조선 사대부, ‘오랑캐 중’과 만나다― 1780년 朴趾源과 판첸라마 6세의 熱河 만남을 중심으로

김민호 한국중국소설학회 2018 中國小說論叢 Vol.55 No.-

In August 1780, Panchen Lama the Sixth (1738~1780) and his retinue Purangir Gosain(1743~1795) from Tibet, envoys from Chosŏn, and a number of Chinese people gathered at Rehe to celebrate Emperor Qianlong’s seventieth birthday. This study explores an interesting contrast between the Qing Chinese and Chosŏn Korean’s view of Panchen Lama: Chinese intellectuals defied Panchen Lama, while Chosŏn envoys despised him because they regarded him as a Buddhist monk from a barbarian region. Pak Chiwŏn 朴趾源(1737~1805), a Korean scholar official, recorded this encounter in detail in his Yŏrhailgi 熱河日記. Purangir Gosain, who accompanied Panchen Lama, also recorded a report about Panchen Lama on behalf of the East India Company. In addition, the Tibetan wrote down documents about Panchen Lama’s visit to China, too. The Qing government recorded interactions with him as well. If we compare records from Chosŏn, Purangir, the Tibetan, and the Qing government, we notice both similarities and dissimilarities about their descriptions of Panchen Lama the Sixth. This study is an attempt to compare their receptions of Panchen Lama and to examine their perspectives of understanding Panchen Lama the Sixth. 780년 8월, 티베트의 판첸라마 6세(1738~1780)와 그의 수행원 프랑기르 고세인(Purangir Gosain: 1743~1795), 그리고 조선 연행사들과 중국인들이 건륭제의 70세 탄생일을 기념하기 위해 열하에 모인다. 당시 청 황실을 비롯해 청대 지식인들은 판첸라마를 신격화 하고 있었다. 반면 조선 연행사들은 그를 야만 지역에서 온 불교 승려, 즉 ‘오랑캐 중’으로 멸시하고 있었다. 朴趾源(1737~1805)은 이들의 만남을 그의 《熱河日記》에서 흥미롭게 기록하고 있고, 또 판첸라마를 수행하였던 프랑기르 고세인이 동인도회사에 보고하기 위한 판첸라마 관련 상황들을 구술한 것을 영어로 정리한 기록도 존재한다. 더불어 티베트 역시 판첸라마의 중국 방문 관련 기록을 갖고 있다. 조선, 프랑기르, 티베트, 그리고 청 정부의 기록들을 비교해보면 판첸라마 이미지와 관련해 흥미로운 차이를 볼 수 있고, 또 조선에서 문제가 되었던 정사 박명원 일행이 판첸라마에게 叩頭禮를 올렸는지 여부도 파악해 볼 수 있다. 이 논문은 조선, 청 정부, 티베트, 그리고 프랑기르 고세인 등의 기록을 통해 조선 연행사와 판첸라마 6세의 만남을 입체적으로 조명하고자 한다.

