Sonam Chopel. Image credit: Treasury of Lives

བསོད་ནམས་ཆོས་འཕེལ།

b1595 – d.1658

Tradition: Geluk དགེ་ལུགས།
Geography: Lhasa ལྷ་ས།
Historical Period: 17^th Century ༡༧ དུས་རབས།
Institution: Sera Monastery སེ་ར།; Drepung Monastery འབྲས་སྤུངས་།; Jonang Monastery ཇོ་ནང་།; Reting Monastery རྭ་སྒྲེང་།; Chokhor Gyel ཆོས་འཁོར་རྒྱལ།; Dzingchi རྫིང་ཕྱི་ཆོས་སྡེ།; Potala པོ་ཏ་ལ།; Zamkhar ཟམ་མཁར།; Dongkar Dzong གདོང་དཀར་རྫོང་།
Government Officers: Depa སྡེ་པ།
Name Variants: Awu; Chakdzo Sonam Chopel ཕྱག་མཛོད་བསོད་ནམས་ཆོས་འཕེལ།; Desi Sonam Chopel སྡེ་སྲིད་བསོད་ནམས་ཆོས་འཕེལ།; Gyale Chondze; Gyalo Chodze Sonam Chopel རྒྱ་ལོ་ཆོས་མཛད་བསོད་ནམས་ཆོས་འཕེལ།; Sonam Rabten བསོད་ནམས་རབ་བརྟན།; Zhelngo Sonam Rabten ཞལ་ངོ་བསོད་ནམས་རབ་བརྟན།

Sonam Chopel (bsod nams chos ‘phel) was born in 1595 at Gyale (rgya le) in Tibet’s Tolung (stod lung) valley to the west of Lhasa. (Zuiho Yamaguchi suggests that he was born in 1583 instead.) By 1603, when he was eight, he was enrolled at the great Geluk monastery of Drepung (‘bras spungs) just outside Lhasa. At the monastery he was called Gyale Chodze (chos mdzad), or Chodze from Gyale. The term signifies ‘Monk-sponsor,’ one whose family makes substantial donations to the monastery, thus exempting him from the menial duties of ordinary monks. Therefore he probably came from a prosperous family. He started off as a monk-administrator (las sne) of Ganden Podrang (dga’ ldan pho brang), the early Dalai Lamas’ residence at Drepung Monastery. He is first mentioned in the biography of the Fourth Dalai Lama Yonten Gyatso (tA la’I bla ma 04 yon tan rgya mtsho, 1589-1617) as a Ganden Podrang Chodze, at the age of eight, and listed among the welcoming party to greet the Fourth Dalai Lama when he arrived in Lhasa from Mongolia in 1603.

He first rose to prominence in 1613 as Principal Attendant (phyag mdzod) of the Fourth Dalai Lama and Treasurer (mdzod pa), i.e. the senior official of Ganden Podrang and thus by the time he was about twenty he had become one of the top administrators in the Geluk order.

Just after the Fourth Dalai Lama’s death, early in 1617, Sonam Chopel met the Fourth Panchen Lama Lobzang Chokyi Gyeltsen (pan chen bla ma 04 blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan, 1570-1662) who was going to Ngari (mnga’ ris); he had to pass through Shigatse (gzhi ka rtse) and Sonam Chopel, concerned about the opposing power of Tsang (gtsang) being a threat to his safety on the way, tried to dissuade him. The Panchen Lama mentioned a Nyingma prophecy that Mongolians would invade Tibet and suggested that the late, once-powerful Fourth Dalai Lama would have been able to prevent it. He still hoped for peace and before leaving he exhorted Sonam Chopel to work for peace.

Thangka of the Fourth Dalai Lama, Yonten Gyatso. Click to enlarge. Image credit: himalayanart.org

But peace was not to be. Due to historical political rivalry between leaders of U and Tsang, the sudden death at twenty-eight of the Fourth Dalai Lama, who, being of royal Mongolian birth, was championed by the Mongols, emboldened the fifth king of Tsang, Karma Puntsok Namgyel (karma phun tshogs rnam rgyal, 1587-1621) to attack and capture U by early 1618 when Sonam Chopel was just twenty-two. His forces plundered and wrecked Lhasa’s Geluk monasteries, particularly Drepung, killing hundreds of monks and forcing the rest to flee for their lives to the north. Many civilians were also slaughtered; all the local, Geluk-sympathetic Kyisho (skyid shod) nobility’s estates were captured; the Lhasa valley governor and his son had to flee to Tsokha (mtsho kha) and many Geluk monasteries were forcibly converted into Kagyu institutions. When the Tsang regime crowned the Tenth Karmapa as spiritual leader of all Tibet later that year, religious consolidation under the leadership of the Karma Kagyu order together with suppression of the Geluk became established Tsang policy.

As part of a resolution negotiated by Taklung Choje Ngawang Namgyel (stag lung chos rje ngag dbang rnam rgyal, 1571-1626), Treasurer Sonam Chopel had to arrange ransom of 300 gold coins for the return of the sacked monasteries of Drepung and Sera (se ra), 200 for Drepung and 100 for Sera, and deliver them under escort to Tsang, to the west of Lhasa. Since both monasteries’ funds had been exhausted, Sonam Chopel offered to collect the gold from the previous Dalai Lamas’ secret reserve at Chokhor Gyel (chos ‘khor rgyal). This monastery was a few days journey east but after leaving Lhasa for Chokhor Gyel Sonam Chopel evaded his Tsangpa escort and fled to the north.

Discovery of the Fifth Dalai Lama

Upon the early death of the Fourth Dalai Lama in 1617, the Tsang king placed a ban on the search for his reincarnation and prepared to invade and capture U. He bore a grudge against the Fourth Dalai Lama, who, he thought, had not only snubbed him but also cursed him and made him chronically ill. He therefore actively opposed the Geluk and he knew that the elimination of their most popular and important lama would have drastically weakened them. Sonam Chopel, however, being the late Fourth Dalai Lama’s Principal Attendant, secretly mounted a search. In 1619 he and his team, after covertly consulting oracles for clues, identified a strong candidate, a boy called Kunga Mingyur (kun dga mi ‘gyur), born late in 1617 at Chonggye (phyong rgyas) in the Yarlung Valley (yar lung). Then, faced with active hostility from the King of Tsang, Sonam Chopel secretly traveled to Kokonor to seek support from Mongol leaders there.

