Question about Tibetan History (split off )

[Huseng]

Split from "Issues in the History of Indian Buddhism"

The Bonpos assert that Tibetan script is derived from Zhang zhung smar script, from around 100 BCE. Given that Tibetans engaged on one of the most amazing cultural self-immolations during the 9th century, and given considerable evidence that Tibetans were familiar with writing prior the 7th century based on their being a vassal state of Zhang Zhung, disregarding for a moment the origin of Zhang Zhung smar script, the Tibetans certainly knew what writing was at a very early date.

This brings to mind a question: when did there appear self-identifying Tibetans?

The ethnogenesis of Tibet described by the Chinese for consideration:

http://wenyanwen.blogspot.com/2014/05/t ... story.html

I'm not saying this is necessarily correct, but the Chinese never heard of Tibetans until the seventh century basically, and they had reliable records going back to the Han dynasty. The peoples in what is now Tibet (especially Amdo it seems) were often known as Qiang 羌.

He adapted an earlier system based on his exposure to Sanskrit. It is likely therefore that while in general Bhrami must have formed the basis for all scripts in Zhang Zhung and Tibet, it is very hasty to claim that writing did not exist in Tibet prior to the 7th century, especially given the clear accounts of the books of Bonpos being burned by Buddhists during the late eighth century from both sides.

Are there any foreign accounts that would support this theory?

[Malcolm]

This brings to mind a question: when did there appear self-identifying Tibetans?

According to Tibetans, they count Srong btsan gam po as being the 35th king, and consider that they were a vassal state of Zhang Zhung until Srong btsan gam po assassinated the King of Zhang Zhung

The ethnogenesis of Tibet described by the Chinese for consideration:

http://wenyanwen.blogspot.com/2014/05/t ... story.html

I'm not saying this is necessarily correct, but the Chinese never heard of Tibetans until the seventh century basically, and they had reliable records going back to the Han dynasty. The peoples in what is now Tibet (especially Amdo it seems) were often known as Qiang 羌.

The idea that the Tibetans descend from Qiang people who fled to Tibet has refuted by a number of Tibetan historians, many inconsistencies with this theory.

He adapted an earlier system based on his exposure to Sanskrit. It is likely therefore that while in general Bhrami must have formed the basis for all scripts in Zhang Zhung and Tibet, it is very hasty to claim that writing did not exist in Tibet prior to the 7th century, especially given the clear accounts of the books of Bonpos being burned by Buddhists during the late eighth century from both sides.

Are there any foreign accounts that would support this theory?[/quote]

There is nothing to refute it.

[Huseng]

According to Tibetans, they count Srong btsan gam po as being the 35th king, and consider that they were a vassal state of Zhang Zhung until Srong btsan gam po assassinated the King of Zhang Zhung

That's quite plausible, but what did 'king' mean in the sixth or even fifth century? It might refer to the people who were Tibetans' ancestors and not much else.

The same problem is actually present in the history of Japan: early written sources are clearly written long after the fact and by a centralized government-court needing to legitimize itself and its leadership in the face of a longstanding aristocracy with competing interests. Although there actually lived the emperors specified in the histories, they were effectively local chieftains when they lived and much of what later became recognized as 'Japan' did not have anything to do with them.

The idea that the Tibetans descend from Qiang people who fled to Tibet has refuted by a number of Tibetan historians, many inconsistencies with this theory.

Do you have any credible academic sources in English that address this?

Are there any foreign accounts that would support this theory?

There is nothing to refute it.

There is nothing I'm aware of that refutes the medieval Chinese account that Tibet as a recognizable polity only goes back at best to the late fifth century.

[Malcolm]

According to Tibetans, they count Srong btsan gam po as being the 35th king, and consider that they were a vassal state of Zhang Zhung until Srong btsan gam po assassinated the King of Zhang Zhung

That's quite plausible, but what did 'king' mean in the sixth or even fifth century? It might refer to the people who were Tibetans' ancestors and not much else.

The same problem is actually present in the history of Japan: early written sources are clearly written long after the fact and by a centralized government-court needing to legitimize itself and its leadership in the face of a longstanding aristocracy with competing interests. Although there actually lived the emperors specified in the histories, they were effectively local chieftains when they lived and much of what later became recognized as 'Japan' did not have anything to do with them.

There are a number of sources of early Tibetan history, but as you might expect, they mostly date from the 9th century onward.

The idea that the Tibetans descend from Qiang people who fled to Tibet has refuted by a number of Tibetan historians, many inconsistencies with this theory.

Do you have any credible academic sources in English that address this?

Light of Kailash, vol. 1.

There is nothing I'm aware of that refutes the medieval Chinese account that Tibet as a recognizable polity only goes back at best to the late fifth century.

There are plenty of Tibetan sources that refute this idea.

Then there is the interesting text, the Vimalaprabhaparipṛcchā which refers to Tibetan assaults on Khotan, most scholars think it dates to the 7th century, contemporary with Srong btsan gam po, but I have my doubts about this.

[tingdzin]

Civilization on the Tibetan Plateau goes back to the Bronze Age, as shown by archaeological digs mostly in the eastern part of the country. The question of self-identification is another question entirely. Non-Tibetan scholarship is currently of the opinion that the ancestors of the people who founded the Tibetan Empire in the 7th century probably migrated to southeastern Tibet from the northeastern part of the plateau perhaps in late antiquity. They were the first ones to self-identify as "Tibetans". There was certainly a civilization of some sort in Zhang zhung at that time, but almost nothing is yet known about it (by the standards of Western scholarship, which requires some sort of external sources to verify internal claims). A very long time ago, Erik Haarh examined the lineages supposedly dating back millennia, and came up with some very good reasons to take them with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, his book, "The Yarlung Dynasty" is long out of print. John Bellezza has recently published a number of massive works dealing with the pre-Imperial civilization of Tibet, as well as discussing archaeological sites on the former Zhang zhung (his translations from the Tibetan, however, sometimes involve great leaps of faith). They are worth reading if you are seriously interested in the question, but they are massive, and far from being the last word on the subject.

Professor Norbu's works, more than those of any other Tibetan with the exception of Samten Karmay, have attempted to explore the pre-Indic Buddhist culture of Tibet in an attempt to keep it alive, which IMO is a very important task, but relying only on much later Tibetan sources is not something that is going to be well accepted by critical scholarship. That being said, his works are also good to read for another perspective.

The Tibetan assaults on Khotan definitely did not predate the 7th century (external evidence). Any ideas about earlier invasions would have to be examined in the light of historical testimony from other Inner Eurasian sources. If you would like a reading list, please PM me.

[Huseng]

There was certainly a civilization of some sort in Zhang zhung at that time, but almost nothing is yet known about it (by the standards of Western scholarship, which requires some sort of external sources to verify internal claims).

Again, we always have Chinese records to look at. The Chinese identified Qiang people in areas like Gansu, Qinghai and Sichuan, extending up to the eastern Tarim Basin.



The Chinese records tend to always note who has script and who doesn't (the Japanese for example are identified in the Sui history as originally not having script but receiving it from Korean peninsula, which seems to reflect the historical reality as it is presently understood). The dynastic records go into details about the cultural habits of foreign peoples. If there was a self-identifying Tibetan nation before the late sixth century, the Chinese it seems didn't ever hear about it. Again the opening remarks about Tibet in the Tang history:

• 吐蕃，在長安之西八千裏，本漢西羌之地也。其種落莫知所出也...
  
  Tibet is 8000 li west of Chang'an. It was originally in the Han [206 BCE - 220 CE] the land of the Western Qiang people. It is unknown where their tribe came from. ...

I'm not sure how many western scholars of Tibetan history have seriously looked at Chinese records. It would require literacy in Classical Chinese since so little of it has been translated into European languages. The records of that region I think would go back to at least the later Han (so first and second centuries CE). They're all available in digital format nowadays:

https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisour ... 2%E6%9B%B8

Fasc. 87 is a Later Han account of the Western Qiang:

https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E5%BE%8 ... E5%8D%B787

... but relying only on much later Tibetan sources is not something that is going to be well accepted by critical scholarship. That being said, his works are also good to read for another perspective.

I'll have to take a look at his work at some point.

You can't rely on traditional narratives without taking a very critical hermeneutic. The Japanese, for example, take a critical approach to their histories written in the eighth century for example. Some of it is reliable, but a lot of it was clearly edited by a court needing to legitimize itself and trying to create a national identity. Archaeological evidence corroborated with foreign accounts (all from China in Japan's case) allows for a more realistic history to be produced. I think this same approach ought to be applied to any culture's history.

That being said, the Chinese histories have their agendas too, though different accounts of the same foreign culture over decades and centuries are often available for comparison.

