romikgosai/squad_modified_2 huggingface dataset:
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.

Q1: At what temple did the ceremonies for the Yongle Emperor's deceased parents take place?
A1: Linggu Temple
Q2: Where was the Linggu Temple located?
A2: Nanjing
Q3: What title was Deshin Shekpa given at Nanjing?
A3: Great Treasure Prince of Dharma
Q4: Who did Deshin Shekpa persuade the Yongle Emperor to give the title to?
A4: religious leaders of other Tibetan Buddhist sects
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.

Q1: Who imposed on the military might on Tibet in the past?
A1: the Mongols
Q2: Hok-Lam Chan states that Deshin Skekpa was only invited for what purpose?
A2: religious purposes
Q3: What was said to be the  Yongle Emperor plans?
A3: to send a military force into Tibet
Q4: Why was the Yongle Emperor said to have been planning to send military forces into Tibet?
A4: to forcibly give the Karmapa authority over all the Tibetan Buddhist schools
Q5: Who convinced the Yongle emperor not to send military forces into Tibet?
A5: Deshin Shekpa
Marsha Weidner states that Deshin Shekpa's miracles "testified to the power of both the emperor and his guru and served as a legitimizing tool for the emperor's problematic succession to the throne," referring to the Yongle Emperor's conflict with the previous Jianwen Emperor. Tsai writes that Deshin Shekpa aided the legitimacy of the Yongle Emperor's rule by providing him with portents and omens which demonstrated Heaven's favor of the Yongle Emperor on the Ming throne.

Q1: Who did the Yongle Emperor have a conflict with?
A1: Jianwen Emperor
Q2: Who aided the legitimacy of the Yongle Emperor's rule?
A2: Deshin Shekpa
Q3: What served as a legitimizing tool for the emperor's succession to the throne?
A3: Deshin Shekpa's miracles
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."

Q1: According to Norbu who failed to realize the significance of the religious aspect of the Ming-Tibetan relationship?
A1: Chinese Communist historians
Q2: What were the items of tribute?
A2: Buddhist artifacts
Q3: Who believe that the Ming dynasty did not exercise any direct political control over Tibet?
A3: Josef Kolmaš
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:

Q1: What years did the Zhengtong Emperor reign?
A1: 1435–1449
Q2: Who maintains an edict of the Zhengtong Emperor?
A2: The Information Office of the State Council of the PRC
Q3: Who was the edict addressed to?
A3: the Karmapa
Q4: Who had a message delivered to them by Zhengtong?
A4: Great Treasure Prince of Dharma
Q5: When was the edict written?
A5: after the latter's agent had brought holy relics to the Ming court
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.

Q1: Who did the Ming cut off all relations with?
A1: the Karmapa hierarchs
Q2: What year did the Ming cut off the Karmapa hierarchs?
A2: 1446
Q3: When did  Deshin Shekpa  die?
A3: 1415
Q4: Who did the Ming court think the representatives were sent by?
A4: the Karmapa
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.

Q1: Why did Yongle order the construction?
A1: to facilitate trade with Tibet
Q2: What did Yongle want to trade with Tibet?
A2: tea, horses, and salt
Q3: where did the trade route pass through?
A3: through Sichuan and crossed Shangri-La County in Yunnan
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.

Q1: Why does Van Praag believe the Ming court set up a diplomatic delegation with Tibet?
A1: to secure urgently needed horses
Q2: What shops were catered to the Tibetan market?
A2: Silk workshops
Q3: What visual images and symbols were on furnishings from the silk workshops?
A3: Tibetan Buddhist
Q4: who were the Tibetan areas were ruled by?
A4: the Ming
Q5: Wang and Nyima believed horses were collected from Tibet as what kind of tax?
A5: a mandatory "corvée" tax
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.

Q1: Who did the Ming trade horses with?
A1: Tibet
Q2: Who was the leader of the Tümed Mongols?
A2: Altan Khan
Q3: Who did Altan Khan overthrow?
A3: the Oirat Mongol confederation's hegemony
Q4: Who did Altan Khan make peace with?
A4: the Ming dynasty
Q5: Who convinced the Ming to reopen their border markets in 1573?
A5: Altan Khan
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.

Q1: When did the Hongwu Emperor use military force in Tibet?
A1: the 14th century
Q2: When was the Marquis Mu Ying commissioned to quell?
A2: November 1378
Q3: How many Tibetan prisoners did Mu Ying capture?
A3: 30,000
Q4: How many animals did Mu Ying capture?
A4: 200,000
Q5: Who was ordered to force a Tibetan assault into Sichuan?
A5: Ming general Qu Neng
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."

Q1: What did the mid Ming dynasty discussion focus mainly on?
A1: recovery of the Ordos region
Q2: Who used the the Ordos region as a place to stage raids?
A2: the Mongols
Q3: Where were the Mongols trying to raise?
A3: Ming China
Q4: Why did P. Christiaan Klieger believe that the Ming court supported high Tibetan lamas?
A4: to help stabilize border regions and protect trade routes
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.

Q1: What policy does Luciano Petech and Sato Hisashi claim the Ming held towards the Tibet?
A1: divide-and-rule
Q2: When did the Ming hold the divide and rule policy?
A2: after the Sakya regime had fallen
Q3: Who did Yongle Emperor fail to build a solid relationship with?
A3: fifth Karmapa
Q4: Who did the Yongle Emperor give patronage to?
A4: many different Tibetan lamas
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.

Q1: Who were the Rinpungpa leaders related to?
A1: the Phagmodrupa
Q2: When did the the prince of Rinbung occupy Lhasa?
A2: 1498
Q3: What was the most important event to the Gelug?
A3: New Years ceremonies and prayers
Q4: When was Gelug was given the right to conduct the New Years prayer?
A4: 1518
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.

Q1: When did the Zhengde Emperor rule?
A1: 1505–1521
Q2: Who's company did the Zhengde Emperor enjoy?
A2: the company of lamas
Q3: Who was the 8th Karmapa Lama?
A3: Mikyö Dorje
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.

Q1: Who said Tibet  wasn't an integral part of of China?
A1: Chinese writers of the early 20th century
Q2: What does Sperling claim did not have any control over Tibet?
A2: China's intervening Ming dynasty
Q3: Since what century has Sperling described Ming and Tibet's relation being problematic for China?
A3: the 13th century
Q4: When was the Manchu Qing dynasty invasion?
A4: the 18th century
Josef Kolmaš, a sinologist, Tibetologist, and Professor of Oriental Studies at the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, writes that it was during the Qing dynasty "that developments took place on the basis of which Tibet came to be considered an organic part of China, both practically and theoretically subject to the Chinese central government." Yet he states that this was a radical change in regards to all previous eras of Sino-Tibetan relations.

Q1: During Which dynasty does Josef Kolmaš claim Tibet was considered an organic part of China?
A1: the Qing dynasty
Q2: Josef Kolmaš  states that Tibet became subject to what government?
A2: the Chinese central government
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."

Q1: Who does P. Christiaan Klieger claim to have had a mutual role of religious prelate?
A1: the Tibetan lamas and Mongol khans
Q2: Who does P. Christiaan Klieger believe undertook the former imperial tributaries?
A2: the Republic of China and its Communist successors
Q3: Where does P. Christiaan Klieger work?
A3: the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco
Q4: Who was the  vice royalty of the Sakya regime established by?
A4: the Mongols
Q5: The Sakya regime established what kind of relationship between the Tibetans and Mongol converts?
A5: patron and priest relationship
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.

Q1: When was Tibet included into the territory of Yuan dynasty's China?
A1: the 13th century
Q2: Who was said to have gained the right to rule Tibet?
A2: the Ming dynasty
Q3: When was China Daily started?
A3: 1981
Q4: Who does the article claim had two itinerant high commands over Tibet?
A4: the Ming
Q5: According to article Tibet has remained under what jurisdiction?
A5: the central government of China