Tag: architecture

Posted on

Qutan si

Qutansi/ Gro tshang lha khang

Qutan si (瞿曇寺), located in Ledu county in Qinghai Province, was founded by Sangs rgyas bkra shis in 1392. Due to its location connecting the northwest Ming edge and the eastern border of one Tibetan province of Amdo, Qutan si reflects both Chinese and Tibetan influences. However, Qutan si was largely dependent on the Ming imperial sponsorship. In 1392, Emperor Taizu of Ming dynasty bestowed a horizontal inscribed board with the three characters, Qutan si, on the temple. Qutan si did not undergo major construction and expansion until the 15th century when the Yongle Emperor appointed Sangs rgyas bkra shis’ nephew, dPal ldan bkra shis, abbot of Qutan si. Especially during the reigns of Hongxi (1425) and Xuande (1426-1435), Qutan si underwent major expansions. In 1782, the Qianlong Emperor of Qing solicited contributions to repair Qutan si. In 1944, an earthquake caused serious damage, and several halls in Qutan si were later repaired. Today Qutan si is the most well-preserved architecture from the Ming dynasty in Qinghai Province. In 1982, it was listed into the group of Historical and Cultural Relics under State protection.

Qutan si occupies an area of approximately 270,000 square meters. It is divided into three sections: the outer court, the front court and the back court. From the point of the entrance, there lie Jingang dian 金剛殿, Qutan dian瞿曇殿, Baoguang dian寶光殿 (Hall of Blazing Jewel Light) and Longguo dian 隆國殿 (Hall of Dynastic Prosperity) respectively. On the sides, there are Yubei ting御碑亭, Hufa dian護法殿, the murals gallery壁畫廊, Zuoyou Xiaojing tang左右小經堂, and four stupas四座鎮煞佛塔, etc.

The Jingang dian is located between the front court and the central court. It was constructed during Qing dynasty and occupies an area of 160 square meters.

Qutan dian is located at the center of the temple covering an area of 300 square meters. It was built during the reign of Hongzu and reconstructed during the Qianlong period of Qing. Inside of Qutan dian, there are paintings of Buddha done during the Ming-Qing period. The horizontal inscribed board bestowed by Emperor Taizu is hung above its front door.

Baoguang dian, constructed during the reign of Yongle, is located in the back of the central court, occupying an area of 500 square meters. The tallest hall in Qutan si is the Longuo dian in the very back. It is 16 meters tall and occupies an area of 1,000 square meters.
The most valuable paintings inside of Quan si are the murals on both sides of the covered gallery. There are 51 rooms in total, with images depicting the life of Sakyamuni Buddha. The artistic style indicates the synthesis of both Chinese and Tibetan influences. However, “Chinese brushwork, heavy colors and blue-green landscape styles” predominate.

Emperor Taizu of Ming played a crucial role in strengthening the importance and influence of Qutan si. The subsequent rulers followed his example and paid much attention to it. In the Ming dynasty, Qutan si was important in bridging the relations between the Ming court and the upper class in Qinghai Province and between the Han Chinese and Tibetans.

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

Entry by Agnes Lin, 2/27/07

Posted on

Zhuo Zhou

Zhuo Zhou 涿州

Zhuo Zhou, located north of the Zhu River, was the site of a Mahakala temple built at the request of ‘Phags pa (1235–80) in 1276. ‘Phags pa assigned the famous Nepalese artist, Anige (阿尼哥) (1244–1318) to direct the construction of the temple, the structure of which was identical with the Qian Yuan (乾元) temple in Shangdu (上都), which Anige had built in 1274. The statue of Mahakala housed inside faced south. ‘Phags pa consecrated the temple himself and later appointed Dampa (1230–1303) as the temple’s abbot. This temple dedicated to Mahakala was built as part of a larger initiative to support the Yuan in their conquest of the Southern Song. Specifically, it was built to guarantee the success of chancellor Bayan Baharidai (1236–95) in his campaign against the remaining Southern Song forces in the Jiangnan area, which resulted in victory in the same year of the building of the temple.


