Divyanshu67/squad_v2 huggingface dataset:
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

The official position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China is that the Ming implemented a policy of managing Tibet according to conventions and customs, granting titles and setting up administrative organs over Tibet. The State Council Information Office of the People's Republic states that the Ming dynasty's Ü-Tsang Commanding Office governed most areas of Tibet. It also states that while the Ming abolished the policy council set up by the Mongol Yuan to manage local affairs in Tibet and the Mongol system of Imperial Tutors to govern religious affairs, the Ming adopted a policy of bestowing titles upon religious leaders who had submitted to the Ming dynasty. For example, an edict of the Hongwu Emperor in 1373 appointed the Tibetan leader Choskunskyabs as the General of the Ngari Military and Civil Wanhu Office, stating:

Question: Who abolished the policy council?
Answer: the Ming

Question: What was the Tibetan leader  Choskunskyabs  appointed as? 
Answer: the General of the Ngari Military and Civil Wanhu Office

Question: Who governed most areas of Tibet?
Answer: Ming dynasty's Ü-Tsang Commanding Office
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Chen Qingying, Professor of History and Director of the History Studies Institute under the China Tibetology Research Center in Beijing, writes that the Ming court conferred new official positions on ex-Yuan Tibetan leaders of the Phachu Kargyu and granted them lower-ranking positions. Of the county (zong or dzong) leaders of Neiwo Zong and Renbam Zong, Chen states that when "the Emperor learned the actual situation of the Phachu Kargyu, the Ming court then appointed the main Zong leaders to be senior officers of the Senior Command of Dbus and Gtsang." The official posts that the Ming court established in Tibet, such as senior and junior commanders, offices of Qianhu (in charge of 1,000 households), and offices of Wanhu (in charge of 10,000 households), were all hereditary positions according to Chen, but he asserts that "the succession of some important posts still had to be approved by the emperor," while old imperial mandates had to be returned to the Ming court for renewal.

Question: Where is the China Tibetology Research Center located?
Answer: Beijing

Question: Who was the Director of the History Studies Institute?
Answer: Chen Qingying

Question: How many households were the offices of Qianhu in charge of?
Answer: 1,000 households

Question: How many households were the offices of Wanhu in charge of?
Answer: 10,000 households
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

According to Tibetologist John Powers, Tibetan sources counter this narrative of titles granted by the Chinese to Tibetans with various titles which the Tibetans gave to the Chinese emperors and their officials. Tribute missions from Tibetan monasteries to the Chinese court brought back not only titles, but large, commercially valuable gifts which could subsequently be sold. The Ming emperors sent invitations to ruling lamas, but the lamas sent subordinates rather than coming themselves, and no Tibetan ruler ever explicitly accepted the role of being a vassal of the Ming.

Question: What was the name of the Tibetologist?
Answer: John Powers

Question: Who did the Ming emperors send invitations to?
Answer: ruling lamas

Question: When the lamas received an invite from the emperors, who did they send instead? 
Answer: subordinates
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Wang and Nyima state that after the official title "Education Minister" was granted to Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen (1302–1364) by the Yuan court, this title appeared frequently with his name in various Tibetan texts, while his Tibetan title "Degsi" (sic properly sde-srid or desi) is seldom mentioned. Wang and Nyima take this to mean that "even in the later period of the Yuan dynasty, the Yuan imperial court and the Phagmodrupa Dynasty maintained a Central-local government relation." The Tai Situpa is even supposed to have written in his will: "In the past I received loving care from the emperor in the east. If the emperor continues to care for us, please follow his edicts and the imperial envoy should be well received."

Question: What title was given by the Yuan court to Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen ?
Answer: Education Minister

Question: What Tibetan title was hardly ever mentioned when referring to Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen?
Answer: Degsi

Question: What dynasty kept a Central-local government relation with the Yuan imperial court?
Answer: Phagmodrupa Dynasty

Question: What two people claim the title of Education Minister was often seen next to Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen's name in Tibetan texts?
Answer: Wang and Nyima

Question: Who wrote in their will that they received loving care from the emperor in the east?
Answer: The Tai Situpa
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

However, Lok-Ham Chan, a professor of history at the University of Washington, writes that Changchub Gyaltsen's aims were to recreate the old Tibetan Kingdom that existed during the Chinese Tang dynasty, to build "nationalist sentiment" amongst Tibetans, and to "remove all traces of Mongol suzerainty." Georges Dreyfus, a professor of religion at Williams College, writes that it was Changchub Gyaltsen who adopted the old administrative system of Songtsän Gampo (c. 605–649)—the first leader of the Tibetan Empire to establish Tibet as a strong power—by reinstating its legal code of punishments and administrative units. For example, instead of the 13 governorships established by the Mongol Sakya viceroy, Changchub Gyaltsen divided Central Tibet into districts (dzong) with district heads (dzong dpon) who had to conform to old rituals and wear clothing styles of old Imperial Tibet. Van Praag asserts that Changchub Gyaltsen's ambitions were to "restore to Tibet the glories of its Imperial Age" by reinstating secular administration, promoting "national culture and traditions," and installing a law code that survived into the 20th century.

