On the northeastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau, in what is now Xiahe County in Gansu Province, Labrang Monastery grew from a gathering of monks on the grasslands into one of the most influential centers of Tibetan Buddhism in Amdo. Its full Tibetan name, Labrang Tashikhyil, came to represent far more than a single monastery. Labrang became a religious university, a pilgrimage center, an economic institution, a seat of powerful reincarnate lamas, and a meeting place between Tibetan, Mongol, Chinese, and Muslim communities.
The monastery belongs to the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, the school associated with Tsongkhapa and the great monastic universities of central Tibet. Labrang eventually came to be commonly counted among the Six Great Gelug monasteries. Yet unlike Ganden, Sera, and Drepung near Lhasa, Labrang stood far to the northeast in Amdo, where its rise was closely connected to Tibetan pastoral communities, Mongol patrons, Qing officials, regional trade, and the political geography of the frontier. Modern scholarship describes the monastery as one of the largest Tibetan Buddhist institutions ever established and emphasizes that its borderland position was central to both its growth and its complicated history.
The surviving evidence for Labrang is unusually rich. Tibetan biographies of its founders and abbots can be compared with monastic chronicles, Qing administrative records, later travel accounts, missionary photographs, and modern historical scholarship. Among the most important early materials are the biography of the First Jamyang Zhepa written by his disciple Ngawang Tashi, the later biography composed by the Second Jamyang Zhepa, and the monastery chronicle associated with Belmang Paṇḍita. These sources were identified in the research material as some of the strongest indigenous evidence for reconstructing Labrang’s beginnings and institutional development.
Jamyang Zhepa and the Road Back to Amdo
The religious history of Labrang begins with Jamyang Zhepai Dorje, usually called the First Jamyang Zhepa. Born in 1648 in Amdo, he received much of his advanced education at Drepung Monastery near Lhasa, particularly at Gomang College. He became an important Gelug scholar and eventually served as abbot of Gomang. His years in central Tibet placed him within one of the most sophisticated scholastic environments in the Tibetan Buddhist world and connected him with religious figures whose influence extended into Mongol and Qing political networks.
The period was politically unsettled. The final years of the Fifth Dalai Lama’s government, the regency of Sangye Gyatso, the troubled reign of the Sixth Dalai Lama, Mongol intervention, and growing Qing involvement created an atmosphere in which monasteries and senior religious figures could not remain completely separate from political affairs. Jamyang Zhepa’s position at Drepung brought him into that complicated world.
Eventually he returned to his native Amdo. According to the Treasury of Lives, he arrived there in 1709 after years of teaching and leadership in central Tibet. Local Tibetan and Mongol patrons encouraged him to establish a major Gelug institution in the region, giving him the opportunity to reproduce something of the intellectual world of Drepung Gomang far from Lhasa.
That decision changed the religious geography of northeastern Tibet.
1709, 1710, and the Founding of Labrang
Sources sometimes give either 1709 or 1710 as the founding year of Labrang, but the apparent disagreement reflects different stages in the monastery’s creation rather than an irreconcilable contradiction.
The University of Virginia’s detailed history of Labrang dates the formal foundation to 1709, exactly three centuries after the founding of Ganden Monastery. Jamyang Zhepa and his followers initially conducted teaching and religious activities in a tent encampment. The following year, in 1710, the permanent site was prepared and ground was broken for the Main Meeting Hall. The Treasury of Lives preserves essentially the same sequence, describing Jamyang Zhepa’s return to Amdo in 1709 and the laying of Labrang’s foundations in the following year.
The most accurate way to describe the beginning of Labrang is therefore that the monastery was formally founded in 1709 by the First Jamyang Zhepa, with construction at its permanent site beginning in 1710. The source material assembled for this article likewise supports that formulation and distinguishes the religious and institutional foundation from the beginning of major construction.
The monastery was not created by Jamyang Zhepa alone. Tibetan pastoral communities contributed land, while Qoshot Mongol patrons provided political and material support. The University of Virginia account identifies the Khoshud or Qoshot Erdeni Jinong among the most important patrons and records donations from local Tibetan communities. Such cooperation reflected the wider pattern by which Gelug institutions had expanded through relationships between Tibetan religious teachers and Mongol political elites.
