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.

Ba Erdeni Lama

Ba Erdeni Lama

According to an early nineteenth century work by an anonymous Mongol author entitled How It Came About That the Mongol Royal Family Descended from the Indian Kings, the Ba Erdeni Lama was invited in 1623 by Boshughtu Khan (also known as Nurghaci or the first Qing emperor, Taizu), said to be the first “Manchu Khan,” to Niu Ching on the Mukden river, said to be the site of Manchu origin. The Ba Erdeni Lama requested from the Dalai Lama a title for the Khan, and he was known thereafter as “Manjusri Khan.” According to this text, the designation “Manchu” derives from the sound of this title. The Ba Erdeni Lama also was said to have created the Manchu script from the Mongol and Tangut scripts.

Elverskog argues that this story reveals a late-Qing worldview of “the Mongols” as one subjugate component of the (Manchu) Qing state, as opposed to earlier notions of the Manchu (or Jurchen) and other Mongol tribes as various ulus or communities that could make up a toro or state without one ulus necessarily predominating. The story also reveals an attempt to legitimize this late Qing state through claiming Tibetan Buddhist connections at its very origin.

Source:
Johan Elverskog. 2006. Our Great Qing: The Mongols, Buddhists and the State in Late Imperial China. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Entry by Stacey Van Vleet, 3/6/07

Bagha Ba Lama

Bagha Ba Lama

A stele from 1630 refers to Bagha Ba Lama as the junior to Uluk Darhan Nangsu Lama, an important figure in bringing Tibetan Buddhism to the Manchus. Bagha Ba Lama was responsible for seeing through the construction of a stupa to house the relics of Uluk. The building of the stupa had been decreed by the Manchu ruler Nurghaci (who became the first Qing emperor, Taizu) after Uluk’s death in 1622. Uluk had converted Nurghaci to Tibetan Buddhism. Actual construction was delayed, however, due to frequent warfare during Nurghaci’s reign (which ended with his death in 1626), and Uluk’s relics were kept temporarily in a temple in Liao yang converted from the estates of Lieutenant Colonel (cang jiang) Han. In 1630 Bagha Ba Lama convinced Hong Taiji, the second Qing emperor and son of Nurghaci, to begin construction of the stupa in honor of his father’s commitment to the lama and to Tibetan Buddhism.

Tak-Sing Kam argues that because the stele inscription referring to Bagha Ba Lama is not in the Tibetan language, but only Manchu and Chinese that he was probably of Mongolian, not Tibetan, descent. His title appears as Bida, Bide, or Bi Lama in the Mongolian language version of the Qing Veritable Records. Kam notes that the title Bagha Ba, which appears in Manchu sources, should not be confused with the Tibetan title ‘Phags pa. The Mongolian term bagha means “small, young, or lower in rank,” and usually distinguishes a lama from his senior counterpart, as it distinguished Bagha Ba from his master the “Great” (Uluk) Darhan Nangsu Lama (Kam 168n.47, 169).

Source:
Kam, Tak-sing. The dGe-lugs-pa Breakthrough: The Uluk Darxan Nangsu Lama’s Mission to the Manchus. Central Asiatic Journal. 44:2 (2000) p. 161-176.

Entry by Stacey Van Vleet, 3/6/07

The Kangxi Emperor

The Kangxi Emperor

The Kangxi Emperor (May 4, 1654-December 20, 1722) was the fourth emperor of the Manchu Qing dynasty and the second emperor after the capital was moved to Beijing. He ascended the throne at the age of seven. Over a span of 61 years from 1661 to 1722, he became the emperor with the longest reign in Chinese history. During his early reign, the Four Regents, appointed by his father Emperor Shunzhi, were the ones with real power. In 1669 with the help of the Dowager Empress Xiao Zhuang, the Kangxi Emperor began to gain real power and control over the empire.

After the Kangxi Emperor started to rule the empire, he immediately faced three major challenges: the flood of the Yellow River, the repairing of the Grand Canal and the Revolt of the Three Feudatories led by Wu Sangui in 1973. The Kangxi Emperor, though wanting to crush the revolt himself, left the responsibility to his capable generals Zhou Pei Gong and Tu Hai. Later he led the campaign against the Mongol Dzungars.

As for the Ming loyalists in his empire, people that remained loyal to the Ming dynasty and refused to cooperate with and served the Qing dynasty, the Kangxi Emperor commissioned them to compile the Kangxi Dictionary. It could be seen as the Kangxi emperor’s way of involving Ming scholars in an imperial project. Kangxi was also interested in learning western technology and instruments. Hence, he established good relationships with Jesuit missionaries, who brought the western influences to China.