Question: Who divided Central Tibet into districts? 
Answer: Changchub Gyaltsen

Question: Who strongly believed Changchub Gyaltsen wanted to restore the glories of its Imperial age to Tibet?
Answer: Van Praag

Question: What university was Lok-Ham Chan a professor at?
Answer: the University of Washington

Question: What did Lok-Ham Chan claim  Changchub Gyaltsen wanted to remove?
Answer: all traces of Mongol suzerainty
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

According to Chen, the Ming officer of Hezhou (modern day Linxia) informed the Hongwu Emperor that the general situation in Dbus and Gtsang "was under control," and so he suggested to the emperor that he offer the second Phagmodru ruler, Jamyang Shakya Gyaltsen, an official title. According to the Records of the Founding Emperor, the Hongwu Emperor issued an edict granting the title "Initiation State Master" to Sagya Gyaincain, while the latter sent envoys to the Ming court to hand over his jade seal of authority along with tribute of colored silk and satin, statues of the Buddha, Buddhist scriptures, and sarira.

Question: Who did the Hongwu Emperor grant the title Initiation State Master to?
Answer: Sagya Gyaincain

Question: Who suggested to the emperor that an official title be granted to second Phagmodru ruler?
Answer: the Ming officer of Hezhou

Question: Who was the second Phagmodru ruler?
Answer: Jamyang Shakya Gyaltsen

Question: Who told the emperor that the situation in Dbus and Gtsang were under control?
Answer: the Ming officer of Hezhou

Question: Where were the envoys sent?
Answer: to the Ming court
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Dreyfus writes that after the Phagmodrupa lost its centralizing power over Tibet in 1434, several attempts by other families to establish hegemonies failed over the next two centuries until 1642 with the 5th Dalai Lama's effective hegemony over Tibet.

Question: Who lost their power over Tibet?
Answer: the Phagmodrupa

Question: What year did the Phagmodrupa lose their power over Tibet?
Answer: 1434

Question: What year did the 5th Dalai lama start to dominate over Tibet?
Answer: 1642

Question: What did the other families fail to establish?
Answer: hegemonies
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

The Ming dynasty granted titles to lamas of schools such as the Karmapa Kargyu, but the latter had previously declined Mongol invitations to receive titles. When the Ming Yongle Emperor invited Je Tsongkhapa (1357–1419), founder of the Gelug school, to come to the Ming court and pay tribute, the latter declined. Wang and Nyima write that this was due to old age and physical weakness, and also because of efforts being made to build three major monasteries. Chen Qingying states that Tsongkhapa wrote a letter to decline the Emperor's invitation, and in this reply, Tsongkhapa wrote:

Question: The Ming Dynasty granted what titles to lamas of schools?
Answer: the Karmapa Kargyu

Question: Who did the Ming Dynasty decline titles from after receiving invitations?
Answer: Mongol

Question: Who was the founder of the Gelug school?
Answer: Je Tsongkhapa

Question: Who invited Je Tsongkhapa to come pay tribute?
Answer: the Ming Yongle Emperor

Question: Who wrote the letter declining the Emperor's invitation?
Answer: Tsongkhapa
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

A. Tom Grunfeld says that Tsongkhapa claimed ill health in his refusal to appear at the Ming court, while Rossabi adds that Tsongkhapa cited the "length and arduousness of the journey" to China as another reason not to make an appearance. This first request by the Ming was made in 1407, but the Ming court sent another embassy in 1413, this one led by the eunuch Hou Xian (候顯; fl. 1403–1427), which was again refused by Tsongkhapa. Rossabi writes that Tsongkhapa did not want to entirely alienate the Ming court, so he sent his disciple Chosrje Shākya Yeshes to Nanjing in 1414 on his behalf, and upon his arrival in 1415 the Yongle Emperor bestowed upon him the title of "State Teacher"—the same title earlier awarded the Phagmodrupa ruler of Tibet. The Xuande Emperor (r. 1425–1435) even granted this disciple Chosrje Shākya Yeshes the title of a "King" (王). This title does not appear to have held any practical meaning, or to have given its holder any power, at Tsongkhapa's Ganden Monastery. Wylie notes that this—like the Karma Kargyu—cannot be seen as a reappointment of Mongol Yuan offices, since the Gelug school was created after the fall of the Yuan dynasty.

Question: When did the Ming first request Tsongkhapa to come to court?
Answer: 1407

Question: When did the Ming court send a second request to Tsongkhapa?
Answer: 1413

Question: Who did Tsongkhapa send in his place to Nanjing?
Answer: his disciple Chosrje Shākya Yeshes

Question: When was Chosrje Shākya Yeshes sent to Nanjing?
Answer: 1414
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Laird writes that the Ming appointed titles to eastern Tibetan princes, and that "these alliances with eastern Tibetan principalities are the evidence China now produces for its assertion that the Ming ruled Tibet," despite the fact that the Ming did not send an army to replace the Mongols after they left Tibet. Yiu Yung-chin states that the furthest western extent of the Ming dynasty's territory was Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan while "the Ming did not possess Tibet."

Question: Who did the Ming appoint titles to?
Answer: eastern Tibetan princes

Question: What didn't the Ming send to replace the Mongols when they left Tibet?
Answer: an army

Question: What does Yiu Yung-chin claim the Ming did not possess?
Answer: Tibet
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Shih-Shan Henry Tsai writes that the Yongle Emperor sent his eunuch Yang Sanbao into Tibet in 1413 to gain the allegiance of various Tibetan princes, while the Yongle Emperor paid a small fortune in return gifts for tributes in order to maintain the loyalty of neighboring vassal states such as Nepal and Tibet. However, Van Praag states that Tibetan rulers upheld their own separate relations with the kingdoms of Nepal and Kashmir, and at times "engaged in armed confrontation with them."

