1. The idea of a miraculous natural rock portal leading to Bodh Gayā is actually quite an old one in Tibet see DTSP, 2:1063–64 (= Roerich 1976:911). The idea that rock portals connect distant holy places is still current in Tibet see Epstein and Peng (1999:324, 326).
2. Dalai Lama of Tibet (1997:4).
3. Kapstein (2000:37).
4. See, e.g., Robinson and Johnson (1997:7–8, 170, 175–76) summarizing much accepted Buddhist studies scholarship, and Gombrich (1988:55–59).
5. For example, Körösi's translation of the Sanskrit-Tibetan glossary, the Mahāvyutpatti, and his discovery of the Indian origins of much of the Buddhist canonical literature of Tibet.
6. This scholarship is too vast to meaningfully refer to here. On the important distinction between “Indian” and “Indic” in all such research, see Ruegg (1995:155), and also Tillemans (1993:1) on the “double task” of undertaking Indo-Tibetan Studies.
7. See, e.g., Buffetrille (2000), Blondeau and Steinkellner (1996), Blondeau (1998), Gutschow, Michaels, Ramble, and Steinkellner (2003), Huber (1999), Huber (1999b), Macdonald (1997), McKay (1998a).
8. See, e.g., Bishop (1989), Brauen (2000), Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundersrepublik Deutschland, Dodin and Rather (1997), Lopez (1998), Schell (2000).
9. Dates for Tibetan historical figures are given at the first occurrence of their names, and most often follow those proposed by E. Gene Smith for the Tibetan Buddhist Resource Center (http://www.tbrc.org/) and Martin and Bentor (1997).
10. One exception is treatment of the eighteenth-century relations between Bengal and Tashilhunpo (see chap. 7). However, historians, even Tibetan ones (e.g., Shakabpa 1984:154–55), have dealt with it exclusively from the perspective of the British missions to Tibet, rather than that of the Tibetan missions to India. It is indicative that a recent volume of reprinted historical scholarship on Tibet subtitled “The Medieval Period: