Tag: art

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

Shenyang (Mukden) Mahakala Complex

Mahakala complex in Mukden (nowadays, Shenyang, Chin.: 沈阳)

The Mahakala complex is located in Mukden, nowadays Shenyang in northeast China. The Mahakala complex consists of one major temple and four branch temples and adjunct stupas. The Mahakala temple (Shisheng si 实胜寺) was completed in 1638, while the four branch temples and adjunct stupas, set at the compass points, were built from 1643-45 to house four other deities. The stupas are the Rnam par snang ba’i lha khang, the Thugs rje chen po’i lha khang, the Tshe dpag med mgon gyi lha khang, and the Dus kyi ‘kho lo’i lha khang. The construction of the Mahakala complex represents the Buddhist cosmological order celebrated at Abahai’s succession as cakravartin, legitimized the Manchu’s dynasty, which put Mukden, the then capital of Manchu’s state, under the protection of Mahakala.

Mahakala is a seven-armed warlike deity known as a Protector of the Law (in Buddhist sense). Mahakala was particularly important for Mongols at that time and signified the sovereignty. That Hungtaiji embraced the Mahakala cult was crucial in terms of incorporating Mongols into the realm of Manchu state. It is worth noting that by adopting the notion of sovereignty, which was originally created by Mongols, Hungtaiji successfully legitimated the Manchu state.

The Yuan image of Mahakala housed at the complex was later transported from Mukden to Peking by Emperor Kangxi in 1694, where it became part of a new temple complex in the southeast corner of the Imperial City (south of the present-day Donghuamen).

However, what is intriguing about the patronage granted by the rulers of Manchu to Tibetan Buddhism is that, prior to the Qianlong reign, the rulers of Manchu dynasty did not only maintain relations with the Sa skya pa cult, but also kept relations with other cults as well. What should be kept in mind is that a number of Manchu rulers patronized other cults of Tibetan Buddhism while this magnificent temple complex was constructed. The Mahakala cult was closely related to the Sa skya pa cult exclusively.

Sources:

Crossley, Pamela Kyle, A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology, U.C.P., 1999
Crupper, Samuel M, Manchu Patronage and Tibetan Buddhism during the First Half of the Ch’ing Dynasty, The Journal of the Tibet Society, Vol.4, 1984
Rawski, Evelyn S, The Last Emperors: A social history of Qing imperial institutions UC.P., 1998

Entry by Lan Wu 03/13/07

Posted on

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

Posted on

Zanabazar Jebtsundamba Khutuktu

Zanabazar, the first Jebtsundamba Khutukhtu (Jetsun Dampa Khutuktu)

Zanabazar (1635-1723) was the initial incarnation of the Urga or Jebtsundamba (rje btsun dam pa) lineage of the western Outer Mongolian (Khalkha) monastery Erdeni Zuu. Recognized by the Fifth Dalai Lama when he was twenty-five, Zanabazar later held a close relationship with the Kangxi emperor and is credited with convincing the Khalkha Mongols to submit to the Qing empire – and not to culturally alien Russia – around 1691.[[#_ftn1|[1]]] After this, Kangxi bestowed upon Zanabazar the title “Da Lama,” and in turn the lama alluded to their reenactment of Khubilai Khan and Phakpa’s close relationship during the Yuan dynasty. In addition to his spiritual and political roles, Zanabazar was renowned in his own time up to the present for the intricate and elegant sculpture he created in a Nepali-derived style.

In 1639, at the age of fifteen, Zanabazar (son of the Khalkha Tshuyetu Khan Gombodorji) was accepted as an incarnate lama by a convocation of Khalkha nobles at Erdeni Zuu. The Khalkha Khan may have been trying to usurp some of the power of the Gelugpa (dge lugs pa) sect, and at the same time circumvent a potential alliance between the Tibetans and the newly founded Qing dynasty. The boy was sent to Tibet for recognition by the Dalai Lama in 1649, and he received many initiations and teachings over the next year from the Great Fifth and from the Fourth Panchen Lama Lobsang Chokyi Gyaltsen (blo bzang chos skyid rgyal mtshan). The Dalai Lama also gave Zanabazar the title Jebtsundamba Khutukhtu and recognized him as the reincarnation of Taranatha (1575-1634), a Jonangpa (jo nang pa) missionary lama who had traveled widely in Inner Mongolia and rivaled Gelugpa influence in the region. This recognition had astute political consequences. Besides transferring all the merit accumulated by Taranatha in Tibet and Mongolia to Zanabazar (and the Gelugpa), the Fifth Dalai Lama was also able to incorporate Taranatha’s monastery in Tibet, the center of the Jonangpa, Puntsokling (phun tshogs gling). The Great Fifth then “renovated” this monastery with murals by Nepali artists, thus materially inscribing there his ambition. Zanabazar did not preside over Puntsokling, however, but returned instead to Khalkha in the company of fifty painters and bronze casters (commanding both Nepali and Tibetan styles) to build a stupa for Taranatha’s remains, and to establish a new Gelugpa stronghold at Erdeni Zuu.