Question: What was the name of the  eunuch?
Answer: Yang Sanbao

Question: Where did the Yongle Emperor send Yang Sanbao?
Answer: Tibet

Question: When did Yongle Emperor send Yang Sanbao into Tibet?
Answer: 1413

Question: Why did Yongle Emperor send Yang Sanbao into Tibet?
Answer: the allegiance of various Tibetan princes

Question: Why did the emperor pay a small fortune in gifts?
Answer: to maintain the loyalty of neighboring vassal states
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Wylie asserts that this type of censorship of the History of Ming distorts the true picture of the history of Sino-Tibetan relations, while the Ming court granted titles to various lamas regardless of their sectarian affiliations in an ongoing civil war in Tibet between competing Buddhist factions. Wylie argues that Ming titles of "King" granted indiscriminately to various Tibetan lamas or even their disciples should not be viewed as reappointments to earlier Yuan dynasty offices, since the viceregal Sakya regime established by the Mongols in Tibet was overthrown by the Phagmodru myriarchy before the Ming existed.

Question: Regardless of their sectarian affiliations, who did the Ming grant titles to?
Answer: various lamas

Question: Who was the viceregal Sakya regime overthrown by?
Answer: the Phagmodru myriarchy
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

In his usurpation of the throne from the Jianwen Emperor (r. 1398–1402), the Yongle Emperor was aided by the Buddhist monk Yao Guangxiao, and like his father, the Hongwu Emperor, the Yongle Emperor was "well-disposed towards Buddhism", claims Rossabi. On March 10, 1403, the Yongle Emperor invited Deshin Shekpa, 5th Karmapa Lama (1384–1415), to his court, even though the fourth Karmapa had rejected the invitation of the Hongwu Emperor. A Tibetan translation in the 16th century preserves the letter of the Yongle Emperor, which the Association for Asian Studies notes is polite and complimentary towards the Karmapa. The letter of invitation reads,

Question: What year did the Jianwen Emperor reign start and end?
Answer: 1398–1402

Question: Who aided the Yongle Emperor?
Answer: the Buddhist monk Yao Guangxiao

Question: Who was Yongle Emperor's father?
Answer: the Hongwu Emperor

Question: When did the Yongle Emperor invite Deshin Shekpa to his court?
Answer: March 10, 1403
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

In order to seek out the Karmapa, the Yongle Emperor dispatched his eunuch Hou Xian and the Buddhist monk Zhi Guang (d. 1435) to Tibet. Traveling to Lhasa either through Qinghai or via the Silk Road to Khotan, Hou Xian and Zhi Guang did not return to Nanjing until 1407.

Question: Who did the Yongle Emperor send to Tibet?
Answer: Hou Xian and the Buddhist monk Zhi Guang

Question: Why did the Yongle Emperor send Hou Xian and Zhi Guang to Tibet?
Answer: to seek out the Karmapa

Question: When did Hou Xian and Zhi Guang return to Nanjing?
Answer: 1407

Question: Where did Hou Xian and Zhi Guang travel through on their way to the Karmapa?
Answer: through Qinghai or via the Silk Road to Khotan
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

During his travels beginning in 1403, Deshin Shekpa was induced by further exhortations by the Ming court to visit Nanjing by April 10, 1407. Norbu writes that the Yongle Emperor, following the tradition of Mongol emperors and their reverence for the Sakya lamas, showed an enormous amount of deference towards Deshin Shekpa. The Yongle Emperor came out of the palace in Nanjing to greet the Karmapa and did not require him to kowtow like a tributary vassal. According to Karma Thinley, the emperor gave the Karmapa the place of honor at his left, and on a higher throne than his own. Rossabi and others describe a similar arrangement made by Kublai Khan and the Sakya Phagpa lama, writing that Kublai would "sit on a lower platform than the Tibetan cleric" when receiving religious instructions from him.

Question: When did Deshin Shekpa travels start?
Answer: 1403

Question: Where did the Yongle Emperor greet the Karmapa?
Answer: Nanjing

Question: Who did the Emperor give the place of honor at his left to?
Answer: the Karmapa

Question: Who sat on a lower platform than the Tibetan cleric?
Answer: Kublai

Question: Who showed a great amount of respect to Deshin Shekpa?
Answer: the Yongle Emperor
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Throughout the following month, the Yongle Emperor and his court showered the Karmapa with presents. At Linggu Temple in Nanjing, he presided over the religious ceremonies for the Yongle Emperor's deceased parents, while twenty-two days of his stay were marked by religious miracles that were recorded in five languages on a gigantic scroll that bore the Emperor's seal. During his stay in Nanjing, Deshin Shekpa was bestowed the title "Great Treasure Prince of Dharma" by the Yongle Emperor. Elliot Sperling asserts that the Yongle Emperor, in bestowing Deshin Shekpa with the title of "King" and praising his mystical abilities and miracles, was trying to build an alliance with the Karmapa as the Mongols had with the Sakya lamas, but Deshin Shekpa rejected the Yongle Emperor's offer. In fact, this was the same title that Kublai Khan had offered the Sakya Phagpa lama, but Deshin Shekpa persuaded the Yongle Emperor to grant the title to religious leaders of other Tibetan Buddhist sects.

