Tsangpopa Konchok Sengge (gtsang po pa dkon mchog seng ge), also known as Tsangpa Tashi (gtsang pa bkra shis) was a Tibetan from Tsang. He was disciple of the First Karmapa, Dusum Khyenpa (kar+ma pa 01 dus gsum mkhyen pa, 1110-1193). When the Minyak king Konchok Sengge (dkon mchog seng ge) summoned the Karmapa, Tsangpopa went in his place.
Tsangpopa is most famous for being one of the later Imperial Preceptors (dishi) of the Minyak, or Xia, Dynasty, which is why he is also called Tsangpa Tishri (gtsang pa ti shri) or “the Imperial Preceptor from Tsang.” He was richly rewarded for his services and was permitted to send gifts and go on leave to his home monastery of Tsurpu (mtshur phu). In the end though, he died in the culturally Tibetan city of Liangzhou, in southern Minyag territory, where he had students.
Tsangpopa's most important student in Liangzhou was another Tibetan named Drogon Tishri Repa Sanggye Rechen ('gro mgon ti shri ras pa sangs rgyas ras chen, 1164/1165-1236). Although originally trained in the Barom Kagyu tradition, he became a student of Tsangpopa after arriving in the Minyak realm in 1196/1197.
Tishri Repa was the second and last of the ethnically Tibetan imperial preceptors to serve at the Minyak court. When the Mongols eliminated the Minyak dynasty, one of his students, a Tibetan native to the Minyak region named Tsangwa Repa Karpo Sherab Jangchub (gsang ba ras pa dkar po shes rab byang chub, 1198/1199-1262) continued the Barom Kagyu tradition there. He later met Qubilai Khan, creating a direct link between the Minyak tradition of imperial preceptors and the Mongol Yuan establishment of a position bearing the same title.
དཔྱད་གཞིའི་ཡིག་ཆ་ཁག།
Dunnell, Ruth. 1992. “The Hsia Origins of the Yüan Institution of Imperial Preceptor.” Asia Major. Third Series, Vol. 5, part 1, pp. 85-111.
Sperling, Elliot. 1987. “Lama to the King of Hsia.” The Journal of the Tibet Society, vol. 7, pp. 31-50.
Sperling, Elliot. 1994. “Rtsa-mi lo-tsā-ba Sangs-rgyas grags-pa and the Tangut Background to Early Mongol-Tibetan Relations.” In Per Kvaerne, ed., Tibetan Studies. Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Oslo, pp. 801-824.