Pruebas

Political interpretations have become the dominant received narratives of the nature of the relationship between Qubilai and ’Phags pa in contemporary scholarship. Among the most influential is Petech’s view that ’Phags pa was “a tool utilised by Qubilai to implement a policy of control without conquest, adopted solely in Tibet”.40 In Petech’s view, the main reason for Qubilai’s selection of ’Phags pa to facilitate his designs was because ’Phags pa was “less hesitant to cooperate than other Lamas” and “offered best guarantees of intelligent subservience to the aims of the new ruler (Qubilai)”.41 Petech’s analysis denies the Sa skya pas any real power in Tibet,42 and he also rejects the notion of ’Phags pa being an influential counsellor on political or even religious matters.43

Another influential work concerning the Sa skya–Mongol period is Wylie’s “The First Mongol Conquest of Tibet Reinterpreted”. Wylie’s interpretation of the

Tshal pa Kun dga’ rdo rje was referring to the same person here as Rashīd al-Dīn. It must also be noted that Tshal pa Kun dga’ rdo rje refers to Möngetü as the king of Byang ngos. This reference is generally interpreted to imply that Köden was dead by then and that Möngetü was in charge of the appanages in the region of Byang ngos, former Tangut territories.

35 _{Tshal pa Kun dga’ rdo rje (1981: 48).} 36

Wylie (2003: 323–24).

37 _{Song Lian (1976: Ch. 4, 68). Here the title was mistakenly named as Dishi, but Khrin chin dbyin (2006:}

148) points out that the title is Go-shri, not Ti-shri. Conferral of the Imperial Preceptor (Ti-shri) title is believed to have taken place in 1270. See A myes zhabs (2012a: 169). Some scholars believe that the title of Ti-shri was awarded posthumously to ’Phags pa, but this assertion is not consistent with the above citation from A amyes zhabs’s account or with the Yuan Shi. The Yuan Shi states: “The Ti-shih Pa-ho- ssu-pa (’Phags pa) returned to Fan-kuo (Tibet) on 24th April, 1274…” See Song Lian (1976: Ch. 8, 154). Further, in a composition by ’Phags pa praising a Chinese monk referred to as Yi gyang Ju of Sichuan for printing Buddhist scriptures, he refers to himself as Ti-shih. See Chos rgyal ’Phags pa (1968aac: 238, folio 1).

38 _{For the origins of the positions of State and Imperial Preceptors, see Ruth Dunnel (1992: 85–111).} 39 _{A myes zhabs (2012a: 169).}

40 Petech (1993: 651). 41 _{Petech (1983: 185).} 42 _{Petech (1990: 16).} 43 _{Petech (1990: 140).}

nature of ’Phags pa’s relations with Qubilai is similar to Petech’s—a proposition centred on a primarily political understanding of Mongol objectives.44 Wylie argues that Qubilai’s association with ’Phags pa reflects the “Mongol predilection for using ecclesiastics to administer subjugated territories”45 and his desire to implement “a centralised form of hierocratic government in Tibet”.46

Based primarily on Chinese historical sources, a number of contemporary Chinese scholars also put forward purely political explanations of ’Phags pa’s utility for Qubilai.47 These studies follow texts such as Biographies of Buddhists and Taoists (Ch. Shi Lao zhuan 釋老傳) in the Yuan Shi, which states: “Shi Zu [Qubilai Khan] considered the fact that the [Tibetan] land was vast, remote and dangerous, and the people of it were rough and fond of fighting. Therefore, he thought of how to make the best use of the people’s customs to pacify them. He set up the system of prefectures and counties in the land of Tibet and installed officials responsible for different duties under the leadership of the imperial preceptor”.48 In line with this interpretation in the Yuan Shi, Shen Weirong states that “Yuan policy towards Tibet, a chief characteristic of which was to give most-favoured treatment to Tibetan Lamas” aimed “to control and rule the land of Tibet”.49 Drawing on János Szerb’s “Glosses on the Oeuvre of Bla-ma ’Phags-pa: III. The ‘Patron-Patronized’ Relationsip”,50 Shen concludes that the nature of Qubilai’s association with ’Phags pa “was no doubt that of lord and subject”.51

Franke’s From Tribal Chieftain to Universal Emperor and God: The Legitimation of the Yuan Dynasty52 and “Tibetans in Yuan China” in China Under Mongol Rule53 both acknowledge that ’Phags pa was an influential figure. Franke’s focus, however, remains on ’Phags pa’s utility to Qubilai—in particular, ’Phags pa’s supposed usefulness in legitimising his rule over the Mongol Empire. Franke’s

44

Doctoral dissertations by Luc Kwanten (1972) and Jiunn Yih Chang (1984) both assess broader aspects of Tibetan−Mongol relations during the Sa skya hegemony in Tibet. A considerable amount of their research concerns ’Phags pa’s relationship with Qubilai. They also understand ’Phags pa as someone who was useful to Qubilai for political purposes.

45

Other scholars who follow a line similar to Wylie’s include Luc Kwanten, who asserts that Qubilai’s relationship with ’Phags pa “illustrates how Qubilai, through the careful manipulation of a cleric, was able to control a territory as vast as Tibet…with a minimum of military forces”. See Kwanten (1979: 153).

46

Wylie (1977: 331).

47

Examples include Shen Weirong (2004: 196) and Chen Dezhi (2005: 10–11).

48 _{Song Lian (1976: Ch. 202, 4520–4521); translation quoted from Shen (2004: 195).} 49 _{Shen (2004: 196).} 50 János Szerb (1985: 165). 51 _{Shen (2004: p. 194).} 52 _{Franke (1978).} 53 _{Franke (1981).}

interpretation is founded on the proposition that Qubilai employed ’Phags pa to sacralise him as a cakravartin, a universal monarch in Buddhist cosmology.