• 1 Throughout in this paper I use renovation for large scale projects, and restoration for minor repai (...)
• 2 Cf. dBa’bzhed 2000, p. 63, n. 201. See also Sørensen 1994, pp. 371-390 for the English translation (...)
• 3 See Bu ston chos ’byung 1988; Deb ther sngon po 1984, p. 70, etc. The latter dates do not seem viab (...)

1Samye (bSam yas), the first Buddhist monastery established in Tibet, is one of the most important sacred sites in the Tibetan cultural world besides the Jokhang Temple (Jo khang) in Lhasa¹. It is located in the Chimbu (mChims phu)/ Dakmar (Brag dmar) valley, south of the capital city, Lhasa. In Tibetan, it is simply referred to as Samye Tsuklakhang (an abbreviation of bSam yas mi ’gyur lhun gyi grub pa’i gTsug lag khang, Inconceivable Unchanging Spontaneously Established Monastery). According to the “Testament of Ba” (Ba bzhad)², an important early Tibetan history, it was built during the time of emperor (tsenpo; btsan po) Trisong Detsen (Khri srong lde btsan, r. 755-797/804) sometime between 763 or 775 (Hare Year) as the initial year, and 779 (Sheep Year) as the year the main shrine was consecrated. Other construction dates, from 787 to 799 through to 787 to 791 have been given by later Tibetan historians³.

• 4 See Anupam 2000 for a short description of Odantapuri Mahāvihāra, and Uebach 1987, p. 99 translatio (...)
• 5 Cf. Snellgrove & Richardson 1995, p. 78.

2Almost all Tibetan historiographies mention that Samye was modeled after Odantapuri Monastery, though Ne’u Paṇḍita stated that it is visioned after the ancient Nālanda monastery⁴. The central shrine with four surrounding branch temples itself represented the Buddhist universe, in the form of the Mount Meru and its surrounding continents. The layout is modeled after the three-dimensional mandala, which is dedicated to Buddha Vairocana. Interestingly, the central shrine consists of three stories, and all three represent the traditional architectural style in a layer of India, China, and Tibet. This signifies the cross-cultural relationships that influenced the development of Tibetan imperial power. The foundation of the monastery was initiated by Śāntarakṣita (725-788), the abbot of the Indian Buddhist learning center of Vikramaśilā. Padmasambhava (ca. 8^th century) undertook further tantric rituals to subdue hostile spirits ensure the successful completion of construction. This led to the beginning of the first monastic institution in Tibet. Due to the influence of these two teachers, Buddhism in Tibet “represent[ed] two rather different forms of Buddhist practice, the one conventionally academic and monastic, and the other mystical and ritual”5. The three figures known as khenlob chosum (mkhan slob chos gsum) – Emperor Trisong Detsen, Śāntarakṣita, and Padmasambhava – played decisive roles in the foundation of Samye. They represent secular authority, the intellectual doctrinal view, and tantric supremacy respectively. These three themes have continued to have an influential role in Tibetan Buddhism and society, especially until the significant changes that took place in the 1950s.

• 6 Adamek 2007, p. 288 notes that in one of these debates “the fate of Chan in Tibet was said to have (...)
• 7 See Richardson 1985 and Doney 2014 for further details about the pillar and bell and their inscript (...)
• 8 Although this detail is not confirmed, Samten Karmay (2003) states that he even became its ninth ab (...)

3However, while the tale of these three figures is well known, the foundations of Samye and Buddhism in Tibet were by no means straightforward. There was an intense rivalry between Indian and Chinese Buddhist missionaries for influence in Tibet, which led to debates between different propagator under the patronage of the emperor to be conducted at Samye. For a period of circa five years (793-797), the “Council of Lhasa” or “the Samye Debate” between (ca. 740-795, a disciple of Śāntarakṣita) and the Chinese monk of reportedly took place6. Besides the “Samye Debate”, Samye has been famously known for “Samye Stone Inscription and Samye Bell Inscription”7. Additionally, even the infamous Lhalung Pelkyi Dorje (lHa lung dpal gyi rdo rje, 9^th century), who brought down the imperial house of Tibet by assassinating the last emperor Tri Udumtsen (Khri u’i dum btsan), better known as Langdarma (Glang dar ma, r. 841-842), took his monk’s vows at Samye8.

