明清藏区大乘司徒与守善体梵灌顶大国师考

A Study of Dacheng Situ 大乘司徒 and Shoushan Tifan Guanding Daguoshi 守善体梵灌顶大国师 in Tibetan Areas of the Ming and Qing Dynasties

清代前期的史料记载证明,大乘司徒与守善体梵灌顶大国师并非明朝敕封的大乘、大宝法王或其朝贡使者,而是两员驻牧于雅州寺院,且无管辖地方及人口的特殊土司。明穆宗隆庆三年(1569)藏区朝贡制度改革之后,规定绝大部分藏区朝贡者都留边候赏,由雅州弘化、报恩两番寺安顿,并敕封两员僧官,即大乘司徒与守善体梵灌顶大国师负责管理。明末清初,报恩寺被焚毁,大乘司徒与守善体梵灌顶大国师只得同住弘化寺,向清廷投诚后获授职为武职土司。由于清朝更注重以政治、军事手段来实现和强化对藏区的直接管控,藏区土司对朝廷的主要义务已是"纳赋",而非"入贡",故当清朝完全控制藏区后,这两员土司完全失去存在价值,终在乾隆前期被废除。

Although Dacheng Situ and Shoushan Tifan Guanding Daguoshi are recorded in many documents of the Qing Dynasty,they have never been academically discussed.Historical records in the early Qing Dynasty have fully proved that they were not Dacheng Fawang大乘法王 or Dabao Fawang大宝法王appointed by the Ming court,or their missions,but special chieftains who stationed at monasteries of Yazhou 雅州 without power to administer local affairs.Through the textual research of the monasteries,it is speculated that they were initially resulted from Tibetan tributary system reform in Longqing 3of the Longqing Emperor.At that time,the court regulated that most tribute missions from Tibetan areas must stay in border for the coming of reward,accepting Honghua 弘 化lamasery and Baoen 报 恩 lamasery of Yazhou,Sichuan as accommodation,and submit to administration of Dacheng Situ and Shoushan Tifan Guanding Daguoshi appointed by the court.During the late Ming and early Qing,because Baoen lamasery was burned down by general Wen Yunyuan of Southern Ming in the great chaos of Sichuan,Dacheng Situ and Shoushan Tifan Guanding Daguoshi had to move to Honghua lamasery together.After surrendering to Qing court,they were bestowed with the title of military chieftain.The Qing Dynasty paid more attention on achieving and consolidating direct control of Tibetan areas with political and military means.The main duty of the Tibetan chieftains toward the court had changed from tribute into paying tax.After the Qing Dynasty completely controlled Tibetan areas,the two Sinicized chieftains lost their original value,so they were abolished in the early period of Qianlong.It can be said that the history of two figures reflected the changes of the Ming and Qing Dynasties' policy toward Tibetan areas and relationship between the dynasties and Tibetan areas.