^{page 923 note 1} “The Early History of Tibet from Chinese Sources.—The T'ang Shu, etc.,” by Bushell, S. W., M.D., JRAS., 1880: New Series, xii, 435–541.Google Scholar “Tibet, etc., from Chinese Sources,” by Rockhill, W. W., JRAS., 1891, xxiii, 1–291.Google Scholar Partial abstracts of these were published nearly a century ago by Remusat and Klaproth. Dr. Hoernle and M. E. Chavannes have supplemented these accounts, with especial reference to Tibetan influence in Khotan: British Collection from Central Asia, 1901;Google ScholarTurcs occidentaux, 1903;Google Scholar and in DrStein's, classic Ancient Khotan, 1907,Google Scholar Appendix A. Also Dr. v. le Coq with reference to Turfan.

^{page 923 note 2} JRAS., xii, 535–8. For some doubts as to this see pt. iii of my articleGoogle Scholar

^{page 923 note 3} The chief of these are Ch'os-'byuṅ, by Bu-ston, about 1330 A.D.; Baidurya Karpo, by sDe-srid Saṅ-gyas rgya-mts'o, in 1686 A.D.; Deb-t'ar sṆon-po, abstracted by Das, S. C. in Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, 1881, pp. 213, etc.;Google Scholar and rGgal-rabs, partly translated into German by Schlagintweit, E. as Könige von Tibet, 1866.Google Scholar Note.—In transliterating Tibetan names I have adhered to the Society's system for the Sanskrit alphabet, except in regard to the aspirates, which are here represented as k’, c’, t’, p’, ts’, and the initial semi-vowel h by ‘; and the silent initial consonants I have put into italics when the words are in roman type.

^{page 924 note 1} JRAS., 1891, pp. 264, 281.Google Scholar

^{page 925 note 1} JRAS., 1891, p. 264.Google Scholar

^{page 925 note 2} The exact position of this pillar is shown in the plan at p. 365 of my Lhasa and its Mysteries, 1905.Google Scholar

^{page 925 note 3} An ancient practice of the Chinese was to proclaim sworn treaties in the ancestral temples (Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, p. 516Google Scholar). For this temple see my Lhasa and its Mysteries, pp. 361–71,Google Scholar and Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, 1895, pp. 259, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 927 note 1} The Chinese annals record the repeated rebuffs and indignities their mission suffered at the hands of the Tibetans. Bushell, , JRAS., 1880, pp. 486–7.Google Scholar

^{page 927 note 2} My Buddhism of Tibet, pp. 24–33.Google Scholar

^{page 927 note 3} Also called sometimes in later literature K'ri Sroṇ-lde'u-btsan.

^{page 927 note 4} The princess or Kung-chu (Tibetan Koṅ-jo) of Chinch'eng. Bushell, , JRAS., xii, 456.Google Scholar

^{page 927 note 5} The Chinese admitted the power of the Tibetans in their contemporary annals in these words: “At this time (678 A.D.) the Tu-fan [i.e. Tibet] … on the south stretched to P'olomên (Brāhmana, a synonym of Central India) … Their country extended over more than 10,000 li [= about 2000 miles]; and from the Han and Wei dynasties [206 B.C. to 543 A.D.] downwards there had been no people among the nations of the west so powerful.” Bushell, , JRAS., xii, 450.Google Scholar

^{page 928 note 1} Ancient Khotan, pp. 5, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 928 note 2} Ibid., p. 7.

^{page 928 note 3} At that time the capital was at Ch'angan, the modern Hsi-an-fu, in the Shen-si province of Middle China.

^{page 928 note 4} Cf. de Körös, Csoma, Grammar, p. 196.Google Scholar

^{page 929 note 1} My Buddhism of Tibet, pp. 31, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 930 note 1} See note on this title ‘p'rul at p. 942.Google Scholar

^{page 930 note 2} Literally “potentate” or “the powerful one”–btsan-po, the early term for the Tibetan ruler, latterly called rgyal-po or king, though the latter term also is used in this edict in the sense of “sovereign”.

^{page 930 note 3} This is, says Dr. Bushell, the Tibetan phonetic transcription of the Chinese title Wên-wu-hsiao-tê, meaning “learned, warlike, filial, and virtuous”, which occurs also as the title of Mu Tsung in his edict (Bushell, , JRAS., xii, 534Google Scholar). Dr. Bushell notes that it was a title of Mu Tsung before his canonization, after which “he would have been given a more grandiloquent sacrificial title”; but here we have it also applied to the contemporary of K'ri Sroṇ-lde-btsan, the Emperor Tê Tsung.

^{page 930 note 4} Or “met and made peace”. The fuller form of this word ‘dum is used lower down.