By 1620, tension was building up again in Lhasa. After their 1618 invasion, Tsang forces had established military bases to blockade Drepung and Sera monasteries and control the city. In 1619, following Sonam Chopel’s secret trip to Kokonor, Mongol soldiers expelled in 1605 started returning as pilgrims and camping outside Lhasa.

Holy statue of Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyel. Click to enlarge.

In 1621 or thereabouts, the Tsang King Karma Puntsok Namgyel died after invading Ladakh and U. Modern Bhutan was just being founded at this time by the Tibetan lama Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyel (P509 zhabs drung ngag dbang rnam rgyal, 1594-1651) of the Drukpa Kagyu tradition; he had fled there from Tsang in 1616 to avoid arrest by the Tsang King, who had opposed and rejected his claim of being the incarnation of the Fourth Drukchen, Padma Karpo (P825, ‘brug chen pad+ma dkar po, 1527-1592). In exile, the Zhabdrung had been welcomed by the Drukpa Kagyu community in the western valleys of Thimpu (thim pu) and Punakha (spu na kha) and had assumed leadership mainly by popular acclaim. This was the beginning of his consolidation of the country into its modern form, gradually overcoming opposition from non-Drukpa groups who instigated an invasion from the Tsangpa King. It was said that the king died after this attack on the fledgling nation of Bhutan because, in his retreat cave, the Zhabdrung, a renowned tantric magician, had targeted him with wrathful rituals. The king, his wife and many of his family died of smallpox soon afterwards and the king was succeeded by his fifteen-year-old son Karma Tenkyong Wangpo (karma bstan skyong dbang po, 1606-1642). We shall see, however, that Sonam Chopel, instead of allying with the Zhabdrung as his co-opponent of the Tsangpa, made an enemy of him instead and, in the end, for all his successes against other political antagonists, the Zhabdrung proved to be Sonam Chopel’s bête noir.

During this time, Sonam Chopel had been keeping in touch secretly with the Mongols, hoping to engineer a counter-attack by them. In 1621 the Mongol cavalry suddenly attacked and routed the Tsangpa, who were now led by Karma Tenkyong, at Kyangtang Gang (rkyang thang sgang) near Lhasa. The teenaged king and his 10,000 Tibetan soldiers retreated and were surrounded at Chakpori Hill, facing starvation and massacre. By the intervention of Panchen Lama and the Thirty-fifth Ganden Tripa, Lingme Zhabdrung Konchok Chopel (gling smad zhabs drung dkon mchogs chos ‘phel, 1573-1646), further hostilities were avoided, the Tsang king and his army were freed and a favorable peace treaty was negotiated; lands and monasteries seized from the Geluk in 1618 and converted to Kagyu were returned.

The Thirty-Fifth Ganden Tripa, Konchok Chopel. Image credit: Treasury of Lives

Panchen Lama and Ganden Tripa then secretly drew lots before the sacred image of Jowo Jampel Dorje (jo bo ‘jam dpal rdo rje) at Reting Monastery (rwa sgreng) and Sonam Chopel’s boy was chosen from three candidates. While the Panchen Lama lobbied the new king to lift the ban Sonam Chopel was currying favor with him and making gifts. The ban was lifted in 1621 and royal recognition for the reincarnation was sought and granted. The four year old Dalai Lama was revealed and installed at Drepung in the second month of 1622 and given the ordination name of Lobzang Gyatso (tA la’i bla ma 05 blo bzang rgya mtsho, 1617-1682) by the Panchen in the third month.

Three months later, when Mongols were insisting on taking Lobzang Gyatso with them to Kokonor and Mongolia, Sonam Chopel and his helpers, with the complicity and support of the Tsang king, discreetly hid him away for a year at Erigo (e ri sgo) in southern Tibet.

There are differing accounts concerning Kunga Mingyur’s subjection to the object-recognition test in which he had to differentiate his predecessor’s personal items from similar items which had not been his. The accounts differ about when and where the test took place, whether his eventual tutor Kachuwa or Kachu Genyen Dondrub (dka’ bcu dge bsnyen don grub) or Sonam Chopel carried it out and also whether the candidate passed the test.

Sources which assert that Sonam Chopel subjected Kunga Mingyur to the test in 1619, before he left Chonggye and before lots were drawn at Reting, maintain that the boy passed the test without hesitation.

In his autobiography, however, the Fifth Dalai Lama recalls the test was made after lots had been drawn, that they took place at Nakartse (sna dkar rtse) in Yardrok (yar ‘grog) and he frankly admits “I could utter no words to recognize [any of the objects].” It is still possible that he did recognize them but was unable to say so. He states that when his examiner Kachuwa went out of the room to report the result to other officials he declared himself convinced that the boy recognized the objects.

It is probable that the test was carried out twice, once by Sonam Chopel at Chonggye in 1619 when the two-year old was too young to recall the test, but also, according to Tibetan lore, still young enough to retain the memory of the objects from his previous life; and once by Kachuwa at Nakartse in 1621 when he was four and old enough to remember the test later, but, again according to Tibetan lore, too old to remember the objects from his previous life.

Relations with the Fifth Dalai Lama

When Kunga Migyur, now called Lobzang Gyatso, aged four, was installed at Drepung in 1622 as the Fifth Dalai Lama, it was the twenty-seven year old Sonam Chopel, head administrator of the Ganden Podrang, who became his Chakdzo, Manager and Principal Attendant, responsible for his upbringing, management and safety. It is normal practice for an important lama’s Chakdzo to exercise more or less total control over his charge in childhood and often to maintain such control long after the lama’s maturity, dominating him and running all his affairs, as Sonam Chopel did. In case of the lama’s death, the Chakdzo is often placed in charge of the search for his reincarnation, as Sonam Chopel was when the Fourth Dalai Lama died. The Chakdzo controls funds and property and is referred to as the ‘Treasurer.’ He takes care of public relations, controlling who can have an audience; he organizes the lama’s travels, accommodation, building and publishing projects and all of the lama’s family affairs as well as engagements, including his private and public teachings. Sonam Chopel took care of all such work with consummate skill.

The Fifth Dalai Lama, Lobsang Gyatso. Image credit: Rigpa Wiki

In 1626 those duties included arranging funeral rites for Lobzang Gyatso’s father Hor Dudul Dorje (hor bdud ‘dul rdo rje) also called Dudul Rabten (bdud ‘dul rab brtan) who had died, possibly murdered, in the Tsang King’s prison. Although Hor Dudul Dorje had earlier been a friend and protégé of the king, in 1619 he contrived a plot against him, collaborating with the ruler Dakpo Kurab Namgyel (bdag po sku rab rnam gyal) who had led the king’s 1618 assault on Lhasa but subsequently fell out with him. The king was unhappy with Hor Dudul Dorje for allying with Kurab in this plot and imprisoned him. To assuage the king’s wrath, Dudul Dorje’s castle and estate at Chonggye Chingwa Taktse (‘phyongs rgyas ‘phying ba stag rtse) were offered to the king’s Foreign Minister Gangzukpa (phyi blon sgang zug pa). Hor Dudul Dorje’s wife Tricham (khri lcam) and the infant Kunga Mingyur were summoned to Tsang by the king but Tricham circumvented the order by moving to Nakartse where her brother, Yardrok Zhabdrung (yar ‘brog zhabs drung), took responsibility for them, with the consent of the king. Hor Dudul Dorje never saw his son again after 1619. Sonam Chopel, however, succeeded in sending him provisions after seeking the king’s permission. When Hor Dudul Dorje died in 1626 his corpse was discarded behind Zamkhar Castle (zam mkhar) whence it was recovered by a sage from Chonggye. Sonam Chopel then arranged for the appropriate funeral rites to be performed discreetly at local monasteries. Similarly, when the boy’s mother Tricham died at Nakartse in 1639 Sonam Chopel went there to arrange her funeral. At Lobzang Gyatso’s request he also took charge of the work to make a large silver statue of the Buddha for the funeral.

Sonam Chopel, being a monk, sometimes gave religious instruction to the boy, although he was not one of his official tutors. In 1626 Sonam Chopel saw Lobzang Gyatso was interested in a text on Hayagriva so he referred him to Lingme Zhabdrung Konchok Chopel who began to mentor him on this subject.

Chopel was a dynamic character, dealing with nobles, royalty and political leaders including foreign ones, and for many years routinely making critical decisions in all matters without reference to Lobzang Gyatso. Although Sonam Chopel as Regent from 1642 is generally accorded the title “Desi” by historians, in practice Lobzang Gyatso addressed him as “Zhelngo” (zhal ngo), meaning “The Presence” and later referred to him as “Depa”. He never used the term “Desi”, which was not in use at the time; it was only applied retroactively to Sonam Chopel and his successors in histories written later.

Moreover, according to his autobiography, Lobzang Gyatso initially found worldly affairs distasteful and preferred to study. He allowed Sonam Chopel to do as he liked, choosing to defer to him as a matter of course. He somewhat ruefully mentions being overruled on numerous occasions. For example, Sonam Chopel had indefinitely put off Lobzang Gyatso’s longstanding wish to make a new crown for a statue of Mahakarunika (thugs rje chen po) called Rangjon Ngaden (rang byon lnga ldan), judging that it was costly and would earn no recognition. Only after Sonam Chopel’s funeral in 1659 did Lobzang Gyatso feel able to set up a workshop to make the crown to his specifications. It was ready for him to offer to the statue early in 1660.

Zur Choying Rangdrol. Image credit: rywiki.tsadra.org

Sonam Chopel disapproved of Lobzang Gyatso having a Nyingma teacher, the renowned master Zur Choying Rangdrol (zur ston chos dbyings rang grol, 1604-1669). In 1636 Lobzang Gyatso deceived Sonam Chopel by pretending he needed to ask questions of Zur, and perform rituals with him, when in fact he was receiving teachings from him.

In Lobzang Gyatso’s autobiography there are frequent instances of Sonam Chopel ignoring Lobzang Gyatso’s advice. For example, in 1637 Sonam Chopel asked him what murals to paint on the main hall at Drepung and Lobzang Gyatso suggested the hundred Jataka stories and The Wish-fulfilling Tree (dpag bsam ‘khri shing) of Ksemendra, but this did not suit Sonam Chopel so he had something else done. When he saw the results, Lobzang Gyatso wrote that it would have been better if his advice had been followed. In 1636 and 1637 Lobzang Gyatso also complained that Sonam Chopel would not approve of lamas being invited to give him teachings and initiations to increase his knowledge; in 1638 he complained that Sonam Chopel prevented him from meeting a lama he wanted to take as a master.

On the other hand, over the thirty-six years they spent working together, from 1622 to 1658, there were only a few instances of Sonam Chopel’s policies being challenged by Lobzang Gyatso. Two major examples are in 1641 when the twenty-three-year-old Lobzang Gyatso strongly disagreed with Sonam Chopel’s plan to attack Tsang; and in 1652, as he was leaving to visit the Shunzhi Emperor of China, Lobzang Gyatso issued a decree to repeal and prohibit any further promulgation of the “gross” sectarian practices carried out under Sonam Chopel’s rule. After Lobzang Gyatso’s return from China in 1653 Sonam Chopel took more of a back seat and the former, now thirty-five years old, took over running the government.

The ‘Geluk’ Mongol Army and Conquest of Tibet

In the 138 years between 1480 and 1618 the Geluk had suffered a series of at least sixteen military attacks of varying magnitude, mostly by forces coming to U from Tsang, but somehow they had managed to survive them all. The seventeenth, however, the new combined threat from Tsang, Chogthu, Ligdan and Beri was by far the deadliest peril they had faced to date. Hearing about it, the Geluk abbots and patrons convened an emergency meeting with Sonam Chopel to find a way to prevent the extinction of their tradition.

This crucial conference was held at the historic house called Chudingne where patrons of Ganden Podrang would gather. They made offerings to the Lamo Tsangpa Oracle (la mo tsang pa), seeking a divination to resolve their plight. The Oracle advised them to go and ask the four Oirat Mongol tribes for help.

