effects of Central Tibetan Instability on Kham ................. Direct Links Between Tenpa Tsering and the Qing Government

52 53 59 68 74

3. THE DERGE PRINTING HOUSE AND ITS KANJUR

..................

87 87 90 92

3.1 Architectural History of the Printing House ............................. 3.2 The Administration of the Printing House ................................ 3.3 The Derge Kanjur ...............................................................

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 99 Bibliography ......................................................................................... 108

4

INTRODUCTION In 1729, the ruler of the small Derge1 kingdom in Eastern Tibet, Tenpa Tsering, 2 commissioned the construction of a large-scale xylographic printing house in the seat of his kingdom. Along with the construction of the printing house, Tenpa Tsering ordered that a new edition of the Kanjurthe section of the bipartite Tibetan Buddhist canon containing the words of the Buddhasbe undertaken, and he employed some of the foremost Eastern Tibetan intellectuals of the time in its compilation. Tenpa Tsering and his successors complimented this canonical collection with xylograph editions of a wide range of Tibetan literaturereligious works of the four major schools of Tibetan Buddhism and the Bonpo tradition, along with works on philosophy, medicine, and art round out a collection that today comprises over 270,000 printing blocks. In addition to these textual xylographs, the rulers of the Derge kingdom filled the stacks of the printing house with large format picture blocks, allowing for images of deities, great teachers, and religious diagrams to be printed in an efficient fashion with standard results. As imprints from the Derge xylographs made their way into libraries in Tibet and, eventually, abroad, the reputation of the small semi-independent kingdom that produced them grew in strength. Josef Kolma, one of the first Western scholars to devote significant attention to Derge and its cultural output, states in his Genealogy of the Kings of Derge that we can even say without exaggeration that if Derge became famous in the

1

Tibetan: Sde dge; Chinese: Dege , Deerge , Dege or Deergete .

Tibetan: Bstan pa Tshe ring; Chinese: Dengba Zeren , Queji Dengba Zeren , Danba Celing , or Danba Celun .

2

5

Lamaist world, it owes this in the first place to its printing house founded by the enlightened ruler, Tenpa Tsering, the most eminent of all rulers of the Derge family.3 Kolma is correct in identifying the printing houses founding as a crucial factor in Derges rise to prominence in the Tibetan cultural sphere. After all, the high-quality printed books that flowed forth from Derge in the eighteenth centurywhen printing was still being adopted in Tibetmust have burned the name of the small eastern kingdom into the consciousness of Tibets educated elite, who would have had opportunities to read the well-edited and finely printed editions. In instilling in the reader a sense of appreciation for the great cultural endeavors of Tenpa Tsering and his printery, however, Kolmas rhetoric tends to have the effect of divorcing the printing house from the specifics of time, place, and the circumstances under which it was created.4 Kolma is not alone in this regard; indeed, the Tibetan source upon which his study is based, the Sde dgei Rgyal rabs, evinces the same tendency toward decontextualization. The Rgyal rabs enumerates Tenpa Tserings three great accomplishmentsthe expansion of Derges landholdings, the establishment of a formal relationship with the Manchu Qing dynasty in China, and the establishment of the printing housebut does not suggest or explain the nature of the connections between these events. The reader is left with the sense that Tenpa Tsering was a savvy political leader, military strategist, and diplomat; and, in

3

Josef Kolma, A Genealogy of the Kings of Derge: Sde-dgei rgyal-rabs (Prague: Oriental Institute in Academia, 1968), 40.

In the field of Western Derge studies, Josef Kolma is without doubt the pioneer in whose shadows we all stand. In identifying a shortcoming of his treatment of Derge studies, I mean not to denigrate Kolmas research, which indeed forms the very foundation of my own studies of Derge. I aim only to advance the cause that Kolma undertook decades agoas complete an understanding of the kingdom of Derge as possible.

4

6

unrelated news, he also liked to print books. An implicit dichotomy between the cultural and the political is at play in the Rgyal rabs; the effect is that the links between the Derge Printing House and the mechanisms of power at play in 18th century Eastern Tibet remain very much unexplored. It is the primary goal of this study to probe the connections between canonization, printing, and power through use of the Derge Printing House as a case study. In this goal, I am inspired by a challenge laid before the scholarly community by Paul Harrison in his 1992 study of the formation of the Kanjur, entitled In Search of the Source of the Tibetan Bka gyur: A Reconnaissance Report. In his study, Paul Harrison notes the inextricable relationship between grand publishing projects and the political contexts which have yielded them: from the very beginnings of Buddhism in Tibet, the quest for the standardized and authoritative text or collection of texts has been driven by the struggle for prestige, power and hegemony, as much as by more scholarly imperatives.5 Harrison challenges his colleagues to take up the task of contextualizing the great Kanjur projects of Tibetan historyto know how these materials relate to the historical, social, and political matrix in which they were produced and used.6 Paul Harrisons general observations apply in very interesting ways to Derge, for the establishment of the printing house was an act undertaken within a complex web of cultural, political, and military concerns that were very much specific to Eastern Tibet in the 18th century; further it was one of many acts undertaken by Tenpa Tsering during the period of his reign, acts whichPaul Harrison, In Search of the Source of the Tibetan Bka gyur: A Reconnaissance Report, in Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Fagerne 1992, ed. Per Kvaerne (Oslo: Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, 1994), 309.6 5

Harrison, In Search of the Source, 309.

7

in one way or another were all carried out with the goals of strengthening and preserving his kingdom and its way of life. In the pages that follow, I will attempt to respond to Paul Harrisons challenge by situating the Derge Printing House within the context of 18th century Kham, a time and place where shifting concerns of religious, political, and military power created a particularly dynamic environment. In providing a foundation for discussing the specifics of the Derge Printing House, I will begin my study with an overview of the connections between canon-making, printing, and power in China, where the technology of xylograph printing was born. The history of printing in China is more than just an enlightening parallel to the Tibetan example; Chinas influence, both direct and indirect, upon canon-making and printing in Tibet, was both significant and persistent from at least the 14th to 18th centuries, the formative period of Tibetan xylography. 7 In traditional China, a rulers ability to establish his authority over the most hallowed canonical texts of Chinese history was tantamount to his ability to control the empire. The early rulers of Han pioneered a practice of inscribing imperial editions of these texts on stone tablets and erecting them in public for the entire empire to see. To help understand this method of establishing textual (and extra-textual) authoritya method that was intended to be permanentI will introduce the concept of text petrifaction, which I define in Chapter One. A discussion

I feel compelled to state here that by starting with the Chinese example I do not intend to imply that Tibetan material culture generally derives from Chinese culture. Such arguments can too easily be employed for political purposes in the contemporary context, specifically for the sake of justifying the Chinese presence in Tibet under the Peoples Republic of China. It is my contention that, in the cases of literary canon-making, printing and their integration into the machinery of power, the Chinese example exerted influence on Tibet at very crucial points throughout the course of Tibetan history, and so an exploration of the Tibetan case would be incomplete without a foundational understanding of the Chinese example.

7

8

of the rise of woodblock printing in China will demonstrate the technologys connection to this lineage of text petrifaction, evincing the close ties between xylography and the apparatus of power in imperial China. I will then turn to the Tibetan history, tracking the development of the canonization and printing of Tibetan texts both inside and outside of Tibet. The creation of literary canons and their printing in Tibet demonstrates similar ties to power as those seen in the Chinese example, and the notion of text petrifaction remains a useful tool in the Tibetan example. An investigation of Tibetan canonization and printing will lay bare not only the connections to the Chinese example, but also the intimate ties between power and printing in Tibet. In Chapter Two I will establish the specifics of time and place by moving to the particular case at hand, the Derge Printing House. I will first briefly introduce the key playersDerge and the kings who ruled over the kingdom in the periods leading up to and including the founding of the printing house. Then, in response to Paul Harrisons aforementioned exhortation, I will turn to a detailed exploration of the historical circumstances of the period of the printing houses establishment. The historical moment of the late 17th and early 18th centuries was a time of great flux for Tibet, China, and Mongolia, which is also to say that it was a time of acute limbo for the small, semiindependent kingdoms of Kham and Amdo that lay between these powerful neighbors. In Chapter Two I will track the disquietude of this period in Central Tibet, then I will discuss the effect of this instability on Kham generally and Derge specifically. Of particular interest in this discussion are two pieces of correspondence sent by Tenpa Tsering himself to the Sichuan Provincial Government, direct evidence of the kings response to the instability of the years directly preceding the founding of his printing

9

house. An understanding of the shifting tectonics of power in Kham during the years leading up to the founding of the Derge Printing House will provide the reader with a robust understanding of the forces that local rulers such as Tenpa Tsering had to contend with during this moment of great historical flux. Finally, in Chapter Three I will turn to an exploration of the Derge Printing House and its seminal canonical collection, the Derge Kanjur. I will begin with a discussion of the grand structure that was constructed to house the printing blocks and operations of the institution, along with the administrative structure of the printing house. I will also note the particularities of the Kanjurs printing and distribution in its earlier years, noting the resonance with text petrifaction projects throughout Tibetan and Chinese history. Finally, I will countenance the notion of direct Chinese involvement in the operation and funding of the Derge Printing House.

