Month: November 2018

Posted on

Renzong

Renzong

Jen-tsung/Renzong (1139-1193) ruled the Mi-nyag/Minyak (a.k.a. Tangut or Xi Xia) people from 1169-1193. The relationships he formed with Tibetan Buddhist lamas is recognized as having marked the origin of imperial preceptorship (ti-shi), an institution that would be replicated in subsequent relations between Buddhist teachers and Central or East Asian rulers. Jen-tsung sponsored large-scale Buddhist ceremonies as well as the publishing of Buddhist canons in Chinese, Tibetan and Tangut languages. His extensive support of and close interaction with Buddhists laid the ground and provided a model for later dynasties’ involvement with Tibetan Buddhism. The legacy of his patronage of Buddhism also contributed to the posterity of Mi-nyag, a culture whose history might otherwise have been obscured completely.

Source:
Dunnell, Ruth. “The Hsia Origins of the Yuan Institution of Imperial Preceptor,” in Asia Major. Third Series. Vol. 1, part 1, 1992. p 85-111.

Posted on

Lama Shuo

Qianlong’s Pronouncement on Lamas (Lama shuo)

In this 1792 stele pronouncement found in the Yonghe Gong, the Qianlong emperor declared formal Qing patronage over the dGe-lugs-pa which was enjoying high popularity among its Mongol followers. This Pronouncement was inscribed in Chinese, Manchu, Mongol and Tibetan, signifying the Manchu’s (and ultimately Qianlong’s) claim to universal rulership as the Court officially recognised both the Dalai and Panchen Lamas. The Pronouncement claimed that unlike the Mongols, the Qing has never used the term “di shi” (imperial preceptor) to represent the relationship between the Emperor and the leading Tibetan Lama. However, the term “guo shi” or “Teacher of the Kingdom” was only reserved for Lcang Skya who was the Qianlong Emperor’s confidante, as well as the leading Lama representing the Qing Court in Tibetan affairs. Since Qianlong explicitly rejects claims that the Lama had any spiritual superiority over the Emperor and re-establishes the hierarchy of rulership between Lamas and patron. The pronouncement also declared that the process of picking the future Dalai Lama would no longer be concentrated within the hands of certain Tibetan or Mongolian lineages. Instead, the names of the potential incarnates would be placed in a golden urn and selected in a public ceremony to ensure impartiality. This was also in response to the accusations of the defeated Nepalese Gurkhas, (and some Chinese) who claimed that the Qing merely patronised the dGe-lugs-pa for the sake of political expediency in keeping the Mongols in check. However, Qianlong, in the edict, proclaimed in the Manchu inscription that as a devote Tibetan Buddhist, he not only understood but had the right to make the changes that he did as Emperor.

Sources:
Patricia Berger. 2003. Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China. U Hawaii Press pp 34-5, James L. Hevia. 1995. Lamas, Emperors, and Rituals

Entry: 4/28/07

Posted on

Qianlong Pentaglot Dictionary

Qing text Qianlong Pentaglot Dictionary (Wuti Qingwen Jian五體清文鑒)

The enormous project was to create a pentaglot dictionary (Manchu, Chinese, Mongolian, Tibetan, Chagatay) and seems to have been spearheaded by the guoshi Changkya Rolpay Dorje (Lcang Skya) who found it immensely difficult to provide accurate translations between the different languages employed by the Qing Court. It was completed in 1769 This stemmed from a bigger issue of translating Buddhist documents from the different languages and trying to retain its essential doctrines without compromising on its theology. This included translations of the Tibetan Kanjur into Mongolian, as well as its commentaries; the translation of the Tanjur and the Kanjur into Manchu and the Suramgaman Sutra from Chinese into Tibetan. Rolpay Dorje had also previously compiled an authoritative Manchu-Mongol dictionary to help translators in standardizing all translations.


Source:

Mimaki. A Tibetan Index to the Pentaglot Dictionary from the Qing Dynasty. JIATS 1988, pp. 279-282.

Entry by: ShiQi Wu, 4/2/07

Posted on

Qing Canon Printing

Tibetan Buddhist Canon Texts Printing in Qing

It became a tradition for the emperors to sponsor printings of the Tibetan Buddhist canonical texts from Hung Taiji and onwards in Qing dynasty, both at Mukden (present-day Shenyang) and at Peking, which served as a hub of the vast project. One way to accomplish this task was to establish an imperial publishing house, otherwise known as the palace publishing house.