Question: At what temple did the ceremonies for the Yongle Emperor's deceased parents take place?
Answer: Linggu Temple

Question: Where was the Linggu Temple located?
Answer: Nanjing

Question: What title was Deshin Shekpa given at Nanjing?
Answer: Great Treasure Prince of Dharma

Question: Who did Deshin Shekpa persuade the Yongle Emperor to give the title to?
Answer: religious leaders of other Tibetan Buddhist sects
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Tibetan sources say Deshin Shekpa also persuaded the Yongle Emperor not to impose his military might on Tibet as the Mongols had previously done. Thinley writes that before the Karmapa returned to Tibet, the Yongle Emperor began planning to send a military force into Tibet to forcibly give the Karmapa authority over all the Tibetan Buddhist schools but Deshin Shekpa dissuaded him. However, Hok-Lam Chan states that "there is little evidence that this was ever the emperor's intention" and that evidence indicates that Deshin Skekpa was invited strictly for religious purposes.

Question: Who imposed on the military might on Tibet in the past? 
Answer: the Mongols

Question: Hok-Lam Chan states that Deshin Skekpa was only invited for what purpose? 
Answer: religious purposes

Question: What was said to be the  Yongle Emperor plans?
Answer: to send a military force into Tibet

Question: Why was the Yongle Emperor said to have been planning to send military forces into Tibet?
Answer: to forcibly give the Karmapa authority over all the Tibetan Buddhist schools

Question: Who convinced the Yongle emperor not to send military forces into Tibet?
Answer: Deshin Shekpa
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

With the example of the Ming court's relationship with the fifth Karmapa and other Tibetan leaders, Norbu states that Chinese Communist historians have failed to realize the significance of the religious aspect of the Ming-Tibetan relationship. He writes that the meetings of lamas with the Emperor of China were exchanges of tribute between "the patron and the priest" and were not merely instances of a political subordinate paying tribute to a superior. He also notes that the items of tribute were Buddhist artifacts which symbolized "the religious nature of the relationship." Josef Kolmaš writes that the Ming dynasty did not exercise any direct political control over Tibet, content with their tribute relations that were "almost entirely of a religious character." Patricia Ann Berger writes that the Yongle Emperor's courting and granting of titles to lamas was his attempt to "resurrect the relationship between China and Tibet established earlier by the Yuan dynastic founder Khubilai Khan and his guru Phagpa." She also writes that the later Qing emperors and their Mongol associates viewed the Yongle Emperor's relationship with Tibet as "part of a chain of reincarnation that saw this Han Chinese emperor as yet another emanation of Manjusri."

Question: According to Norbu who failed to realize the significance of the religious aspect of the Ming-Tibetan relationship?
Answer: Chinese Communist historians

Question: What were the items of tribute?
Answer: Buddhist artifacts

Question: Who believe that the Ming dynasty did not exercise any direct political control over Tibet?
Answer: Josef Kolmaš
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

The Information Office of the State Council of the PRC preserves an edict of the Zhengtong Emperor (r. 1435–1449) addressed to the Karmapa in 1445, written after the latter's agent had brought holy relics to the Ming court. Zhengtong had the following message delivered to the Great Treasure Prince of Dharma, the Karmapa:

Question: What years did the Zhengtong Emperor reign?
Answer: 1435–1449

Question: Who maintains an edict of the Zhengtong Emperor?
Answer: The Information Office of the State Council of the PRC

Question: Who was the edict addressed to? 
Answer: the Karmapa

Question: Who had a message delivered to them by Zhengtong?
Answer: Great Treasure Prince of Dharma

Question: When was the edict written?
Answer: after the latter's agent had brought holy relics to the Ming court
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Despite this glowing message by the Emperor, Chan writes that a year later in 1446, the Ming court cut off all relations with the Karmapa hierarchs. Until then, the court was unaware that Deshin Shekpa had died in 1415. The Ming court had believed that the representatives of the Karma Kagyu who continued to visit the Ming capital were sent by the Karmapa.

Question: Who did the Ming cut off all relations with?
Answer: the Karmapa hierarchs

Question: What year did the Ming cut off the Karmapa hierarchs?
Answer: 1446

Question: When did  Deshin Shekpa  die?
Answer: 1415

Question: Who did the Ming court think the representatives were sent by?
Answer: the Karmapa
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Tsai writes that shortly after the visit by Deshin Shekpa, the Yongle Emperor ordered the construction of a road and of trading posts in the upper reaches of the Yangzi and Mekong Rivers in order to facilitate trade with Tibet in tea, horses, and salt. The trade route passed through Sichuan and crossed Shangri-La County in Yunnan. Wang and Nyima assert that this "tribute-related trade" of the Ming exchanging Chinese tea for Tibetan horses—while granting Tibetan envoys and Tibetan merchants explicit permission to trade with Han Chinese merchants—"furthered the rule of the Ming dynasty court over Tibet". Rossabi and Sperling note that this trade in Tibetan horses for Chinese tea existed long before the Ming. Peter C. Perdue says that Wang Anshi (1021–1086), realizing that China could not produce enough militarily capable steeds, had also aimed to obtain horses from Inner Asia in exchange for Chinese tea. The Chinese needed horses not only for cavalry but also as draft animals for the army's supply wagons. The Tibetans required Chinese tea not only as a common beverage but also as a religious ceremonial supplement. The Ming government imposed a monopoly on tea production and attempted to regulate this trade with state-supervised markets, but these collapsed in 1449 due to military failures and internal ecological and commercial pressures on the tea-producing regions.