One of the great debates during the Kangxi emperor’s reign is the one regarding his successor. After he twice abolished the succession going to the then Crown Prince, Yinreng, whom Kangxi picked as his successor is still unclear. Yongzheng, the 4th Prince, succeeded. However, many believed that Kangxi actually chose Yinti, the 14th Prince, and that the Yongzheng emperor altered the will to ascend the throne. Who was Kangxi’s intended successor is still an on-going debate.

Entry by Agnes Lin. 03/26/ 2007

user-1541802570

Hong Taiji

Hong Taiji (r. 1626-1643)

Hong Taiji, also known as Abahai, ascended the throne after the death of his father, Nurhaci in 1626 through strategic political manoeuvres among the Jurchen Banners. He consolidated and established the Qing dynasty in 1636 after a series of aggressive campaigns against the Mongols in Inner Asia. Hong Taiji also changed the name of the Jurchens to Manchus, as well as the dynastic name of Later Jin to that of Qing, signifying a break from their Jurchen Jin (1115AD-1134) predecessors who were contented to remain in the Northern parts of China rather than conquering the whole of China. Even though Hong Taiji had proclaimed himself as Emperor (huangdi), indicating his propensity for military expansion and conquest of China, he never saw the Manchu Banners enter Beijing because of his death in 1643.

Hong Taiji, who was part Mongol, followed in his father’s footsteps and continued the patronage of Tibetan Buddhism and set about the precedent for the consolidation of relationship among the Manchus, Tibetans and Mongols through the policy of using Tibetan Buddhism (first through Sa-skya-pa and then the dGe-lugs-pa later on in the dynasty) as a mediator It is likely that both Nurhaci and Hong Taiji did see themselves as Buddhist rulers who tied their source of legitimacy and power to Tibetan Buddhism, especially to Tantric doctrines, as a means of control over the overwhelmingly Tibetan Buddhist Mongol population in Inner Asia. This is most evident after Hong Taiji defeated the Chahar leader, Ligdan Khan; and was presented with the Mahakala statue as a form of tribute. He actively moved the Mahakala statue, a symbolic emblem of Mongol right to rule, to Mukden, in modern day Shenyang and then capital of the Manchus. The Mahakala statue, as the protector deity of the Mongols, represented the lasting patronage of the Mongol aristocracy’s to the Sa skya pa sect of Tibetan Buddhism, thus suggesting Hong Taiji’s continuation of a similar attitude towards Tibetan Buddhism. Hong Taiji initiated the building of the Mahakala Temple in 1635 and later extended the building of the complex in 1643, encircling Mukden and the Mahakala Temple within a mandala with four other temples and adjoining stupas. The project was completed in 1645, after the death of Hong Taiji. The Mahakala statue would later be moved to Beijing after the Manchus captured China and established its capital there. Hong Taiji’s appropriation of the Mahakala statue is seen as the public transfer of authority from the Mongols to the Manchus, as well as claims to the legitimacy of the cakravartin ruler.

Sources:
Crossley, Pamela, 1999. A translucent mirror: history and identity in Qing imperial ideology. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 221-246, 262-273
Rawski, Evelyn, 1998. The last emperors: a social history of Qing imperial institutions. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rulership: 197-201
Grupper, Samuel, 1984. Manchu Patronage and Tibetan Buddhism during the First Half of the Ch’ing Dynasty: a review article. The Journal of the Tibet Society 4:47-74.
Elverskog, Johan, 2006. Our Great Qing: The Mongols, Buddhists and the State in Late Imperial China. Ch3-4, pp. 63-126.

Entry by ShiQi Wu, 3/20/07

user-1541802574

Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje (Changkya Rolpe Dorje)

Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje (Changkya Rolpe Dorje)

Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje (1717-1786) was an important Buddhist figure in the Qing court, a teacher and close associate of the Qianlong emperor and an important intermediary between the court and Inner Asia. Over the course of his career he acted as Qianlong’s main Buddhist translator, tutor, and National Preceptor. He was of Mongour descent, born in Northeastern Tibet and raised for the most part within the imperial court. He was recognized as a reincarnation of the previous Lcang skya lama (1642-1714) in 1720 and taken to court in 1724, after his home monastery was destroyed by Qing troops in response to a rebellion led by Lobjang Danjin. He would also later be identified as an incarnation of ‘Phags pa. At the Yongzheng Emperor’s court, he was educated in close proximity to the boy who would become the Qianlong emperor. This relationship would prove significant in later years, since Rol pa’i rdo rje served as Qianlong’s main Buddhist teacher and advisor in matters related to Buddhism, including art, literature, religious initiations and practices, and diplomacy. His education included training in most of the languages in use under the Qing as well as Buddhist topics suited to his role as a lama.