^{page 930 note 5} This ancient form of expression occurs also in a letter from the Tibetans in 729 A.D. to the Chinese regarding peace negotiations: “We (the Tibetans) do not listen [to the disputes of quarrelsome tribes], the T'ang also ought not to listen. Let a governor send a confidential officer to return with the Naṇ-ku to discuss a sworn treaty.” Bushell, , JRAS., xii, 464.Google Scholar

^{page 930 note 6} Or “grown”.

^{page 930 note 7} See my note on this at pp. 935–7.

^{page 931 note 1} btsan-po; see n. 1, p. 930.Google Scholar

^{page 931 note 2} For this legendary king see my note on p. 938.

^{page 931 note 3} The whole of this paragraph is very contracted and difficult. The use of sa “earth” makes it clear that by mt'o-sa a high earthly land is intended, otherwise mt'o is sometimes used for mt'o-ris and mt'o-srid, “heaven”; for the conception, however, of heaven in the Indian and Western sense the Tibetans use the word mk’ā which they clearly borrowed from the Sanskrit K'a as they evidently had no indigenous word of their own to express it. This early application of the epithet mt'o (pronounced t'ö) to Tibet is interesting with reference to the origin of the modern and mediaeval name Tibet (Chinese T'u-fan), as this word is now generally believed to be a corruption of the vernacular word for “High Bod”, namely sTod-bod, which is pronounced Tö-p'ot. Here Bod is the native name for the country, and stod is a derivative of the word here used, mt'o.

^{page 931 note 4} The dBus-Ch'u is the recognized name of the Kyid-Ch'u on which Lhasa stands. It is never applied to the Tsaṅ-po or Brahmaputra, which later legend makes the traditional place of appearance of the first legendary king of Tibet, namely, from the sky at the head of the Yarlun, a great side valley of the Tsaṅ-po, to the south-west of Lhasa. See also p. 938.

^{page 931 note 5} The word used, naṅ, literally “within”, i.e. of the party or circle, is the usual term now employed to denote the Buddhist religion in general terms. See also p. 939.

^{page 931 note 6} Or “adapted” or “prepared” (sbyar).

^{page 931 note 6} The context shows that this undoubtedly is that celebrated king known to later Tibetan history as Sroṅ-btsan sGam-po; see my Buddhism of Tibet, pp. 19–24.Google Scholar For my remarks on his earlier name see p. 939. In my copy the syllable lde precedes; but in view of the context it seems possible that this may have been inserted by the mistake of my copyist, through the name K'ri Sroṅ-lde-btsan recurring so often.

^{page 932 note 1} The famous Emperor Tai Tsung, the son of the founder of the powerful T'ang dynasty, and the great patron of the celebrated Buddhist pilgrim and geographer Hiuen Tsang or Hsüan Tsang.

^{page 932 note 2} Hwang-ti = Chinese for “supreme ruler”, the title of every emperor of China (Giles, H. A., Glossary, p. 130Google Scholar). For the rest of this title see n. 3, p. 930.

^{page 932 note 3} This agrees strictly with Chinese history, which records that in the eighth year of the Cheng Kwan period (= 634 A.D.) the Tibetan king K'i-tsun-lun-ts'an (the Chinese transcription of the first portion of the name K'ri Sroṅ-btsan sGampo) consulted with the Emperor Tai Tsung. Bushell, , loc. cit., p. 438;Google ScholarRockhill, , JRAS., xxiii, 190;Google ScholarLife of Bttddha, etc., p. 213Google Scholar; Mayer's, Chinese Reader's Manual, p. 380.Google Scholar

^{page 932 note 4} This is the father of the king of this treaty, and is readily identified with absolute certainty by his marriage with the Chinese princess in the King Lung period. He is called in the Chinese annals Khi-li-so-tsan or Chi-li-so-tsan (Bushell, , loc. cit., p. 456Google Scholar) or Chi-lu-so-tsan (Rockhill, , JRAS., xxiii, 191Google Scholar), which is a very good transcript of his Tibetan name. In later history the last syllable of his name is sometimes written brtan.

^{page 932 note 5} Literally “built up”.

^{page 932 note 6} This, which is defaced, probably may be written Sang Tsong. It is intended for the Emperor Chung Tsung, who gave his adopted daughter in this marriage. Bushell, , loc. cit., p. 456.Google Scholar

^{page 932 note 7} This is the Chinese word kung-chu, or “the princess”. This is the title by which this princess, the princess Chin-Ch'eng, is known to Tibetan history. She was the “adopted child (of the emperor), the daughter of Shouli, prince of Yung”. Bushell, , loc. cit., p. 456.Google Scholar

^{page 932 note 8} The Chinese annals state “in the 3rd year of King Lung(= 709 A.D.) in the 11th month they (the Tibetans) sent a mission……to receive the bride”; but it did not reach the capital of Tibet till the following year. Bushell, , loc. cit., p. 456.Google Scholar

^{page 932 note 9} The princess, the adopted child of the emperor, was probably the niece of the latter, and hence her husband's relation to the emperor would be literally that of nephew to uncle.