Question: Why did Yongle order the construction?
Answer: to facilitate trade with Tibet

Question: What did Yongle want to trade with Tibet?
Answer: tea, horses, and salt

Question: where did the trade route pass through?
Answer: through Sichuan and crossed Shangri-La County in Yunnan
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Van Praag states that the Ming court established diplomatic delegations with Tibet merely to secure urgently needed horses. Wang and Nyima argue that these were not diplomatic delegations at all, that Tibetan areas were ruled by the Ming since Tibetan leaders were granted positions as Ming officials, that horses were collected from Tibet as a mandatory "corvée" tax, and therefore Tibetans were "undertaking domestic affairs, not foreign diplomacy". Sperling writes that the Ming simultaneously bought horses in the Kham region while fighting Tibetan tribes in Amdo and receiving Tibetan embassies in Nanjing. He also argues that the embassies of Tibetan lamas visiting the Ming court were for the most part efforts to promote commercial transactions between the lamas' large, wealthy entourage and Ming Chinese merchants and officials. Kolmaš writes that while the Ming maintained a laissez-faire policy towards Tibet and limited the numbers of the Tibetan retinues, the Tibetans sought to maintain a tributary relationship with the Ming because imperial patronage provided them with wealth and power. Laird writes that Tibetans eagerly sought Ming court invitations since the gifts the Tibetans received for bringing tribute were much greater in value than the latter. As for the Yongle Emperor's gifts to his Tibetan and Nepalese vassals such as silver wares, Buddha relics, utensils for Buddhist temples and religious ceremonies, and gowns and robes for monks, Tsai writes "in his effort to draw neighboring states to the Ming orbit so that he could bask in glory, the Yongle Emperor was quite willing to pay a small price". The Information Office of the State Council of the PRC lists the Tibetan tribute items as oxen, horses, camels, sheep, fur products, medical herbs, Tibetan incenses, thangkas (painted scrolls), and handicrafts; while the Ming awarded Tibetan tribute-bearers an equal value of gold, silver, satin and brocade, bolts of cloth, grains, and tea leaves. Silk workshops during the Ming also catered specifically to the Tibetan market with silk clothes and furnishings featuring Tibetan Buddhist iconography.

Question: Why does Van Praag believe the Ming court set up a diplomatic delegation with Tibet?
Answer: to secure urgently needed horses

Question: What shops were catered to the Tibetan market?
Answer: Silk workshops

Question: What visual images and symbols were on furnishings from the silk workshops?
Answer: Tibetan Buddhist

Question: who were the Tibetan areas were ruled by?
Answer: the Ming

Question: Wang and Nyima believed horses were collected from Tibet as what kind of tax?
Answer: a mandatory "corvée" tax
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

While the Ming dynasty traded horses with Tibet, it upheld a policy of outlawing border markets in the north, which Laird sees as an effort to punish the Mongols for their raids and to "drive them from the frontiers of China." However, after Altan Khan (1507–1582)—leader of the Tümed Mongols who overthrew the Oirat Mongol confederation's hegemony over the steppes—made peace with the Ming dynasty in 1571, he persuaded the Ming to reopen their border markets in 1573. This provided the Chinese with a new supply of horses that the Mongols had in excess; it was also a relief to the Ming, since they were unable to stop the Mongols from periodic raiding. Laird says that despite the fact that later Mongols believed Altan forced the Ming to view him as an equal, Chinese historians argue that he was simply a loyal Chinese citizen. By 1578, Altan Khan formed a formidable Mongol-Tibetan alliance with the Gelug that the Ming viewed from afar without intervention.

Question: Who did the Ming trade horses with?
Answer: Tibet

Question: Who was the leader of the Tümed Mongols?
Answer: Altan Khan

Question: Who did Altan Khan overthrow?
Answer: the Oirat Mongol confederation's hegemony

Question: Who did Altan Khan make peace with?
Answer: the Ming dynasty

Question: Who convinced the Ming to reopen their border markets in 1573?
Answer: Altan Khan
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Patricia Ebrey writes that Tibet, like Joseon Korea and other neighboring states to the Ming, settled for its tributary status while there were no troops or governors of Ming China stationed in its territory. Laird writes that "after the Mongol troops left Tibet, no Ming troops replaced them." Wang and Nyima state that, despite the fact that the Ming refrained from sending troops to subdue Tibet and refrained from garrisoning Ming troops there, these measures were unnecessary so long as the Ming court upheld close ties with Tibetan vassals and their forces. However, there were instances in the 14th century when the Hongwu Emperor did use military force to quell unrest in Tibet. John D. Langlois writes that there was unrest in Tibet and western Sichuan, which the Marquis Mu Ying (沐英) was commissioned to quell in November 1378 after he established a Taozhou garrison in Gansu. Langlois notes that by October 1379, Mu Ying had allegedly captured 30,000 Tibetan prisoners and 200,000 domesticated animals. Yet invasion went both ways; the Ming general Qu Neng, under the command of Lan Yu, was ordered to repel a Tibetan assault into Sichuan in 1390.

Question: When did the Hongwu Emperor use military force in Tibet?
Answer: the 14th century

Question: When was the Marquis Mu Ying commissioned to quell?
Answer: November 1378

Question: How many Tibetan prisoners did Mu Ying capture?
Answer: 30,000

Question: How many animals did Mu Ying capture?
Answer: 200,000

Question: Who was ordered to force a Tibetan assault into Sichuan?
Answer: Ming general Qu Neng
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Discussions of strategy in the mid Ming dynasty focused primarily on recovery of the Ordos region, which the Mongols used as a rallying base to stage raids into Ming China. Norbu states that the Ming dynasty, preoccupied with the Mongol threat to the north, could not spare additional armed forces to enforce or back up their claim of sovereignty over Tibet; instead, they relied on "Confucian instruments of tribute relations" of heaping unlimited number of titles and gifts on Tibetan lamas through acts of diplomacy. Sperling states that the delicate relationship between the Ming and Tibet was "the last time a united China had to deal with an independent Tibet," that there was a potential for armed conflict at their borders, and that the ultimate goal of Ming foreign policy with Tibet was not subjugation but "avoidance of any kind of Tibetan threat." P. Christiaan Klieger argues that the Ming court's patronage of high Tibetan lamas "was designed to help stabilize border regions and protect trade routes."