In comparing the printings of the Buddhist canons in the Qing and in Yuan and Ming dynasties, the sponsorship of publishing was dramatically shifted from Tibetan lamas (who occupied official posts in the Yuan court) directly to the Qing emperors. Emperor Yongzheng (r. 1723-35) established a Buddhist publishing house where many Buddhist canons were published. One monastery in Beijing, Songzhusi Temple (Chin.: 嵩祝寺, within the Imperial City), emerged as a central site for printing Buddhist texts. The site of the Songzhusi Temple had been the location of the printing workshops in Ming dynasty, called Hanjing Chang (Chin.:漢經厰) and Fanjing Chang (Chin.: 番經厰), literally translated as Han canons workshop and “Barbarian” [i.e. Tibetan] canons workshop, respectively. Emperor Yongzheng re-established the Songzhusi Temple in 1733, and it was moved to the current location by Emperor Qianlong in 1772. A number of canonical texts were printed in this printing workshop.

What is also interesting is that the Qing court encouraged having the Tibetan Buddhist canonical texts translated into various languages, for instance, Manchu, Chinese and Mongolian. The Mongolian language was one of the languages promoted by the Qing court. Mongolian appeared not only on steles, tablets, etc., but also on the guidebooks to Mount Wutai, such as the Qingliangshan xin zhi (Chin.: 清涼山新志), a fine new version of a Buddhist guidebook to Mount Wutai and its temples, edited by Lao zang dan pa老藏丹巴(a Chinese monk), in ten juan卷 in 1701， as well as an expanded version in twenty-two chuan卷 that was published in 1811. Both editions were published by the palace publishing house. Several Qing emperors visited Mount Wu-tai, where Tibetan Buddhist lamas were active then. Compiling and publishing the guidebooks for the Mongols, therefore, deserves more attention in terms of the triangle relationship among the Manchu court, the Tibetan Buddhism and the Mongols that potentially threatened the Manchu in the frontier areas.

These printed texts were mostly purchased by visiting Mongolian lamas for their home monasteries; however, it would be improper to think that all these texts were for sale. The Tibetan Buddhist canons were exclusively distributed as imperial gifts. Copies of them were scattered throughout the country and even reached as far as Central Asia.

Taking over the publishing houses was important for the Qing court to manipulate, recreate history, thus, to reconstruct the ideology, ultimately, legitimize the political system. Several selected published editions of the Tibetan Buddhist canon and other texts follows[[#_ftn1|[1]]],

The Kanjur in 108 volumes (1684-92; 1700; 1717-20; 1737 and in ca. 1765)
The Tenjur in 225 volumes (1721-24; 1742-49)[[#_ftn2|[2]]]
The Manchu Kanjur (1772-1790)
One edition of the Chinese Buddhist canon (1738)
Two editions of the Tibetan Buddhist Kanjur (1692 and 1700)
The Mongolian canon of 1718-20
The Qingliangshan xin zhi清涼山新志in ten chuan (1701)
The Qingliangshan xin zhi清涼山新志. In twenty-two chuan (1811)

Sources:

Crossley, Pamela Kyle, The Rulerships of China. The American historical review, 1468-1483. 1992

Farquhar, David M, Emperor As Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Ch’ing Empire. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 38 (1), 1978

Uspensky, Vladimir, The ‘Beijing Lamaist Centre’ and Tibet in the XVII-XX century. Tibet and her neightors.

Van Vleet, Stacey, “Entry of Yuan Canon printings”

Entry by Lan Wu 03/14/07

[[#_ftnref1|[1]]] This is not an exhausted list. Other printed products range from a pocket-size Heart Sutra in Tibetan with both Manchu transcription and Chinese translation, to huge works like, the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra in a Hundred Thousand Lines, were also published in Beijing. For further information, please consult with The ‘Beijing Lamaist Centre’ and Tibet in the XVII-early XX century by Vladimir Uspensky.
[[#_ftnref2|[2]]]Another resource mentions that the Bstan-‘gyur, and its publication in 226 volumes, which was the complete translation into Mongolian of the Tibetan supplementary canon was published during 1741 to 1749. Both of them may refer to the same printed Tenjur.

Posted on

Wutaishan’s Panoramic Map-Cifusi

Wutaishan’s panoramic picture of the sacred realm of the mountain of the five terraces and Cifu Ci (慈福寺)

The panoramic picture of the sacred realm of the mountain of the five terraces is a map of Wutai shan, which was craved by a Mongolian lama (Gelong) Lhundrup (act. 1846) in 1846 at Cihusi. A hand-colored print of the woodblocks was purchased by members of a Finnish expedition to Mongolia in 1909. Later on, the print was reproduced in eight sections by the National Board of Antiquities in Helsinki in 1987. This print depicts 130-odd temple sites in the mountain range, accompanied by an equal number of inscriptions, depictions of divine emanations, pilgrimage activities, rituals, and festivals.