• 9 It has to be noted that Buddhism in Central Tibet was widely believed to have been discontinued but (...)
• 10 Rabjampa took his ordination at the age of 13 in 1319 from Khenpo Samdrup Rinchen (mkhan po bSam gr (...)

4In the post-imperial period, Samye retained its significance and played a major role in reviving Buddhism in U-Tsang in the late-10^th century under the guidance of Lume Sherab Tsultrim (Klu mes shes rab tshul khrims, d. 1017) and the group of Ba-rak (sBa rag tsho), and so forth⁹. Since Samye was Tibet’s first monastic institution, and other sectarian-based monastic institutes were not founded until late-11^th century, Samye functioned as the main seat for many ordination ceremonies. The biographies of significant Tibetan masters suggest that ordination took place there until at least the mid-15^th century, including for well-known teachers and scholars such Longchen Rabjampa Dreme Ozer (Klong chen rab ’byams pa Dri med ’od zer, 1308-1364), who was ordained there in ca. 1323-1324, and Thrimkhang Lotsawa Sonam Gyatso (Khrims khang lo tsā ba bSod nams rgya mtsho, 1424-1482) who was ordained in ca. 1433¹⁰.

• 11 Reference in bKa’ thang sde lnga (1997, pp. 162, 166-167); sBa bzhed phyogs bsgrigs 2009, pp. 123, (...)
• 12 In Tibetan, bsam yas kyi pe dar gyi gling/ dkor mdzod cig kha phye nas rgya dpe la gzigs pas/ sngar (...)
• 13 However, by the early 20^th century, all these Sanskrit texts cannot be traced or were lost in fires (...)

5Moreover, the library of Samye (bSam yas Pad dkar gling) was well known for its archive of Sanskrit texts. These texts were reportedly brought to Samye by Thumi Sambhota (Thu mi sam bhu ta), Vimalamitra, Padmasambhava, and other significant figures during the time of the Tibetan empire¹¹. Atiśa Dīpankara Śrījñāna (982-1054) discussed his experience encountering the library, stating, “as I open the archive (dkor mdzod) of the Samye Library, and look at those Sanskrit texts, there are many texts of sūtra and tantra which I had never seen before”. Similarly, in “The Blue Annals” (Deb ther sngon po), the author Goe Lotsawa (’Gos lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal, 1392-1481) records that Atiśa said, “it seems that the doctrine had first spread in Tibet, even more than in India”¹². Similarly, the last abbot of Nālandā monastery, Kashmiri Paṇḍita Śākyaśrībhadra (1127-1225) got access to those texts when he visited Samye in ca. 1206-1207 (Deb ther sngon po 1984, p. 137)¹³.

• 14 It is said that then he passed these texts on to his disciple, Uepa Dargye (dBus pa dar rgyas), and (...)
• 15 The first text bKa’ mchem ka khol ma is said to be retrieved by Atiśa in 1046, and it mainly record (...)

6Besides the historical significance of the library, Samye also gained its mythical prominence as the source of “Treasure texts” (gter ma). The discoveries of the texts such as “The four tantras” (rgyud bzhi), the Tibetan medical text in 1038 by Drapa Ngonshe (Grwa pa mngon shes, 1012-1090)¹⁴, two imperial Tibet-related texts bKa’ mchems ka khol ma and Mani bka’ ’bum, both ascribed to Songtsen Gampo (Srong btsan sgam po, r 617-649)¹⁵, and the “Ancient myths and history of Early Tibet” (bKa’ thang sde lnga 1997) by Ogyen Lingpa (O rgyan gling pa, b. 1323), are associated with Samye. Yet a successive abbacy list and its account have yet to surface. The significance of Samye in post imperial Tibet can be ascertained from successive renovations in the following centuries.