Question: What did the mid Ming dynasty discussion focus mainly on?
Answer: recovery of the Ordos region

Question: Who used the the Ordos region as a place to stage raids? 
Answer: the Mongols

Question: Where were the Mongols trying to raise? 
Answer: Ming China

Question: Why did P. Christiaan Klieger believe that the Ming court supported high Tibetan lamas?
Answer: to help stabilize border regions and protect trade routes
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Historians Luciano Petech and Sato Hisashi argue that the Ming upheld a "divide-and-rule" policy towards a weak and politically fragmented Tibet after the Sakya regime had fallen. Chan writes that this was perhaps the calculated strategy of the Yongle Emperor, as exclusive patronage to one Tibetan sect would have given it too much regional power. Sperling finds no textual evidence in either Chinese or Tibetan sources to support this thesis of Petech and Hisashi. Norbu asserts that their thesis is largely based on the list of Ming titles conferred on Tibetan lamas rather than "comparative analysis of developments in China and Tibet." Rossabi states that this theory "attributes too much influence to the Chinese," pointing out that Tibet was already politically divided when the Ming dynasty began. Rossabi also discounts the "divide-and-rule" theory on the grounds of the Yongle Emperor's failed attempt to build a strong relationship with the fifth Karmapa—one which he hoped would parallel Kublai Khan's earlier relationship with the Sakya Phagpa lama. Instead, the Yongle Emperor followed the Karmapa's advice of giving patronage to many different Tibetan lamas.

Question: What policy does Luciano Petech and Sato Hisashi claim the Ming held towards the Tibet?
Answer: divide-and-rule

Question: When did the Ming hold the divide and rule policy?
Answer: after the Sakya regime had fallen

Question: Who did Yongle Emperor fail to build a solid relationship with?
Answer: fifth Karmapa

Question: Who did the Yongle Emperor give patronage to?
Answer: many different Tibetan lamas
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

The Association for Asian Studies states that there is no known written evidence to suggest that later leaders of the Gelug—Gendün Drup (1391–1474) and Gendün Gyatso (1475–1571)—had any contacts with Ming China. These two religious leaders were preoccupied with an overriding concern for dealing with the powerful secular Rinpungpa princes, who were patrons and protectors of the Karma Kargyu lamas. The Rinpungpa leaders were relatives of the Phagmodrupa, yet their authority shifted over time from simple governors to rulers in their own right over large areas of Ü-Tsang. The prince of Rinbung occupied Lhasa in 1498 and excluded the Gelug from attending New Years ceremonies and prayers, the most important event in the Gelug. While the task of New Years prayers in Lhasa was granted to the Karmapa and others, Gendün Gyatso traveled in exile looking for allies. However, it was not until 1518 that the secular Phagmodru ruler captured Lhasa from the Rinbung, and thereafter the Gelug was given rights to conduct the New Years prayer. When the Drikung Kagyu abbot of Drigung Monastery threatened Lhasa in 1537, Gendün Gyatso was forced to abandon the Drepung Monastery, although he eventually returned.

Question: Who were the Rinpungpa leaders related to?
Answer: the Phagmodrupa

Question: When did the the prince of Rinbung occupy Lhasa?
Answer: 1498

Question: What was the most important event to the Gelug?
Answer: New Years ceremonies and prayers

Question: When was Gelug was given the right to conduct the New Years prayer?
Answer: 1518
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

The Zhengde Emperor (r. 1505–1521), who enjoyed the company of lamas at court despite protests from the censorate, had heard tales of a "living Buddha" which he desired to host at the Ming capital; this was none other than the Rinpung-supported Mikyö Dorje, 8th Karmapa Lama then occupying Lhasa. Zhengde's top advisors made every attempt to dissuade him from inviting this lama to court, arguing that Tibetan Buddhism was wildly heterodox and unorthodox. Despite protests by the Grand Secretary Liang Chu, in 1515 the Zhengde Emperor sent his eunuch official Liu Yun of the Palace Chancellery on a mission to invite this Karmapa to Beijing. Liu commanded a fleet of hundreds of ships requisitioned along the Yangtze, consuming 2,835 g (100 oz) of silver a day in food expenses while stationed for a year in Chengdu of Sichuan. After procurring necessary gifts for the mission, he departed with a cavalry force of about 1,000 troops. When the request was delivered, the Karmapa lama refused to leave Tibet despite the Ming force brought to coerce him. The Karmapa launched a surprise ambush on Liu Yun's camp, seizing all the goods and valuables while killing or wounding half of Liu Yun's entire escort. After this fiasco, Liu fled for his life, but only returned to Chengdu several years later to find that the Zhengde Emperor had died.