10

CHAPTER ONE CANONIZATION, PRINTING, AND POWER The creation of literary canons has long been the province of stable and effective governments. The power to survey literature and to differentiate right from wrong is authority in the most literal sense of the word, and has been treated as such by ruling bodies the world over since the creation of the written word. In Confucian East Asia, where the connection between letters and ruling has always been particularly electric, the ability to control literature has been a crucial skill for healthy governments to possess. In the words of R. Kent Guy, A dynastys stewardship of the canon, and its invocation of classical sanction were vital bases of its legitimacy. The organs and mechanisms of this stewardship, therefore, occupied a far more important place in the apparatus of Chinese rule than they did in Western governments, and their histories were correspondingly more revealing of political dynamics.8 The most revered dynasties in Chinese historyHan and Tang for examplehave been glorified in large part for their impeccable administration of the literature in their charge. In dynastic China, editorial power was one fundamental aspect of imperial power. Because the ability to make literary canons was seen as one mark of a strong government, it assumed a weighty significance in Chinese culture. Ambitious factions seeking to distinguish themselves from their rivals in times of turmoil often turned their attention to canon-making in an effort to link themselves to the hallowed dynasties of the past that had successfully used literary canons as part of their ruling strategies. In this way, literary canons became the mark not only of strong governments, but also of thoseR. Kent Guy, The Emperors Four Treasuries: Scholars and the State in the Late Chien-Lung Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Council on East Asian Studies at Harvard University, 1987), 3.8

11

who wished to be seen as strong during times of strife. This held true not only for Chinese governments, but also for other East Asian governments whose diplomatic ties to China had impressed upon them the political importance of canon-making.9 Creating canons alone did not ensure that they would be seen; likewise, recording canons on paper, silk, or bamboo did not ensure their durability. In China, a concomitant practice arose alongside canon-making that attempted to address these two issues visibility and permanencesimultaneously. In this practice, which I call text petrifaction, the imperially sanctioned editions of classic texts were engraved in stone and displayed in public; these petrified classics and the authority they represented were meant to stand as irrevocable monuments to a dynastys right to rule. 10 First practiced by the rulers of Han, text petrifaction was also employed by the Tang dynasty, which modeled much of its rule on Han precedents. During the unsettled interlude between the Tang and Song dynasties (960-1279) called the Five Dynasties period (907-960 AD), the medium for imperial text petrifaction was shifted to wood as xylographic carving replaced incised stone tablets. No longer were the petrified texts themselves erected in public; instead, imperially printed editions of canonical texts were distributed sparingly to important institutions throughout the empire while the petrifactions themselvesthe xylographic blocksremained cloistered but nonetheless charged with normative power. It was a shift that would have significant consequences for the history of xylography in East Asia and beyond.9

The case of the Tripitaka Koreana (printed in 1011), to be discussed below, is instructive in this regard.

In terming the practice text petrifaction I take a cue from Susan Cherniaks comments on the petrifying effect of engraving literary classics into blocks of stone. See Susan Cherniak, Book Culture and Textual Transmission in Sung China, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 54, no. 1 (1994): 19.

10

12

Understanding the nature of large printing and canonization projects in the Tibetan context depends on a thorough comprehension of the Chinese precedent, for as in the rest of Asia, the history of printing in Tibet was profoundly influencedboth directly and indirectlyby the Chinese example. On a direct level, there are suggestions everywhere that the Chinese model played a role in the development of canonization projects in Tibet. The first manuscript Kanjur compilation project, which took place at Narthang Monastery in the early 14th century, was sponsored by 'Jam pa'i dbyangs, a Tibetan scholar who had been brought to the imperial court of the Yuan dynasty some years earlier. When the Kanjur was first printed, again the Chinese court was involved: the project was sponsored by the Ming Emperor Yongle and executed in Beijing. On an indirect level, it seems that the evolution of Chinese xylography from its normative stone ancestors had an influence on Tibetan printing history, as the large xylographic printing projects of Derge, Narthang, and other institutions seem to have a large element of text petrifaction at their cores. In the proceeding chapter, I will lay the framework for an understanding of Tibetan xylography by first taking stock of the development of printing in East Asia more generally, paying close attention to xylographys pedigree as a descendant of text petrifaction. After outlining the trajectory of printings rise in China, I will turn to an investigation of the dual histories of printing and canonization in Tibet, all the while keeping in mind the relationship of these strains of history to Chinese precedent and influence.

13

CANONIZATION, PRINTING, AND POWER IN CHINA The rise of the literary anthology in China can be traced to the Zhou dynasty (late 10th century B.C.-221 B.C.), during which time the Shi jing (Classic of Songs) and the Shu jing (Classic of Documents) were compiled. These collections, along with others, came to form the core of a highly treasured body of Chinese literature that was revered by scholars, officials, and emperors alike. As David Knechtges argues, to accurately term these texts literature we must expand somewhat the definition of the English word itself: The role of these collections in traditional Chinese civilization of course went far beyond purely literary concerns. These hallowed texts attained the status of jing , a word that is most commonly translated classic, but perhaps is more appropriately rendered scripture. As such, they were viewed as repositories of moral wisdom, guides to proper human conduct, models for writing and literature, and even sources for social and political institutions.11 Because the Confucian classics were so highly esteemed, and because they contained the ultimate word on subjects from poetry to political theory, the relationship of governments to the classics was a crucially important one. As the proceeding investigation will show, ruling bodies throughout the course of Chinese dynastic history sought not only to control the most sacred written words of the literary tradition, but also to make known to their subjects the extent of their power over the classics.THE STONE CLASSICS OF THE HAN AND TANG DYNASTIES

While the creation of literary canons in China is traceable to the time of Zhou, the practice of text petrifaction did not emerge until the Han dynasty (202 BC-220 AD).

David Knechtges, Culling the Weeds and Selecting Prime Blossoms: The Anthology in Early Medieval China, in Culture and Power in the Reconstitution of the Chinese Realm, 200-600, ed. Scott Pearce, Audrey Spiro and Patricia Ebrey (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Asia Center, 2001), 200.

11

14

Between the years of 175 AD and 183 AD the rulers of Han commissioned the engraving of a complete collection of seven Confucian classics on stone stelae. 12 According to Tsien Tsuen-Hsuin, the grand project saw over 200,000 characters inscribed into forty-six stone tablets, which were then erected in public view in at the east side of the National Academy in the capital Luoyang. 13 The Han Stone Classics served as a resource for those wealthy and learned enough to make use of them as they recorded the definitively correct version of Chinas most esteemed texts. It is recorded in the Hou Han shu (The History of the Later Han) that when the tablets were first erected people flocked to the site from around the empire, snarling traffic in the capital. 14 The exact manner in which literate subjects of the empire took advantage of this resource is not entirely known, though some scholars have advanced opinions. Thomas Francis Carter, one of the earliest Western scholars to write on the subject of Chinese printing, contended that visitors to the Stone Classics may have taken rubbings of them, which would have produced a negative image on paper of the text.15 It is in this way that Carter ties the Stone Classics into the history of printinghe suggests that the Han Stone Classics mayThe texts included in the Han stone classics were the Classic of Changes, the Classic of Documents, the Classic of Songs, the Classic of Rites, the Spring and Autumn Annals, the Gongyang Commentary, and the Confucian Analects itself. The Han stone classics set a precedent that was emulated six times over the course of Chinese dynastic history: Wei dynasty (240-248), Tang dynasty (to be discussed below, 833-837), Shu kingdom (950-1124), Northern Song dynasty (1041-1054), Southern Song dynasty (1134-1177), and Qing dynasty (late Qianlong period, 1791-1794. Tsien Tsuen-hsuin, Written on Bamboo and Silk: The Beginnings of Chinese Books and Inscriptions (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962), 73-83. Tsien Tsuen-hsuin, Paper and Printing, vol. 5, Science and Civilization in China, ed. Joseph Needham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 141; Thomas Francis Carter, The Invention of Printing in China and Its Spread Westward. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1925), 13; Tsien, Written on Bamboo and Silk, 74.14 13 12

Quoted in Tsien, Written on Bamboo and Silk, 74.

15

Thomas Francis Carter, The Invention of Printing in China and Its Spread Westward (New York: Columbia University Press, 1925), 13.

15

have functioned as a kind of static printing press from which individual imprints could be made as needed by the public. Max Loehr differed with Carter, saying, The engraved stones, permanent and complete in themselves, were not conceived as printing tools but as monuments to which to turn for the authentic wording of scripture or, more often perhaps, for guidance in calligraphy. 16 Whatever the exact nature of peoples interaction with the Han Stone Classics, it is clear that they served a normative functionthey petrified for eternity (it was thought) the correct and true version of the Confucian classics. If anyone in the empire was to study these classics, which served as the basis of Chinese moral and ethical thinking and hence political theory, they would have to base their study on the stone editions, presided over by the imperial government. The act of text petrifaction pioneered by the Han dynasty was to function as a powerful precedent for later dynasties seeking to assert their authority over the written word and, by extension, the empire. The rulers of the Tang dynasty (618-907 AD) greatly admired the Han and sought to model their rule after the Han precedent. One highly visible way in which the Tang emulated Han rule was to erect its own version of the Confucian Classics in stone, establishing with monumental finality17 a definitive public text that was both reverential to the past but uniquely Tang in its editorial specifics. 18 The Tang, by petrifying Chinas most treasured texts for all the empire to see, were not only establishing imperially sanctioned correct versions of the classics, they were also placing16

Max Loehr, Chinese Landscape Woodcuts: From an Imperial Commentary to the Tenth-Century Printed Edition of the Buddhist Canon (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press, 1968), 3.17

Cherniak, Book Culture, 61. Carter, The Invention, 13; Cherniak, Book Culture, 61.