• 16 In Tibetan chu mo glang gi lo […] ka chu bzung ste/ zhig ral gsos nas bzung (lDe’u jo sras 1987, p. (...)
• 17 I followed the dating of the founding year as 957 (Fire-Dragon) from Blo bzang chos ’byor 2007, p.  (...)
• 18 Although lDe’u jo sras (1987, p. 157) had attributed the founding of Solnak Thangchen monastery to (...)
• 19 Cf. n. 8. In lDe’u jo sras (1987 [12^th century], pp. 155-156) text, the destruction of Samye by fir (...)
• 20 Although the date Fire-Male-Dog is not mentioned in Ra Lotsawa’s biography, the record of the date (...)

7After the fall of imperial Tibet, Samye gradually regained its importance and it was probably around the year of Water-Female-Ox (953) that different Tibetan patrons began to renovate parts of the Samye complex. Drumbarwa Jangchub (Grum ’bar ba byang chub) worked with the support of Lume Sherab Tsultrim and others to arrange for the restoration of Kachu (Ka chu) temple of Samye¹⁶. A few years later, in 957 (Fire-Female-Snake year)¹⁷, they built a new monastery called Solthak/nak Thangchen (Sol thag/nag Thang chen) in the lower Chongpo (’Phyong po) valley¹⁸, where Lume was appointed the first throne-holder, and Dring Yeshe Yonten was made the chief of Samye monastery. However, when continuous factionalist conflicts between members of the Lume and Ba-rak group (sBa rag tsho) lineages led to mismanagement and damage¹⁹, other monks started to claim Samye for their lineage. This conflict led to the greatest damage to the original Samye complex by fire in the year of the Fire-Male-Dog, i.e. 986 or 1046²⁰.

• 21 Cf. Vitali 2003, pp. 71-79. Atiśa had arrived in Tibet in 1042 under the invitation of the kings of (...)
• 22 Cf. Rwa lo tsā ba’i rnam thar 1989, p. 63. See also Cuevas 2015, pp. 231-234 translation of Ra Lots (...)

8However, it seems that the damage to Samye was actually minor, because in 1046, Atiśa recorded how impressed he was with the collection of texts in the Library. In the mid-11^th century, Jangchub Oe (Byang chub ’od, r 1037-1057) was the first person to initiate the major full restoration of Samye in 1047 after the visit of Atiśa. This restoration was carried out under the guidance of Zanskar lotsawa Phakpa Sherab (Zangs dkar lo tswa ba Phags pa shes rab, ca. 11^th century)²¹. Yet as the conflict within the Lume and Barak linages could not be settled and since many of them belonged to the ruling clans’ families, and potentially due to concerns about their objections, the damaged Samye complex and its surroundings were abandoned for many years. Only in the 1140s did Ra Lotsawa Dorje Drakpa (Rwa lo tsā ba rDo rje grags pa, 1016-1128) begin the rebuilding and renovation of Samye. His biography states that he reached Samye with around 2000 of his disciples, and it took about five years to complete the full renovation of Samye²². Goe Lotsawa in Deb ther sngon po (1984, p. 459) too recorded that:

• 24 Cf. Roerich & Gedun Choephel 1996, p. 570 also. Tib. ‘bri khung chos rjes phyag rdzas shin tu mang (...)