The meeting resolved that Sonam Chopel and Garu Lotsāwa Nache should go to Mongolia to solicit these tribes, Geluk converts, to come to their aid. By 1634 Sonam Chopel had recruited the Oirats, Dzungars and Urluks, Geluk tribes which had many monks in the Geluk monasteries of Lhasa, and who were just as fierce as the Khalkhas and Chahars. Together the tribal leaders deputed Gushri Khan, Chief of the Oirat Khoshot tribe, to lead a combined Geluk Mongol army to Tibet in defense of the Geluk. Sonam Chopel returned to Lhasa with the good news and Gushri Khan travelled to Tibet disguised as a pilgrim to reconnoiter the situation.

A depiction of Gushri Khan. Image credit: Treasury of Lives. Click to enlarge.

Ligdan died of smallpox on the Kokonor plain as he headed for Tibet with his army and in 1637 Gushri Khan attacked Chogthu in Amdo, destroying him and his large army with a much smaller force. In the meantime, Gushri Khan became a close disciple of Lobzang Gyatso. At a ceremony hosted by Lobzang Gyatso in Lhasa later in 1637 the victorious Gushri was then honored as a ‘Religious king and defender of Buddhism.’ He then returned to Amdo where he remained with his tribe at pasture until 1640.

Sonam Chopel was the principal actor behind all this, and the Tsang regime’s most implacable foe; and he was not satisfied. In 1639 Gushri Khan signaled to Sonam Chopel and Lobzang Gyatso his intention to attack and destroy the Lhasa Geluk’s two main political and religious rivals: Donyo Dorje, the Bon King of Beri in the east who persecuted all the Buddhist traditions, and the Tsang regime in the west which had a long history of oppressing the Geluk. Sonam Chopel was in full agreement with this but, according to his autobiography, Lobzang Gyatso argued against it. He ruled that there had been enough bloodshed already and it was not necessary to compete with and attack other Tibetan leaders or parties.

The politically ambitious Sonam Chopel, however, insisted on taking advantage of the availability of Gushri and his victorious army to establish a greater Geluk supremacy. He rejected Lobzang Gyatso’s wish for peaceful co-existence, saying the Geluk had been unduly persecuted, and laying out his vision for peace under a forcibly united country led by Lobzang Gyatso.

As supposed justification for the attack on Beri, some histories cite a letter from the Beri king to the Karmapa in Tsang, intercepted by Gushri Khan’s men, proposing to destroy the Geluk tradition forever through joint action.

Lobzang Gyatso’s autobiography, however, clearly dates that letter at 1629; it further asserts that Gushri Khan decided to go to war because it was reported to him in 1638 that the Tsang king was persecuting the Tashilhunpo monks while constructing a new monastery on the hill above Tashilhunpo. The king called this monastery Chokhor Dechen (chos ‘khor bde chen), not Trashi Zilnon (bkra shis zil gnon) as mentioned in later Geluk sources.

More recently, it has also been suggested as a rationale for this invasion that economic advantages from controlling Kham could also accrue to the Geluk, by bringing the lucrative Sino-Tibetan border trade, formerly monopolized by the older traditions, within their sphere of influence.

In the summer of 1639, according to Lobzang Gyatso, Sonam Chopel, in front of the 21 year-old Dalai Lama and in defiance of his stated position, sent his messenger Kachu Genyen Dondrub to Gushri Khan with his assent for him to destroy Beri and then return to his base in Amdo. In the winter, Gushri Khan left Kokonor with his army and marched south, going first to Kham to eliminate the Beri King en route to central Tibet. By the end of 1640 the Beri King had been defeated and killed after a hard-fought campaign. To proclaim and celebrate Gushri’s victory Sonam Chopel hoisted flags of good tidings in the four directions around Lhasa and caused the “Great Banner of Power and Fortune” to be raised at the central western gate of Lhasa called Sapokgang.

Statues of the Fifth Dalai Lama and (apparently) Güshri Khan seen by Johann Grueber in the lobby of the Dalai Lama’s palace in 1661. Image credit: Wikipedia. Click to enlarge.

Sonam Chopel agreed with Gushri Khan that he should now march on to Tsang with his army and attack the King, but Lobzang Gyatso opposed it again, accusing Sonam Chopel of going too far. After defeating Donyo Dorje and releasing his prisoners, Lobzang Gyatso expected Gushri to return directly to Amdo, as Sonam Chopel had earlier arranged, taking his army with him. Sonam Chopel, however, had already deceived Lobzang Gyatso by covertly sending with Kachu Genyen Dondrub additional verbal instructions for Gushri Khan to go and destroy the Tsang King and his allies, the Kagyu establishments to which he belonged.

To save Sonam Chopel’s face Lobzang Gyatso therefore proposed to go to Gushri Khan himself to request him personally to turn back but Sonam Chopel would not agree. He demanded that Lobzang Gyatso carry out a dice divination, which he did before the deity Pelden Lhamo (dpal ldan lha mo). The divination said: “The immediate strategy is good, but bad for the long run.” Sonam Chopel took this as confirmation that his plan was right “because in the end we all die anyway” and Lobzang Gyatso could give no answer.

Thus, after Gushri Khan had executed the Beri King at Chamdo and subdued the Bon in Kham, early in 1641 Chopel sent Tardongne (star sdong nas), a capable and high-ranking official, to guide Gushri and his forces to Shigatse. However, the Tsang King had been forewarned. The border posts were guarded, supplies, arms and ammunition were stockpiled and a high stockade was erected around the castle and the monastery. By the time Gushri got there, the Tsang forces were so well prepared that his men could not break the siege. Sonam Chopel had been busy travelling around U to take over or harass areas ruled by Tsang. When he heard from his informers about Gushri’s failure to capture the fort, he sent a spy inside. The spy reported that the Tsang defenses were so strong it would be impossible to break the siege. Chopel then contritely asked Lobzang Gyatso to go and mediate a settlement but Lobzang Gyatso spoke harshly, blaming him for the difficult situation. He declared that it was now far too late to stand down and they must persevere, pointing out that in any case the Mongols would never agree to withdraw and leave at this late stage.