Source:

Weirong, Shen. 2004. Magic Power, Sorcery and Evil Spirit: The Image of Tibetan Monks in Chinese Literature during the Yuan Dynasty. In Christoph Cüppers, Ed. The Relationship between Religion and State (chos srid zung ‘brel) in Traditional Tibet. Lumbini International Research Institute: Lumbini. pp. 202–04.

Entry by Eveline S. Yang, 4/24/07

user-1541794741

Posted on

Juyong Guan

Juyong Guan 居庸关

The Juyong Gate was constructed between 1343–45 at the orders of the last Mongol emperor, Xundi (1333–67). According to its inscriptions, Dynastic Preceptor Nam mkha’ seng ge, a Tibetan lama of the Sa skya lineage, presided over the planning and construction of the gate and stupas, which were consecrated upon completion by Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po (1333–58), one of the last Imperial Preceptors, also a Tibetan lama of the Sa skya lineage. Inscriptions also state that the emperor ordered its construction “in order to bring happiness to the people who pass under the stupas and receive thus the Buddha’s blessing.” See images here.

The Juyong Gate was built at a strategic pass just south of the Great Wall and northwest of Beijing. The arched gate was originally built as a base for three stupas (which disappeared and were replaced with wooden pavilions by 1448), and the architecture of the structure was in the Tibetan style. Stupa-arches were a completely Tibetan architectural form, introduced to China via the Mongols during the Yuan dynasty, and served the same function as they did in Tibet, standing at the entrance to important cities. The Juyong Gate may have been one of four planned gates intended to guard the four directions of the capital.

The arched passageway is carved with relief images that represent a highly developed state of lamaist art, which some link to the tradition established by Anige (1243–1306), the influential Nepalese artist invited to Khubilai’s court at the suggestion of ‘Phags pa in 1260. Prominent among the carved reliefs are images of the guardians of the four directions as well as mandalas of the five meditation buddhas, each of whom are associated with one of five directions (four directions and the center). The depiction of cosmological symbols based on four and five directions seem to be a reflection of the Mongol adoption of an originally Indian cosmology (four-directional) as well as a Chinese cosmology (five-directional). The idea that the Mongol rulers were guardian kings ruling over different directions (displaced onto actual geographies) was one of many religious conceptual models used to legitimate Mongol dominance.

The most significant aspect about the gate is its use of the above cosmological imagery together with inscriptions in five languages (Chinese, Mongol, Tangut, Tibetan, and Sanskrit) that posthumously articulate the divine nature of Khubilai Khan. Although the multilingual inscriptions differ subtly in content from each other, the Mongol inscription has been interpreted as elevating Khubilai Khan as a reincarnation of Manjushri, the resident bodhisattva of Mount Wutai in China. Such an identification of an emperor with Manjushri was unprecedented (and not mentioned in Chinese inscriptions due to incompatibility of the concept of reincarnation with Chinese Confucian sensibilities) and signaled a first step toward the role that Mongol emperors would later take as reincarnations of Manjushri/Manjusri. This use of the Tibetan concept of reincarnation together with the association of Manjushri with China (where the Mongol rulers resided) cleverly solidified Mongol legitimacy as religious authorities. Its significance as a religious-political model continued beyond the fall of the Yuan dynasty and was eventually passed onto the Qing.


Sources：

Patricia Berger. Preserving the Nation: The Political Uses of Tantric Art in China. In Later Days of the Law: Images of Chinese Buddhism 850–1850. Lawrence: Spencer Museum of Art, University of Kansas. 1994. pp. 103–07.
Heather Karmay. Early Sino-Tibetan Art. Aris and Phillips. 1975. pp. 21–27.
Franke, From Tribal Chieftains to Universal Emperor and God p. 64–72

Entry by Eveline S. Yang, 2/06/07