18

16

themselves alongside the Han, declaring their own government to be inextricably linked with the greatest of Chinese dynasties. The House of Tang was not able to bring its grand project to completion, however. In 755 the rogue general An Lushan sacked the western capital city of Changan, driving the emperor south to Shu. Though An Lushan was in time defeated and Tang rule was restored, the waning Tang had been dealt a blow from which it would never recover. It is interesting to note that in the twilight years of the dynasty following the An Lushan Rebellion the importance of completing the stone classics assumed ever greater urgency for Tang loyalists. The urgency was driven by the parallel goals of text petrifaction: the need for a definitive version and the ideal of a monumental engraving to reflect the greatness of the dynasty.19 The imperative to finish the Tang stone classics before the dynasty fell was expressed by famous calligrapher of the period Li Yangping (fl. 765-80 AD), who wrote of his goal to engrave stone in the seal script, to write out in full the Six Canons and erect them in the Ming-tang, as an inerasable authority, to call them the Tang canons in stone, so that a hundred ages hence no adjustments [in their text] need be made. 20 That the stone classics project would assume a heightened significance in times of such thoroughgoing strife for the Tang, as the very walls of the kingdom were collapsing around them, evinces the political significance of such canonization and text petrifaction projects. It was not just literature that was at stake in the Tang stone classicsthe very right of the Tang to rule hung in the balance. As we will see in our investigation of19

David McMullen, State and Scholars in Tang China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 99. McMullen, State and Scholars, 99.

20

17

imperial printing projects during the Five Dynasties period, the frenzy to establish canons and petrify them would continue into the unstable period that followed the fall of the Tang dynasty as well.PRIVATE PRINTING DURING THE TANG DYNASTY

It is known from written records and from archaeological evidence that print culture was beginning to emerge in Chinas provinces in the period directly preceding the carving of the Tang stone classics. Amidst the chaos of the An Lushan rebellion in the late Tang dynasty, Emperor Xizong alighted to Shu (modern-day Sichuan) with some of his closest ministers to wait for peace to return to the capital. While there, the imperial party stumbled upon a nascent print culture. In 883 A.D. the imperial minister Liu Bin recorded finding printed books in the markets of Shu; this is the earliest known Chinese account of printed books: These books consisted mostly of works on divination, portents, dreams, and fengshui, and writings of the Chiu-kung, and Five Planet sects; but there were also some character books and elementary school books. Most of these were books printed with blocks on paper, but they were so smeared and blotted that they were not readily legible.21 In other words, the books Liu Bin saw were of a popular nature, and the xylograph technology being used to print them had not yet been perfected. Archaeologists have also established that, in addition to the low-quality, popular works observed by Liu Bin in Shu, Buddhist works were being printed privately during the late Tang dynasty. Evidence of private Buddhist printing during the Tang is none other than the Diamond Sutra now preserved in the British Museum, a beautifully printed illuminated text that was taken from Dunhuang by Aurel Stein during his 1907 journey21

Quoted in Carter, The Invention, 44.

18

through Chinas Northwest. The Diamond Sutra is enlightening on a number of levels. First, it is dateable to 868, which makes it the earliest known printed book in existence. Second, the impeccable quality of both the pictorial images and the text of the book demonstrate that, in spite of the low-grade works to be found in the markets of Shu, xylographic techniques and execution were already highly developed in certain parts of China by the late 9th century.22 The print culture that had begun to emerge and develop by the late Tang dynasty was to be combined with the petrifying techniques of the stone classics in the Five Dynasties period in the Five Dynasties period to form the first largescale imperial printing project in Chinese history.THE FIVE DYNASTIES XYLOGRAPHIC EDITION OF THE CONFUCIAN CLASSICS

A series of short-lived regimes known as the Five Dynasties succeeded one another during the troubled years following the fall of Tang. During this fifty three-year period the capital and its immediate environs were subject to the rule of no fewer than thirteen emperors, while the provinces were ruled by warlords who had established themselves as de facto local kings. Politico-military might shifted from group to group; no one faction was able to establish overweening power for any appreciable amount of time. One of the few constants throughout this unstable period was the presence in the capital of Feng Dao, an influential minister who believed strongly in the importance of canonization and the establishment of normative texts. Like the rulers of Tang and Han before him, Feng Dao believed strongly that power over the empire itself must radiate from authority over Chinas most treasured classical texts. In a memorial to the emperor,

22

Tsien, Paper and Printing, 151.

19

Feng Dao petitioned the throne to grant him the authority to oversee a canonization and text petrifaction project of huge proportions. The ministers mindfulness of the dynastys straitened circumstances led him to suggest the relatively affordable medium of wood rather than stone: During the Han dynasty, Confucian scholars were honored and the Classics were cut in stone.In Tang times also stone inscriptions containing the text of the Classics were made in the imperial school. Our dynasty has too many other things to do and cannot undertake such a task as to have stone inscriptions erected. We have seen, however, men from Wu and Shu who sold books that were printed from blocks of wood. There were many different texts, but there were among them no orthodox Classics. If the Classics could be revised and this cut in wood and published, it would be a very great boon to the study of literature. We, therefore, make a memorial to the throne to this effect.23 That Feng Dao explicitly drew a parallel between the stone classics and his xylographic project demonstrates the evolutionary link between the two. As with the Han and Tang stone classics, literary concerns were married to those of power and prestige in Feng Daos great project. In the words of Susan Cherniak, Establishing new texts for the Confucian classics by correcting the texts of the Tang stone classics in Changan would confirm the dynastys claim to legitimacy.24 Just as the Tang had sought to invoke the Han precedent with their stone classics, so did Feng Dao seek to link his own era to the glory of Tang by taking up the mantle of editing and petrifying the Confucian classics. Feng Daos proposal was accepted by the emperor and implemented by the Directorate of Education in 932 AD under the sponsorship of the Later Tang dynasty (923-36 AD). It was not until 953, three ill-fated dynasties later, that the project was completed.

23

Carter, The Invention, 50. Cherniak, Book Culture, 20.

24

20

In the Five Dynasties xylographic edition of the Confucian classics we see two precedents combinedthat of the Han and Tang stone classics with the early xylographic culture of Shuand both of these precedents are crucial to understanding the nature of this project. Technologically, the Five Dynasties edition was xylographic; philosophically, it was stone. The capacity to make numerous prints from the Five Dynasties woodblocksto take full advantage of xylographic technologywas not at the heart of Feng Daos project. Rather, it was hoped that the woodblocks themselves would be invested with the normative power of the Han and Tang stelae, and the imprints that were struck from these would act as representatives of this exemplar. That Feng Daos xylographic classics were intended to serve primarily as a normative standard and not necessarily as a catalyst for literacy is borne out by the very limited number of imprints that were made. As Susan Cherniak points out, The main purpose in utilizing printing seems not to have been to replicate the texts in huge quantities, as was the case in Buddhist printing projects, where replication itself seems to confer karmic benefits; nor was printing intended to replace hand-copying as the popular medium for transmission, though the directorate editions were put up for sale. The directorate imprints were intended to serve as standards for personal transcription, just as the Tang stone classics had. 25 Feng Daos innovationone necessitated partly by the poverty of his sponsorswas to marry the nascent technology of woodblock printing to the established tradition of text petrifaction. It was to be an epoch-making initiative, for it not only spurred on Chinas nascent print culture, which would soon come to full flower with the private printing of the Song, but it also introduced wood as a viable medium for the petrifying of important

25

Cherniak, Book Culture, 21.

21

texts. What is perhaps most instructive about the Five Dynasties Directorate edition is the way in which it lays bare the bond between canonization and power in Chinas medieval period. The centrality of these hugely time-consuming and expensive projects seems out of place amidst the turmoil of the Five Dynasties period until we realize that, by editing and engraving these texts upon wood, the leaders of these momentary empires were fighting for their very survival.THE FIRST PRINTED EDITION OF THE CHINESE BUDDHIST CANON: THE KAIBAO ZANG

The Five Dynasties period ended in 960 with the establishment of the Song, a dynasty which, though it would eventually lose North China to the invading Jurchens, was to oversee one of the greatest periods of cultural efflorescence in Chinese history. In 971 Emperor Taizu commissioned the engraving of blocks for the first imperially sanctioned xylographic edition of the Chinese Buddhist canon, known as the Kaibao Zang. The blocks were carved in Chengduthe heart of Shuand completed in 983, at which point they were shipped to the capital at Kaifeng. The Kaibao edition is particularly germane to this discussion, since it represents the first collision of two important strains of historythose of Chinese imperial text petrifaction and Buddhist print culture. We may say that, of these two incongruent forebears, the Kaibao edition shows more of the characteristics of imperial text petrifaction, for it seems to have served a normative function rather than a meritproducing function. Unlike other Buddhist printing projects of the time, which were designed to produce a great deal of merit in the most efficient way possible, the Kaibao edition was sparingly produced and stingily distributed.26 As was the case with Five26

Cherniak, Book Culture, 40.