^{page 932 note 10} Literally “dust”.

^{page 933 note 1} Or “exercised”.

^{page 933 note 2} Here lde appears in my copy as the second syllable of the name instead of the third.

^{page 933 note 3} Or “consulting”.

^{page 933 note 4} These four kings would doubtless be the kings of China, India (Magadha), Parthia or Persia (Tib. sTag-gzig), and the Scythian or chief of the Mongols or of the Uigur Turkish Tartars (Hor).

^{page 933 note 5} This paragraph is very contracted and presents several difficulties. This particular word is slightly indistinct and seems to have no prefixed so that it reads bru, instead of the usual 'bru, A possible reading is a fowl, especially as the sacrifice of a white cock was customary.

^{page 933 note 6} This term, a contraction for mch'od-stegs, is now applied to side sacrificial altars, probably the aboriginal ones for bloody sacrifices which are now relegated to a secondary place, and not to the central Buddhistic ones.

^{page 934 note 1} This use of “then” and not “now” is important as showing that this refers to the reign of the king's father and not to his own.

^{page 934 note 2} The father, namely K'ri gTsug-lde-btsan, whom I identify with the “Ch'ilisulungliehtsan” of the Chinese records who died in 755 A. D. (Bushell, , loc. cit., p. 438)Google Scholar, survived during the reigns of the emperors Chung Tsung (705–9 A.D.), who gave his daughter in marriage, Jui Tsung (710–12), and Yuan Tsung (713–56 A.D.). These dates are from Mayer's, Chinese Reader's Manual, pp. 381–2.Google Scholar

^{page 934 note 3} Literally “reputation”.

^{page 935 note 1} Or “inquire particularly into”, though it seems to be a threat to offenders rather than a promise to negotiate difficulties.

^{page 935 note 2} Bushell, , JRAS., xii, 487–90.Google Scholar Rockhill, ibid., xxiii, 193: “In the 4th year Chien-chung [= 783 A.D.] the T'u-fan [= Tibetan] sent officials to make a treaty at Ching-shui, and in front of the Tao-chao [= Great Jo temple at Lhasa] is the tablet of the treaty between the nephew and uncle.” Cf. also ibid., pp. 264, 281.

^{page 935 note 3} Bushell, , loc. cit., p. 532, note No. 49.Google Scholar

^{page 935 note 4} Bushell, , loc. cit., p. 489.Google Scholar

^{page 936 note 1} Saṅghavardhana Vyākaraṇa, abstracted by MrThomas, F. W. in Stein's Ancient Khotan, i, 582.Google Scholar

^{page 936 note 2} Rockhill, , Life of Buddha, etc., p. 240;Google Scholar also Lévi, M. Sylvain in Stein's, Ancient Khotan, i, 584.Google Scholar

^{page 936 note 3} Bushell, , loc. cit., p. 444.Google Scholar

^{page 936 note 4} Rockhill, , Land of the Lamas, pp. 123 and 335–7;Google Scholar also Bushell, , loc. cit., p. 527, n. 11.Google Scholar It looks to me as if the Tibetan title Drug might be an early attempt to represent “Turk”, though in modern Tibetan this is rendered Turuṣka in consonance with the later softening of the gutturals —notwithstanding that the tribe had a tradition that their name was eponymic of their personal founder about 300 A.D. Evidently with a similar signification drug is used in Tibetan for Turkoise, “the gem of the Turks.”

^{page 936 note 5} M. Chavannes, in transcribing from the Chinese records the name of this people, employs throughout his book of 1903 (Documents sur les Tou-Kiue [Turcs] Occidentaux) the French form of T'ou-kou-hoen, instead of T'u-ku-hun as used by Bushell and others, following the more direct scientific nomenclature of Wade's system; but in his index (p. 372) he has altered it to T'ou-yu-hoen, with the following note:—“tribe of the Sien-pi race established on the border of the Khou-khe-noor [= Koko Nor]; by error this name has been often transcribed ‘Tou-kou-hoen’; the character ought here to be pronounced Yu as K'ang-hi's dictionary indicates.” M. Chavannes, however, does not suggest what the original form of this foreign name may have been which the Chinese intended to transcribe. It seems to me, that the Tibetan forms Drug and Drug-gu, which are clearly applied to this people in the edict of the eighth century and in the scriptures of probably the same or a somewhat earlier date, are decidedly more authoritative evidence for the pronunciation and identification of the tribal name than the notions of the modern Chinese compilers of K'ang-hi's dictionary in regard to the mutilated Chinese transcription of a barbarian name. Tibetan is much better adapted for reproducing Turkish sounds than is Chinese, and the form Drug is probably very near, if not identical with, the original Turkic word.Google Scholar