Jamyang Zhepa also returned from central Tibet with followers trained in the Gomang tradition. They brought texts, methods of debate, ritual systems, administrative practices, and scholastic expectations that allowed the new institution to develop quickly into something much larger than a provincial temple.
Building a Monastic University
The First Jamyang Zhepa did not intend Labrang merely to serve as a place of worship. From its early years, it was organized as a center for advanced Buddhist learning.
The first major college, Tösam Ling, became the principal philosophical and debate college. Its curriculum included Buddhist philosophy, logic, epistemology, ethics, and literary study. A Lower Tantric College followed during the first decades of Labrang’s existence. By 1738, the two early colleges together were already supporting more than one thousand monks. The monastery was also building a substantial library that would eventually contain an enormous collection of Buddhist texts.
This educational system consciously followed central Tibetan Gelug models, particularly the curriculum of Drepung Gomang. Monks studied authoritative texts through memorization, commentary, formal debate, and examinations. The connection mattered because it allowed Labrang to participate in an intellectual network that extended far beyond Amdo. Students from northeastern Tibet could receive an education modeled on that of the great central Tibetan monasteries without making the long journey to Lhasa.
The transformation also gave Labrang influence beyond its walls. Monks educated there carried its scholastic traditions into other monasteries. Reincarnate lamas associated with Labrang developed their own estates, disciples, and networks of patronage. Over time, the monastery became one of the principal institutions through which Gelug learning spread across Amdo and surrounding regions.
The Jamyang Zhepa Lineage
Jamyang Zhepa died in 1721 or 1722, but his death did not end the institution he had created. Instead, the identification of successive incarnations transformed the Jamyang Zhepa position into one of Labrang’s most important continuing offices.
Ngawang Tashi, a close disciple of the founder, became an especially important figure during the early transition. His surviving biography of Jamyang Zhepa is valuable precisely because he had personally studied with the founder and participated in the creation of Labrang. His work offers historians something much closer to the events than the later institutional histories that were written after Labrang had already become famous. The Treasury of Lives preserves the bibliographic record of Ngawang Tashi’s Labrang woodblock biography among the principal sources for Jamyang Zhepa’s life.
The Second Jamyang Zhepa, Konchok Jigme Wangpo, born in 1728, became especially important in consolidating the monastery’s authority. Under his leadership Labrang expanded its curriculum, buildings, and ritual traditions. The continuation of the incarnation line allowed Labrang to claim both institutional stability and a direct spiritual connection with its founder.
Other incarnation lineages also established important seats there. The Gungtang, Belmang, Detri, and other lines became part of a larger hierarchy of religious teachers whose estates, residences, students, and patronage networks helped turn Labrang into an institution that could survive the deaths of individual leaders. The Treasury of Lives identifies numerous incarnation traditions connected with the monastery, illustrating how Labrang developed into a community of religious authorities rather than simply the residence of a single lama.
The Six Colleges of Labrang
One of the clearest signs of Labrang’s growth was the gradual creation of six major colleges.
The philosophical college remained the foundation of the scholastic system, while tantric study received its own institutional homes. The Second Jamyang Zhepa established the Kālacakra College in 1763, creating a specialized center for the study and practice of Kālacakra Tantra. In 1784 he founded the Medical College, where monks studied Tibetan medicine and related sciences.
The Fourth Jamyang Zhepa founded the Hevajra College in the late nineteenth century. Its curriculum concentrated on Hevajra tantric practices and further expanded Labrang’s ritual specialization. The Fifth Jamyang Zhepa later established the Upper Tantric College, completing the institutional system traditionally described as Labrang’s six colleges.
Together, these colleges made possible an unusually broad range of study. Philosophy and debate stood beside medicine, ritual, astrology, and different tantric systems. Labrang therefore functioned much like a religious university whose students could remain for many years while progressing through specialized programs of study.
At its height the monastery could accommodate several thousand monks. Its physical complex expanded accordingly, incorporating assembly halls, temples, stupas, monastic residences, libraries, courtyards, and the estates of important lamas. The University of Virginia’s historical survey notes that the monastery could house more than three thousand monks and that its library eventually became one of the great textual collections of the region.
Religion Beyond the Monastery Walls
Labrang’s power cannot be understood simply by counting monks or temples. The institution stood at the center of a much wider social and economic community.
Its estates extended across pastoral and agricultural areas of southern Gansu and into neighboring regions of Qinghai and Sichuan. Communities connected with Labrang supplied labor, livestock, agricultural products, taxes, offerings, and other forms of support. The monastery in turn functioned as a center of education, ritual authority, mediation, commerce, and regional administration. Nietupski describes Labrang’s large estate system as one of the foundations of the monastery’s social and political influence.
Markets around the monastery brought together groups whose religious and cultural traditions differed sharply. Tibetan herders came to Labrang alongside Mongol patrons, Chinese merchants, Hui Muslim traders, pilgrims, artisans, officials, and travelers. This diversity occasionally generated competition and conflict, but it also made Labrang a major commercial and cultural crossroads.
The monastery’s relationship with other traditions was more complicated than a simple story of Gelug expansion. Labrang remained firmly Gelug in identity, yet its wider community included Nyingma and Bön practitioners. A Nakpa ritual community was permitted outside the principal monastery walls, and over time the broader Labrang estate included nunneries, a mosque, local Chinese and Tibetan religious shrines, and even a Christian mission.
That religious landscape reflects an important feature of Labrang’s history. Its leaders could exercise considerable local authority while still governing a region that was too socially diverse to fit neatly within the boundaries of one religious institution.
Labrang and the Qing Frontier
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Labrang existed within a complex political landscape in which Qing imperial authority, Mongol aristocratic power, Tibetan religious leadership, and local communities overlapped.
Chinese administrative records offer a view of Labrang that is often very different from the monastery’s own chronicles. The Xunhua Ting Zhi, or Gazetteer of Xunhua Subprefecture, contains an official description of Labrang and places it within the jurisdictional world of Qing frontier administration. Other Qing records, including entries preserved in the Qing Shilu, record disputes and interventions involving the monastery and neighboring communities. The research material for this article also identifies the writings of officials such as Changling and the travel account of Tao Baolian as valuable evidence for reconstructing Labrang from outside the monastery itself.
Such records must be read carefully. Qing officials wrote as administrators concerned with taxation, jurisdiction, security, and political order. Tibetan monastic chronicles wrote from within a religious institution concerned with lineage, patronage, sacred legitimacy, and the achievements of important teachers. Neither perspective is neutral, but placing the sources beside one another allows a fuller picture of Labrang to emerge.
That picture is of a monastery that possessed genuine regional power but operated in a world where authority was continually negotiated.
A Monastery Seen by Foreign Travelers
By the beginning of the twentieth century, Labrang’s fame had spread far beyond Amdo. Foreign travelers, Buddhist pilgrims, explorers, diplomats, and missionaries began leaving written and photographic descriptions of the monastery.
Gombozhab Tsybikov visited Labrang in 1900 and later included it in his account of Tibetan Buddhist sacred places. Bazar Baradin spent months there in 1906 and 1907, producing exceptionally detailed observations of monastic life. Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim reached Labrang in 1908, and other visitors such as Henri d’Ollone, George Pereira, and Eric Teichman added their own descriptions during the early decades of the century.
Their accounts are especially useful because they describe Labrang before the political upheavals of the later twentieth century changed its institutions. Travelers recorded crowds of monks, ceremonies, temples, markets, pilgrim activity, religious debates, and the physical arrangement of the complex.
They also brought their own assumptions. Europeans and Russians sometimes misunderstood Tibetan religious practices or described local societies through the language of imperial exploration. Their accounts are therefore most useful when compared with Tibetan sources rather than treated as unquestioned descriptions.
Photographs add another level of evidence. The Harrison Forman collection preserves images of Labrang from the 1930s, while the photographs, letters, and memoirs of Marion and Blanche Griebenow document decades of life around the monastery. These visual records preserve buildings, ceremonies, monks, marketplaces, and ordinary scenes that written institutional chronicles rarely described in the same detail.
Revolution, Closure, and Destruction
The establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 opened a very different chapter in Labrang’s history.
The monastery initially continued to function, but religious institutions across Tibetan regions came under increasing pressure as Communist authorities introduced land reform, collectivization, and campaigns against institutions categorized as remnants of the old social order. By the late 1950s the changes had become severe.
Historian Martin Slobodník’s study of Labrang records the dramatic contraction of its religious community during this period. Monastic institutions were closed in 1958, religious practice was heavily restricted, and senior religious figures experienced imprisonment, labor camps, political investigation, or displacement. The Cultural Revolution beginning in 1966 brought another period of destruction to Tibetan religious institutions, including Labrang.
Buildings were damaged or repurposed, sacred objects and texts disappeared, and the system that had sustained the monastery for generations was broken apart. The effects extended beyond physical destruction. The suppression interrupted lines of education, ritual practice, institutional memory, and the relationships between monasteries and surrounding communities.
Later oral histories reveal how deeply those decades entered local memory. Anthropologist Charlene Makley’s research around Labrang found that memories of the revolutionary period remained difficult and politically sensitive even generations later, creating silences and disagreements over how the recent past should be remembered.
The Reopening of Labrang
A major change came after the Mao era.
As Chinese religious policy relaxed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, monasteries in Tibetan regions began reopening. Labrang was among the institutions revived. Monks returned, damaged buildings were repaired or reconstructed, ritual calendars reappeared, and Buddhist teaching resumed.
The recovery did not recreate the monastery exactly as it had existed before 1958. Its economic and political authority had been greatly reduced, and religious institutions now operated within the legal and administrative framework of the People’s Republic of China. Nevertheless, the survival of the monastic tradition allowed Labrang to reemerge as one of the most important centers of Tibetan Buddhist practice in Amdo. Slobodník’s field research describes both the destruction of the earlier institution and the remarkable religious revival that followed the changes in state policy.
The revived monastery once again attracted monks, pilgrims, scholars, and visitors. Religious festivals returned to the calendar, colleges resumed instruction, and reconstructed temples once more filled with ritual activity.
The continuity is striking because Labrang’s modern history includes several moments when its institutional future appeared uncertain.
Why Labrang Monastery Matters
Labrang Monastery matters because its history reaches well beyond the walls of a single Buddhist complex.
Its founding linked the intellectual traditions of Drepung Gomang with the Tibetan communities of Amdo. Mongol sponsorship helped create the monastery, while Tibetan pastoral communities provided the land and social environment in which it grew. Successive Jamyang Zhepas transformed a new eighteenth-century institution into a network of colleges, estates, reincarnate lineages, libraries, temples, and pilgrimage traditions.
Its location then placed Labrang at the meeting point of several worlds. Tibetan monks debated Buddhist philosophy while merchants traded outside the walls. Mongol patrons, Qing officials, Muslim communities, Chinese settlers, foreign travelers, missionaries, and pilgrims all entered the monastery’s history at different moments. Paul Nietupski’s description of Labrang as an Inner Asian borderland institution captures why its story cannot be separated neatly into either Tibetan religious history or Chinese political history. It belongs to both, while also forming part of Mongol, Muslim, and broader Central Asian history.
The survival of its historical record makes Labrang especially valuable. Ngawang Tashi’s biography preserves a perspective close to the monastery’s foundation. Later Tibetan chronicles record the succession of teachers and institutions. Qing records show how imperial administrators viewed the same frontier. Travelers describe the monastery they encountered in the early twentieth century, while photographs preserve details that written histories omitted. Modern scholarship can compare these different voices rather than relying on any single tradition.
From the tent encampment of 1709 to the sprawling monastery that eventually housed thousands of monks, Labrang’s history is ultimately a story of religious institution building. Its founders took the scholastic traditions of central Tibet and rooted them in the grasslands of Amdo, where they developed into something distinctive.
More than three centuries later, Labrang remains one of the clearest examples of how a monastery could become a university, pilgrimage center, political institution, economic community, and guardian of religious memory all at once.
Sources & Further Reading
Ngag dbang bkra shis [Ngawang Tashi]. ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje’i rnam par thar pa yongs su brjod pa’i gtam du bya ba dad pa’i sgo ’byed kai ta ka’i phreng ba. Labrang Tashikhyil woodblock, ca. 1722–1738. https://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Jamyang-Zhepai-Dorje/TBRC_P423
’Jigs med dbang po [Second Jamyang Zhepa]. Kun mkhyen ’jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rnam thar bskal bzang ’jug ngog. Ca. 1758. Modern Tibetan ed. Lanzhou: Gansu People’s Publishing House. https://d1i1jdw69xsqx0.cloudfront.net/digitalhimalaya/collections/journals/ret/pdf/ret_68_08.pdf
Dkon mchog rgyal mtshan [Belmang Paṇḍita]. Bla brang bkra shis ’khyil gyi gdan rabs lha’i rnga chen. Ca. 1800. Lanzhou: Gansu Nationalities Publishing House, 1987. https://www.bdrc.io/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/martin-Tibetan-Histories-A-Bibliography-revised-ed.-20201028.pdf
Dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas [Brag dgon pa]. Mdo smad chos ’byung (Deb ther rgya mtsho). https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00081.x
Gung thang Bstan pa’i sgron me. Kun mkhyen ’jam dbyangs bzhad pa sku ’phreng gnyis pa rje ’jigs med dbang po’i rnam thar. Lanzhou: Gansu People’s Publishing House, 1990. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00081.x
Dkon mchog rgyal mtshan [Belmang Paṇḍita]. Gung thang bstan pa’i sgron me’i rnam thar. Lanzhou: Gansu People’s Publishing House, 1989. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00081.x
Dkon mchog rgyal mtshan [Belmang Paṇḍita]. Rgya bod hor sog gi lo rgyus nyung brjod pa byis pa ’jug pa’i ’bab stegs. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00081.x
Dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas [Brag dgon pa]. Dbal mang pandita’i rnam thar. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00081.x
Ngag dbang thub bstan rgya mtsho. Kun mkhyen ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa sku phreng gsum pa’i rnam thar. Beijing: Chinese Tibetology Publishing House, 1991. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00081.x
’Jigs med phrin las rgya mtsho. Zhva ser ring lugs pa sKal bzang thub bstan dbang phyug gi rtogs pa brjod pa rin chen phreng ba. Labrang, 1916. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00081.x
Rgya zhabs drung tshang Skal bzang dkon mchog rgya mtsho. Thub bstan yongs su rdzogs pa’i mnga’ bdag… ’jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje ’phreng lnga’i rnam par thar ba. 1948. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00081.x
Labrang Jigme Gyatso. Bla brang bkra shis ’khyil dang ’brel gtam chos srid gsal ba’i me long [Tales of Labrang Tashi Khyil]. Kathmandu, 1996. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00081.x
Xunhua Ting Zhi 循化厅志 [Gazetteer of Xunhua Subprefecture]. Vol. 6. Qing dynasty. https://www.shidianguji.com/book/LGS10116016/chapter/1m2bdz90h3uwj
Qing Shilu 清实录 [Veritable Records of the Qing]. Qing imperial court records. https://nxdx.cbpt.cnki.net/portal/journal/portal/client/paper/5e21fec26d5f170fd018c7f8dd1363dc
Qing Shilu Zangzu Shiliao 清实录藏族史料. Lhasa: Tibet People’s Publishing House, 1982. https://nxdx.cbpt.cnki.net/portal/journal/portal/client/paper/5e21fec26d5f170fd018c7f8dd1363dc
Qing Shilu Qinghai Minzu Shiliao Jilu 清实录青海民族史料辑录. 1983. https://nxdx.cbpt.cnki.net/portal/journal/portal/client/paper/5e21fec26d5f170fd018c7f8dd1363dc
Changling 长龄. Maoting Ziding Nianpu 懋亭自定年谱. Vol. 2. https://www.shidianguji.com/book/CADAL02021335/chapter/1l5i2cutaqcl2
Tao, Baolian 陶保廉. Xinmao Shixing Ji 辛卯侍行记. https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&remap=gb&res=2337
Nayancheng 那彦成. Pingfan Zouyi 平番奏议. https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=gb&remap=gb&res=670543
Tsybikov, Gombozhab T. A Buddhist Pilgrim at the Shrines of Tibet. Originally published in Russian in 1919. Edited by Marybeth Williams and translated by Paul Williams. Leiden: Brill, 2017. https://www.si.edu/es/object/buddhist-pilgrim-shrines-tibet-gombozhab-t-tsybikov-translated-russian-paul-williams-edited-marybeth%3Asiris_sil_1078093
Baradin, Bazar B. “Puteshestvie v Lavran: Buddiyskiy monastyr v severo-vostochnoy okraine Tibeta v 1905–1907 gg.” 1908. https://d1i1jdw69xsqx0.cloudfront.net/digitalhimalaya/collections/journals/ret/pdf/ret_78.pdf
Baradin, Bazar B. Zhizn v tangutskom monastyre Lavran: Dnevnik buddiiskogo palomnika, 1906–1907. https://d1i1jdw69xsqx0.cloudfront.net/digitalhimalaya/collections/journals/ret/pdf/ret_78.pdf
Mannerheim, Carl Gustaf Emil. Across Asia from West to East in 1906–1908. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne, 1940. https://books.google.com/books/about/Across_Asia_from_West_to_East_in_1906_19.html?id=FIbCl3GwqwYC
d’Ollone, Henri. In Forbidden China: The D’Ollone Mission, 1906–1909. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1912. https://books.google.com/books/about/In_Forbidden_China.html?id=zDJwAAAAMAAJ
Teichman, Eric. Travels of a Consular Officer in Eastern Tibet: Together with a History of the Relations between China, Tibet, and India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Travels_of_a_consular_officer_in_eastern_Tibet_-_together_with_a_history_of_the_relations_between_China,_Tibet_and_India_(IA_cu31924089999209).pdf
Pereira, George. From Peking to Lhasa: The Narrative of Journeys in the Chinese Empire. Edited by Francis Younghusband. London: Constable, 1925. https://www.nature.com/articles/117480a0
Li An-che. Labrang: A Study in the Field. Edited by Chie Nakane. Tokyo: University of Tokyo, 1982. https://library.thebeijingcenter.org/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=2519&shelfbrowse_itemnumber=3134
Li An-che. History of Tibetan Religion: A Study in the Field. Beijing: New World Press, 1994. https://www.scribd.com/document/860721616/Studies-in-Modern-Tibetan-Culture-Paul-Kocot-Nietupski-Labrang-Monastery-a-Tibetan-Buddhist-Community-on-the-Inner-Asian-Borderlands-1709-1958
Forman, Harrison. Harrison Forman Collection. American Geographical Society Library, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Libraries. https://collections.lib.uwm.edu/digital/collection/tibet/id/567
Nietupski, Paul Kocot. Labrang: A Tibetan Buddhist Monastery at the Crossroads of Four Civilizations. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 1999. https://books.google.com/books?id=xGvECiS-uEgC
Nietupski, Paul Kocot. “Labrang Monastery: Tibetan Buddhism on the Sino-Tibetan Frontier.” Religion Compass 2, no. 4 (2008): 513–535. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00081.x
Nietupski, Paul Kocot. Labrang Monastery: A Tibetan Buddhist Community on the Inner Asian Borderlands, 1709–1958. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011. https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/labrang-monastery-9780739164433/
Chhosphel, Samten. “The First Jamyang Zhepa, Jamyang Zhepai Dorje.” The Treasury of Lives. January 2011. https://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Jamyang-Zhepai-Dorje/TBRC_P423
The Treasury of Lives. “Labrang Tashikhyil.” The Treasury of Lives: A Biographical Encyclopedia of Tibet, Inner Asia and the Himalayan Region. https://treasuryoflives.org/en/institution/Labrang-Tashikhyil
University of Virginia, Tibetan and Himalayan Library. “An Introduction to Labrang Monastery.” Mandala Collections. https://texts.mandala.library.virginia.edu/text/introduction-labrang-monastery
University of Virginia, Tibetan and Himalayan Library. “Labrang Monastery.” Mandala Collections. https://places.kmaps.virginia.edu/features/15472/descriptions/79
Dorje, Rinchen. “Establishing Lineage Legitimacy and Building Labrang Monastery as ‘the Source of Dharma’: Jikmed Wangpo (1728–1791) Taking the Helm.” Religions 12, no. 7 (2021): 491. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/7/491
Slobodník, Martin. “Destruction and Revival: The Fate of the Tibetan Buddhist Monastery Labrang in the People’s Republic of China.” Religion, State & Society 32, no. 1 (2004): 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963749042000182104
Maher, Derek F. Knowledge and Authority in Tibetan Middle Way Schools of Buddhism: A Study of the Gelukba Epistemology of Jamyang Shayba in Its Historical Context. PhD diss., University of Virginia, 2003. https://libraetd.lib.virginia.edu/public_view/dr26xz08m
Maher, Derek. “The Lives and Time of ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa.” In Power, Politics, and the Reinvention of Tradition, 129–144. Leiden: Brill, 2006. https://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Jamyang-Zhepai-Dorje/TBRC_P423
Uspensky, Vladimir. “The Life and Works of Ngag-dbang bkra-shis (1678–1738), the Second Abbot of the Bla-brang bkra-shis-’khyil Monastery.” In Proceedings of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, 1005–1010. 1997. https://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Jamyang-Zhepai-Dorje/6646
Tsyrempilov, Nikolay. “Some Notes on the Biography of the First ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa.” Archiv Orientální 71 (2003): 441–450. https://glossaries.dila.edu.tw/search?commit=Search&locale=zh-TW&term=yang&utf8=%E2%9C%93
Sadhukhan, Sanjit Kumar. “Biography of the Eminent Tibetan Scholar ’Jam-dbyangs-bzhad-pa Ngag-dbang-brtson-’grus (A.D. 1648–1722).” The Tibet Journal 16, no. 2 (1991): 19–33. https://glossaries.dila.edu.tw/search?commit=Search&locale=zh-TW&term=yang&utf8=%E2%9C%93
Chandra, Lokesh. “The Life and Work of ḤJam dbyaṅ bzhad pa.” Central Asiatic Journal 7 (1962): 264–269. https://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Jamyang-Zhepai-Dorje/TBRC_P423
Schaeffer, Kurtis. “Printing the Works of the Master: Tibetan Editorial Practice in the Collected Works of ’Jam dbyangs bzhad pa’i rdo rje I (1648–1721).” Acta Orientalia 60 (1999): 159–177. https://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Jamyang-Zhepai-Dorje/6646
Gruschke, Andreas. The Cultural Monuments of Tibet’s Outer Provinces: Amdo. Vol. 2, The Gansu and Sichuan Parts of Amdo. Bangkok: White Lotus Press, 2001, 27–38. https://library.tcdc.or.th/record/view/b00005580
Petech, Luciano. China and Tibet in the Early XVIIIth Century: History of the Establishment of Chinese Protectorate in Tibet. 2nd rev. ed. Leiden: Brill, 1972. https://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Jamyang-Zhepai-Dorje/TBRC_P423
Borjigidai, U. “The Hoshuud Polity in Khökhnuur (Kokonor).” Inner Asia 4 (2002): 181–196. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00081.x
Erdene-Ochir, Erdenebaatar. A Nineteenth-Century Intra-Sectarian Polemical Controversy in the Tibetan Buddhist Geluk Order. PhD diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 2021. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7tt9121c
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China Tibetology Research Center. Material on Labrang Monastery and the Six Great Gelug monasteries. https://www.tibetology.ac.cn/2018-05/02/content_41701122.htm