The woodblock set serves as the master copy for numerous prints, although colored by different persons. These prints are preserved in various places around the world.

The full description of this print can be found in Wen-shing Chou’s article (pp. 109). This gazetteer map ought to be read in conjunction with texts. This map illustrates the spatial relations alongside a text that itemizes distances, directions, and relative locations in great detail. This map demonstrates in detail the number of bays and halls of large and small monasteries and liberally exaggerates the relative scale of certain portions to match their prominence and openness for public spectacle, therefore, it can be considered as more hierarchical, individuated, and complete assembly of sites than the topographically accurately maps. This map can bee seen as a guide map for visionary encounters.

It may be improper to describe the prints without introducing the monastery where it was produced, which is Cifu Si (慈福寺)

Cifu Si, also called Chantang Yuan[[#_ftn1|[1]]] (禅堂院) is located on a hill behind the Pusa Ding (the Bodhisattva Peak; Manjusri Peak). It was established during the Daoguang regime[[#_ftn2|[2]]] (r. 1820-1850) of the Qing dynasty. Cifu Si should be associated with the woodcut printings, since it was built at the time of the woodblocks’ execution.

This monastery served as the primary lodging center for all Mongolian lamas who made the pilgrimage to Wutaishan. Cihua Si is one of the three (out of seventy or so) monasteries that had no inscription in earlier textual records.

In sum, part of the intention of carving a new map of Wutaishan in Cifu Si was to place Cifu Si in the center of the map and legitimized this monastery as a permanent existence at Wutaishan.

Sources:
Chou, Wen-shing, Ineffable Paths: Mapping Wutaishan in Qing Dynasty China, Art Bulletin, March 2007, Vol. 89 No. 1
http://www.chinawts.com

Entry by Lan Wu 04/16/07
________
[[#_ftnref1|[1]]] 禅堂院：Shantang yuan or Chantang yuan, “禅”is a polyphonic character.
[[#_ftnref2|[2]]] According to Chou, the monastery was established in the early years of the Daoguang reign (1821-1851)

Posted on

Two Lamaistic Pantheons

Two Tibetan Buddhist text printings

1. Pantheon of 300 Gods / 300 Icons (Tib.: Sku brnyan phrag gsum)

Pantheon of Three Hundred Gods was assembled and published by Changkya Rolpay Dorje (1717-1786), an advisor, artistic consultant of the Qianlong emperor (1736—1795) and a learned lama and widely published scholar.

The Tibetan names are given underneath, and each figure is accompanied by a dharani. The original wood blocks are still preserved, and prints are still procurable in Beijing[[#_ftn1|[1]]].

Pantheon of Three Hundred Gods served as the major source of information on Tibetan Buddhist iconography for Western scholar. It is evidential that the images in Rolpay Dorge’s pantheons made a big impact on Buddhist art during the Qianlong period onwards.

2. In Praise of [the sacred images of] All the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas

In Praise of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas (zhufo pusa shengxiang zan; 諸佛菩薩聖像讚) contains 360 figures accompanied by 360 eulogies in Chinese. The figures are divided into twenty-three divisions and the figures in each division are numbered. The Tibetan and Chinese names of the divinities are given below and above; the Mongolian and Manchu names are given at the two sides[[#_ftn2|[2]]].

It is ascribed to Rolpay Dorje (1717-1786), a well known Tibetan Lama who was the state preceptor of the Qianlong emperor (1736-1795). This manuscript now belongs to the National Library of Beijing.

Sources:
Terese Tse Bartholomew, Thangkas for the Qianlong Emepror’s Seventieth Birthday, Cultural Intersections in Later Chinese Buddhism, Marsha Weidner (ed.), U.H.P., Honolulu, 2001

Clark, Walter Eugene, Two Lamaistic pantheons, Harvard U.P. 1965, pp. x-xi

Entry by Lan Wu 04/01/07

[[#_ftnref1|[1]]] For further information regarding this pantheon, see Eugen Pander, Das Pantheon des Tschangtscha Hutuktu, Veroffentlichungen aus dem kgl. Museum fur Volkerkunde in Berlin, I, 2/3/, 1890, Albert Grunwedel (ed.)
[[#_ftnref2|[2]]] For further information concerning to this work, see Stael-Holstein, Remarks on the Chu Fo P’u Sa Sheng Hsiang Tsan, Bulletin of the Metropolitan Library, Vol. I, 1928