Stung into action, Sonam Chopel raised an army of Tibetans comprised partly of people who had lost their traditional estates and partly of novice monks from Sera and Drepung. They captured Dongkar Castle (gdong dkar rdzong) in one day. Seeing the fall of Dongkar, a whole series of other Tsang-held forts surrendered one after the other. Chopel had engineered a pretense of Lhasa neutrality, but this was now dropped. He marched his Tibetan army on Shigatse to join Gushri with fresh provisions, fodder and weapons. The siege efforts intensified and by early spring of 1642, Tsang defenses broke. The King and his two main ministers capitulated and all three were imprisoned. At this point Lobzang Gyatso was invited to come for the inauguration of his rule over Tibet in the great assembly hall of Samdrubtse Castle (bsam grub rtse pho brang). The victorious Gushri and Chopel rode out to meet him two days journey from Shigatse.

A picture of Gyantse town and fortress taken in 1938. Image credit: Wikipedia. Click to enlarge.

Soon after this conclusion, Garpa Yabse (sgar pa yab sras) of the Garpa family (sgar pa), supported by Tanak O Lonpa, Zhokhawa, Jupa Purtse Lhagangpa (phur rtse) other commanders and followers of the Karma Kagyu military forces in Kongpo and elsewhere, including Bhutan, fomented an uprising against the new government. Their armies captured the town of Gyantse, burned Dzingchi Monastery (rdzing phyi chos sde) and inspired a major rebellion in the region of Kongpo. Sonam Chopel and Gushri Khan had to quell the revolt, their forces killing 7,000 or 8,000 rebels in one place and capturing many more. They then moved around southern Tibet wiping out resistance and residual rebel forces. In the course of this they captured the official cook of the Karmapa, one Jama Choying (sgar pa’i mi sna ja ma chos dbyings), who was found to be wearing an amulet which contained details of a plan to eliminate the new government and replace it with Tsang and Karmapa supporters. It was a letter attached to an order of the Karmapa saying that Gushri Khan and Sonam Chopel were to be assassinated and the Panchen Lama and the Dalai Lama imprisoned in Kongpo. As a result, the captured Tsang King and his chief ministers, the last representatives of Tsang and Kagyu power in Tibet, were executed by the enraged Gushri Khan. They were sewn up in ox-hides and thrown in the Tsangpo River (gtsang po), a sentence reserved in Tibet for rebellious nobles.

Thus, after a brief campaign, Sonam Chopel and his Mongol army ended the rebellion of the Karma Kagyu and the last vestiges of their backers in Tsang against the newly established Geluk government in Lhasa.

The 10th Karmapa, Choying Dorje. Image credit: kagyuoffice.org

Attacks on the Geluk by Kagyu forces in 1537 and by expansionist Tsang forces in 1618 had involved the capture of many Geluk monasteries and their forced conversion to the Kagyu tradition. In 1621 when Mongols counter-attacked the Tsang military bases in Lhasa, as part of the settlement some of these monasteries were returned to the Geluk. After the 1640-1642 war, Lobzang Gyatso agreed with the Tenth Karmapa to leave the Karma Kagyu in possession of most of their monasteries, while suggesting to Sonam Chopel that the remaining Geluk monasteries that had been seized should be returned. After the rebellions that followed the war, however, some additional Kagyu monasteries were seized by the Geluk as punishment for rebelling and intending to destroy all Geluk monasteries, and some because they had become neglected. In 1648, due to political considerations, some Kagyu monasteries and, according to some histories, also some Sakya and Bon, were converted to Geluk, but details are scarce. Chimpu (mchims phu) Monastery near Samye (bsam yas) had been Nyingma but was forcibly converted to Kagyu and later seized by the Geluk; in 1651, Lobzang Gyatso offered it back to the Nyingma. Jonang Monastery (jo nang dgon) was closed down after its founder Taranatha’s death in 1650 and re-opened as Geluk in 1658, but, according to Samten Karmay, Lobzang Gyatso did not issue any formal edict banning the Jonang tradition or its doctrines; nevertheless, the tradition did not survive in central Tibet.

The Tenth Karmapa was exiled for the next twenty-four years but according to his biography by Mendong Tsampa (sman sdong mtshams pa), his deputy the Fifth Gyeltsab Rinpoche (rgyal tshab 05 grags pa mchog dbyangs, 1617-1658) went to Lhasa in 1653 and successfully petitioned Lobzang Gyatso, Sonam Chopel and Gushri Khan for the return of their twenty-one most important monasteries. By 1653 the local nobility were also in such decline that they could no longer support the non-Geluk sects, already impoverished by warfare; whereas the Geluk were constantly enriched by copious donations from the Mongols. Those sects had to abandon some monasteries, some of which were then, presumably, occupied and converted by the Geluk.

De facto ruler of Tibet

Sonam Chopel assumed the leadership of the government as Regent under the Dalai Lama as soon as the latter had been commonly acknowledged as titular head of state by the assembled Tibetan and Mongolian leaders and masses at a solemn ceremony held at Samdrubtse Castle in April 1642. Lobzang Gyatso’s superior status was indicated by his being seated on a higher throne than Sonam Chopel and Gushri Khan, who were both seated at an equal level below him.

It was only after this investiture in Samdrubtse and his assumption of the regency that he took the name of Sonam Chopel. Until then he had been known as Gyale Chodze or Sonam Rabten, with the titles ‘Chakdzo’ and ‘Depa.’ From 1642 he kept the title of ‘Depa’ and Lobzang Gyatso in his writings started using this title to refer to him instead of ‘Zhelngo’.