9This wide scale renovation of Samye by Ra Lotsawa lasted for many years, and was followed up only by several smaller restorations. Such restorations could have been due to the deterioration of wood, or wear on the buildings. One such restoration took place in the early 13^th century (ca. 1200-1203). It was undertaken by Drikung Choeje Jikten Gonpo (’Bri khung chos rje ’Jig rten mgon po, 1143-1217), who gathered donations for a new temple to house the reliquary of Phakmodrupa Dorje Gyelpo (Phag mo gru pa rDo rje rgyal po, 1110-70) in 1198 at Densathil (gDan sa thel, est. 1158), the monastery of Phakdru Kagyu (Phag gru bKa’ rgyud), and kept part of the contributions for the rebuilding of Samye. Although he founded the temple together with Taklung Choeje Tashi Pel (sTag lung chos rje bKra shis dpal, 1142-1209), he was afraid that the temple complex was likely to be destroyed in a feud between the two chieftains of Ngamshoe (Ngams shod) of Central Tibet who were in conflict at the time²⁴.

• 25 Both Ngag dbang rgyal po et al. (2003, pp. 71-85, 86-99) and Thub bstan rgyal mtshan (2008, pp. 275 (...)
• 26 Sonam Gyaltsen was more or less based at Samye, and had considerably revived the importance of Samy (...)
• 27 Refer to Ehrhard 2002 for details about Thrimkhang Lotsawa.

10The next major renovation occurred only after 150 years. In the interim, both Sakya Paṇḍita Kunga Gyaltsen (Sa skya paṇḍita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan, 1182-1251) and Longchen Rabjampa (based at Samye), occasionally managed some minor restorations. In one of these restorations, Sakya Paṇḍita had the famous domtson dampa (sdom brtson dam pa) diagram painted on the front door of the monastery; however, there is not any record of actual building activities²⁵. It was in 1347, under the supervision of Sherab Pal (Shes rab dpal, 14^th century) with further guidance from Sonam Gyaltsen (bSod nams rgyal mtshan, 1312-1375), that a restoration project was started, but it seems to be not a complete renovation. Sonam Gyaltsen resumed this project in 1356²⁶. A century later in around 1466 a large-scale renovation took place under the patronage of Thrimkhang Lotsawa²⁷. The Deb ther sngon po (1984, pp. 961-962) describes this renovation:

• 29 Cf. Thub bstan rgyal mtshan 2008, pp. 351-352. See the short biography of Ngakchang Kunga Rinchen i (...)

12However, it seems that the 1533-1534 restoration was on a minor scale, because beginning in 1551 Rinchen Phuntsok, who retired from the abbatial throne in 1534, together with Trengpo Sherab Ozer (’Phreng po shes rab ’od zer, 1518-1584), an influential monk trained in Sakya-Geluk-Kagyu disciplines, started to discover some other Treasure texts in and in the vicinity of Samye (Deroche 2011, p. 55, n. 24). As both monks were active both in Samye and the surrounding regions, and in order to legitimate their activities around the monastery and in response to the material effects of the passage of time on the monastery, another restoration of Samye took place. This led to a major restoration project in 1556, which was led by the 23^rd/24^th Sakya throne-holder, Ngakchang Kunga Rinchen (sNgags ’chang Kun dga’ rin chen, 1517-1584). He held the position for fifty years, and during those periods, he restored numerous Sakya institutions and, also rebuilt Samye. After the restoration, in 1561 he even established an institute for monastic education at Samye (bSam yas rab byung grwa tshang)²⁹.

• 30 Cf. Ngag dbang rgyal po et al. 2003, p. 141. In this detailed note on the restoration of Samye, Thu (...)

13The next renovation and rebuilding of Samye took place during the reign of the 5^th Dalai Lama Lobsang Gyatso (Ta la’i bla ma Blo bzang rgya mtsho, 1617-1681). This was one of the longest, as well as most comprehensive, renovations in Samye’s history, and included every part of the Samye main complex and its surrounding structures. The rebuilding or renovating took around 32 years from 1645 (Wood-Bird) to 1676 (Fire-Dragon) to finish, and was supervised and sponsored by Sakyong Gadenpa Dorjee Namgyal (Sa skyong dga’ ldan pa rDo rje rnam rgyal, 17^th century). Sakyong Gadenpa’s ancestral family has been rural aristocrats since the Tshalpa rulers of Phakdru (14^th-15^th century). After the Phakdru lost the civil wars against the Ganden Phodang (dGa’ ldan pho brang, 1642-1959) in 1642, the 5^th Dalai Lama had reinstated the family estates in 1645 with additional estates of Samye Dzong after gaining confidence in the family. Between 1645 and 1676 Dorje Namgyal himself supervised the ongoing renovation of Samye and he invited in 1662 the 5^th Dalai Lama to re-consecrate Samye after the successful completion of the first stage³⁰.