Question: When did the Zhengde Emperor rule? 
Answer: 1505–1521

Question: Who's company did the Zhengde Emperor enjoy?
Answer: the company of lamas

Question: Who was the 8th Karmapa Lama?
Answer: Mikyö Dorje
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Elliot Sperling, a specialist of Indian studies and the director of the Tibetan Studies program at Indiana University’s Department of Central Eurasia Studies, writes that "the idea that Tibet became part of China in the 13th century is a very recent construction." He writes that Chinese writers of the early 20th century were of the view that Tibet was not annexed by China until the Manchu Qing dynasty invasion during the 18th century. He also states that Chinese writers of the early 20th century described Tibet as a feudal dependency of China, not an integral part of it. Sperling states that this is because "Tibet was ruled as such, within the empires of the Mongols and the Manchus" and also that "China's intervening Ming dynasty ... had no control over Tibet." He writes that the Ming relationship with Tibet is problematic for China’s insistence of its unbroken sovereignty over Tibet since the 13th century. As for the Tibetan view that Tibet was never subject to the rule of the Yuan or Qing emperors of China, Sperling also discounts this by stating that Tibet was "subject to rules, laws and decisions made by the Yuan and Qing rulers" and that even Tibetans described themselves as subjects of these emperors.

Question: Who said Tibet  wasn't an integral part of of China?
Answer: Chinese writers of the early 20th century

Question: What does Sperling claim did not have any control over Tibet?
Answer: China's intervening Ming dynasty

Question: Since what century has Sperling described Ming and Tibet's relation being problematic for China? 
Answer: the 13th century

Question: When was the Manchu Qing dynasty invasion?
Answer: the 18th century
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

P. Christiaan Klieger, an anthropologist and scholar of the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, writes that the vice royalty of the Sakya regime installed by the Mongols established a patron and priest relationship between Tibetans and Mongol converts to Tibetan Buddhism. According to him, the Tibetan lamas and Mongol khans upheld a "mutual role of religious prelate and secular patron," respectively. He adds that "Although agreements were made between Tibetan leaders and Mongol khans, Ming and Qing emperors, it was the Republic of China and its Communist successors that assumed the former imperial tributaries and subject states as integral parts of the Chinese nation-state."

Question: Who does P. Christiaan Klieger claim to have had a mutual role of religious prelate?
Answer: the Tibetan lamas and Mongol khans

Question: Who does P. Christiaan Klieger believe undertook the former imperial tributaries?
Answer: the Republic of China and its Communist successors

Question: Where does P. Christiaan Klieger work?
Answer: the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco

Question: Who was the  vice royalty of the Sakya regime established by?
Answer: the Mongols

Question: The Sakya regime established what kind of relationship between the Tibetans and Mongol converts?
Answer: patron and priest relationship
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

China Daily, a CCP-controlled news organization since 1981, states in a 2008 article that although there were dynastic changes after Tibet was incorporated into the territory of Yuan dynasty's China in the 13th century, "Tibet has remained under the jurisdiction of the central government of China." It also states that the Ming dynasty "inherited the right to rule Tibet" from the Yuan dynasty, and repeats the claims in the Mingshi about the Ming establishing two itinerant high commands over Tibet. China Daily states that the Ming handled Tibet's civil administration, appointed all leading officials of these administrative organs, and punished Tibetans who broke the law. The party-controlled People's Daily, the state-controlled Xinhua News Agency, and the state-controlled national television network China Central Television posted the same article that China Daily had, the only difference being their headlines and some additional text.

Question: When was Tibet included into the territory of Yuan dynasty's China?
Answer: the 13th century

Question: Who was said to have gained the right to rule Tibet?
Answer: the Ming dynasty

Question: When was China Daily started?
Answer: 1981

Question: Who does the article claim had two itinerant high commands over Tibet?
Answer: the Ming

Question: According to article Tibet has remained under what jurisdiction?
Answer: the central government of China
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

During the reign of the Jiajing Emperor (r. 1521–1567), the native Chinese ideology of Daoism was fully sponsored at the Ming court, while Tibetan Vajrayana and even Chinese Buddhism were ignored or suppressed. Even the History of Ming states that the Tibetan lamas discontinued their trips to Ming China and its court at this point. Grand Secretary Yang Tinghe under Jiajing was determined to break the eunuch influence at court which typified the Zhengde era, an example being the costly escort of the eunuch Liu Yun as described above in his failed mission to Tibet. The court eunuchs were in favor of expanding and building new commercial ties with foreign countries such as Portugal, which Zhengde deemed permissible since he had an affinity for foreign and exotic people.

Question: When did the Jiajing Emperor reign? 
Answer: 1521–1567

Question: What ideology was sponsored at the Ming court?
Answer: the native Chinese ideology of Daoism

Question: Who stopped their trips to Ming China?
Answer: the Tibetan lamas

Question: Who was the Grand Secretary under Jiajing?
Answer: Yang Tinghe

Question: Who broke the eunuch influence at court?
Answer: Yang Tinghe
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

With the death of Zhengde and ascension of Jiajing, the politics at court shifted in favor of the Neo-Confucian establishment which not only rejected the Portuguese embassy of Fernão Pires de Andrade (d. 1523), but had a predisposed animosity towards Tibetan Buddhism and lamas. Evelyn S. Rawski, a professor in the Department of History of the University of Pittsburgh, writes that the Ming's unique relationship with Tibetan prelates essentially ended with Jiajing's reign while Ming influence in the Amdo region was supplanted by the Mongols.