Posted on

Mantras Yuzhi Man Han Menggu Xifan Hebi Dazang Quanzhu

Yuzhi Man Han Menggu Xifan hebi dazang quanzhou 御製滿漢蒙古西番合壁大藏全咒

This text, which included dharani and mantra in Manchu, Chinese, Mongolian, and Tibetan, was printed and distributed to monasteries throughout the empire in 1773. It restored the proper sounds of Buddhist dharani and mantra, most of which had been rendered in Chinese in the Tang dynasty and were, by the 18th century, pronounced very differently and thus no longer zhenyan 真言—“true speech.” The Qianlong emperor’s uncle, Zhuang Qinwang Yinlu 莊親王胤祿 (1695-1767) supervised this project between 1748 and 1758, using Tibetan sources as a guide to proper pronunciation. His four-part compilation, titled in Chinese Yuzhi Man Han Menggu Xifan hebi dazang quanzhou 御製滿漢蒙古西番合壁大藏全咒.

Source:
Berger, Patricia, “The Jiaqing Emperor’s Magnificent Record of the Western Tour.” Wutaishan and Qing Culture, ed. Gray Tuttle and Johan Eleverskog, forthcoming

Posted on

Multilingual texts during Qianlong Reign

Multilingual texts during Qianlong Reign

There have been a lot of multilingual texts during Xixia, Yuan, Ming, and Qing periods. “Xixiazang” is one example of it; according to Heather Karmay, Guanzhuba was involved in making this work in Hangzhou. “Xixiazang” was written both in Xixia and Chinese, and made between 1306 and 1307. Among these dynasties and states, Qing empire had especially a lot of multilingual texts; Qianlong Emperor made many multilingual edicts. According to Patricia Berger, Qianlong Emperor carved four languages of empires when he made an edict for Ubasi, the leader of the Torghut Mongols having been arrived from Russia in 1773. The four languages of the Empire were Manchu, Tibetan, Chinese and Mongolian. In 1737, Qianlong Emperor also made “an edict of three languages” in the courtyard of the “Monastery of Blssed Peace (Qingningsi).” Again in 1792, he composed “quadrilingual stele of Yonghegong” in Yonghegong.

The reason for these dynasties and especially Qing Empire having a lot of multilingual texts has not been clearly known. However, Patricia Berger suggests the reason of Qianlong Emperor’s having made a lot of multilingual texts in her “Empire of Emptiness”; Qianlong Emperor thought he had power over other states, by mastering and using the languages of the states that Qing was ruling. Berger quoted Qianlong emperor saying,

“In 1743 I first practiced Mongolian. In 1760 after I pacified the Muslims, I acquainted myself with Uighur. In 1776 after the two pacifications of Jinchuan I became roughly conversant in Tibetan. In 1780 because the Panchen Lama was coming to visit I also studied Tangut. Thus when the rota of Mongols, Muslims and Tibetans come every year to the capital for audience I use their languages and do not rely on an interpreter… to express the idea of conquering by kindness.” [[#_ftn1|[1]]]

The quote shows that Qianlong Emperor actually thought knowing the language and showing his knowledge of the language itself show that Qing Empire’s power over the other states.

[[#_ftnref1|[1]]] Berger, p 38, note to Yuan Hongqi, “Qianlong shiqi de gongting jieqing huodong,” Gugongbowuyuan yuankan 53, no. 3 (1991: 85)

Posted on

Chengde (Rehe)

Rehe (熱河, Jehol), Chengde (承德)

Rehe Province is located in today’s Hebei (河北)Province. The name Jehol has been used since the 1930s, for the Chinese province north of the Great Wall, west of Manchuria, and east of Mongolia. The capital of Rehe Province is Chengde. Rehe (Jehol) is a formal name for Chengde.

Chengde was the summer capital of Qing dynasty. It was selected as a summer capital both for practical and symbolic reasons. It is located north of the Great Wall, between Northern China and Mongolian steppe. Phillipe Forêt argues that “Khans of the Manchu-Mongolian populations and bodhisattva for Lamaist believers led to the elaboration of a system of three capitals, one in Manchuria (Mukden), one in China proper (Beijing), and one in Inner Mongolia (Chengde),” with Chengde also serving as “religious capital of Tibet.”