• 31 He was also known as Jamyang A-mye-zhab (’jam dbyangs a myes zhabs), and is well known for his impo (...)

14Other leading spiritual leaders also sponsored and made donations towards the renovations. These figures included the 28^th Sakya Throne-holder, Ngawang Kunga Sonam (Ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams, 1597-1660) in 1659³¹, and the first Dzogchen Drubwang Pema Rigdzin (rDzogs chen grub dbang Padma rig ’dzin, 1625-1697) with his youngest disciple, Rigdzin Nyima Drakpa (Rig ’dzin nyi ma grags pa, 1647-1710). The latter two also claimed that they had contributed funds when parts of Samye were damaged by fires (Gardner 2009). The mission started by Dorje Namgyal was continued by his son, Lhagyal Rabten (lHa rgyal rab brtan, 17^th-18^th century), who held the regent (sde srid) position during the Dzungar Mongols campaign in Tibet. In 1717 he contributed to the rebuilding of some of the statues in the main shrine (Thub bstan rgyal mtshan 2008, 376-377).

• 32 See Ngag dbang rgyal po et al. (2003, pp. 151-156) and Thub bstan rgyal mtshan (2008, pp. 378-382) (...)
• 33 See Ngag dbang rgyal po et al. (2003, pp. 155-158) and Thub bstan rgyal mtshan (2008, pp. 383-384) (...)

15A few years later, Samye needed further renovation. In 1722, a restoration project was carried out by Sonam Dargye (bSod nams dar rgyas, d. 1744), the father of the 7^th Dalai Lama Kelsang Gyatso (Ta la’i bla ma bsKal bzang rgya mtsho, 1708-1757). This was initially intended to be a minor restoration, including the painting of the rooftop of the upper main temple in golden bronze. However, the scope of the work gradually extended to include a number of other areas after Samye bu tshal, referring to Samye u-tse (dBu rtse) section, which had been damaged by fires and decay³². In between those restorations, the 7^th Dalai Lama visited Samye and performed a consecration; he also composed a directory (bSam yas dkar chags II). The third restoration in that century took place a few decades later, in 1769-70 under the guidance of the 6^th Demo Rinpoche Jampel Delek Gyatso (bDe mo rin po che ’Jam dpal bde legs rgya mtsho, 1722- r 1757-1777). At that time Demo Rinpoche was holding a regent (rgyal tshab/ sde srid) position during the minority of the 8^th Dalai Lama Jampel Gyatso (Ta la’i bla ma ’Jam dpal rgya mtsho, 1758-1804). The restoration was sponsored by the central Tibetan government, which took initiative to restore Samye as needed due to damage or decay³³.

• 34 See Thub bstan rgyal mtshan (2008, pp. 385-387) for a short note on the renovation of Samye after t (...)

16Before Samye was again destroyed by fires in 1816, during the reign of the regent the 8^th Tatsak Kundeling Tenpe Gonpo (rTa tshag kun bde gling bsTan pa’i mgon po, 1760, r 1789-1810) and in the presence of the newly recognized 9^th Dalai Lama Lungtok Gyatso (Ta la’i bla ma Lung rtogs rgya mtsho, 1805-1815), the walls of the main complex were renovated in the 7 months following the 1806 Lhokha earthquake³⁴. This restoration was supervised by Khenpo Kelsang Choedak (mKhan po bsKal bzang chos grags, 19^th century) under the guidance of the regent himself, who had also re-consecrated the complex with the sponsorship of the central government. However, ten years later, in 1816, the whole Samye complex was destroyed by fire.