22

Dynasties Confucian classics, Much of the Kaibaos power resided in the blocks themselves, and it was seldom transferred to imprints. The blocks recorded the standard, and the standard stayed in the capital. That the Kaibao canon petrified a normative textual precedent is not the only way in which it was enmeshed in the Song matrix of political power; the Kaibao ushered in an era of cultural diplomacy in which gifts of printed canonical collections were part of the geopolitical currency of East Asia. Of the historical accounts that survive about the Kaibao edition, several report that imprints of the collection were given to the governments of Buddhist countries surrounding China. The leaders of Korea, Japan, Annam, and Khitan all received copies of the massive canon.27 Given the scarcity of Kaibao imprints, and the fact that the receiving countries print culture was not nearly as highly developed as Chinas at the time, such a gift must have been overwhelming in its impression. 28

27

Loehr, Chinese Landscape Woodcuts, 15-17.

28

It is clear that this impression had a particularly strong impact upon Koryo dynasty of Korea, for the Koryo had a profound appreciation for the connections between canonization, printing, and power. After receiving a copy of the Kaibao canon from the rulers of Song China in 991, the Koryo produced its own xylographic edition of the Chinese Buddhist canoncalled the Tripitaka Koreanain 1011. Like the Five Dynasties Confucian classics and the Tang stone classics before them, the Tripitaka Koreana was created in an environment of great instability, when the very independence of the kingdom of Koryo was under threat from the Khitan of the Liao kingdom of North China. Caught in a position of relative weakness with respect to the Khitans, the Koryo was forced into an uneasy alliance with the Liao, one which to the Koryo seemed destined to end in outright invasion of their peninsula. Yi Kyubo, a Korean scholar of the late 12th to early 13th centuries, testified that it was believed [in the time of Koryo] that the carving of the Tripitaka Koreana would help the expulsion of the Liao invasion; see Park Byeng-Sen, Korean Printing: From its Origins to 1910 (Seoul: Jimoondang, 2003), 98-100. Presumably the Liao, themselves recipients of an imprint of the Song Kaibao Zang, would have seen the Koryo kingdom in a different light if it had been able to produce its own xylographic edition of the canon. That the Koryo would attempt to produce their own version of the Kaibao Zang as its own political integrity was being threatened speaks to their desire to emulate the Chinese Song dynastyto be a state, like the Song, powerful enough to control textual authority in its own right.

23

THE RISE OF PRIVATE PRINTING AND THE LIMITS OF XYLOGRAPHY

Feng Daos introduction of wood into the practice of text petrifaction was undoubtedly innovative; it was also, on some level, self-destructive. Within a century of the carving of the Five Dynasties classics it became clear that wood was not an ideal medium for text petrifaction in the Chinese context.29 Indeed, the very factors that made wood such an appealing material to the Five Dynasties rulers were those that eventually enticed private entities to co-opt the technology of xylography. Very early in the history of Chinese printingas early as the Song dynastyprivate entrepreneurs and scholars took advantage of woodblock printings convenience and affordability to produce their own editions of books, even editions of the classics. 30 Between the years of 1041 and 1054, Emperor Renzong of the Northern Song undertook a stone classics project in the tradition of the Han and Tang dynasties. It is not clear that the Northern Song stone classics were a direct reaction to the dissolution of imperial authority over classical texts, but the timing is certainly suggestive.31 If it was in

29

Much of the proceeding discussion of the limits of xylography is based on Cherniak, Book Culture.

The 11th-century shift to a print culture was accompanied by an equally powerful shift in attitudes toward canonical texts, one fueled by newly raised questions about the authorship of the classics. Hugely influential Neo-Confucian thinkers of the period such as Cheng Yi (1032-1107) and Zhu Xi (1130-1200) encouraged a thoroughgoing skepticism in their students, insisting that even the classics, the very textual basis for Confucianism itself, must be questioned. Private printers began to respond to the new climate of intellectual volatility by printing new versions of canonical texts which had no imperial sanction. Private editions came to be respected above imperial editions for the high quality of their scholarship and their legibility, areas in which the relatively static and closed imperial agencies could not compete. Of course, private editions were also far cheaper and much more widely available, as their very raison dtre was to produce money for their printers and to raise the profile of their authors/editors. In this way, authority over the printing of classical texts was wrested from the government in a surprisingly short period of time, effecting a massive shift in Chinese culture. See Cherniak, Book Culture, 21-28.31

30

Especially since the imperial government relinquished authority over the printing of the Confucian classics during this period, around 1064.

24

fact the intention of Emperor Renzong to reestablish imperial dominance over the classics, he was too late. In the words of Susan Cherniak: At the outset of the Sung, textual authority in the Confucian classics was monopolized by the imperial government, which claimed to be the most faithful custodian of the authorial texts, a claim confirmed by a long history of orthodox transmissionimplanting the idea that imperial authority and textual authority were not necessarily one and the same was sufficient to promote the destabilization of the received texts. The received texts were now in play. 32 Establishing definitive versions of Confucian canonical texts was no longer the sole responsibility of the imperial government; it was now shared by the entire scholar class. Interestingly though, Chinese dynasties continued to produce imperial xylographic editions of important texts from the Northern Song until the end of Chinas dynastic period in the early twentieth century. It seems that, at least in the eyes of the imperial government, official xylographic editions continued to carry some of the normative weight of their forebears, if only symbolically. That the imperial government never attempted to increase production levels of its own editions to rival private printing houses suggests that it conceded true authority over classical texts once it was clear that private printing could not be regulated, while attempting to retain symbolic authority.LESSONS FROM THE HISTORY OF CANONIZATION AND PRINTING IN CHINA

Xylography originated in China, and the Chinese use of the technology had a great impact on other societies both within the immediate Confucian cultural sphere and beyond, Tibet included. On this basis alone, a knowledge of Chinese printing and canonization history is a valuable foundation for the study of Tibetan canonical xylograph projects such as Derge. But the impact of the Chinese precedent was profound32

Cherniak, Book Culture, 27.

25

and persistent enough to warrant the in-depth analysis that I have provided here, as we will see in the discussion of the Tibetan example that follows. Two particularly important points emerge from the history of Chinese printing that will influence our ongoing discussion of printing in Tibet. First, large-scale canonical printing projects are directly connected to a lineage of text petrifaction stretching all the way back to the Han dynasty. To be sure, the technological precedent for imperial xylograph projects came from the early popular woodblock printing seen in Shu during the latter part of the Tang dynasty, but their conceptual precedent lay in the engraved blocks of stone erected by the rulers of Han and Tang. These stone editions of the classics petrified a normative textual example in monumental form, testifying to a dynastys authority over the most fundamental texts on which Chinese society was based. The ability to control these texts was equivalent to the ability to control the empire itself. Feng Daos innovative use of wood as a medium for text petrifaction changed the practice slightly, introducing the ability to strike imprints in convenient fashion from these monuments, but the idea remained the same, as evidenced by the very few imprints actually made. Imperial printing projects in China continued throughout history to operate as the stone classics hadeven when it was clear that certain texts could not be petrifiedshowing their true pedigree as descendants of the lineage of text petrifaction. Second, we have seen from the Chinese example that the great printing and canonization projects of Chinese history tended not to be undertaken during times of peace and prosperity, but rather during times of chaos and war. The Tang stone classics became a greater priority after the An Lushan rebellion; likewise the Five Dynasties xylographic classics were executed in times of great tumult. The pattern extends to the

26

Korean peninsula, where the rulers of Koryo attempted to fend off the invading Khitan by producing their own xylographic Tripitaka. That these projects coincide with periods of chaos demonstrates that the ability to select, edit, and petrify the correct and authoritative version of canonical texts was seen as crucial to a ruling mandate. In addition to other strategies, rulers attempted to employ xylography and canonization to establish their legitimacy in times of distress. As we will see in the discussion of Tibet that follows, a similar pattern can be observed in the history of printing and canonization there. CANONIZATION, PRINTING, AND POWER IN TIBET The technology of woodblock printing was known of and utilized in Tibet before the first printing of a Kanjur collection in 1410; great teachers and their students were collating important texts and having them xylographed and printed as early as the 13th century. Likewise, canonical Kanjur and Tanjur collections were being compiled in Tibet centuries before they were ever printed, beginning in earnest around the early 14th century at the Central Tibetan monastery of Narthang. It was not until the 17th and 18th centuries, the age of the classic xylograph Kanjurs and Tanjurs,33 that large-scale, single-project, blockprint Kanjurs and Tanjurs were undertaken within Tibet itself; it is within this flood of canonical printing that the Derge Kanjur and Tanjur fall. To understand the Derge Printing House and its own Kanjur we must first explore the dual histories of canonical text collections and woodblock printing in Tibet. After examining these two strains of history, I will then investigate their collision in the xylographic Kanjur and Tanjurs of the 18th century. As in the preceding section, I will also pay33

Term used by Peter Skilling, A Brief Guide to the Golden Tanjur, The Journal of the Siam Society 79, pt. 2 (1991): 138.