^{page 937 note 1} “Dsamliṅ Gyeshe,” a very defective translation of which is in the Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, 1887, p. 29.Google Scholar

^{page 937 note 2} Tibet, 1904, p. 206.Google Scholar

^{page 937 note 3} Rockhill, , Diary of Journey through Mongolia and Tibet, 1894, p. 112.Google Scholar Cf. also Howorth, H. H., History of the Mongols.Google Scholar

^{page 938 note 1} My Buddhism of Tibet, pp. 19, 20.Google Scholar

^{page 938 note 2} Rockhill, , Life of Buddha, etc., p. 209.Google Scholar

^{page 939 note 1} My Buddhism of Tibet, pp. 19, 26–41, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 939 note 2} 1895, pp. 19–24.

^{page 939 note 3} Bushell, , loc. cit., pp. 438, 443, etc.;Google Scholar also Rockhill, ibid.

^{page 940 note 1} Rockhill, , Life of Buddha, p. 211.Google Scholar

^{page 940 note 2} A Chinese record of the eleventh century A.D. mentions that he was also known as “Fuyehshih” (Bushell, , loc. cit., p. 443), possibly a, Chinese translation of a Tibetan word, or it may be a Chinese title.Google Scholar

^{page 940 note 3} For the evidence as to this see my Buddhism of Tibet, pp. 20, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 941 note 1} My Buddhism of Tibet, pp. 24, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 941 note 2} Bushell, , loc. cit., p. 490.Google Scholar

^{page 942 note 1} My Buddhism of Tibet, p. 142.Google Scholar

^{page 942 note 2} The use of this terminative or finite d, the drag or, to be more precise, the da-drag, is thus explained by Csoma de Körös in his Grammar, 1834, p. 11:Google Scholar “There are yet, according to ancient orthography, three double [consonantal] affixes, nd or nt, rd or rt, and ld or lt, as in gsand-pa, he heard; gyurd-pa, he became; and gsold-pa, he requested. Though this mode of writing is the more correct for designing the past tense, yet according to modern practice the d is omitted.” Jaeschke, in his Tibetan Dictionary, 1882, p. 246,Google Scholar says: “Da-drag is a term used by grammarians for the now obsolete d as second final after n, r, l, e.g. in kund, changing the termination du into tu; no, ro, lo into to; nam, ram, lam into tam.” And in his Grammar, 1883, p. 45,Google Scholar he adds with reference to its use with finite verbs—“the perfect of the verbs ending in n, r, l, which formerly had a d as second final, assumes to and dam,” and he gives the rules for its use and omission.

^{page 943 note 1} Ancient Khotan, i, 548, etc.;Google ScholarJRAS., 1903, pp. 109–14, 572–5, 821–3.Google Scholar

^{page 943 note 2} Notably Ṥantarakshita, Kamalaśila of India, and Ānanda of Kaśmīr, each of whom has contributed several works to the Bstan-'gyur, and the learned Tibetan students Vairocana and his six associates, all of whom studied in the schools of India. Cf. Rockhill, , Life of Buddha, pp. 219, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 946 note 1} Rockhill, , Life of Buddha, pp. 211, etc.;Google Scholar my Buddhism of Tibet, p. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 946 note 2} Fleet, J. P., Corp. Ins. Ind., iii, 201, 202; the italics are mine.Google Scholar

^{page 946 note 2} Hoernle, A. F. R., Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, 1891, pp. 84–6; 1893, pp. 6, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 947 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., loc. cit., p. 529;Google ScholarChinese Art, i, 24;Google Scholar also Lévi, M. Sylvain, Journal Asiatique, 1900, pp. 297, 401;Google ScholarIndian Antiquary, 1904, p. 112.Google Scholar As the Chinese reached China in the fifth month of 648 on their return with the king of Magadha as their prisoner, the occupation must have taken place in 647 A.D.

^{page 947 note 2} My Buddhism of Tibet, p. 22, for summary of these.Google Scholar

^{page 948 note 1} Bushell, , JRAS., loc. cit., p. 467.Google Scholar

^{page 948 note 2} Rockhill, , Life of Buddha, etc., pp. 212–18.Google Scholar

^{page 949 note 1} The first character of this word is somewhat defaced and might possibly read thus giving with the meaning of “the Great Lake”; in either case, however, the identity of this lake as the Koko-Nor remains indisputably the same.

^{page 949 note 2} Is a form of 'p'rul (p. 942) with an identical meaning.Google Scholar

^{page 949 note 3} There seemed no trace of a final .

^{page 950 note 4} Or

^{page 950 note 5} This might possibly be .

^{page 951 note 1} Or might be There is no initial in my copy.

^{page 952 note 2} Possibly

^{page 952 note 3} Possibly

^{page 952 note 4}