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

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

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.

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)

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

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

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)

Qianlong’s Yuhuashi (Hall of Raining Flowers)

Hall of Raining Flowers (Yuhuashi; 雨花室)

“Hall of Raining Flowers ” (雨花室) is a poem written by the Emperor Qianlong in 1754, when he devoted considerable energy to Buddhist practice and patronage in his late thirties and forties. In this poem, he reiterated his desire to “manifest emptiness”, as Vimalakirti had done.

This poem indicates the Emperor Qianlong’s paradoxical religious practice: The construction of a path to enlightenment and the apprehension of emptiness must take place in a sensory world filled with desirable, fascinating things.

Hall of Raining Flowers

During the three months of spring I came to a peaceful, quiet lodging
Where, for five days, I practiced pure amusements.
Each time I chanted I took a turn and
Discrimination returned.
On the other side of the window, the vaporous shadow of a kingfisher-
I enter and sit in solitude in the cypress’s shade
To put Vimalakirti’s investigations to the test,
So that I might yet manifest emptiness.

The Qianlong emperor was famous for his enthusiastic engagement with the material world. He was obsessed with collecting works of art and craft in all the media of the day. The Qianlong emperor did not only collect all these art works, but also arranged to construct a number of temples; each conceptually replicated an earlier model.

Sources:
Berger, Patricia, Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China. U Hawaii .P, 2003

Entry by Lan Wu 03/23/07

Dabaoji Gong

Dabaoji Gong 大宝积宫

Dabaoji Gong was founded in 1582 in an ethnically Naxi village called Baisha (白沙村), several miles from Lijiang in Yunnan (云南丽江). The Naxi (纳西族) was a group ethnically and linguistically related to the Tibetans, but who had, by the Ming era, more closely identified themselves politically and culturally with the Chinese. Lijiang prefecture was officially recognized as beyond the direct control of the Ming court, but was still of strategic military and economic importance since major invasion as well as trade routes lay within its territory. Thus the Ming court recognized the authority of its local rulers and relied on them to maintain control over the Tibetans along the southwest border of the empire.

The height of Lijiang military conquests and territorial expansion into Tibetan areas occurred during the mid-16th and 17th centuries and corresponded with an increased interest in Tibetan Buddhism. This interest was reflected in a sharp increase in temple-building activity, which can be interpreted as Lijiang’s efforts to attract the support of major Tibetan Buddhist figures to install the Lijiang court with politico-religious legitimacy in the eyes of Tibetan, and perhaps also Chinese, communities. The Kar ma bKa’ brgyud in the early Ming were widely known for their esoteric powers, and were therefore targeted for religious patronage.

The founder of the Dabaoji Gong, Mu Wang (木旺) (r.1580–98), was the ruler of Lijiang. He, according to the Ninth Karmapa’s biography, had a Tibetan Buddhist preceptor named Byang bshes pa, and also wished to commission a new woodblock edition of the bKa’ ‘gyur, which his son and successor, Mu Zeng (木增) (r.1598–1646) later completed. In addition to the Kar ma pas, Mu Wang also patronized other sects, particularly the dGe lugs pa.

Mu Wang’s son, Mu Zeng, expanded the Lijiang kingdom to its greatest breadth and at the same time was involved in building an unprecedented number of temples. He renounced the throne in 1624 at the age of 36 to pursue religious instruction at Fuguosi (福国寺) (one of the five main bKa’ brgyud schools in Lijiang). He is thought to be responsible for the paintings extant at Dabaoji Gong.

While Ming-era murals in Lijiang predating the Daobaoji Gong reflect Chinese and Bai styles and subjects, the murals in Dabaoji Gong are unique in the Sino-Tibetan painting tradition they exhibit. Temple murals that succeed the Dabaoji Gong show the increasing influence of Tibetan styles and themes. Thus Daobaoji Gong can be identified as the earliest extant temple that demonstrates the Sino-Tibetan painting tradition executed by local patronage and workshop.