In 1734 Rol pa’i rdo rje made his first trip to Lhasa when Yongzheng permitted him to accompany the 7th Dalai Lama on his return to the Tibetan capital. This trip gave Rol pa’i rdo rje the opportunity to meet and study with the Dalai Lama as well as to make offerings to Lhasa’s major monasteries and present gifts from the Qing emperor. In 1735 Lcang skya lama traveled to Shigatse, where he met the Panchen Lama Blo bzang ye shes at Tashilhunpo monastery. Lcang skya took the vows of a novice at this time with the Panchen Lama, who gave him a new Dharma name, Ye shes bstan pa’i sgron me. A few days later he took the vows of a fully ordained monk, under the supervision of the Panchen Lama and other major lamas. When Yongzheng died in 1736, Lcang skya gave up his plans to stay on and study under the Panchen Lama and had to return to Beijing. The Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama offered religious statues and other significant gifts as parting presents.

When Lcang skya arrived in Beijing, the new emperor, his childhood peer the Qianlong, named him chief administrative lama in Beijing. Early in his career as administrator, Lcang skya urged the emperor to grant disputed border areas to the Dalai Lama. While the emperor refused to grant the land, he did follow Lcang skya’s advice in part, by granting the Dalai Lama a yearly allowance of five thousand taels (taken from the Dajianlu revenue). After the internal political tensions in Lhasa came to a climax in 1751 (with the execution of the secular leader ‘Gyur med rnam rgyal), Qianlong named the Dalai Lama the political and religious leader of Tibet. Lcang skya’s biographer Thu’u bkwan asserts that this significant decision was largely due to Lcang skya’s advice.

After the death of the 7th Dalai Lama, the Qianlong sent Lcang skya on a second mission to Lhasa. There was debate among Tibetan officials over whether the new Dalai Lama’s regent, De mo, would have both religious and secular power. The bka’ blon or cabinet members aimed to take over secular control and let the Dalai Lama manage religious matters. Lcang skya advised the emperor to entrust De mo with full religious and secular authority in order to avoid conflict among the cabinet members. The emperor granted De mo religious authority and relied on the ambans to limit the power of the lay elite cabinet members. In 1757, Lcang skya departed for Lhasa again, this time with a large entourage including a minister, several officials, and two Imperial physicians. During this stay, Lcang skya performed various religious and political tasks for the emperor, keeping the Qianlong apprised of the situation in various Inner Asian locales, as far west as Ladakh. He was closely involved with identifying the 8th Dalai Lama and wrote the 7th Dalai lama’s biography. At the same time, Lcang skya studied under major lamas, most significantly the Panchen Lama. In 1779, Lcang skya arranged for the Panchen Lama to undertake a trip to Beijing to celebrate the Qianlong’s birthday. A monastery modeled after Tashilhunpo was built in Jehol in honor of the visit. During the Panchen Lama’s visit Lcang skya performed religious and diplomatic functions such as instructing the lama on how to approach the emperor and translating Dharma teachings between the two. The Panchen Lama contracted smallpox and passed away during this visit.

Lcang skya’s work as a translator was by no means limited to oral translations – he also oversaw the creation of (Mongolian, Tibetan, Manchu, Chinese, and Chagatay language) dictionaries and translations of Buddhist teachings in textual form. As a Buddhist administrator in Beijing, he played an important role in founding Yonghegong, a monastic college for Mongol, Manchu, and Chinese monks. Like Wutaishan, this college combined an Imperial palace and a Tibetan Buddhist monastery. He was also instrumental in developing the systems of iconography, cataloguing, and inscribing that would prove so important to the Qianlong’s projects in Buddhist art.

Sources:
Berger, Patricia. Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China.
Tuttle, Gray. Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China.
Wang Xiangyun. The Qing Court’s Tibet Connection: Lcang skya Rolpa’i rdo rje and the Qianlong Emperor.