27

special heed to the political circumstances that surrounded the great canonization and printing projects of Tibetan history in an effort to apprehend the connections between printing and power in the Tibetan sphere.THE EARLY HISTORY OF MANUSCRIPT CANONICAL COLLECTIONS IN TIBET

The Old Narthang Manuscript Kanjur and Tanjur. It is current scholarly opinion that the first single-project Kanjur and Tanjur compilation effort was embarked upon in Tibet in the fourteenth century.34 This project, known as the Old Narthang Kanjur and Tanjur [ON], would come to serve as the conceptual prototype for virtually all Buddhist canonical collections in Tibet that followed it, as they would all be structured in the same bipartite fashion. 35 The collation of the ON, which most likely took place during the years 1310 to 1320 A.D., was conceived of and funded by the scholar Jam pai dbyangs, who as a young man had himself studied at Narthang. 'Jam pa'i dbyangs, after being expelled from Narthang for an episode of misbehavior, went to the great monastery of Sa skya, where he was noticed by the Mongols and eventually invited to the court of Emperor Renzong (r. 1311-1320) of the Yuan dynasty to serve as court chaplain. 36 From

Following Paul Harrisons suggestion, I will not refer to the Old Narthang Kanjur and Tanjur as an edition, but rather as a collection or compilation of texts. Harrison posits the reasonable hypothesis that the ON was a raw collection containing many duplicates, and so set the scene for future editions of the canon without being an edition itself. See Harrison, In Search of the Source, 298; Harrison, A Brief History, 77-8. Peter Skilling, From bKa bstan bcos to bKa gyur and bsTan gyur, in Transmission of the Tibetan Canon: Proceedings of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995, ed. Helmut Eimer (Wien: Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1997), 100-101. Skilling seeks to dispute the long-standing notion that the ON was the first Kanjur and Tanjur project. Such a notion is misleading, says Skilling, because it implies that ON set a textual precedent for later Kanjurs and Tanjurs, when in fact no Kanjur can be shown to directly reproduce the ON, since the latter remains unknowable. Skilling prefers, therefore to talk of the ON as the conceptual prototype for later, largescale, single project Kanjurs. I will follow his suggestion in this study.36 35

34

Harrison, In Search of the Source, 297.

28

his post in Beijing, Jam pai byangs sent a cache of materials, probably ink and paper, to Narthang and encouraged the religious leaders there to seek out high-quality examples of the most important texts of Tibetan Buddhism, make copies of them, catalogue them, and store them at Narthang Monastery. The project was conducted by the scholars Dbus pa Blo gsal Byang chub ye shes, Bsod nams od zer, and Rgyang ro Byang chub, under the supervision and according to catalogues or lists compiled by Bcom ldan rig pai ral gri, the teacher who had expelled Jam pai byangs from Narthang years earlier.37 No example of the ON remains in existence, nor does any catalogue detailing texts included in the compilation. As a result, we know very little about the specific textual composition of the ON. One thing we do know about the ON is that it attempted to preserve in canonical form the anti-Rnying ma bias that was prevalent in 14th-century Central Tibet. E. Gene Smith notes that around the time of the ONs compilation, purists who had until that point focused on ridding the land of the Bon religion turned their attention to the Rnying ma school of Tibetan Buddhism, which they viewed as backward. In a pointed anthological decision, the scholars of Narthang, did not include within the Tibetan canon the tantras that the Rnying ma pa had treasured though the long period of cultural darkness on the grounds that the Indic originals from which they had been translated could no longer be demonstrated.38 Never mind that there was some evidence of Indic originals of some excluded texts, the compilers of the ON eliminated even these texts on technical grounds. That sectarian interests were represented in the compilation of the ON sets an interesting precedent for

37

Harrison, In Search of the Source, 297.

38

E. Gene Smith, Among Tibetan Texts: History and Literature of the Himalayan Plateau (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2001), 238.

29

later Kanjur and Tanjur collections, and demonstrates the extent to which concerns of power, religious and political, were at play in the early Tibetan canonical collections.39 One other salient issue must be addressed in our discussion of the ONthat of Chinese influence. There is no written record of Jam pai byangs professing direct Chinese influence on his commission of the ON, nor does the earliest chronicler of the ON project, Bu ston (1290-1364), mention directly a Chinese connection. Nonetheless, the circumstantial evidence pointing toward a Chinese inspiration for the ON is highly suggestive. As Paul Harrison rightly points out, 'Jam pa'i dbyangs, working at the Yuan dynasty court, would no doubt have been influenced by his Mongol patrons' sense of importance of previous editions of the Chinese Buddhist canon produced under imperial sponsorship, and by their desire to add lustre to this tradition.40 On the basis of the preceding discussion of canonization and power in China, Harrisons point seems particularly trenchant.41 In addition, we know that Narthang Monastery, along with 'Jam

39

It is worth noting here the interesting history of the Rnying ma rgyud bum. Adherents to the Rnying ma school of Tibetan Buddhism developed, in response to the Rnying ma Tantras exclusion from the Kanjur, their own canonical collection Rnying ma rgyud bum (Collected Tantras of the Ancients). The Rnying ma rgyud bum was never intended to replace the Kanjur or to compete with it; its compilers rather intended it as a supplementary canon of texts they felt had been improperly excluded of their own traditions. See David Germano, History and Nature of The Collected Tantras of the Ancients, http://iris.lib.virginia/tibet/ collections/literature/ngb/ngb-history.html, Written 3/25/2002; accessed 4/7/2005. The Rnying ma rgyud bum was xylographed for the first time at the Derge Printing House under the editorial leadership of Jigs med Gling pa. See Janet Gyatso, Apparitions of the Self: The Secret Autobiographies of a Tibetan Visionary (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 141.

Paul Harrison, A Brief History of the Tibetan bKa gyur, in Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre, ed. Jos Ignacio Cabezn and Roger R. Jackson (Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion, 1996), 76. In addition to the notion of Chinese influence, the issue of Indian Buddhist influence on Tibetan (and Chinese) views of canonization must be mentioned here. The first Buddhist canons, which were developed in India, were like many of the cases under study here, produced in a context of dispute, to use Steven Collinss wording; see Steven Collins, On the Very Idea of the Pali Canon, Journal of the Pali Text Society XV (1995): 96. Collinss exploration of the notion of canon in the Pali context reveals that sectarian interests were at play in the fixing of the Pali canon in the 5th century A.D., when monks of the Mahaviharin school believed that their position as sole legitimate custodians of Buddhism was under threat; Collins, On the Very Idea, 98. The example of the Tripitaka, which was transmitted to China,41

40

30

pa'i dbyangs other home institution Sa skya, enjoyed close ties to the Yuan rulers. 42 In light of the evidence of Chinese influence, it is interesting that the ON was a manuscript project, given that xylography had already been employed in the service of Chinese canonization projects for centuries. Perhaps such a grand project was beyond even the financial means of a court chaplain such as 'Jam pa'i dbyangs, or perhaps there were not enough skilled craftsmen in the Narthang area to execute a printing project of such outsized scope at the turn of the 14th century. The Tshal pa and Zha lu ma Manuscript Editions. Less than three decades time had elapsed from the ONs completion before two major projects were undertaken to improve upon it; as the ON was more accumulation than edition, it still required editorial attention.43 The first of these projects took place at Zha lu Monastery in Gtsang under the scholarly leadership of the great translator Bu ston Rin chen grub (1290-1364). 44 We know from gZhon nu dpals Blue Annals that the editing of the Tanjur was overseen personally by Bu ston, who rearranged the ordering of texts, removed duplicates, and inserted new titles into the collection. 45 Though Bu ston and his followers amendedmust have exerted significant influence there. It is unclear how the notion of canon-making was transmitted to Tibet by India, either directly or by way of China.42

Harrison, A Brief History, 76.

43

Harrison, A Brief History, 78. The Tshal pa and Zha lu ma chapter of Kanjur history is a murky one which heretofore has been best addressed by Paul Harrison. In particular, the movement of texts and scholars from Narthang to Tshal pa, Zha lu, and beyond, is obscure. For the most detailed Englishlanguage exploration of this maze, see Harrison, In Search of the Source. Harrison, A Brief History, 78. Few firm dates are known for the Zha lu ma project. We do know that Bu ston wrote his dkar chag to the Tanjur in 1335.