조선 사대부, ‘오랑캐 중’과 만나다 * 1) ― 1780년 朴趾源과 판첸라마 6세의 熱河 만남을 중심으로

김민호 한국중국소설학회 2018 中國小說論叢 Vol.55 No.-

1780년 8월, 티베트의 판첸라마 6세(1738~1780)와 그의 수행원 프랑기르 고세인 (Purangir Gosain: 1743~1795), 그리고 조선 연행사들과 중국인들이 건륭제의 70세 탄생 일을 기념하기 위해 열하에 모인다. 당시 청 황실을 비롯해 청대 지식인들은 판첸라마를 신격화 하고 있었다. 반면 조선 연행사들은 그를 야만 지역에서 온 불교 승려, 즉 ‘오랑캐 중’으로 멸시하고 있었다. 朴趾源(1737~1805)은 이들의 만남을 그의 《熱河日記》에서 흥미롭게 기록하고 있고, 또 판첸라마를 수행하였던 프랑기르 고세인이 동인도회사에 보고하기 위한 판첸라마 관련 상황들을 구술한 것을 영어로 정리한 기록도 존재한다. 더불어 티베트 역시 판첸라마의 중국 방문 관련 기록을 갖고 있다. 조선, 프랑기르, 티베트, 그리고 청 정부의 기록들을 비교해보면 판첸라마 이미지와 관련해 흥미로운 차이를 볼 수 있고, 또 조선에서 문제가 되었던 정사 박명원 일행이 판첸라마에게 叩頭禮를 올렸는지 여부도 파악해 볼 수있다. 이 논문은 조선, 청 정부, 티베트, 그리고 프랑기르 고세인 등의 기록을 통해 조선 연행사와 판첸라마 6세의 만남을 입체적으로 조명하고자 한다. In August 1780, Panchen Lama the Sixth (1738~1780) and his retinue Purangir Gosain(1743~1795) from Tibet, envoys from Chosŏn, and a number of Chinese people gathered at Rehe to celebrate Emperor Qianlong’s seventieth birthday. This study explores an interesting contrast between the Qing Chinese and Chosŏn Korean’s view of Panchen Lama: Chinese intellectuals defied Panchen Lama, while Chosŏn envoys despised him because they regarded him as a Buddhist monk from a barbarian region. Pak Chiwŏn 朴趾源 (1737~1805), a Korean scholar official, recorded this encounter in detail in his Yŏrhailgi 熱河 日記. Purangir Gosain, who accompanied Panchen Lama, also recorded a report about Panchen Lama on behalf of the East India Company. In addition, the Tibetan wrote down documents about Panchen Lama’s visit to China, too. The Qing government recorded interactions with him as well. If we compare records from Chosŏn, Purangir, the Tibetan, and the Qing government, we notice both similarities and dissimilarities about their descriptions of Panchen Lama the Sixth. This study is an attempt to compare their receptions of Panchen Lama and to examine their perspectives of understanding Panchen Lama the Sixth.

청대 불교 세계의 여행

김성수(Kim Sung-Soo) 동양사학회 2009 東洋史學硏究 Vol.107 No.-

This article mainly discussed about the Journey among the patrons and lamas around the inner asian world during the Qing period. There were some patrons and lamas including several Mongolian Khans, Emperors of Qing, Manchu statesmen, Dalai Lama, Panchen Lama, Jebcundampa and so on, who had traveled around the inner asia controled in the buddhism world order. In that era, Tibetan buddhism had established a solid leadership in inner asia includes Mongols, Manchu, and Tibet. So these high positioning persons in the religious community and the politics made a network among them through journeys by themselves or by their messengers. From this network we can approach to the intellectual, political and economic activities and their connections among the temples, governments, and merchant guilds in this area. Under this circumstances politically important high-level talks ‘Qighulghan’ usually had been comprised of Manchu or Mongolian statesmen, and Tibetan or Mongolian lamas, so through their journeys we can understand some more details, procedures of several important conferences during the Qing period. Furthermore most of journeys among them were courtesy visits, and on the conferences or their visits the manners were so important each other because these expressed their positions in the buddhism world order. This article consists of four chapters; the first, “Heart and border in Inner Asian World during the Early Qing” describes high ranking lamas like Dalai lama behaved as a peace-maker or an effective negotiator in this area. Especially Smon lam chen mo, held in Lhasa every year, provided very important valuable meetings among patrons and lamas. The second, “Qing Emperor as a nomadic Khan and the Tibetan Buddhism” insist that the Qing Empire was the supreme ruler in inner asia controled in the buddhism world order. The third, “The meeting between the Fifth Dalai Lama and the Emperor Shun-zhi: Qing makes the network in the buddhism world” shows how Qing government put her first step in to the buddhism world network through the inviting the Fifth Dalai Lama. The last, “The Sixth Panchen Lama's visiting to Beijing and Cheng-de: The Emperor Qian-long steps on the center of inner asian buddhism world ” reveals that the system of Beijing-resident lama was a very effective strategy for the formation of pro-Qing opinions in inner asian buddhism world which had been the political background of the victory against the Mongols. At his 70th birthday, Qian-long invited the Sixth Panchen Lama to Beijing and Cheng-de, the monument of victory, and proclaimed his authority as an highest patron in inner asia, also as the hub of the buddhism world order.