Entry by Dominique Townsend

user-1541802581

Nurhaci

Nurghaci / Nurhaci-Qing Taizu

Nurhaci 努爾哈赤 (1558-1626), a member of the Gioro clan of the Suksuhu River tribe, became the national founder after he consolidated the Manchu tribes, declared himself Khan in 1616 and founded the Jin dynasty, which later ruled China as the Qing dynasty.

Starting from 1583, Nurhaci began unifying the Jurchen bands. He beheaded Nikan Wailan, the Jurchen chieftain who killed his father and grandfather. In 1618, Nurhaci commissioned a document, the Seven Great Vexations, enumerating seven grievances against the Ming. It acted as a pretext for his rebelling against the Ming dynasty. Throughout his life, he led many successful military campaigns against the Ming dynasty, the Koreans, the Mongols and the Jurchen clans.

Sometime before 1621, due to the growing influence of Buddhism, Nurhaci appointed his lama, the Olug Darhan Nagso, as Dharma master of the Manchu realm. This instance marked the beginning of the Manchu imperial patronage of the Tibetan Buddhism. His most important achievement was probably the creation and organization of the Eight Banners system, which formed the strong military backbone throughout the Qing dynasty.

In 1625, just a year before his death, Nurhaci moved the capital to Shenyang and depended on the help of his Chinese officials to develop a civil administration. In 1626, he was seriously wounded during the battle against the Ming general Yuan Chonghuan in Ningyuan. He died 2 days later.

Sources:
· The Columbia Encyclopedia, Six Edition. 2001-05. Samuel M. Grupper. 1984. Manchu Patronage and Tibetan Buddhism during the First Half of the Ch’ing ‘
Dynasty: a review article. The Journal of the Tibet Society 4:47-74. pp.27

Entry by Agnes Lin. 3/6/07

user-1541802585

Olug Darhan Nangso

Olug Darhan Nangso (Uluk Darhan Nangsu)

Olug Darhan Nangso was the title given to a Tibetan missionary monk whose name remains unknown. Although existing sources omit information regarding his religious sect, he is thought to be of the dGe lugs pa school and sent from Tibet to missionize in Mongolia. The title of “Olug,” which means “great” is derived from Turko-Mongolian cognates and was likely due to his proselytizing efforts in Mongolia. “Darhan” is a Mongolian title meaning “One who does not pay taxes”—a status granted to some lamas and princes. “Nangso” is also a Yuan-period title that had devolved into a position of local authority. His missionary efforts took place within the context of a larger dGe lugs pa eastward drive in search of a new powerful patron to offset the bKa’ rgyud in Tibet.

The head of the dGe lugs pas, bSod nams rgya mtsho (aka the 3rd Dalai Lama) met and converted Altan Khan, ruler of the Tumed Mongols, in 1578. Altan Khan’s conversion to the dGe lugs pa sect can be seen as part of a broader attempt to subvert his nominal superiors, the Chakhar Mongols, who had cultivated relationships with the Sa skya pas, and who were allied with the declining Ming against the new Manchu state. Altan Khan bestowed the title of “Dalai Lama” on bSod nams rgya mtsho while the Dalai Lama recognized the khan as “Protector of the Faith.” The 3rd Dalai Lama later established relationships with the Khorchin Mongol leader in 1588 where he gave the Khorchin leader a Hevajra empowerment and consecrated the establishment of a monastic community. After bSod nams rgya mtsho’s death in 1588, the fourth Dalai Lama was recognized as a descendent of Altan Khan and several other Mongol infants were recognized as reincarnations of Tibetan Buddhist lamas.

Olug Darhan Nangso was sent to this region in the early 17th century, where dGe lugs pas had gained a foothold, and proselytized under the patronage of the Khorchin Mongols. It remains unclear how he established contact with the founder of the new Manchu state, Nurhaci (r. 1616–26), in Mukden. According to some accounts, Nurhaci extended an invitation upon hearing about the Olug’s fame. Other sources record that it was the Olug who came to Nurhaci on his own accord after hearing about Nurhaci’s generosity and fame. The first recorded visit took place in 1621, which is perhaps the first direct contact between the Manchus and the Tibetans. During this visit, the Olug successfully converted Nurhaci and gave him an empowerment. In return, Nurhaci appointed him as the dynastic preceptor of the Manchu state and granted him jurisdiction over Lianhua si, a reconsecrated temple from Tang times located outside the capital at Liaoyang. In addition, Nurhaci endowed Lianhua si with property and workers, which was called Lama Yuan.