44

Harrison, A Brief History, 75; Harrison, In Search of the Source. Who was responsible for editing the Kanjur is a more mysterious question, but Paul Harrison provides compelling evidence that Bu ston also participated in reorganizing this side of the canon at Zha lu. Harrison also shows, however, that the editing of the Zha lu ma canon was done by a large group of scholars over a period of decades, for the canon remained open even after one scholars work was completed. Thus, the Zha lu ma canon must be thought

45

31

many of the anthological decisions made by the scholars of Narthang, they elected to preserve the anti-Rnying ma bias represented in the ON by excluding the Rnying ma Tantras from the new Zha lu edition.46 The second ON improvement project took place at Tshal Gung thang Monastery during the years 1347 to 1351 with the financial backing of the local ruler Tshal pa Kun dga rdo rje (1309-1364). From gZhon nu dpals Blue Annals we learn that three copies of the ON were taken from Narthang to Tshal Gung thang where they came under the detailed scrutiny of a group of scholars. 47 The Tshal pa Kanjur, because of the high standard of scholarship that was applied to it, came to be regarded as an authoritative original for subsequent copies.48 It is worth noting here that, like the ON, the Tshal pa was a manuscript project, a fact which is particularly interesting given that the earliest reference to a Tibetan printed work comes from the writing of Tshal pa Kun dga rdo rje himself, in the rulers famous Red Annals.49 Given that the technology of printing was known to Tshal pa Kun dga rdo rje, we must assume that for reasons of cost, materials, and/or technological know-how xylography could not be feasibly applied to the Tshal pa

of as an edition in progress that was worked on not only by Bu ston but by his followers at Zha lu in the years and decades after his death.46

Smith, Among Tibetan Texts, 238. Quoted in Harrison, A Brief History, 74-5.

47

Helmut Eimer, Some Results of Recent Kanjur Research, Archiv fr Zentralasiatische Geschichtsforschung 1 (1983): 13. David Jackson, Notes on Two Early Printed Editions of Sa-skya-pa Works, The Tibet Journal 8, no. 2 (1983): 5-6. Jackson makes note of a reference in the Red Annals to a history of China and Tibet that was translated from Chinese into Tibetan by the Chinese translator Ba-hu-gyang-ju at Shing-kun in the woodbird year (1225?). Later, in the wood-ox year (1265?) it was published in Tibetan script by Bla-ma Rinchen-grags Gu-shrithe work would appear to have been published in 1265, though one would have expected the next possible wood-ox year, 1325.49

48

32

edition. As the first proper editions of the seminal canonical compilation project in Tibetan history, the Tshal pa and Zha lu ma editions came to exert a great influence on the later tradition; in the words of Paul Harrison they are the twin fonts from which most of the later standard editions of the bKa' 'gyur appear to flow.50 The Them spangs ma Edition. The Them spangs ma edition was executed in Gyantse in 1431 under the sponsorship of the local ruler Situ Rab brtan Kun bzang 'phags.51 The Them spangs ma had a great impact on the canonical tradition in Tibet, for it was copied over a hundred times by the Fifth Dalai Lama and distributed to parties both within and without Tibet. One such gift, made to the Mongols in 1671, may be seen as an echo of the type of cultural diplomacy practiced by the Northern Song in their gift of the Kaibao Chinese canon to foreign governments such as the Liao and the Koryo dynasty. 52THE EARLY HISTORY OF PRINTING IN TIBET

Xylographic technology had been employed in the service of printing Tibetan texts even before the scholars of Narthang began compiling their prototype canon in the early 14th century. As early as the thirteenth century Tibetan works were being xylographed in Mongolia and then distributed to Tibet.5350

Harrison, A Brief History, 80.

51

Some recent textual studies have sought to elucidate the foggy links between the Them spangs ma and the earlier editions of Tshal pa, Zha lu, and the prototype ON compilation. Peter Skilling has argued that divergences between the Them spangs ma and Tshal pa Kanjurs evince that they could not possibly have both descended from a single source (i.e. the ON); see Skilling, From bKa' bstan bcos, 101. Paul Harrison has responded to Skillings discovery by positing the theory that the Zha lu ma edition is the missing link between the two, and that the Them spangs ma actually descended from the ON by way of Bu stons changes at Zha lu; see Harrison, In Search of the Source. Harrison, A Brief History, 81. The copy that was gifted to the Mongols is still extant, and is currently preserved in Ulan Bator. Jackson, Notes on Two Early Printed Editions, 5-6.

52

53

33

Xylographs Executed under Mongol Patronage, 13th Century. 54 The earliest known xylographic imprints in Tibetan are those of the Kalacakra Tantra, carved under Mongol sponsorship at the request of Lama Urgyanpa (1230-1309). Also dating from this period is a xylograph of Sa skya Panditas Tshad ma rigs pai gter and autocommentary currently preserved in the Cultural Palace of Nationalities in Beijing. 55 During this period Tibet itself was still dominated by manuscript culture, in spite of the importation of a few works from outside the direct cultural sphere. It is clear from the surviving imprints that during this initial period of Tibetan-language printing, the Mongols and, by extension their subjects the Chinese, played a leading role in the xylographing of Tibetan texts. Xylographs Commissioned by Tsong kha pa, early 15th Century. Evidence suggests that it was not until the 15th century that books began to be printed in Tibet proper. The earliest surviving imprints known to have been printed in Tibet are of the Guhyasamajamula Tantra and its Pradipoddyotana commentary by Candrakirtipada. 56 It

54

Some comments should be made regarding the term Mongol patronage. The Mongol Yuan dynasty of China is usually said to begin in 1276. This is the year in which the Mongols formally conquered the Southern Song dynasty, which had lost control of northern China (and its capital) in 1115 to the Jurchen Jin dynasty. In fact, the Mongols took control of northern China in 1215 when they sacked the Jin capital of Yanijng (modern Beijing) and consolidated that power in 1234 when they took the newly established Jin capital at Kaifeng, ending the Jin dynasty permanently. It is likely that the Mongols inherited significant printing resources from the Jin, which had inherited the state printing apparatus from the Northern Song when they took the Chinese capital in 1115. In addition, private printing, which had begun to explode during the Northern Song, no doubt continued during the Jin. In short, Mongol patronage during this period must be taken as intimately tied to China and the history of Chinese printing. Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, Two Mongol Xylographs (Hor Par Ma) of the Tibetan Text of Sa Skya Panditas Work on Buddhist Logic and Epistemology, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 16, no. 2 (1993): 280-81.

55

David Jackson, The Earliest Printings of Tsong-kha-pas Works: The Old Dga-ldan Editions, in Reflections on Tibetan Culture: Essays in Memory of Turrell V. Wylie, ed. Lawrence Epstein and Richard F. Sherburne (Lewiston, N.Y.: E. Mellen Press, 1990), 115.

56

34

is written in a biography of Tsong kha pa (d. 1419) that the great Dge lugs pa reformer himself administered the printing project, which began in 1418 and was completed in 1419 in Lhasa. 57 David Jackson has noted the distinct possibility of Chinese influence on Tsong kha pas Guhyasamajamula Tantra, suggesting that perhaps the printing of the Yongle Kanjur (about which, see below) in Beijing less than a decade earlier forcefully awoke Tsong-kha-pa and other Tibetans of the early fifteenth century to the great possibilities of this technology.58 There was certainly sufficient flow of ideas, objects, and people between Beijing and Central Tibet during this period to facilitate such an impact, as the travels of several prominent Tibetan Buddhist monks to the Ming court indicate.59 In fact, there was a direct line between Tsong kha pa and the Yongle court in the person of Sha kya ye shes, whose very presence in Beijing was in the stead of Tsong kha pa, who had himself declined an imperial invitation to travel to the Ming capital. 60 Not only was Sha kya ye shes present at the Ming court just after the printing of the Yongle Kanjur, but he was given one of the very rare imprints of the canon to take with him upon his return to Tibet in 1416, just two years before Tsong kha pas commission of the Guhyasamajamula Tantra; this precious gift would surely have been seen and studied57

The biography in question was written by Mkhas grub rje. See Jackson, The Earliest Printings, 107. Jackson, The Earliest Printings, 115.

58

59

Elliot Sperling, The 5th Karma-pa and some Aspects of the Relationship between Tibet and the Early Ming in Michael Aris and Aung San Suu Kyi, eds., Tibetan Studies in Honor of Hugh Richardson: Proceedings of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, Oxford, 1979 (Westminster: Aris and Philips, 1980), 281-5. The first three emperors of Ming were devout Buddhists and were also deeply interested in Tibetan Buddhism. During the first fifty years of the Ming dynasty three prominent leaders, De bzhin Shegs pa, Kun dga bkra shis, and Sha kya ye shes, traveled to the court of Ming and acted as lamas in residence for some amount of time. For more on these Tibetan visitors to the Ming court, see the investigation of the Yongle Kanjur below. Tsepon W.D. Shakabpa, Tibet: A Political History (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1967), 84.