“기괴하지만 고명한 승려”: 『열하일기』 중 「반선시말」 譯註

최소영 ( Choi Soyoung ) 중앙아시아학회 2023 中央아시아硏究 Vol.28 No.1

The Jehol Diary, written by Park Ji-won (1737-1805) in the 4th year of King Jeongjo's reign (1780), is a book that Park Ji-won wrote after accompanying his distant relative, Park Myeong-won, who was the envoy to Qing China. Among the various chronicles and travelogues of the time, the writing style and the themes which the Jehol Diary encompasses have attracted significant attention from scholars, resulting in numerous studies both domestically and internationally. However, while all parts of The Jehol Diary are important in terms of literary and historical significance, the chapter about the Panchen Lama holds even greater significance because Park Ji-won observed and analyzed the religious and political situations of eastern Eurasia from the perspective of an observer. Yet, many details regarding the content related to this remain undisclosed, particularly in the chapter ‘Pansŏn Šimal (All about the Panchen Lama).’ This is mainly due to the fact that Park Ji-won covers the history from the Yuan dynasty to the Qing dynasty in this chapter, including numerous Tibetan personal and place names, making it challenging to fully elucidate. Although there have been a few studies on Park Ji-won's perception of Tibet, there have been hardly any studies that track or critically analyze Park Ji-won's relevant records. It is from this awareness of the problem that this article begins with the aim of translating and providing annotations for the chapter ‘All about the Panchen Lama’ within The Jehol Diary. While there are still unclear parts that are difficult to clarify, I will compare various sources to the best of our ability and conduct analysis. I hope that this work will contribute in some way to understanding The Jehol Diary and the perceptions of various groups during that time regarding the Panchen Lama and his religion.

라마의 선물: 티베트 직물 툭(phrug, 氆氌) 연구

최소영 중앙아시아학회 2023 中央아시아硏究 Vol.28 No.2

The ruling class of the Mongol Empire, which dominated most of Eurasia, embraced Buddhism, leading to a substantial transfer of wealth from the empire to Tibetan monks. While the succeeding Ming Dynasty couldn't politically control Tibet, they continued toinvite Tibetan monks and offered them many gifts to maintain a relationship with Tibetan Buddhism. Even during the Qing Dynasty established by the Manchus, substantial goods were sent to Tibet. However, beyond Buddhist statues and paintings, little was known about what Tibetan monks gave in return. The text highlights the significance of a textile called "tug (Tib. phrug)," widely used by Tibetans and later sent as representative gifts by Dalai Lamas and Panchen Lamas to Chinese emperors and Mongol rulers. Despite Tibet's agricultural limitations, the abundance of livestock such as yaks and sheep allowed Tibetans to weave warm and aesthetically pleasing fabric, known as "phrug." During the Tibetan Empire era, it was primarily used for making rough tents, but over time, thetechnology improved. During the Mongol Empire, the quality became suitable for sending to Mongol courts. In the subsequent Dalai Lama periods, production was organized in specific regions of Central Tibet, with weaving and dyeing exempted from other taxes and labor obligations. The produced fabric, "phrug," was sent as a gracious response to the splendid gifts received from Mongol rulers and leaders of the Central Plains. The term "氆氌" (phrug) was consistently recorded in the gift lists of the Ming and Qing, becoming well-known and consumed among East Asian nations, to the extent of being included in prohibited imports in Joseon Dynasty. This text aims to shed light on a small aspect of the material relationship between Tibet and surrounding political entities, hoping to contribute to future discussions on other items beyond "phrug."