Question: Who was Zhengde's successor? 
Answer: Jiajing

Question: What establishment did the politics at court shift in favor of? 
Answer: Neo-Confucian establishment

Question: Which embassy did the Neo-Confucian establishment reject?
Answer: the Portuguese embassy

Question: Who did the Neo-Confucian establishment have animosity towards?
Answer: Tibetan Buddhism and lamas

Question: Evelyn S. Rawski claims that Ming's relationship with Tibetan prelates ended during who's reign?
Answer: Jiajing
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Meanwhile, the Tumed Mongols began moving into the Kokonor region (modern Qinghai), raiding the Ming Chinese frontier and even as far as the suburbs of Beijing under Altan Khan (1507–1582). Klieger writes that Altan Khan's presence in the west effectively reduced Ming influence and contact with Tibet. After Altan Khan made peace with the Ming dynasty in 1571, he invited the third hierarch of the Gelug—Sönam Gyatso (1543–1588)—to meet him in Amdo (modern Qinghai) in 1578, where he accidentally bestowed him and his two predecessors with the title of Dalai Lama—"Ocean Teacher". The full title was "Dalai Lama Vajradhara", "Vajradhara" meaning "Holder of the Thunderbolt" in Sanskrit. Victoria Huckenpahler notes that Vajradhara is considered by Buddhists to be the primordial Buddha of limitless and all-pervasive beneficial qualities, a being that "represents the ultimate aspect of enlightenment." Goldstein writes that Sönam Gyatso also enhanced Altan Khan's standing by granting him the title "king of religion, majestic purity". Rawski writes that the Dalai Lama officially recognized Altan Khan as the "Protector of the Faith".

Question: What region did the Tumed Mongols move into?
Answer: the Kokonor region

Question: Which frontier did the Tumed Mongols raid?
Answer: the Ming Chinese frontier

Question: The presence of the Altan Khan in the west reduced whos influence? 
Answer: the Ming

Question: When did Altan Khan make peace with the Ming dynasty?
Answer: 1571

Question: Who did Altan Khan invite to meet him in Amdo?
Answer: the third hierarch of the Gelug—Sönam Gyatso
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Laird writes that Altan Khan abolished the native Mongol practices of shamanism and blood sacrifice, while the Mongol princes and subjects were coerced by Altan to convert to Gelug Buddhism—or face execution if they persisted in their shamanistic ways. Committed to their religious leader, Mongol princes began requesting the Dalai Lama to bestow titles on them, which demonstrated "the unique fusion of religious and political power" wielded by the Dalai Lama, as Laird writes. Kolmaš states that the spiritual and secular Mongol-Tibetan alliance of the 13th century was renewed by this alliance constructed by Altan Khan and Sönam Gyatso. Van Praag writes that this restored the original Mongol patronage of a Tibetan lama and "to this day, Mongolians are among the most devout followers of the Gelugpa and the Dalai Lama." Angela F. Howard writes that this unique relationship not only provided the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama with religious and political authority in Tibet, but that Altan Khan gained "enormous power among the entire Mongol population."

Question: What practice did Altan Khan put to an end?
Answer: the native Mongol practices of shamanism and blood sacrifice

Question: Who did Altan Khan persuade to convert to Gelug Buddhism?
Answer: the Mongol princes and subjects

Question: What did Altan Khan threaten the Mongol princes and subjects with if they did not convert?
Answer: execution

Question: Who did the Mongol princes ask to grant them titles?
Answer: the Dalai Lama

Question: Why did the Mongol princes ask for titles?
Answer: Committed to their religious leader
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Rawski writes that Altan Khan's conversion to the Gelug "can be interpreted as an attempt to expand his authority in his conflict with his nominal superior, Tümen Khan." To further cement the Mongol-Tibetan alliance, the great-grandson of Altan Khan—the 4th Dalai Lama (1589–1616)—was made the fourth Dalai Lama. In 1642, the 5th Dalai Lama (1617–1682) became the first to wield effective political control over Tibet.

Question: Who was Altan Khan's nominal superior?
Answer: Tümen Khan

Question: To make the Mongol-Tibetan alliance stronger who became the 4th Dalai Lama?
Answer: the great-grandson of Altan Khan

Question: Who was the first Dalai Lama to have political control over Tibet?
Answer: the 5th Dalai Lama

Question: When did the 5th Dalai Lama gain political control over Tibet?
Answer: In 1642
Sino-Tibetan_relations_during_the_Ming_dynasty

Sonam Gyatso, after being granted the grandiose title by Altan Khan, departed for Tibet. Before he left, he sent a letter and gifts to the Ming Chinese official Zhang Juzheng (1525–1582), which arrived on March 12, 1579. Sometime in August or September of that year, Sonam Gyatso's representative stationed with Altan Khan received a return letter and gift from the Wanli Emperor (r. 1572–1620), who also conferred upon Sonam Gyatso a title; this was the first official contact between a Dalai Lama and a government of China. However, Laird states that when Wanli invited him to Beijing, the Dalai Lama declined the offer due to a prior commitment, even though he was only 400 km (250 mi) from Beijing. Laird adds that "the power of the Ming emperor did not reach very far at the time." Although not recorded in any official Chinese records, Sonam Gyatso's biography states that Wanli again conferred titles on Sonam Gyatso in 1588, and invited him to Beijing for a second time, but Sonam Gyatso was unable to visit China as he died the same year in Mongolia working with Altan Khan's son to further the spread of Buddhism.

Question: Who was given the grandiose title?
Answer: Sonam Gyatso

Question: Who granted Sonam Gyatso the title of grandiose?
Answer: Altan Khan

Question: Who did Sonam Gyatso send gifts to?
Answer: Zhang Juzheng

Question: Who was the Ming Chinese official?
Answer: Zhang Juzheng

Question: Where did Sonam Gyatso die?
Answer: Mongolia