The Olug died in 1622, just three months after his arrival in Mukden. Nurhaci ordered the construction of a reliquary stupa, however this was delayed due to warfare. Finally in 1630, at the insistence of the Olug’s junior, Baga Ba Lama, Hong Taiji, Nurhaci’s son and successor, began the construction of the stupa. Additionally, two stelae were erected at this site in 1630 and 1658. The stelae were bilingually inscribed in Chinese and Manchu. The 1630 stele records that the Olug came from Wu ssu tsang (dBus gTsang) as a missionary, converted and initiated emperor Nurhaci, and was endowed with the Lama Yuan by Nurhaci. The 1658 stele recounts that Nurhaci had invited the Olug and additionally documents the transfer of the Mahakala statue to Mukden in 1638. This important Mahakala statue was originally offered at Wutai Shan and placed in Xixia lands by Phags pa, and later brought to the ruler of the Chakhars, Ligdan, by Shar pa Qutugtu. After the defeat of the Chakhars by Hong Taiji, Mergen Lama brought the image to Mukden where it was enshrined in the Shishengsi, which was completed in 1638 at the order of Hongtaiji, just west of the city. Such an act physically appropriated a relic of Khubilai Khan, who later Qing emperors claimed descent from.

Despite what little remains known about Olug Darhan Nangso, his significance lies in his role in establishing the relationship between the dGe lugs pa and the Manchus at a time when the dGe lugs pas were seeking a powerful patron in their sectarian struggles in Tibet, and the Manchus were seeking allies in their struggles against other Mongol tribes, particularly the Chakhars, as well as against the Chinese Ming. The Mongols had revived the lama-patron relationship in the late 16th century as a means to expand their political authority. In the Manchus’ quest for consolidating power over Mongol and other groups, Tibetan Buddhism may have been one of various means of winning the allegiance of these groups, although the significance of its role within this project remains disputed.

Sources:
Evelyn S. Rawski. 1998. The last emperors: a social history of Qing imperial institutions. Berkeley: University of California Press. 244-262.
Samuel M. Grupper. 1984. Manchu Patronage and Tibetan Buddhism during the First Half of the Ch’ing Dynasty: a review article. The Journal of the Tibet Society 4:47-74.
Kam, Tak-sing. The dGe-lugs-pa Breakthrough: The Uluk Darxan Nangsu Lama’s Mission to the Manchus. Central Asiatic Journal. 44:2 (2000) p. 161-176.
Johan Elverskog. 2006. Our Great Qing: The Mongols, Buddhists and the State in Late Imperial China. pp. 14-16, 63-126.

Entry by Eveline S. Yang 3/5/2007

The Shunzi Emperor

Shizu/The Shunzhi Emperor/Fulin (also Shih-tsu and Shun-chih)

During his time as emperor, Hong Taiji’s son Fulin was known as the Qing Shizu or the Shunzhi Emperor (1638-1661, r. 1644-1661). He was the third Manchu emperor, following Emperor Taizong (r. 1626-43). In 1653 he received the Fifth Dalai Lama in Peking and 20th century sources claim that he publicly demonstrated his support of Tibetan Buddhism during the Dalai Lama’s visit. The Dalai Lama is sometimes said to have presented Shunzhi with a golden plate that said, “ God of the Sky, Manjughosha-Emperor and Great Being” (Tib. Gnam gyi lha ‘jam dbyangs gong ma bdag po chen po) although this has not yet been confirmed by Qing sources. The Chinese monk Ngag dbang blo bzang whom the Shunzhi emperor appointed to oversee Wutaishan in 1660 requested the composition of one of the earliest examples of books printed in China for the Mongols. In this guidebook to Wutaishan, called Uta-yin tabun agulan-u orosil susugten-u cikin cimeg, the Qing emperor is referred to as the “reincarnation of Manjushri.” Shunzhi was also posthumously referred to as the “sublime Manjusri Shunzhi” in the first Lcang-skya Qutugtu’s biography written by Ngag dbang chos ldan in 1729. In addition to and perhaps surpassing his connections with Tibetan Buddhists, he was closely affiliated with Chan monks, some of whom lived in the imperial palace during his reign.