『熱河日記』 黃敎 관련 서술을 통해 본 박지원의 淸朝 인식

남호현(Nam, Ho-hyun) 고려대학교 한국학연구소 2018 한국학연구 Vol.65 No.-

연암 박지원의 『열하일기』에는 티베트 불교의 한 분파인 황교와, 황교의 정신적 지주이자 티베트 불교 사회의 우두머리인 판첸라마[班禪喇嘛]에 대한 서술이 다수 존재한다. 『열하일기』 황교 관련 서술은 황교만을 집중적으로 다룬 「황교문답」과 「반선시말」, 「찰십륜포」뿐만 아니라, 청나라가 주도하던 당시의 국제정세를 전망한 「심세편」이나 「행재잡록」 등과 같은 여러편에서도 반복적으로 나타나는데, 이는 박지원이 ‘황교’를 청나라에 대한 인식을 중심으로 한 자신의 국제정세 인식을 드러내는 중요한 ‘실마리’로 삼고 있음을 잘 보여준다. 그런데 해당 서술에서 박지원은 정작 황교에 대한 정치한 분석을 시도하기보다는, 異端인 황교를 숭배하는 청나라 지배층과 이러한 풍조를 조장하는 황제에 대한 비판의식을 보다 강하게 드러낸다. 이러한 사실은 박지원이 황교를 바탕으로 청나라의 夷狄性을 확인하려 하였음을 보여준다. 또한 박지원은 자신이 전망하는 국제정세를 언급할 때면 반복적으로 황교와 티베트 세력의 위협을 우려하는 청나라 조정의 모습을 강조하는데, 이를 통해 우리는 박지원 또한 ‘영고탑회귀설’이 횡행할 당시부터 이어져 온 조선후기 조선인들의 ‘불안한’ 국제정세 인식을 여전히 공유하고 있었음을 알 수 있다. 『열하일기』 황교 관련 서술은 淸朝에 대한 인식을 중심으로 한 박지원의 국제정세 인식, 나아가 그가 살았던 조선후기 지식인들의 세계인식을 살펴볼 수 있게 해준다는 점에서 『열하일기』 전반의 주제의식을 살펴보는 데에도 주요한 실마리가 된다. Park Ji-won, a leading figure in the late Joseon’s literary and intellectual world, mentioned in his masterpiece travelogue Yolha Ilki 熱河日記 (A diary of Yolha, or Rehe) Gelug (黃敎), one of the factions of the Tibetan Buddhism, and its leader Panchen Lama. In describing them, Park aimed more at expressing his view on Qing dynasty and the world, than analyzing either Gelug or the Tibet Buddhism. For Park, Qianlong Emperor who bowed his head to Lama, the leader of a barbarian religion, deserved to be seen as another barbarian. Moreover, the fact that Qing dynasty offered to Lama a “golden palace” (Tashilhunpo) in Rehe, Park suggested, demonstrated that the court of Qing feared Tibet and the world of the Tibetan Buddhism. His viewpoint is considerably similar to a belief that has been widely shared by the intellectuals of 17th century Joseon, who believed that Qing was destined to collapse. For this reason, a descriptions about Gelug and Panchen Lama in Yolha Ilki are the core element for understanding overall Yolha Ilki’s sense of subject and Park Ji-won’s ideological foundation.

1780년 열하의 칠순 만수절과 건륭의 ‘제국’