In the case of Tibet, I've looked at the Tang Chinese account of it in two fascicles (fairly lengthy, which highlights how important Tibet was to the Tang history). It is interesting, for example, that it doesn't seem to mention Buddhism. There were plenty of envoys going to Tibet from China, but there's no real mention of a Buddhist institution in Yarlung Tibet. They mention a lot of blood sacrifices being done to seal oaths. So, how does that fit with the traditional Tibet narratives (especially later on when Yarlung kings are retroactively made Buddhist kings)? The legends have their place in cultural memory, but historians need to be critical and objective.

The Tibetan assaults on Khotan definitely did not predate the 7th century (external evidence). Any ideas about earlier invasions would have to be examined in the light of historical testimony from other Inner Eurasian sources.

There were plenty of tribes wanting control of Silk Road states as the income from taxation was quite lucrative and would fund any up and coming empire (or just make any warlord quite rich if successful in an attack).

[Malcolm]

In the case of Tibet, I've looked at the Tang Chinese account of it in two fascicles (fairly lengthy, which highlights how important Tibet was to the Tang history). It is interesting, for example, that it doesn't seem to mention Buddhism. There were plenty of envoys going to Tibet from China, but there's no real mention of a Buddhist institution in Yarlung Tibet. They mention a lot of blood sacrifices being done to seal oaths. So, how does that fit with the traditional Tibet narratives (especially later on when Yarlung kings are retroactively made Buddhist kings)? The legends have their place in cultural memory, but historians need to be critical and objective.

What period are you referring to? 600 to 700, 700 to 800, 800 to 842?

There is no doubt that Tri srong De'u bstan [742-797] was a Buddhist king. He built Samye, etc.

This idea that something only valid if there is an external source is a little silly. It means for example, the Spanish are the only arbiters what we may know about Mexican civilization.

What are the external checks on the Chinese Civilization? According to your theory, all of Chinese history is suspect since unless there is external corroboration of something in a foreign source.

I think such an approach is excessively myopic.

[Huseng]

What period are you referring to? 600 to 700, 700 to 800, 800 to 842?

The whole period of the Tang 唐: 618 to the functional end of the dynasty in the ninth century.

There is no doubt that Tri srong De'u bstan [742-797] was a Buddhist king. He built Samye, etc.

I think this is credible, but then what about the rest of Yarlung Tibet? How did they feel about Buddhism? Also, how dedicated was said king to Buddhism? Did he still practice animal sacrifice? How much was it to build up legitimacy and international image, as was the case in other nations? These are questions to ask.

This idea that something only valid if there is an external source is a little silly. It means for example, the Spanish are the only arbiters what we may know about Mexican civilization.

No, you compare Spanish claims against archaeology and whatever surviving native accounts that still exist.

What are the external checks on the Chinese Civilization? According to your theory, all of Chinese history is suspect since unless there is external corroboration of something in a foreign source.

Ancient Chinese histories are generally reliable after a bit of critical examination. It can often be checked against existing archaeological and art records too. There's also enormous amounts of literature not issued by any court you can read court histories against.

[Malcolm]

I think this is credible, but then what about the rest of Yarlung Tibet? How did they feel about Buddhism?

Different people had very different feelings, depending on whether they had ties to the old Zhang Zhung aristocracy or not. These feelings are reported in any number of sources, some early, some late. The earliest dating to the late ninth century. Trisong De'utsen's suppression of Bon, for example, is widely recorded in both Bon and Buddhist sources.

Also, how dedicated was said king to Buddhism? Did he still practice animal sacrifice? How much was it to build up legitimacy and international image, as was the case in other nations? These are questions to ask.

One, his mother, a Chinese woman, the wife of Me Agtsom, was very devoted to Buddhadharma.

Second, we have the evidence of the enormous amount of state-backed translations, imperial support of temples, and so on, numerous pandits invited to Tibet. There is an enormous amount of evidence both in terms of bilingual inscriptions in Tibetan and Chinese, and so on, if you care to examine it. It may not be your real area of interest, but there is no reason to slight it due to your lack of interest.

This idea that something only valid if there is an external source is a little silly. It means for example, the Spanish are the only arbiters what we may know about Mexican civilization.

No, you compare Spanish claims against archaeology and whatever surviving native accounts that still exist.

How do you assess pre-Colombian claims? You see the point? You can only go on native accounts. The issues in Tibet are much the same.