Sources:
Crossley, Pamela. 1999. A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Farquhar, David. 1978. “Emperor as Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Ch’ing Empire,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 38 (1): 5-34.

user-1541802626

The Yongzheng Emperor

Qing Shizong/Yinzhen (The Yongzheng Emperor)

The Yongzheng emperor (r. 1723–35) was the son of the Kangxi emperor (r. 1661-1722), and the father of the Qianlong emperor (r. 1735-96). The period of the 18th century was significant in establishing the relationship between the emperors and their bureaucracies, while marginalizing the power of the aristocracy. Despite his short reign, the Yongzheng emperor’s greatest contribution was consolidating the power of the monarch within the bureaucracy, thus ending the serious threats to power posed by the Manchu princes. He ran his own intelligence and command network and adapted a military command office called the “Grand Council” to streamline control over many areas of governance. Historical studies point to the existence of two court bureaucracies, those of an “inner” and “outer,” which continued under the Qianlong reign. The “outer” bureaucracy was found in the statutes of empire, which were resurrected from the Ming, while the “inner” bureaucracy was a series of extra-statutory innovations that preserved a direct line of imperial power against that of the bureaucracy.

As seen in previous dynasties, religion and ideology played important roles in the ruling of empire. Numerous historical studies on the Qing era have shown their willingness to entertain and employ different religious and ideological frameworks for their diverse polities. The Yongzheng emperor’s contributions to Buddhism and Confucianism may be viewed in the context of an ongoing struggle between court literati as well as the emperor to define the basic tenets of emperorship, and thus the normative interpretations of different ideologies. Thought to be partial to Chan Buddhism, the Yongzheng emperor established a Buddhist publishing house and prepared a nineteen-volume anthology of what he regarded as model Buddhist writings in Chinese, entitled Yu xuan yu lu (御选语录) in 1732. He also showed support for Tibetan Buddhism by donating the Yonghegong Monastery to the dGe lugs pa sect in 1722 (in which his son, the Qianlong emperor was born). While the Qing emperors were generally hesitant to proclaim themselves as Buddhist kings or reincarnations, especially to their Chinese constituents, an inscription erected in 1744 by the Qianlong emperor honors his father by hinting that his father achieved buddhahood, not through reincarnation, but through his own spiritual piety.

The widely-distributed, multilingual “Sacred Edicts,” Shengyu guangxun (圣谕广训) of 1724 may be an example of the Yongzheng emperor’s attempt to negotiate and align the diverse ideologies of his empire. It contained the imperially-sanctioned view of universal doctrines of state, society, and morals, which were to be taught to and obeyed by all subjects in the empire. The famous “Lecture on Heterodox Doctrines” (VII) in the Chinese version, states:

From ancient times, three religions have continued in propagation, that is, the school of Confucianism and besides this, those of Taoism and Buddhism. The philosopher Zhu Xi says that Buddhism does not bother with the material universe but considers only the subject of the mind, and that Taoism merely aims at the preservation of the spiritual essence of man. This fair statement from Zhu Xi clarifies the fundamental objects of Buddhism and Taoism. But a class of loafers, with neither livelihood nor abode, has since come forth to usurp the name of these religions and corrupt the practical use of the same…

However, the Mongolian version points out that this clarification of the roles of Buddhism and Taoism targets Chinese Buddhism and pre-Buddhist religions, demonstrating the use of language in the filtering of imperial communications.

Of note is the reference to Zhu Xi (1130-1200), whose Confucian ideologies were declared “orthodox” by the Yuan in 1313 in response to petitions from Chinese literati. Zhu Xi’s attraction as an imperial ideology may be found in his rhetorical “dualism” that enabled a construction, upon moral grounds, of a subject-object relationship between the emperor and his domain. However, Zhu Xi’s claim that any person endeavoring toward and achieving sagehood could become such a moral ruler was contested particularly by Qianlong. This reflected the differing views on rulership held by the Kangxi, Yongzheng and Qianlong emperors. The Yongzheng emperor promoted the idea of emperorship as found in the “Great Righteousness Resolving Confusion” where civilization was absolute and the emperor was the personal embodiment of civilization. The goal of the ruler was the erosion of cultural differences and achievement of a morally correct world. However, the Qianlong emperor later repudiated this view, putting forth his own emphasis on the identity of the emperor as absolute, not civilization. In this framework, the emperor was the single consciousness that transcended all civilizations and the goal of ruler was the clarification of cultural differences, which would confirm the universal competence of the emperor.

Sources:

Pamela Kyle Crossley.1992. The Rulerships of China. The American historical review, 1468-1483.
David Farquhar . 1978. Emperor as Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Ch’ing Empire. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 38 (1): 5-34.
Pamela Kyle Crossley.1999. A translucent mirror: history and identity in Qing imperial ideology. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 221-246, 262-273.

Entry by Eveline S. Yang 3/20/07