구범진 명청사학회 2013 명청사연구 Vol.0 No.40

This paper examines the historical context of the Qianlong emperor's seventy-sui birthday celebration in Chengde, 1780. To many scholars, this birthday celebration was historically significant mainly because of the Third Panchen Lama's presence there. While it is true that Qianlong gave special treatment to the Panchen Lama to showcase his role as the great protector of Tibetan Buddhism, this element of the event reveals at best one part of the whole and there is another important aspect that deserves our attention. This paper pays attention to Qianlong's seventy-sui birthday, which was unprecedented in Qing history, as a special moment to commemorate his military and political achievements as a Qing ruler, and argues that this birthday celebration was his way of commemorating his empire building in Central Eurasia in the presence of those very peoples who had newly submitted to him. Qianlong chose to celebrate his seventy-sui birthday in Chengde, not in Beijing where all the previous Qianlong's decennial birthdays had been celebrated until the sixty-sui birthday. By choosing Chengde over Beijing, Qianlong was able to bring together all the top leaders of the Dörböt Mongols as well as Uriyangkhais and the Torghut Mongols. Most of these peoples had no immunity toward smallpox and could not have come to Beijing. Qianlong knew very well that the Panchen Lama's presence would make them more willing to come to Chengde since they were followers of the Geluk sect of Tibetan Buddhism. In addition to these peoples, however, Qianlong also brought to Chengde the Muslim begs of East Turkistan and the Tibetan tusi chieftains of western Sichuan. Here it is important to note that it was under the rule of Qianlong that all the above peoples were newly incorporated into the Qing empire. In the 1750s Qianlong completed the conquest of the Zunghars, which brought the Dörböts and Uriyangkhais under his rule, and subjected the Uyghur Muslims. In 1771 the Torghuts returned to the pasture of their ancestors, who had migrated from Zungharia west to the Volga in the 1630s, and declared their allegiance to Qianlong. In addition, in the second Jinchuan campaign of 1771-76 he pacified the Tibetan people in western Sichuan. It is evident, then, that Qianlong's seventy-sui birthday celebration on the 13th day of the 8th lunar month in 1780 was designed not only to commemorate his ties with Tibetan Buddhism. Qianlong's intention was grander: he wanted to orchestrate a spectacular celebration of his lifetime achievements in Qing empire building in Central Eurasia.

A Comprehensive Review of the Studies on the Sixth Panchen Lama

包瑞雪(Ruixue BAO) ACADEMIC FRONTIERS PUBLISHING GROUP(AFP) 2025 Journal of Sinological Studies(JSS) Vol.2 No.11

As one of the core leaders of the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism,the Sixth Panchen Lama holds a significant historical position in the consolidation of the multi-ethnic state and border governance during the Qing Dynasty.This paper systematically reviews the relevant academic achievements on the Sixth Panchen Lama in the academic community,aiming to comprehensively present the current research status in politics,religion,culture,and other aspects,and to reveal the progress and shortcomings of current research.The research focuses on the role of the Sixth Panchen Lama in the relationship between the central government and Tibet,the political and religious connotations of his pilgrimage events,as well as related artistic heritage and cross-cultural interactions.In terms of research methodology,this paper comprehensively utilizes literature review and comparative analysis,integrating multilingual archives,Tibetan original texts,and interdisciplinary research results.The study finds that foreign research focuses on East India Company archives and Tibetan historical materials,revealing the activities of the Sixth Panchen Lama in the South Asian diplomatic network,but some studies have limited perspectives;domestic research focuses on institutional history,ethnic relations,and cultural integration,deepening the understanding of pilgrimage routes,religious rituals,and artistic heritage through Chinese-translated biographies or multilingual archives and historical anthropology methods.The discussion section points out that existing research has achieved significant results in politics and religion,but there are still gaps in economic motivations,civil society reactions,and cross-regional comparisons.The conclusion emphasizes that future research should further integrate global and social history perspectives,expand economic and civil dimensions,and utilize emerging methods such as digital technology to more comprehensively and three-dimensionally reveal the historical significance of the Sixth Panchen Lama in the construction of a unified multi-ethnic state. 六世班禅作为藏传佛教格鲁派的核心领袖之一,在清代多民族国家整合与边疆治理中具有重要历史地位。本文系统梳理了学术界六世班禅研究的相关学术成果,旨在全面呈现其政治、宗教、文化等方面的研究现状,并揭示当前研究的进展与不足。研究问题集中于六世班禅在中央与西藏关系中的角色、其朝觐事件的政治和宗教内涵,以及相关艺术遗产与跨文化互动。研究方法上,本文综合运用文献综述与比较分析,整合多语种档案、藏文原典及跨学科研究成果。研究发现,国外研究侧重于东印度公司档案与藏文史料,揭示了六世班禅在南亚外交网络中的活动,但部分研究存在视角局限;国内研究则聚焦于制度史、民族关系与文化整合,通过汉译传记或多语种档案与历史人类学方法,深化了对朝觐路线、宗教仪式与艺术遗存的理解。讨论部分指出,现有研究在政治与宗教方面的成果显著,但在经济动因、民间社会反应及跨区域比较方面仍有欠缺。结论强调,未来研究应进一步融合全球史与社会史视角,拓展经济与民间维度,并借助数字科技等新兴方法,以更全面,更立体地揭示六世班禅在统一多民族国家建构中的历史意义。