Zanabazar also never took up permanent residence at his seat of Erdeni Zuu, however, which was the largest stationary monastery of its time. His real establishment was in fact a traveling one; called orgoo (or in Russian, Urga) or Da Khuree or Ikh Khuree, which in Mongolian means Great Circle. With his traveling entourage, Zanabazar worked to carry out the proselytizing mission of the Gelugpas, especially the Fifth Dalai Lama. On the other hand, the Dalai Lama and Jetsundamba Khutukhtu sometimes acted like rival lords, investing, entitling, and providing seals for Mongol Khans, arbitrating disputes between the Khans, and – like emperors and Khans – receiving and dispatching embassies and commanding populations and sometimes even armies. Zanabazar’s Da Khuree ranged over at least seventeen different locations and five hundred kilometers between the mid-seventeenth and eighteenth century. The decoration of the lama’s roving temples reveals some of the techniques he employed towards his proselytizing and diplomatic ends, through his deep engagement with the elaborate artistic traditions and ritualism of his day. His tents were rich with painting, sculpture, textile hangings, and ritual objects created in his workshop. Zanabazar is also said to have composed ceremonial music and designed monks’ costumes and rituals, based on what he had seen at the Panchen Lama’s monastery Tashilunpo (bkra shis lhun po). His famous Nepali-influenced bronze sculptures are said to have been “created” at the unlikely place of Tovghuun, his retreat center on the outskirts of Erdeni Zuu. Patricia Berger argues that this reference mostly likely means that Zanabazar visualized the sculptures during meditation retreat after receiving various spiritual transmissions of texts (he was especially associated with Tara and Vajrapani), and that their later execution took place with the help of his artisan entourage. Actual production sites were spread over a wide geographic swath, unsurprisingly also linking sites of Zanabazar’s diplomatic and missionary endeavors: Beijing, Chengde, Dolonnor, Inner Mongolian Koke qota, and Amdo. Bronzes were sent to the court of the Kangxi emperor around 1655, and Zanabazar is also said to have produced sculptures in metal and gemstones while visiting Beijing in 1691. Continuing the tradition of Nepali-style artistry at the imperial court begun by Anige during the Yuan period, Zanabazar’s bronzes profoundly influenced Qing art.

Zanabazar’s visit to Beijing in 1691 came at a politically significant moment. The lama had just convinced the Khalkhas to submit to the Qing empire at Dolonnor, siding with the Kangxi emperor against the Western Mongolian Dzungars. Forging closer ties with the Manchu emperor – there is a story that Kangxi attempted to test the lama when he first arrived, but that Zanabazar revealed these tricks and also delighted the emperor with displays of his powers – Zanabazar again visited Beijing in 1721 to participate in Kangxi’s birthday celebrations. When the emperor passed away soon afterwards, Zanabazar came once more to conduct rituals for his death at Beijing’s Yellow Monastery (Huang si 黃寺). The lama passed away himself in Beijing only a few months later, in 1723. His body was sent back to Mongolia and mummified. Kangxi’s son, the Yongzheng emperor, ordered a Chinese-style monastery dedicated to Zanabazar’s main tutelary deity, Maitreya, to be built at the place where the lama’s traveling Da Khuree had stood at the moment of the his death. This monastery, called Amur-Bayasqulangtu or “Monastery of Blessed Peace,” resembles Yongzheng’s own palace Yonghegong in Beijing (converted by his son the Qianlong emperor into a Buddhist monastery). The monastery’s sophisticated construction in such a remote location – north of the modern city of Darkhan, near the northern Outer Mongolian border – demonstrates the far reach of the Qing empire in the early eighteenth century. Yongzheng pledged 100,000 liang of silver to the monastery’s construction, which was not completed until a year after his own death in 1736. Zanabazar’s body finally found its way there in 1779 (the project thus spanning three different reign periods), and remained at the monastery until being carried off and lost during the revolution in Mongolia of 1920s and 1930s.