60

35

by Sha kya ye shess great teacher Tsong kha pa.61 Though the colophon of the Guhyasamajamula Tantra does not attest to direct Chinese influence, the chronological and personal circumstances strongly suggest such a possibility. Tsong kha pas commission of a major printing project in the late 1410s is further interesting for it highlights once more the indissoluble link between printing and power. The Guhyasamajamula Tantra project coincides with a period of significant expansion of the Dge lugs pa schools influence in Central Tibet, during which time Tsong kha pa was engaged in a comprehensive campaign to establish Dge lugs dominance over the religious life of Lhasa. In 1409, Ganden Monastery was founded near Lhasa, followed in 1416 and 1419 respectively by the great monasteries of Drepung and Sera on the outskirts of the city. 62 Tsong kha pas consolidation of religious power in the hands of the Dge lugs pa was accompanied by a rise in the political influence of the sect, which replaced the rapidly waning Phagmogrupa as the dominant group in and around Lhasa. Taking into account the history of Chinese printing and its relation to power, it is not surprising to see xylography used as one facet of a comprehensive strategy to consolidate power; as we will see, Tsong kha pa was only the first of many Tibetan rulers to make use of woodblock printing in this fashion. Early Sa skya pa Xylographs, mid-15th Century. Sa skya pa works were being printed in Central Tibet as early as the mid-15th century, not long after Tsong kha pas

61

Jonathan Silk, Notes on the History of the Yongle Kanjur. In Suhrllekhah: Festgabe fr Helmut Eimer, ed. Michael Hahn, Jens-Uwe Hartmann, and Konrad Klaus (Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1996), 168. Warren W. Smith Jr., Tibetan Nation: A History of Tibetan Nationalism and Sino-Tibetan Relations (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1996), 101.

62

36

printing of the Guhyasamajamula Tantra in Lhasa. Imprints survive from xylographed works of Sakya Pandita, Thub pai dgongs gsal and Legs bshad rin po chei gter, which were printed at Sa skya beginning in 1439.63 David Jackson has argued that these extant 15th century works, along with several others in various collections throughout the world, belong to an early printed edition of the Sa skya bka' 'bum, the collected writings of the five great founders of Sa skya. The sponsor of these printed works was a Sa skya pa scholar named Gong dkar ba (1432-1496),64 the son of a noble family from Central Tibet that, according to historical records, financed numerous manuscript and print projects during the fifteenth century, including a manuscript Kanjur copied in gold letters and a printed edition of gZhon nu dpals Blue Annals.65 Jackson contends that early printed editions of Tibetan books are probably more common than scholars have suspected, and that they remain to be located in monastic and private collections around the Tibetan cultural sphere. Clearly, on the basis of Jacksons studies of Tsong kha pas printed works and the early Sa skya pa xylographs, woodblock printing had made its way to Central Tibet by the fifteenth century. At the same time, it is clear that in this early period of Tibetan printing, the technology was not yet being applied to Kanjur and Tanjur collections, in spite of the precedent set by the Yongle Kanjur of 1410, which was likely seen in the elite circles of Tibet (about which, see below). Further, the institutions and figures involved in xylograph printing during this early period were, suggestively,

63

Jackson, Notes on Two Early Printed Editions, 6. Full name: Gong dkar rdo rje gdan pa. Jackson, Notes on Two Early Printed Editions, 12.

64

65

37

institutions with close ties to the Mongol Yuan dynasty in China, such as the hierarchs of Sa skya and Tsong kha pa himself.THE HISTORY OF PRINTED KANJURS AND TANJURS

The Yongle Kanjur. For evidence of Chinese influence on the history of Tibetan printing, one need look no farther than the Yongle Kanjur, the first printed Tibetan Buddhist canon, which was executed in Beijing under the sponsorship of the Ming imperial family. 66 The Yongle Kanjur, so-called due to its sponsorship by the Yongle Emperor (r. 1402-1424) of the Ming dynasty, was printed for the first time in Beijing in 1410.67 The historical moment of the Yongle Kanjurs printing was one of significant exchange between the great religio-political centers of Central Tibet and the Chinese court, and the Yongle Kanjur is best understood as integral to this period. The first Ming emperor, Taizu (r. 1368-1398, also called the Hongwu emperor), was a devout Buddhist who counted among his advisers at court a number of trusted monks.68 Taizu was keen from the outset of his dynasty to cultivate a multifaceted relationship with the Tibetans66

The Yongle Kanjur perhaps belongs more rightfully to the preceding section on Chinese printing, for though the language being printed was Tibetan, the impetus, technology, and funding were all Chinese. I have included it in this section because it will allow for a more robust discussion of the particulars of the Kanjur building on the foundation of the foregoing discussion of manuscript Kanjurs and Tanjurs in Tibet.

The Kanjur was reprinted with occasional minor changes in the Wanli reign of the Ming (1605), several times during the Kangxi reign of the Qing dynasty (1684/92, 1700, 1717-1720), and at least twice during the Kangxi reign period of the Qing dynasty. See Harrison, A Brief History, 81. It is interesting to note the Kangxi emperors acute interest in reinvigorating the Chinese imperial printing of Tibetan canonical texts in the late 17th and early sixteenth century, for this was the period that directly preceded the great xylograph Kanjur and Tanjurs produced in Tibet proper, which will be discussed below. It appears that the Kanjur craze that swept Tibet in the 18th century was also felt in Beijing. In addition, in the early 18th century, the Yongzheng emperor commissioned the carving of a complete set of Tanjur blocks to complete the bipartite canon that had for centuries remained unfinished These blocks were completed in 1724, just five years before the Derge Kanjur project was initiated. See Skilling, A Brief Guide, 138.68

67

The following account of early Ming Sino-Tibetan exchange is based on Sperling, The 5th Karma-pa.

38

one that involved trade, amicable border relations, and religious exchange. To those ends, the first Ming mission to Tibet was sent in 1369 in the hopes of establishing a redefined relationship between China and Tibet in the wake of the Mongol Yuan dynastys collapse. In 1378 Taizu followed his previous mission by dispatching one of his most trusted monk-advisors on a four-year mission to Tibet to obtain scriptures, the first mission nominally dedicated to purely religious pursuits. Around 1403 the Yongle emperor, son of Chengzu, built on his fathers tradition of missions to Tibet by directly inviting one of Tibets most eminent monks, the Fifth Kar ma pa De bzhin Shegs pa to visit his court. The Yongle emperor entreated the lama to come aid the imperial family in performing Buddhist rites for the salvation of his recently deceased parents, and in 1407 the Karma pa arrived at the Ming court in Nanjing. Both Chinese and Tibetan sources attest to the Kar ma pas participation in ceremonies for the sake of Taizus recently deceased parents while in Nanjing, as well as to the great miraculous occurrences that took place during his visit; the mystical powers of the hierarch, writes Sperling, made a deep impression at the court.69 But religious pursuits took place alongside political ones during De bzhin Shegs pas visit, for the Yongle emperor was deeply interested in cultivating some sort of alliance with the Karma-pa along the lines of that established between the Yan rulers and the Sa-skyapa.70 Though the emperor was rebuffed by the Karma-pa, who apparently wanted no part of any type of subjugation to the Ming, his efforts to nurture ties with Tibetan power holders did not end with the Kar ma pas departure in 1408.69

Sperling, The 5th Karma-pa, 283. Sperling, The 5th Karma-pa, 284.

70

39

In the years directly following the printing of the Yongle Kanjur, the emperor invited numerous Tibetan lamas to his court, among them the eminent monk Kun dga bkra shis, who arrived in 1413 and spent roughly one year there.71 As Jonathan Silk has demonstrated on the basis of Chinese historical sources, Kun dga bkra shis was almost certainly presented with a newly printed copy of the Yongle Kanjur, before his return to Tibet in early 1414.72 In the following year Sha kya ye shes, Tsong kha pas aforementioned disciple and stand-in, traveled to the Ming court in the stead of the great reformer. Like Kun dga bkra shis, Sha kya ye shes was given upon his departure imprints of the entire Yongle Kanjur, which he brought back to Tibet with him in 1416.73 What is perhaps most illuminating as to the nature of the Yongle Kanjur is the way in which it was printed. Imprints were rarely struck from the Kanjur blockswe know of only three instances of the collections printing, though there may have been more. The Ming Wanli emperor, in his edict concerning the reprinting of the canon, attested to the sparing manner with which it was produced, saying [the Yongle Kanjurs] production and dissemination never became widespread.74 Clearly, printing was not employed as a technology of convenience in the production of the Yongle emperors canon. The stinginess with which the Yongle Kanjur was produced lays bare the projects Chinese imperial ancestry in the lineage of grand text petrifaction projects dating back to the Han. As with the Kaibao Zang edition of the Chinese Buddhist canon,71

Silk, Notes on the History, 167. Ibid., 167-8. Ibid., 168. Quoted in Ibid., 170; English translation mine.