조선의 건륭 칠순 진하특사와『열하일기』

구범진 ( Bum Jin Koo ) 서울대학교 인문학연구원 2013 인문논총 Vol.70 No.-

In 1780 a Choson embassy led by Pak Myongwon was invited to visit Chengde, or Yorha, and honor Qianlong`s seventy-sui birthday. A detailed record of this embassy is provided in Pak Chiwon`s Yorha ilgi, where Pak describes the encounter between the Choson emissaries and the Panchen Lama in great detail. To date, Pak`s Yorha ilgi has been read as a faithful historical record and a disinterested account of the Choson emissaries` experiences in Chengde. However, when we compare Pak`s account with various other historical records of his time, it becomes clear that Yorha ilgi is far from an objective account. The famous account of the statues of Buddha is a case in point. Pak Myongwon and his fellow emissaries received the statues from the Panchen Lama as gifts. They interpreted the statues as gifts given upon Qianlong`s orders. Consequently, they decided to carry them all the way back to Choson where they were severely criticized for violating the strict Neo-Confucian injunctions against Buddhism. Pak`s Yorha ilgi was written in defense of Pak Myongwon`s actions in the face of this political criticism. In Yorha ilgi, Pak argues that the encounter with the Panchen Lama took place under circumstances far beyond Pak Myongwon`s control. A close reading of Yorha ilgi alongside other historical documents reveals that Pak Chiwon deliberately blurs the line between eyewitness account and second-hand report by leading his readers to confuse the date of a significant event in which Qianlong met the Panchen Lama in public. As a minor figure who was not endowed with diplomatic powers, Pak Chiwon was absent from many of the events he reported on. Yorha ilgi should not be read at face value, as if it were an objective historical record, but in historical context alongside other historical documents.

What Pak Chiwŏn Missed: Tall Tales of the Panchen Lama at Qing Chengde in 1780

윤성오 한국국제문화교류학회 2023 문화교류와 다문화교육 Vol.12 No.3

Pak Chiwŏn’s brush talks with the Qing literati documented in his celebrated travelogue, Yŏrha Ilgi or Jehol Diary, written after his trip to Qing Chengde in 1780 serves not only as a window on particular episodes that took place during important events, but also a wealth of information on Qing society, culture, and, more important, its people’s ideas, understanding, and perspectives on the overall socio-political issues from ethnic discrimination against the Han Chinese to literary inquisition, a severe censorship on writings. This essay focuses on brush talks concerning Tibetan Buddhism and aims to make sense of the Qing literati’s narratives about the Panchen Lama and what Pak Chiwŏn failed to see. A closer look into the brush talks reveals that the Qing subjects from other parts of the empire outside of the Tibetan region were fixated to their own misunderstanding and imaginations on what Tibetan Buddhism could be which they had forged by squeezing it into the framework of existing discourses in their regions of residence. However, considering the autonomy exercised by the Qing constituents in buying into such narratives about the Tibetan Buddhism and the Lama, it is worth noting that they were making sense of the Qing emperor’s action on their own terms as his constituents. In this essay, I argue that what Pak Chiwŏn missed when he entertained rumor, myth, legend, and tall tale about the Panchen Lama was that the Qing literati had already made a central space for the Qing emperor in their moral universe.