Sources:
Patricia Berger. 2003. Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China. University of Hawai’i Press.
Sabine Dabringhaus. 1997. “Chinese Emperors and Tibetan Monks: Religion as an Instrument of Rule,” in China and her neighbours. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag.
James L. Hevia. 1995. “A multitude of lords: The Qing Empire, Manchu rulership and interdomainal relations,” in Cherishing men from afar: Qing guest ritual and the Macartney embassy of 1793. Durham N.C.: Duke University Press.
Wang Xiangyun. 2000. “The Qing court’s Tibet connection: Lcang skya Rol pa’I rdo rje and the Qianlong Emperor.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 60 (1): 125-163.

Entry by Stacey Van Vleet, 3/28/07

[[#_ftnref1|[1]]] The date of this event is contested; it is variously cited as 1688, 1691, or 1693.

Posted on

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

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

Fahai si

Fahai si (法海寺)

The construction of Fahaisi took five years and was completed in 1443AD under the patronage of an influential eunuch Li Tong. The temple is located on Mount Cuiwei in the Shijingshan district in the western suburbs of Beijing which was the capital of both the Yuan and Ming dynasties. Since the Yingshan Bureau of Ministory of Public Works (Yingshansuofu) was associated with construction of the temple, it resembled other official constructions and is believed to have had some importance in the court. It is possible that Fahaisi may have been built as a shengsi, a temple used to perform memorial rites for eunuchs who did not have any family members to do so after their passing. Much of the temple was destroyed during the Cultural Revolution but the remains suggests that the temple was constructed in the classic Chinese template imitating the construction of the Chinese imperial palace which had the buildings arranged on a central axis, sitting north and facing south.

The importance of the temple lies in its close ties with Tibetan Buddhism and the use of Tibetan imagery on the walls of the temple. Since Li Tong served as the Director of Imperial Accoutrements for the Yongle and Zhengtong Emperors, he was influenced by his patrons’ interest and their devotion to Tibetan Buddhism which was evident in their great displays of religious rituals and meetings with Tibetan clerics. He also had direct access and control of the building of the temple and there was strong evidence of his own personal following of the Buddhist cult. Only the Mahavira Hall survived the Cultural Revolution, and it can be divided into 3 basic sections. Flanking the sides of the north wall are Indra and Brahma dressed in typical Ming Court attire at a royal procession. The side walls were painted with the Buddhas of the Ten Directions and their eight bodhisattva attendants floating above a royal garden, which served as the background for the sculptures of the Eighteen Arhats. On three panels at the back of the rear alter screen are paintings of Water-moon Guanyin, Samantabhadra and Manjusri, all of which were common themes used during the construction of Ming temples. Moreover, usage of certain techniques such as the placement of figures and the re-use of common forms imply a court workshop production. From photos before the revolution, the eighteen Arhats were once lined in the east and west walls of Mahavira Hall and a wooden Mahakala statue was placed among them. The Mahakala statue was the protector of the Yuan dynasty and one of the important deities in the pantheon of gods within Tibetan Buddhism. The ceiling have 3 large mandala, located at the center is Vairocana, to the right, Bhaisajyaguru, and to the left, Amitabha. These are all linked to Tibetan mortuary liturgy and artistically reflect a Newar- Tibetal model.

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

Entry by ShiQi Wu, 26th Feb 2007

user-1541797070

Posted on

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

Posted on

Zhufopusa

Zhufopusa miaoxiang minghao jingzhou 诸佛菩萨妙相名号经咒(The Marvellous Images, Names, Sutras and Dharanis of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas)

The Zhufopusa miaoxiang minghao jingzhou is a two-volume collection of popular Buddhist texts and illustrations of 60 divinities of the Mahayana pantheon. It was printed in Beijing in 1431, during the Xuande reign period, by a donor who, by his name, appears to have been a Chinese Buddhist monk: Xiujishanzhu, or “he who dwells in cultivating Buddhism and storing up merit.”