Even though Chengde did not get an official designation, as such it functioned as a third capital of the Qing empire. According to Evelyn Rawski’s The Last Emperors, “the region surrounding the imperial villa was administratively designated as a subprefecture (Rehe ting) during the 1720s, then in 1733 made into a department, Chengde zhou,” and “symbolically it was the outer capital, where Mongols, Uighurs, and Tibetan performed court rituals under the jurisdiction of the Lifanyuan.”

In Chengde, there were a lot of lavish spectacles during the Qianlong reign, such as more than forty celebrations of the emperor’s birthday. According to Rawski, it was at “Bishu shanzang” that the emperor celebrated the submission of the Dorbot Mongols (1754) and received the Sixth Panchen Lama (1780) and Lord Macartney’s embassy(1793).

Sources:

Evelyn Rawski, “The Last Emperor.” (California, 1998)
Philippe Forêt, “Making an Imperial Landscape in Chengde, Jehol: The Manchu Landscape Enterprise.” (Ph. D. diss., University of Chicago, 1992)
See also: Lipton & Ragnubs 1996. “Appendix A: The Chinese Lama Temple: The Golden Pavilon of Jehol.” Treasures of Tibetan Art. 261-267.

Entry by Seul kyi Park

Posted on

Chengde Pule Si

Pule Si

Pule si, built by the Qianlong emperor between 1766–67, was the 6th of 12 outer temples built at Chengde. Although called the Eight Outer Temples in Chinese (Wai ba miao) the twelve were built in the following order (the first two by Kangxi, and the rest by Qianlong): Puren si, Pushan si, Puning si, Puyou si, Anyuan miao, Pule si, Putuozongcheng miao, Guang’an si, Shuxiang si, Luohan tang, Xumifushou miao, and Anguo si. These outer temples flanked the eastern and northern edges of the imperial summer resort, the Bishu shanzhuang. The innovative and deliberate reinterpretations of architectural styles and landscapes from Chinese and Inner Asian sources at Chengde have been likened to a rational political tool used to further modern conceptions of state formation. Pule Si was part of a larger scenic landscape, with 36 landscape vistas, that illustrated a series of perspectives that the Kangxi and Qianlong emperors deliberately displayed to their Chinese bureaucrats and Inner Asian nobles. Each layer of the landscape was created to resonate with only select audiences of the emperor’s empire, with the emperor as the unifying center able to mediate all the landscape layers. These scenes were displayed to show the dynamism of landscape as an aesthetic medium that was then circulated through the empire via multilingual publications such as the imperially-sponsored Album of Imperial Poems.

Pule si, resembling Beijing’s Temple of Heaven (and possibly suggesting a link to the altar of Heaven in the old Manchu capital, Mukden) and described as a stupa and mandala, was built for the western Mongols coming for the yearly tribute. Its name links it to two other outer temples. Together, Pule si, Anyuan miao, and Puning si contain the three characters, le, an, ning, that signify the three ways to nirvana. Unlike other outer temples that face south according to Qing imperial tradition, Pule si (and like Anyuan miao) is oriented toward the west, recalling the orientation of older Tibetan temples such as the Jokhang in Lhasa and Samye.

Pule si is situated south of Anyuan miao and aligned with the Bangchui rock formation to the east, which connects it in a straight line, through the center of the temple, to the imperial residence. The main temple of Pule si is a triple terrace. The lowest level, no longer extant, was a surrounding gallery. The upper terrace is a wooden, Indian-style mandala containing a statue of Samvara and covered by a circular golden ceiling decorated with an imperial dragon. The link between Pule si and the Qianlong emperor is further clarified by the imperial inscription that mentions the role of Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje in constructing the temple. Lcang skya had given the Qianlong emperor the Samvara initiation. Thus the construction of Pule si with its Samvara mandala has been said to symbolize the lama-patron relationship between Lcang skya and the Qianlong emperor, while its construction on the eve of the western Mongols’ tributary visit can possibly be interpreted as a symbol of their new link with the empire.

Readings of Pule si must take into account its context within the larger imperial landscape production at Chengde. As such, it was part of an aesthetic, consumerist, and thus modern, instrument of unification for the producer, the emperor, as well as an instrument of alienation for the consumer, the imperial subjects.

Sources:
Philippe Forêt. 2000. Mapping Chengde: The Qing landscape enterprise. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i. pp. 49-53, 116-138.
Anne Chayet. 2004. Architectural Wonderland: An Empire of Fictions. In James Millward, et al. eds. New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde. pp. 33-52.

Entry by Eveline S. Yang 4/17/07