72

73

74

40

the production of imprints from the Yongle blocks was of marginal importance, for it was the blocks themselvesbearers of the petrified, normative, permanent textual standard that bore the real power of the project. The signs of text petrifaction come into even starker relief on consideration of the Yongle Kanjurs distribution. Of the three imprints that are known to have been made from the Yongle blocks prior to the Wanli reprint of the early seventeenth century, two of them went to prominent Tibetan lamas on their return to Tibet from ChinaKun dga bkra shis, and Sha kya ye sheswho, in the eyes of the Yongle emperor, were not only great religious teachers but also important political contacts to the Central Tibetan religio-political elite. In the Kanjurs distribution, we are reminded of the diplomatic uses of the Kaibao Zang, which was gifted to dignitaries from foreign Buddhist lands on their departure from China. We might imagine that the impact of the copies of the Yongle Kanjur given to Kun dga bkra shis and Sha kya ye shes were even more profound than the copies of the Kaibao canon given to the kingdoms of Liao and Koryo in the tenth century, for the canon was in the language of the recipient, not the giver. Jonathan Silk surmises that in presenting the monks with copies of his Kanjur the Yongle emperor desired to doubly impress the Tibetanswith the new technology of printing, and with the Chinese respect for the Tibetan canonical traditiona proposal that we can accept but cautions that it is perhaps going too far to suggest that the Chinese emperorwished to shift the locus of religious authority to China from Tibet.75 Even heeding Silks caution, to ignore the highly charged connection between text petrifaction and power in

75

Silk, Notes on the History, 171.

41

the instance of the Yongle Kanjur would be remiss. We must suggest the addition of a third motivating factor to Jonathan Silks two: by printing the Kanjur, and by maintaining the blocksthe objects in which the ultimate power of text petrifaction was investedin Beijing, the Yongle emperor desired to establish normative authority over the Tibetan Buddhist canon. This kind of power, as our examination of Chinese canonization and printing has demonstrated, was inextricably tied to ruling in China. The Jang sa tham/Lithang Xylographic Kanjur.76 When the first single-project, xylographic Kanjur was finally commissioned in Tibet, it came in a seemingly unlikely placenot in Lhasa or its environs but in the small southeastern kingdom of Jang sa tham, Kham (current-day Lijiang, Yunnan Province, China).77 The project was commissioned by the local ruler Kar ma Mi pham bSod nams Rab brtan (Ch. Mu Zeng , 1587-1646) some time between the years 1609 and 1623.78 Kar ma Mi pham was76

The 'Jang sa tham/Lithang Kanjur is so-called because the printing blocks resided in both places over the course of their lives; they were carved in 'Jang sa tham and later moved to Lithang Monastery further north in Kham.

It is surprising how little attention has been devoted to the Jang sa tham/Lithang Kanjur both in English language and Chinese language studies, given the projects honorable position at the junction of canonmaking and printing history within Tibet itself. Studies in English are limited to Jampa Samten Shastri and Jeremy Russell, Notes on the Lithang Edition of the Tibetan bKa-gyur(sic), Tibet Journal 12, no. 3 (1987): 17-40 and Helmut Eimer, The Position of the Jan sat ham/Lithang Edition within the Tradition of the Tibetan Kanjur. Acta Orientalia Academiaie Scientarium Hungaricae XLIII, no. 2-3 (1989): 297-304. I have found no detailed study of the Jang sa tham/Lithang Kanjur in Chinese sources, though general studies of the history of Lijiang and the Mu family that ruled Jang sa tham in the early 17th century and commissioned the Kanjur project have been somewhat helpful. See He Xudong , ed., Lijiang diqu minzu zhi (An ethnological gazetteer of the Lijiang region) (Kunming: Yunnan minzu chubanshe, 2001) and Yu Haibo and Yu Jiahua , Mushi tusi yu Lijiang (The Mu Family tusi and Lijiang) (Kunming: Yunnan minzu chubanshe, 2002).78

77

The exact dates of the Jang sa tham/Lithang Kanjur are not certain. Paul Harrison dates the project between the years 1609 and 1614; see Harrison, A Brief History, 80. Jampa Samten Shastri and Jeremy Russell agree with Harrisons dates; see Shastri and Russell, Notes on the Lithang Edition, 17. He Xudong offers entirely different dates, saying that the project took place from 1614 to 1623. He Xudong, ed. Lijiang diqu, 68-9, 323. He Xudong et al do note that the original suggestion to commission a xylograph edition of the Kanjur came in 1609, but was not acted upon until 1614; perhaps this is the source of the dating discrepancy.

42

granted permission to borrow a manuscript copy of the Tshal pa Kanjur which was preserved at 'Phying ba stag rtse to serve as a textual exemplar for his new edition of the canon. The 6th Zhad mar, Gar dbang Chos kyi dbang, was invited to administer the scholarly work of editing the canon by the king of 'Jang, but it seems that he did not take an active role in the toil of collating and correcting until the process was very far along; in other words, he was a celebrity editor.79 We do know that the Zhad mar was there to consecrate one set of newly carved blocks of the 'Jang sa tham Kanjur along with the Si tu Rinpoche when they were completed, perhaps as early as 1611.80 The rest of the blocks were consecrated by the Zhad mar later, perhaps in 1614.81 Like so many of the grand canonization and printing projects we have examined in the preceding discussion, both in China and in Tibet, the 'Jang sa tham Kanjur was executed during a time of great political strife. Whether we adhere to Harrison and Shastris dates for the project or follow He Xudongs later chronology, the 'Jang sa tham edition coincides generally with the Central Tibetan civil war of 1603-1621, in which the Dge lugs pas of Lhasa and the Kar ma pas of Gtsang dueled for supremacy in Central Tibetan affairs. Though the civil war was fought hundreds of miles away from the 'Jang sa tham kingdom, the disconnect is not so great as it might seem; the Karma pas ofShastri and Russell, Notes on the Lithang Edition, 17-18. On the one hand, Shastri and Russell maintain that supervision of the new edition was entrusted to the 6th Zhadmar, but they also note that he did not arrive in 'Jang sa tham until the initial work of carving the blocks was completed, at which point he did edit some of the more troublesome sections. It seems that the participation of the eminent monk was quite limited but nonetheless would have lent a great deal of prestige to the edition.80 79

That the Zhad mar and Situ pa would have been called upon to consecrate the 'Jang sa tham blocks indicates that the project was backed strongly by the Kar ma Bka rgyud school, of whom the Zhad mar and Si tu lineages represent two thirds of the spiritual leadership (the Kar ma pa, the most important reincarnate lineage in the Kar ma Bka rgyud tradition, completes the trio.) Shastri and Russell, Notes on the Lithang Edition, 18.

81

43

Gtsang, after all, were key players in the editing of the 'Jang edition. In fact, the bloody conflict in Central Tibet may have been set off by a perceived snub of the Dalai Lama by the Zhad mar, the great editor of the 'Jang sa tham canon himself. 82 We cannot say for certain whether the Zhad mars sponsorship of the canon was in any way connected to the turf war in Central Tibet at its time, but we may note with interest the persistentand perhaps counterintuitivepattern whereby the most unstable of times give rise to the grandest of printing projects. The New Narthang Xylographic Kanjur. The printing project that has the most in common with Derge is the New Narthang Xylographic Kanjur/Tanjur (NN), executed during the 1730s and 40s at the great gTsang monastery where the compilation of the ON had taken place over four centuries earlier.83 The project was sponsored by Pho lha nas, the newly minted ruler of Tibet who, with the imprimatur of the Yongzheng and Qianlong emperors of the Qing dynasty, along with that of the Panchen and Dalai Lamas, maintained primary power over Tibet from 1729 to 1747.84 Pho lha nas initiated the82

Ahmad, Zahiruddin. Sino-Tibetan Relations in the Seventeenth Century. Roma: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1970.83

It is important to distinguish between the NN and ON in particular to clarify confusion in early Kanjur scholarship as to whether the ON was a xylograph or manuscript project. It seems that during the early stages of Kanjur studies in the West the two Narthang editions were occasionally conflated, resulting in the fallacious claim that the ON was a xylograph project. See for instance Kenneth Chen, The Tibetan Tripitaka, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 9, no. 2 (June 1946): 53-4. Tucci helped to clarify the issue; see Giuseppe Tucci, Tibetan Notes, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 12, no. (1949): 477.

Scholars have not always agreed on who served as main sponsor of the NN. Kenneth Chen asserts that the Seventh Dalai Lama himself commissioned the xylograph project; see Chen, The Tibetan Tripitaka, 56. Tucci says that the NN was made under the Seventh Dalai Lama, but by the regent Pho lha nas; Tucci, Tibetan Notes, 479 . Petech, on the other hand, implies that the project was conceived of and funded by Pho lha nas himself (although he does mention that the Dalai Lama was presented with a printed copy of the Tanjur in 1742); Luciano Petech, China and Tibet in the Early XVIIIth Century: History of the Establishment of Chinese Protectorate in Tibet (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972), 160-1. As the Dalai Lama was in exile from Lhasa during this period, it seems unlikely that he participated directly in commissioning the New Narthang Kanjur, though the scripture project may have been invested with the Dalais imprimatur from long-distance. It is also likely that the Panchen Lama played some role in the Kanjur project. It was

84

44

Kanjur project some time in the eighth month of 1730, and the first imprints were struck during the first month of 1732; the Tanjur blocks were carved almost a decade later, during the years 1741-2.85 The first notable point of commonality between the Derge canon and the NN is their virtual simultaneity. Both Kanjur projects were initiated in the same year and took roughly the same amount of time to complete. Then, after nearly identical hiatuses of roughly a decade, Tanjur projects were initiated at both printeries, occupying similar time spans. Great geographical distance separated the two projects, but we should not assume that they existed in isolation from one another. I will not be the first to suggest some element of competition may have fuele