The texts are of Chinese format and the preface, colophons, and selected texts are printed in four scripts: Chinese, Lantsa, Tibetan, and Mongolian. Most of the sutras, dharanis, and other texts are given in Chinese only; Chinese comprises the dominant language of the work as a whole. There are several interesting details regarding the two volumes. One is that, unlike the Juyong Gate, the content of the transcriptions in four scripts are parallel, though not identical. Another is the use of Chinese phonetic transcriptions of Tibetan names, along with the Chinese version of each name. Yet another is the use of the distinctly Tibetan Buddhist “refuge in the teacher” (in addition to the usual three: Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha) at the beginning of the Sutra of the names of the thirty-five Buddhas (San shi wu fo ming jing).

The stylistic features found in the images of 60 divinities, while not exemplary in technique, are linked to the Yongle bronzes and the images found in the Yongle Kanjur, and hint at the beginnings of the later lamaist style produced in Qing China in the 17th and 18th centuries. The designs found in the Shakyamuni-Manjushri-Avalokiteshvara triad at the beginning of the 60 divinities are similar to those found in the Kharakhoto paintings, the Xixia Tripitaka, the Jisha Tripitaka, the Yongle bronzes, and the sculptures and frescoes of central and western Tibet. Such linkages reflect not only the influence of the lamaist style as established by Anige under the Yuan, but also the influence of the contemporary style in central and western Tibet, which was facilitated by the environment of exchange during that period.

According to the Chinese colophon, this collection of Buddhist texts and divinities were transmitted from De bzhin gshegs pa, the 5th Karmapa (1348-1415), to the donor. In fact, De bzhin gshegs pa is included as the only human among the sixty divinities depicted; he appears after the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, and before the female divinities. Also notable is that in a list of Tathagatas and bodhisattvas in the second volume, he is again mentioned by many different titles, but among these titles is that of the Da bao fa wang, or the Great Precious Dharma King. This is a title the Yongle emperor bestowed on him in an attempt to re-establish an alliance with the Tibetans reminiscent of the Yuan-era (but an alliance that the 5th Karmapa rejected). Furthermore, the title of Da sheng fa wang, or the Great Vehicle King of Religion, given to Kun dga’ bkra shis rgyal mtshan, also appears in this list. Kun dga’ bkra shis rgyal mtshan (1349-1425) was the abbot of Sa skya and one of the three Tibetans who was presented the title of fa wang, or Dharma King, emphasizing the special religious relationship with the Ming emperor. Kun dga’ bkra shis rgyal mtshan visited the Yongle emperor in Nanjing in 1413-14.

As part of the Yongle emperor’s attempts to renew politico-religious relations with the Tibetans, his uniquely splendid treatment given to the 5th Karmapa is thought to have precipitated increased Tibetan missions to and from China during the Yongle (1402-24) and Xuande (1426-35) periods. During the time of the printing of the Zhufopusa, there was a significant increase in the frequency and number of participants in the missions from Tibet to China, as well as permissions granted for Tibetans to reside in Beijing.

The fact that such a work was produced over two decades following De bzhin gshegs pa’s visit to Nanjing (1407-08) demonstrates the continued importance in early Ming China of the 5th Karmapa in particular and perhaps the religious alliance with Tibetans in general. The content of this work, as a transmission from the 5th Karmapa, with its nominal use of four scripts and use of Chinese phoneticization of Tibetan names and mantras, perhaps points to a marked Chinese interest in propagating the teachings of the 5th Karmapa and reflect a lasting effect of the Yongle emperor’s attempts to re-invigorate a host of political, economic and religious relationships between the Chinese and Tibetans.


Sources:

Heather Karmay, Early Sino-Tibetan Art. Aris and Phillips. 1975: 55-99.
Elliot Sperling. 1980. The 5th Karma-pa and some aspects of the relationship between Tibet and the early Ming. In Tibetan Studies in honour of High Richardson: Proceedings of the International Seminar of Tibetan Studies, Oxford 1979. Warminster: Aris & Philips Ltd. 280-290.
Jonathan A. Silk. 1996. Notes on the History of the Yongle Kanjur. In Suhrllekhah: Festgabe für Helmut Eimer. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tiebtica Verlag.

Entry by Eveline S. Yang, 2/20/07