Lobzang Gyatso describes in his autobiography how, Sonam Chopel having returned to U, the latter now exhorted him to stay in Lhasa rather than at Drepung, and to take over more political responsibilities. Lobzang Gyatso records that he preferred to devote himself to religious study instead of dealing with administrative or political matters. In the autobiography, which is normally quite detailed and specific in such matters, there is no indication that Sonam Chopel underwent any change of status, duties or responsibilities, during or after Lobzang Gyatso’s assumption of full political and religious power over Tibet; Sonam Chopel is consistently framed as the ruler taking the pre-eminent role in political affairs. Although Gushri Khan is often referred to as ‘the King,’ even in the years before the civil war, he like Sonam Chopel assumed an inferior position to Lobzang Gyatso in formal seating arrangements. Modern studies confirm that the use of the title ‘King of Tibet’ by Gushri Khan was only thanks to its conferral on him by the Fifth Dalai Lama. Gushri did not interfere in the administration or try to control its policies. Lobzang Gyatso’s role seems to have been that of a figurehead, while Sonam Chopel acted as de facto ruler and only referred matters to him on major issues or when he was in doubt, which was not very often.

Activities as ruler of Tibet

In 1642, according to Bhutanese sources, after Geluk forces had defeated the Tsangpa who was their common enemy, the court of the Zhabdrung actually wished to establish friendly diplomatic relations between Bhutan and Tibet. To this end the court insisted that the Zhabdrung send an envoy to Lhasa with a conciliatory letter to congratulate the Ganden Podrang along with gifts of rice, textiles and horses for the Dalai Lama. On arrival in Lhasa the envoy, who was the Zhabdrung’s half brother Tenzin Drukdrak (bstan ‘dzin ‘brugs drags), first showed the Zhabdrung’s letter to Sonam Chopel. Sonam Chopel, however, fresh from their victories over all the Tibetan rivals of the Geluk, thought his combined Mongol/Tibetan forces were invincible. He asserted three improbable pre-conditions: first, the Zhabdrung had to return to Tibet; second, he had to restore the estates of the Lhapa Kagyus (lha pa bka’ brgyud) that he had seized; and third, the Zhabdrung should submit to the new Geluk hegemony.

Four-Faced Mahakala. Click to enlarge.

When Tenzin Drukdrak sought the Zhabdrung’s advice, he was instructed simply to give the rice offering to a Sakya monastery and to return to Bhutan with the other gifts. An infuriated Sonam Chopel then sent an ultimatum to the Zhabdrung to fulfill his demands or risk the wrath of the Mongol King; sending him a bag full of tiny mustard seeds he added that there were as many Mongol soldiers ready to attack Bhutan as there were seeds in the bag. Zhabdrung’s response was to pulverize the seeds into a mash and send it back with the message that ‘if the Mongol King would not listen, his protective deity Mahakala (mgon po) would not listen either’. He also sent a rock and a needle saying that only if Sonam Chopel could pierce the rock with the needle would he agree to his demands. He then started raising an army and expelled all Geluk followers, with whom he had been hitherto on good terms, from Bhutan. In a tit for tat measure Sonam Chopel expelled many lamas of the Drukpa Kagyu school from Tibet.

In 1643 Sonam Chopel began organizing a census, starting with the provinces of To (stod) to the north and Tsang to the east, and formulating taxation laws. He commissioned a detailed survey of the land and population and gradually appointed officials to assess taxes.

In 1644, following the post-war rebellion of the Karmapa, Sonam Chopel and Gushri Khan were patrolling the southern borders of the Tibetan plateau with their army to wipe out any residual resistance. Arriving in Lhodrak, to the west of Tsang and to the north of Bhutan, they drove the Karmapa and his remaining rebels eastwards, into Kham. At this point, Sonam Chopel suddenly decided to send seven hundred mixed Tibetan and Mongol troops south from Lhodrak into Bhutan, apparently in two detachments. One detachment was sent southwest towards Thimpu and Punakha a hundred or so kilometers to the west and across the border from Phari in Tibet, which comprised all the territory that the Zhabdrung had so far consolidated. Another column was sent south into Bumthang valley (Bum-thang) where it was defeated, presumably at the hand of the forces of the King of Bumthang; this central valley was not consolidated into Bhutan for another decade. Thus Sonam Chopel’s aim was more likely to punish the inhabitants of the region in general for aiding and abetting Tibetan rebels, rather than targeting the Zhabdrung specifically.

The detachment that went towards Thimpu met the Zhabdrung’s forces and fought an inconclusive battle where Paro town now stands, followed by an impasse lasting until the spring of 1645 with the invaders unused to the precipitous and dense jungle terrain and unable to cope with the heat and humidity; the Mongol troop division retreated, leaving the Tibetans to face defeat and shattering the myth of Mongol invincibility. Three Tibetan commanders, Nangso Ngodrup (nang so dngos grup), Drongtsene (‘brong rtse nas) and Duchungne (‘dus byung nas) and twenty two other officers, twenty five in all, were taken prisoner and held hostage at Punakha Dzong. Ordinary Tibetan soldiers who failed to escape the Bhutanese were disarmed, escorted back to the border and let go; all their weaponry and armor were seized and offered to the protector deities in their chapel at Punakha Dzong, where they remain till this day.

A picture of Punakha Dzong taken in 1637. Image credit: Treasury of Lives.

In 1645 Sonam Chopel met with Lobzang Gyatso and Gushri Khan and they decided to construct the Potala Palace (po ta la). They visited the proposed site together and arranged consecration rituals to prepare for construction to begin. The initial external structure of the White Palace was built over the next three years with the help of indentured labor from U and Tsang. By 1649, the structure was finished, allowing Lobzang Gyatso to move in. In 1646 Sonam Chopel negotiated a peace treaty with Bhutan to release the three hostages, who were sent back to Tibet with gifts the following year. The previous status quo and original borders were reinstated and both sides committed themselves to harmonious coexistence. The Bhutanese also undertook to pay an annual tribute of rice which they had previously offered to the Tsang King; now they would pay it to the Dalai Lama’s government instead. However, in early 1648 Sonam Chopel broke the 1646 treaty by ordering a new, three-pronged invasion of Bhutan with his younger brother Norbu (nor bu) in command of the main army. This supposedly well-organized expedition ended in disaster. The attempt met with an even worse fate than the first one, with Norbu’s column fleeing in terror, causing the other columns to retreat as well. Again, most of the armor, weapons and supplies were lost to the Bhutanese. Norbu, in his defeat, was accused of colluding with the Bhutanese.

Ngawang Namgyel’s success and his decisive victories over Sonam Chopel’s attempts to invade Bhutan in 1644 and 1648 were attributed to his effective use of occult powers, rather than to superior Bhutanese prowess in battle. Previously, as a last resort during the 1639-42 Tibetan civil wars, Sonam Chopel had himself reluctantly resorted to the use of magic rituals. He had requested Nyingma rituals to be performed by Lobzang Gyatso and his Nyingma lama Zur Choying Rangdrol to apparent great effect. Now, in 1650 or 1651, Sonam Chopel requested Zur to arrange such a rite against Bhutan at Phari (phag ri) by the border. When Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyel suddenly died from unknown causes four months later, Sonam Chopel complimented Zur and his assistant on the efficacy of their magical rites.

Qing Shunzhi Emperor, the Third Emperor of China. Image credit: Wikipedia

As mentioned above, in 1648 after the defeat in Bhutan, various Kagyu and possibly some Sakya and Bon monasteries were seized and converted to the Geluk. Moreover, monks from traditions other than the Geluk were forbidden to wear their traditional styles of hats that showed their affiliation. Other mechanisms were implemented to systematically convert and absorb the other institutions into the Geluk: they were banned from recruiting new monks and there was a ban on the maintenance of border-taming temples built by pre-Geluk traditions. All these measures stemmed from Sonam Chopel’s influence. These sectarian policies continued for several years, up to the eve of Lobzang Gyatso’s departure to meet the Qing Shunzhi Emperor (1638-1661) in the summer of 1652, when Lobzang Gyatso issued a decree forbidding all such practices.

When Lobzang Gyatso returned from Beijing seventeen months later, in December 1653, Sonam Chopel met him at Gamo (dga’ mo) with a welcoming party including not only Geluk lamas but also Drigung Kagyu and Taklung Kagyu lamas and others. Sonam Chopel apparently wished to show that he had mended his sectarian ways. In addition, as mentioned in the Karmapa’s biography, the twenty-one most important Kagyu monasteries that had been seized by the Geluk in 1648 were given back to the tradition soon after Lobzang Gyatso’s return.

Final Years

Gushri Khan, Lobzang Gyatso’s pious and devoted disciple, always made his army and his advice available to Sonam Chopel in their joint collaboration. This ensured Lobzang Gyatso’s authority was maintained over the widest unified Tibetan Kingdom established since the time of King Tri Udumtsen (khri ur dum btsan, r.836-842), also known as Langdarma, in the ninth century. However, after all the earlier conquests, Sonam Chopel’s prestige suffered from his serial failures to take Bhutan, especially since these were blamed on his brother Norbu, whom he had appointed to lead the army.

In the summer of 1656 Sonam Chopel launched a third military invasion of Bhutan, with Norbu commanding four armies advancing from U, Tsang, Kham and Kongpo.

He went to the border area to supervise but the result was as before. After a year of guerrilla tactics by the Bhutanese in their jungles and ravines, the Tibetan armies, bogged down with sickness and low morale, suffered another ignominious defeat and retreated in disarray. Once again, Norbu was accused of colluding with the Bhutanese. Sonam Chopel returned to Lhasa with demoralized survivors late in the summer of 1657; there is scarce further mention of him until the spring of 1658 when he fell ill and Lobzang Gyatso ordered prayers and rituals to be done for his health and long life. However, on the third day of the third Tibetan month, Sonam Chopel suddenly died following an epileptic fit. He was sixty-three years old.

Lobzang Gyatso kept the death a secret for thirteen months while arranging rituals to be done for his welfare as if he were alive. When the death was announced he ordered and oversaw the funerary rituals. Offerings to the value of 14,000 tons of barley were made to 125,000 participating monks. Listed over several pages, they included 50 kilos of gold, 44,000 bolts of different kinds of cloth and 65,000 ceremonial scarves.

In contrast, Lobzang Gyatso paid somewhat muted written tribute to the deceased: “Sonam Chopel took on not only many troubles for the sake of the Geluk, but also performed other extensive activities that are undeniable and known to all.”

Following the death of his main collaborator Gushri Khan in 1655, Sonam Chopel had become a rather insignificant figure, apart from his involvement in his third ill-fated Bhutan war. Judging by the faint praise afforded to him by Lobzang Gyatso after his death in 1658, and given that Sonam Chopel’s activities are hardly mentioned in the autobiography after 1653, it appears that Sonam Chopel was semi-retired and it was Lobzang Gyatso, now forty years old, who was running the government.

Nevertheless, Sonam Chopel remains a key person in Tibetan history who, in his prime, manipulated people and events to establish the Dalai Lama dynasty which continued to rule Tibet and Tibetans to one extent or another until the present era, that of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama.

He left his brother Norbu in a position to succeed him and Lobzang Gyatso, although he often criticized Norbu in his autobiography, felt obliged to appoint him as his second Depa, Desi or Regent, in the midsummer of 1659, on the sixteenth day of the sixth month of the Tibetan Earth-pig year.

Bibliography

• Aris, Michael. 1980. Bhutan: The Early History of a Himalayan Kingdom. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, pp. 213, 219, 221-231.
• Dhondup, K. 1984. The Water-Horse and Other Years. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives History Series, pp. 4-6, 12-29, 32.
• Dudjom Rinpoche. 2002. The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism. Gyurme Dorje and Matthew Kapstein, trans. Boston: Wisdom, pp. 682-683
• Karmay, Samten G. 1988. Secret Visions of the Fifth Dalai Lama. London: Serindia Publications, pp. 7-9, 28-29
• Karmay, Samten G. 2009. The Arrow and the Spindle, Studies in History, Myths, Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet. Revised edition 2009. Vol. 1, Part VI, pp. 506-507, 509, 514. Vol. II, pp. 98-108. Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point.
• Kapstein, Matthew. 2006. The Tibetans. Malden, MA, USA. Blackwell Publishing, pp. 128-137.
• Laird, Thomas. 2006. The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama. London: Grove/Atlantic, pp. 153, 159-161, 166.
• Mullin, Glenn H. 2001. The Fourteen Dalai Lamas: A Sacred Legacy of Reincarnation. Santa Fe: Clear Light Publishers, pp. 112, 179-180, 189-191, 196, 198-199, 206-208, 210.
• Ngawang Lobzang Gyatso, Fifth Dalai Lama. 2014. The Illusive Play: The Autobiography of the Fifth Dalai Lama. Samten G. Karmay, trans. Chicago: Serindia Publications, 3, 7, 8; Chapters 4-30 especially pp. 41-55, 63, 83, 101-104, 121, 124-125, 127-130, 134, 142, 145; Chapters 14, 15 and 16 (pp. 147-172); pp.174-176, 187, 191, 192, 215, 235, 269-270, 323, 324, 335-336, 367-369, 374-382, Chapter 31 (pp. 383-407).
• Phuntsho, Karma. 2013. The History of Bhutan. London: Haus Publishing, pp. 158-162, 219, 244-249, 260-263.
• Pommaret, Françoise. 2003. Lhasa in the Seventeenth Century: the Capital of the Dalai Lamas. Howard Solverson, trans. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, Chapter Five pp. 68-69; Chapter Eight pp. 121-129; Chapter Twelve, p. 184.
• Richardson, Hugh E. 1984. Tibet & Its History. Boston: Shambala Publications, p. 307.
• Richardson, Hugh E. 1998. High Peaks, Pure Earth; Collected Writings on Tibetan History and Culture. London, Serindia Publications, pp. 353-354, 388-389, 410, 426-428, 441, 444-450, 504-512.
• Shakabpa, Tsepon W.D. 1967. Tibet: A Political History. New York: Yale University Press, and 1984. Singapore: Potala Publications, pp. 87-88, 90-92, 99-113, 117-118, 124.
• Shakabpa, Tsepon W.D. 2010. One Hundred Thousand Moons. An Advanced Political History of Tibet (2 volumes). Leiden, Boston: Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library, pp. 52-53 (note 103, p. 103), 284-285, 295, 315-317, 323, Chapter Five (pp. 327-379); 1133.
• Smith, Warren W. 1997. Tibetan Nation; A History of Tibetan Nationalism and Sino-Tibetan Relations. New Delhi: HarperCollins, pp. 105, 107-108.
• Snellgrove, David; Richardson, Hugh (1986). A Cultural History of Tibet. Boston & London: Shambala Publications Inc., pp. 193, 196-197.
• Stein, R. A. (1972). Tibetan Civilization. J. E Stapleton Driver, trans. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 81-83, 85.
• Tucci, Giuseppe. 1949. Tibetan Painted Scrolls. Rome: La Libreria dello Stato , vol. 1, pp. 40, 44, 55-56, 58-62, 63-64, 66-68, 70-72.
• Tuttle, G. & Schaeffer K. R., eds. 2013. The Tibetan History Reader. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 206, 355.
• Bka’ drung nor rgyas nang pa dbang ‘dus tshe ring. 1981. Khri lo tham deb. Delhi: Puntsok. TBRC W23160.
• Brag dgon zhabs drung dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas. 1982. Mdo smad chos ‘byung deb ther rgya mtsho. Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi dmangs dpe skrun khang. Vol. 1, 70-3. TBRC W28064
• Dpal ldan rgya mtsho. 1974. Ngag dbang rnam rgyal gyi rnam thar rgyas pa chos kyi sprin chen po’i dbyangs. Delhi: Topden Tshering. TBRC W30164. 114-na-4, 135-ba-6.
• Dpal sprul o rgyan ‘jigs med chos kyi dbang po. 2003. Rtsis gzhung nyin byed snang ba’i ‘das lo nges pa gsar spos dge legs snang ba’i nyi ma. Khreng tu’u: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang. TBRC W24850. f.13-ba-1.
• Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho. 1991-1995. Biography of Yonten Gyatso, 4th Dalai Lama. Jig rten dbang phyug thams cad mkhyen pa yon tan rgya mtsho dpal bzang po’i rnam par thar pa norbu’i ‘phreng ba. Gangtok: Sikkim Research Institute of Tibetology. TBRC W294-1813-eBook.pdf, f.27b, f.46b, f.50a-b.
• Pan chen blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan. 1969. Spyod thsul gsal bar ston pa norbu’i phreng ba. [Alt.: blo bzang chos kyi rgyal mtshan gyi rnam thar]. New Delhi: Ngawang Geleg Demo. TBRC W9752, f.66-na-6.
• Sde srid sangs rgyas rgya mtsho. 1989. Dga’ ldan pa zhwa ser chos ‘byung bai DUrya ser po’i phreng ba. Pe cin: krung go bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang. TBRC W8224, 314-na-5.
• Sum pa mkhan po ye shes dpal ‘byor [Given in TBRC as: sangs rgyas rgya mtsho]. 1975. Mtsho sngon gyi lo rgyus tshangs glu gsar snyan. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture. TBRC. TBRC W1KG16744, W29970

Source: Sean Jones, “Sonam Chopel,” Treasury of Lives, accessed July 11, 2018, http://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Sonam-Chopel/6874.

Sean Jones left school in England in the 1960s to travel overland to India and lived in the Himalayan regions for a decade, before returning to London to establish a successful travel business. From 1985 he travelled all over Tibet and in the UK he co-founded a number of Tibet-related organizations. An autodidact, he has written and published various articles on Tibet, its people and its history, including in Wikipedia.

Published September 2017
Updated May 2018

Disclaimer: All rights are reserved by the author. The article is reproduced here for educational purposes only.

Source: https://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Sonam-Chophel/P4436
Click on image to enlarge.

For more interesting information:

• The Dorje Shugden category on my blog
• The Tsongkhapa category on my blog
• The Great Lamas and Masters category on my blog
• Buddhism in the Mongol Empire
• The Fifth Dalai Lama and his reunification of Tibet
• Kalmyk People’s Origin – VERY INTERESTING
• Danzan Ravjaa: The Controversial Mongolian Monk
• Zaya Pandita Luvsanperenlei (1642-1708)
• Panchen Lama’s Dorje Shugden Puja text
• The 14th Dalai Lama’s prayer to Dorje Shugden
• Incredible Geshe Wangyel

Please support us so that we can continue to bring you more Dharma:

If you are in the United States, please note that your offerings and contributions are tax deductible. ~ the tsemrinpoche.com blog team