The murals in the front half of the hall contain a mixture of Chinese Buddhist, Daoist, and Tibetan Buddhist figures and themes, while the murals in the rear of the hall are Tibetan Buddhist in nature, particularly that of the Kar ma bKa’ brgyud order. Of significance is the mural on one section of the rear wall that depicts the root of the Mahamudra lineage from Vajradhara to what is thought to be the Tenth Karmapa, Chos dbyings rdo rje (1604–74), who later fled to Lijiang following the devastating attack inflicted by the Fifth Dalai Lama on the Karma bKa’ brgyud (c. 1642). The style executed in this mural link the paintings in both the front and back of the temple while the dating of this mural links it to Mu Zeng’s patronage program that aimed to build new temples in Lijiang as well as connect them to specific Tibetan Buddhist lineages.

In total, thirteen Karma pa temples were built in the Lijiang area, and all, including Dabaoji Gong later became branch temples of dPal spungs in sDe dge when the sDe dge Si tu lineage reassembled the scattered bKa’ brgyud leadership in Eastern Tibet.

Thus the Dabaoji Gong reflects the intricate role the Lijiang kingdom played as a peripheral, autonomous region involved in conflicts among the Tibetans as well as between the Tibetans and Chinese. Through Buddhism, the Lijiang court sought legitimacy as religiously-sanctioned rulers among the Tibetans via their patronage of lineages and building of temples, as well as the Chinese in their patronage of temples at Mt. Wutai and other sites in China.


Source:

Karl Debreczeny. Sino-Tibetan Artistic Synthesis in Ming Dynasty Temples. Tibet Journal. 28: 49–107.

Entry by Eveline Yang, 2/26/07

Karmapa Scroll

Karmapa Scroll ( Tsurphu Scroll)

The Karma-pa Scroll recorded the events that occurred during the 5th Karma-pa’s (Dezhin Shegpa) to Nanjing by invitation of the Yongle (Chengzu, r.1402-1424) emperor to perform the Mass of Universal Salvation (Pudu dazhai) at the Linggu Monastery in 1407. The 50m long silk handscroll depicted 49 scenes of miraculous signs that took place during the performance of the ritual, which were described in Chinese, Arabic, Uighur, Tibetan and Mongolian. The performance of the Mass of Universal Salvation for the deceased Hongwu emperor and his consort Empress Ma was part of the Yongle Emperor’s endeavor to first legitimize his position on the throne after usurping it from his nephew the Jianwen emperor and also to officially establish a Ming-Tibetan relationship. The scroll symbolically functioned as both a bureaucratic imperial tool as well as a religious and spiritual instrument for the ultimate fusion of universal authority supposedly mandated to the Yongle emperor. The fusion of both Buddhist and Daoist motifs and the fact that the scroll was tailored to appeal to the Chinese support the universalistic significance of the scroll as first and foremost a representation of the legitimacy of the Yongle emperor as the rightful heir to the throne. However, the scroll did not explicitly define the relationship between the Yongle emperor and the 5th Karma-pa, who rejected the proposal for formal relations with the Yongle Emperor along the same lines as that of the Yuan Emperors and the Sakya. However, the inscriptions and scenes on the scroll portrayed the Karma-pa as having attained actual Buddhahood, referring to him constantly as “rulai” (meaning, “thus come” an epithet for Buddha). Moreover, the wonders of the miraculous signs were also attributed solely to the performance of the Karma-pa beginning with the ritual of the Mass of Universal Salvation.

Sources:
Berger, Patricia, Miracles in Nanjing: An Imperial Record of the Fifth Karmapa’s Visit to the Chinese Capital, Cultural Intersections in Later Chinese Buddhism, UH.P. 2001
Sperling, Elliot, The 5th Karma-pa and Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Tibet and Early Ming, Tibetan Studies in honor of High Richardson: Proceedings of the International Seminar of Tibetan Studies, Oxford 1979

Entry by ShiQi Wu, 2/20/07

user-1541797010