• 35 See annotated translation and edition of the autobiography of Blo bzang thabs mkhas d. 1827.
• 36 See Ngag dbang rgyal po et al. (2003, pp. 159-161) and Thub bstan rgyal mtshan (2008, pp. 387-388) (...)

17Under the supervision of Lobsang Thapkhe (Blo bzang thabs mkhas, 1787-1827)³⁵ with special guidance by the Minister Shedra Dondup Dorjee (bKa’ gung bshad sgra Don grub rdo rje, r. 1808-1839), a seven-year long project to rebuild Samye was sponsored by the central government with other donations. It was one of the longest rebuilding projects that took place after Ra Lotsawa’s restoration in the 11^th century and the Gadenpa in the 17^th century. As the 10^th Dalai Lama Tshultrim Gyatso (Ta la’i bla ma Tshul khrims rgya mtsho, 1816-1837) was a minor, the regent, the 7^th Demo Rinpoche Thupten Jigme Gyatso (bDe mo rin po che Thub bstan ’jigs med rgya mtsho, 1778- r. 1811-1819) initiated the rebuilding, but after he passed away suddenly in 1819, the newly enthroned regent, the 2^nd Tsemonling Rinpoche Jampel Tsultrim Gyatso (Tshe smon gling rin po che ’Jam dpal tshul khrims rgya mtsho, 1792-1864, r 1820-1844) conducted the re-consecration in 1824³⁶.

• 37 See Ngag dbang rgyal po et al. (2003, pp. 163-175) and Thub bstan rgyal mtshan (2008, pp. 389-407) (...)

19Minister Shedra Wangchuk Gyalpo (bKa’ gung shad sgra dBang phyug rgyal po, 1795-1864), who became the regent from 1862 until his death in 1864 after overthrowing Reting Rinpoche in an internal conflict, supervised the renovation project. Besides the structural renovations, most of the murals and paintings in the temple, as well as several parts of the complex, were restored or rebuilt. Besides the workers and supervisors, monks and lay officials, contributed to the project and the religious leaders from most of the sects performed consecrations at the site. A grand official consecration was conducted earlier during a 21-day visit of the 12^th Dalai Lama to Samye in the 7^th month of the year 1852. The 9^th Tasak Kundeling Lobsang Tenpe Gyaltsen (rTa tshag kun bde gling Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan, 1811-1854), who was the senior tutor of the 12^th Dalai Lama, presided over this grand event with other leading monks³⁷.

• 38 The 5^th Reting Rinpoche became the regent (rgyal tshab) of Tibet during the most important and cruc (...)

20There were no further renovations undertaken until 1935. This was the last restoration of Samye before the Chinese takeover of Tibet in 1951, and this time also the catalyst was a financial grant from the central government. It was completed by 1937. As the necessary materials like the wood and iron were allowed to be transported without obtaining the concerned kalon (bka’ blon)’s clearance, the lead supervisor, Parkhang Khenchen Gyaltsen Phunshok (Par khang mkhan chen rGyal mtshan phun tshogs, 20^th century) was able to renovate the major part of Samye main temple as well as other structures within a short period. The regent, the 5^th Reting Rinpoche Jampel Yeshe Gyaltsen (Rwa sgreng ’Jam dpal ye shes rgyal mtshan, 1910, r. 1934-1941, 1947)³⁸ did the consecration himself with great fanfare.

• 39 Both Ngag dbang rgyal po et al. (2003, p. 188) and Thub bstan rgyal mtshan (2008, p. 419) stated th (...)

21During the Chinese Cultural Revolution of 1966 to 1976, the majestic Samye was completely destroyed. The next rebuilding therefore happened in the 1980s after the end of the Cultural Revolution³⁹. The first mention of Samye’s destruction to the outside world was by explorer and author Heinrich Harrer, who returned to Tibet in 1982, over 30 years after his last visit to Lhasa in 1951. Here is what Harrer (1984, p. 32) described of his visit: