Murug Tsanpo

Biography

Descent and a Conflict at Court

Murug Tsanpo, also known as Mutig Tsanpo, was the third son of Trisong Detsen, and his mother was Tsabang Maja Dronkar. He was a brother of Muné Tsanpo and Tride Songtsen. In 789 (5th year of the Zhenyuan era, Tang) the Tsabang and Nanam clans quarrelled over power at court, and when the Nanam clansman Wuren blocked the Tsabang from entering the palace Murug killed him. At the request of the Nanam, Trisong Detsen exiled Murug to the northern Changtang. Two other accounts record the same event, but the detailed, story-like elements, such as the dialogue at the palace gate and the motives of the maternal relatives, come mainly from later narratives and should not be treated without qualification as eyewitness records.

Disputed Accounts of His Accession and Death

In the narrative of one account, Muné Tsanpo was poisoned in 798 (14th year of the Zhenyuan era, Tang) and Murug was invited to become tsanpo, but on the way back to Lhasa he was ambushed by the Nanam and died in a fall from his horse. The full text of another account records this story from a later Buddhist history on the one hand, and on the other cites the different chronological framework proposed by Brandon Dotson on the basis of contemporary catalogues, inscriptions and Dunhuang documents: Murug became tsanpo about 800, had already submitted to Tride Songtsen by 802 and died in 804. If that scholarly reconstruction holds, it cannot be reconciled with the statement that he died in 798 on the way back to the capital. The text does not assert exact months and days for his reign, nor treat the killing by the Nanam as an undisputed fact.

Records after His Death

Both encyclopedic accounts record that he was buried at Dungkar Tak and that his tomb was called Gyading, and that the tomb was opened in 877. The latter, although dated, falls decades after his short reign and concerns the tomb rather than the man, and it is not placed in his own timeline. The explanation in another account of how the Buddhist and Bön factions chose tsanpos also has the character of later religious-historical interpretation and cannot be equated with the actual political motives of each participant between 789 and 804.

Major Activities

Political and institutional context

The cached record places Mou Ru Zan Pu within the institutions and conflicts of Tibetan Empire.

Source-based record

Two facts about him are relatively secure: he was the third son of Trisong Detsen by Tsabang Maja Dronkar and a brother of Muné Tsanpo and Tride Songtsen, and in 789 he was exiled to the northern Changtang for killing Wuren, who had blocked the Tsabang from entering the palace. As to his accession and death, the accounts give either 798 or about 800 to 804, the former from later Buddhist histories and the latter a scholarly reconstruction from contemporary catalogues, inscriptions and Dunhuang documents; since the two cannot be reconciled, the entry lists only his royal descent, the record of his exile and the dispute over his accession, and does not explain the whole of Tibetan political change by a single story.

Two further items in the record concern him personally: both encyclopedic accounts state that he was buried at Dungkar Tak with the tomb name Gyading, and that the tomb was opened in 877; the latter, though dated, falls decades after his short reign and concerns the tomb rather than the man, and is not placed in his own timeline. The explanations in the sources of how the Buddhist and Bön factions chose tsanpos also have the character of later religious-historical interpretation and cannot be equated with the actual political motives of each participant between 789 and 804.

Personal Relations

• Relationships are recorded from the cached source text and should be read together with the related entries listed below.

Historical Assessment

Murug Tsanpo's historical position derives mainly from the disputes over the chronology of the Tibetan royal succession. One account stresses the struggle between the maternal relatives and religious forces on the basis of later narratives, while another sets out the scholarly view that reconstructs the chronology from earlier documents. What can be safely confirmed is his royal descent, the narrative of his exile in 789 and the dispute over his accession; a single story cannot be used to explain the whole of Tibetan political change.