What are the external checks on the Chinese Civilization? According to your theory, all of Chinese history is suspect since unless there is external corroboration of something in a foreign source.

Ancient Chinese histories are generally reliable after a bit of critical examination. It can often be checked against existing archaeological and art records too. There's also enormous amounts of literature not issued by any court you can read court histories against.

Well, the same goes for Tibetan historical literature...

[Huseng]

Second, we have the evidence of the enormous amount of state-backed translations, imperial support of temples, and so on, numerous pandits invited to Tibet. There is an enormous amount of evidence both in terms of bilingual inscriptions in Tibetan and Chinese, and so on, if you care to examine it.

The Yarlung Empire was quite wealthy and it was in their interests to implement a Buddhist program in Tibet, as it had a proven track record of social consolidation in other nations. It also positioned the state as the chief custodian of the religion, as was the case elsewhere too.

That being said, there was indeed a lot of money and resources invested in translations and temples, but ultimately I just wonder how deep it went into society. Animal sacrifice was still practiced. In fact, the Tibetan envoys even wanted it done to seal an oath with the Chinese in the Chinese capital of Chang'an.

For instance, the Tang history records that in the first reign year of Suzong 肅宗元年 (756) the Tibetans sent a peace envoy to China. Interestingly, it states that they were going to initially make the oaths at the Guangyu-si 光宇寺 temple (I'm not sure where this was exactly in Chang'an -- it might be a scribal error), but the envoy said that Tibetans drink the blood 歃血 of three sacrifices when making oaths and that they do not do it facing a Buddhist temple. They asked that the blood drinking be done the following day at the Office of Foreign Affairs (Honglu-si 鴻臚寺), which was permitted.

This is interesting because it shows an awareness and respect for Buddhism, but nevertheless these officials insisted on the blood sacrifice.

Again, so far as I can tell though there's nothing saying the Chinese noticed a significant (or any) Buddhist presence in Tibet in the Yarlung period. Later medieval historians can say what they want about this period, but questions will remain. Compare that with the Chinese accounts of places like Kucha, Khotan, Samarkand, Koguryo, Japan and SE Asian nations where popular devotion to Buddhism is noted.

How do you assess pre-Colombian claims? You see the point? You can only go on native accounts. The issues in Tibet are much the same.

If you're going to rely on oral tradition or written records detailing things centuries after they happened, there's ways to read them which usually means not taking them literally.

[Malcolm]

If you're going to rely on oral tradition or written records detailing things centuries after they happened, there's ways to read them which usually means not taking them literally.

Buddha forbid that we ever take anything on people's word.

History does not have be such a cynical business, so laden with materialist concerns and a materialist outlook on life.

[Malcolm]

Again, so far as I can tell though there's nothing saying the Chinese noticed a significant (or any) Buddhist presence in Tibet in the Yarlung period. Later medieval historians can say what they want about this period, but questions will remain. Compare that with the Chinese accounts of places like Kucha, Khotan, Samarkand, Koguryo, Japan and SE Asian nations where popular devotion to Buddhism is noted.

Well, China is not the navel of the world.

Your argument runs as follows, "The Chinese did write about it, therefore it did not exist."

Tibet was of interest to China solely because Tibetans threatened their interests on the Silk Road. Other than that, China had no interest in the Tibetans, this, more than anything else, explains the lack of mention of Tibetan in Chinese annals.

This is not the case with "Khotan, Samarkand, Koguryo, Japan and SE Asian nations..." where China had active trade interests.

As for Tibetan Ministers, well, they were soldiers; and even in the time of the 5th Dalai Lama, there were certain kinds of animal sacrifices done in Lhasa. This does not mean that the population as a whole were not interested in Dharma.

[Huseng]

History does not have be such a cynical business, so laden with materialist concerns and a materialist outlook on life.

Proper history needs to be done in as scientific a manner as possible. This means testing theory against evidence. It is not materialism, though I concede that presently academic history is generally done from a physicalist perspective, though history written more from an emic perspective can avoid this.

Well, China is not the navel of the world.

No, but their official histories were generally based on court records. The Chinese just generally produced good scholars and historians in ancient times. The dynastic records are imperfect, but they're quite credible and interesting witnesses to history.

Tibet was of interest to China solely because Tibetans threatened their interests on the Silk Road. Other than that, China had no interest in the Tibetans, this, more than anything else, explains the lack of mention of Tibetan in Chinese annals.

I think you mean 'Tibetan Buddhism' here?

No, it wasn't so simplistic as this. I'm not really convinced one could argue that Tibetan Buddhism in the Yarlung period was ignored simply because the Chinese were at odds with the Yarlung Empre. Koguryo, you will remember, was an enemy state and conquered by the Chinese-Silla alliance in the 660s, yet they recognized the fact they had a big Buddhist institution there.

As for Tibetan Ministers, well, they were soldiers; and even in the time of the 5th Dalai Lama, there were certain kinds of animal sacrifices done in Lhasa. This does not mean that the population as a whole were not interested in Dharma.

Okay, but it still understandably raises doubts about how deep the Buddhism went in the period in question.

I'd like to look further into this in the future. I want to translate the Tang accounts of Tibet (there's two primary ones) and whatever other relevant texts I can find. I don't know when I'll do this though.

[Malcolm]

I think you mean 'Tibetan Buddhism' here?

No, I mean Tibetans.

Look, the Old Tibetan Chronicles are contemporary court records of the kind of you find in China, with corroboration of the kind you invoked from non-court sources.

No, it wasn't so simplistic as this. I'm not really convinced one could argue that Tibetan Buddhism in the Yarlung period was ignored simply because the Chinese were at odds with the Yarlung Empre.

Everyone knows that during the time of Trisong Desten, there were only 7 ordained Buddhist monks of Tibetan origin in Tibet. But there were Chinese Monks, Khotanese Monks etc., there as well. We also know that the court Buddhism of Tibet was largely Chinese until the 1780's, when, for various reasons, the winds changed and Tibetans decided to throw in their lot with the Indians.

Koguryo, you will remember, was an enemy state and conquered by the Chinese-Silla alliance in the 660s, yet they recognized the fact they had a big Buddhist institution there.

You are forgetting that Buddhism spread into that region by sea, mainly.

There was not much in Tibet that anyone wanted, and what they wanted [gold and salt] was brought down by Tibetans to trade for things in China [tea, silk] and India [spices].

As for Tibetan Ministers, well, they were soldiers; and even in the time of the 5th Dalai Lama, there were certain kinds of animal sacrifices done in Lhasa. This does not mean that the population as a whole were not interested in Dharma.

Okay, but it still understandably raises doubts about how deep the Buddhism went in the period in question.

It apparently went really deep...just look at Tibet today...what more evidence do you need

I'd like to look further into this in the future. I want to translate the Tang accounts of Tibet (there's two primary ones) and whatever other relevant texts I can find. I don't know when I'll do this though.

That would be very helpful.

M

[tingdzin]

Malcolm: The "Old Tibetan Chronicles" is a fairly mythic account of the founding of the Tibetan Empire. What you seem to be referring to are the "Old Tibetan Annals", a year-by-year, fairly bare-bones account of what the court was up to. And, by the way, there is lots of external evidence against which Chinese testimony for the period can be and has been checked. Again, we cannot say that Buddhism was mostly Chinese until 780, and leave it at that, because (among other reasons)much of the remaining temple art from the very earliest temples reflects Central Asian and Kashmiri rather than Chinese styles.

Indrajala, the extent to which Buddhism penetrated the general populace during the Imperial period is still a hotly debated point among Tibetologists. At one extreme, there are scholars like Beckwith (whose "Tibetan Empire in Central Asia" is a great history of the period in question, based on contemporary Turkic, Tibetan, Arabic and Chinese documents -- including the Old and New Tang Shu-s, which have been translated several times, including by Beckwith in his dissertation -- and should be read by anyone interested in the history of Tibet at that time). He claims in more recent publications that the religion of the Empire was mostly based on a traditional Central Eurasian ancestor-and-emperor worship, until it was almost at its end, and that what Buddhism there was was centered on the royal courts. He regards all post-Imperial literature regarding Buddhism during that period as suspect, and hence chooses to ignore it entirely (though the fact that he has no real in-depth knowledge of either Buddhism -- or religious issues in general -- probably contributes to his stance).

At the other extreme, of course, are those who believe that the later testimonies of Buddhist historians can be taken more or less at face value. This is hardly a tenable position, as the Buddhist accounts differ, sometimes greatly, among themselves, and since Dunhuang documents show the flaws in some of the commonly accepted later tropes, like that of the Great Samye Debate and the Buddhist vs. Bonpo miracle contests.

IMO, it is also already a major mistaken assumption to believe that whatever Buddhism did exist on the plateau from 600 - 900 was the same as that which arose after the period of fragmentation, although this is a topic too big for chat rooms.

It's not an easy question, and new information is becoming available all the time. I keep abreast of what's going on in the field as best I can, and I don't feel the need to make a firm judgment one way or the other, except to avoid the more extreme claims from both sides.

[SamBodhi]

whatever Buddhism did exist on the plateau from 600 - 900 was the same as that which arose after the period of fragmentation...

when was the period of fragmentation?

I have been reading this conversation and opening up new tabs for further exploration of bits and pieces, trying to follow everything and piece together context. I am very thankful for what I can only assume was countless hours of research. I find it fascinating and I look forward to my own piece of countless hours.

S.

[Huseng]

At one extreme, there are scholars like Beckwith (whose "Tibetan Empire in Central Asia" is a great history of the period in question, based on contemporary Turkic, Tibetan, Arabic and Chinese documents -- including the Old and New Tang Shu-s, which have been translated several times, including by Beckwith in his dissertation -- and should be read by anyone interested in the history of Tibet at that time).

Did he cite them or translate the two Chinese accounts in full? I wasn't aware anyone had translated them yet. In any case, his work looks interesting. I'll get around to reading it at some point.

Actually, come to think of it, there's also no Tang Chinese accounts from elsewhere that indicate a Buddhist presence in Yarlung Tibet (at least nothing I've seen). There were plenty of monks who passed through Tibet to India, especially in the mid-seventh century when diplomatic relations permitted it, but I simply don't recall seeing any references to Buddhism there. Nepal, which was subordinate to the Yarlung Empire from Narendradeva until, it seems, their rebellion in the first years of the eighth century, is identified as having a Buddhist institution both in accounts of official envoys to India and Xuanzang's account. See my paper:

https://www.academia.edu/11198772/Refer ... se_Sources

Now bear in mind Nepal was only of much significance to Tang China for a few decades in the seventh century, and some Chinese monks passed through there on their way to China, and there's mention of Buddhism, but I've not seen anything of the sort with respect to Yarlung Tibet.

It's not an easy question, and new information is becoming available all the time. I keep abreast of what's going on in the field as best I can, and I don't feel the need to make a firm judgment one way or the other, except to avoid the more extreme claims from both sides.

That's a fair position.

[Malcolm]

Malcolm: The "Old Tibetan Chronicles" is a fairly mythic account of the founding of the Tibetan Empire. What you seem to be referring to are the "Old Tibetan Annals", a year-by-year, fairly bare-bones account of what the court was up to. And, by the way, there is lots of external evidence against which Chinese testimony for the period can be and has been checked. Again, we cannot say that Buddhism was mostly Chinese until 780, and leave it at that, because (among other reasons)much of the remaining temple art from the very earliest temples reflects Central Asian and Kashmiri rather than Chinese styles.

http://otdo.aa.tufs.ac.jp/index.cgi?page=History.

Buddhism went through three phases in Tibet: the earliest period which began in the reign of Srongtsan Gampo. Buddhism was suppressed following his death; and revived again during the reign of Me Agtsom, with largely Chinese influences at the court.

A contingent of Khotanese monks indeed fled to Tibet in 740, but shortly thereafter left for Gandhara following a small pox epidemic.

Later, during the reign of Trisong Detsen, Tibet dominated all of Central Asia, Kashimir, Gilgit and so on. It is not surprising then that Tibetans have art and stylistic influences from Khotan, also they invaded it and controlled it, and we know that the monastic hierarchy of Tibetan monasteries was derived form Central Asia.

Still, epigraphically, there is very little mention of an intellectual presence of Central Asian monks. It seems, when you read Tibetan historical works on the period, the dominant external Buddhist influences were Chinese and Indian, with Indian Buddhism eventually supplanting Chinese Buddhism.

IMO, it is also already a major mistaken assumption to believe that whatever Buddhism did exist on the plateau from 600 - 900 was the same as that which arose after the period of fragmentation, although this is a topic too big for chat rooms.

Agreed.

[SamBodhi]

whatever Buddhism did exist on the plateau from 600 - 900 was the same as that which arose after the period of fragmentation...

when was the period of fragmentation?

...

S.

I guess maybe I should have just google it. between the 9th and 11th century:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_Fragmentation

S.

[tingdzin]

Yes, Indrajala, I am pretty sure he translated then in full. It was a good part of his dissertation. "Tibetan Empire" just has citations.