beijing – Columbia tibetan studies

November 10, 2018

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.

November 10, 2018

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

November 9, 2018

Yonghe Gong

Yonghegong 雍和宮

The Yonghegong or “Palace of Harmony” is the largest Tibetan-style monastery in Beijing. Built as a palace for the Yongzheng emperor, the complex was rededicated in 1744 by his son the Qianlong emperor as a monastery for Mongolian, Tibetan, and Chinese practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism. Yonghegong significantly fused a site of personal importance to the Qianlong emperor, associated with his father and with his own past, to the architecture and iconography of the emperor’s grand present and intimated glorious future.

As a place of personal significance, not only did the Qianlong emperor associate Yonghegong with his father, it was also the site of his own birth in 1711 and childhood upbringing. The Qianlong emperor kept his father’s body housed at Yonghegong until the final burial place was completed, and even afterwards entrusted the Mongolian monks of Yonghegong with maintaining the imperial family’s shrine. Yonghegong was the site of the Yongzheng emperor’s ancestral tablet and the Qianlong emperor’s annual filial sacrifices. In his first Yonghegong edict of 1744, the Qianlong emperor cites earlier precedents in China for converting imperial palaces into monasteries after the resident emperor’s death. The Yongzheng emperor himself had converted his father Kangxi’s palaces into monasteries, and had converted half the grounds of Yonghegong – at that time the rest of the grounds served as the emperor’s traveling palace – into a Buddhist refuge in 1725, just two years after he ascended the throne. Although the Yongzheng emperor practiced diverse religious traditions, most notably Daoism, reference to this is elided, and instead the Qianlong emperor in his edict portrays his father as an enlightened being akin to Sakyamuni Buddha.

Yonghegong’s dedication as a home mostly for Mongolian monks in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition belies its significance at the time of the Qianlong emperor’s “present.” The “Jetavana garden,” as the Qianlong emperor called it in his edict, simultaneously honored the Mongols by giving them care over the Yongzheng emperor’s relics but also worked to assert control over the Mongolian Buddhist establishment through paternalistic kindness. Yonghegong was also a war temple during both the Yongzheng and Qianlong emperors’ reigns. There is a tower in the complex devoted to Yamantaka, the conqueror of death and protector deity of Beijing. The Qianlong emperor kept his own weapons here and sent high officials to offer sacrifice during times of war. Monks chanted in the temple every day. In the Yongzheng emperor’s time, a subsidiary temple called Qushengdian or Hall of the War God was built to house a deity associated with a Han Chinese war general from the third century, Guan Yu. Rol pa’i rdo rje also later had a strong connection with this deity, but this temple is no longer extant.

Responsibility for Yonghegong’s design was given to Qianlong’s childhood friend and Tibetan Buddhist guru, the Monguor lama Rol pa’i rdo rje, along with the Gandan Shiregetu Losang Tenpay Nyima, another great incarnate lama of Beijing. The iconography of Yonghegong reflects a primary concern with the future, as reflected by the central importance of images of Maitreya. The Tibetan name for the monastery is Gandenchincholing, meaning “Splendid Heaven of Joy” and referring both to Maitreya’s Tushita heaven and to the first monastery built in 1407 by Tsong kha pa – founder of the Dge lugs pa lineage to which Yonghegong belonged. Maitreya is a central deity in Mongolian Dge lugs pa Buddhism, being associated both with Zanzabar – who instituted a popular and annual public homage ritual to Maitreya on New Year’s Day – and to Taranatha, another popular Tibetan Buddhist missionary among the Mongols who was of the rival Jonangpa lineage but was nevertheless claimed as Zanzabar’s preincarnation. There are two Maitreya images in Yonghegong, a small “Laughing Buddha” Hwashang in the first hall of the monastery, and a colossal sandalwood Buddha in the second to last hall, the Wanfuge.

Another more Tibeto-Mongolian and specifically Dge lugs pa “millennial” practice associated with Yonghegong were the rites of the Kalachakra tantra, or the Wheel of Time. The Kalachakra tantra is said to have been revealed by Shakyamuni Buddha to the king of a mysterious northern land called Shambhala. The last king of Shambhala will wage a terrible war against evil and then preside over a new age of peace and harmony. This story could have been strongly resonant to the Manchu (northern) dynasty and to the Qianlong emperor in particular, who called himself a peaceful ruler. Yonghegong houses a Kalachakra mandala, paintings of Shambhala, and a Kalachakra deity with his consort Vishvamati. The tantra was also repeatedly and sometimes annually recited by separate groups of monks, who at one time reached a total of one hundred reciters. This practice often took place during the third month.

Several other elements of Yonghegong are of historical interest and show the Qianlong emperor’s changing relationship with Tibetan Buddhism over his reign. After its initial dedication, the complex was reconstituted in the model of the great monasteries of Tibet as a university with four colleges of exoteric and esoteric Buddhism, medicine, and mathematics and calendrical sciences. Yonghegong houses a famous thangkha painting of the Qianlong emperor as the Manjughosa emperor, which has been the subject of much speculation as to how far the emperor was willing to go to associate himself with (or as) this bodhisattva. Several steles in the courtyards of the Yonghegong complex are also famous for their multilingual inscriptions. Written in the four official languages of the empire, Chinese, Manchu, Mongolian, and Tibetan, two steles display the Qianlong emperor’s dedication edict of 1744. The subtle differences in translation between the four languages have been interpreted as displaying the Qianlong emperor’s uncanny ability and even obsession with constituting his authority over each of his subject peoples in their own idiom. Another stele, often known as the “Lama Shuo” or “Speaking of Lamas,” can be found in a single pavilion of the fourth courtyard. This edict is an infamous criticism of the Tibetan Buddhist establishment written late in the Qianlong emperor’s life and after the death of his teacher Rol pa’i rdo rje. Although he distances himself from Buddhism in this edict – most strongly in the Chinese language – he also claims that it is his familiarity with Tibetan Buddhism that makes him uniquely appropriate to reform its practices.

Source:
Patricia Berger. 2003. Empire of emptiness: Buddhist art and political authority in Qing China. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Entry by Stacey Van Vleet, 4/3/07

November 9, 2018

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

November 9, 2018November 9, 2018

Fayuan Si

Fayuan Si 法淵寺

Fayuan Si in Beijing housed a Tibetan sutra repository and a Chinese sutra repository during the Ming Yongle period. Shakya ye shes stayed in this temple when he visited Beijing in 1415 as an emissary for Tsong kha pa, who famously declined the invitation himself. Fayuan Si was located within the imperial compound in the Songzhu-si (嵩祝寺) temple complex.

Source:

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 Stacey Van Vleet, 2/20/07

November 9, 2018

Dpal ldan bkra shis

Dpal ldan bkra shis (Palden Tashi)

Dpal ldan bkra shis (Chinese – Bandan zhashi, 1376-14–?) was a significant figure in Ming imperial interactions with Tibet through patronage of Tibetan Buddhism. He was a key participant in Beijing’s Buddhist activities during his tenure there, and was influential in the National Buddhist Registry (Senglusi). By way of example of his work in Beijing, Dpal ldan bkra shis is recorded to have translated Tibetan Buddhist texts into Chinese, acted as translator for the Fifth Karmapa, and ordained Ming officials. Under imperial order, the Huguosi temple was rebuilt as his personal residence in 1435 and a portrait statue of him was installed in perpetuity. Additionally, he was one of three clerics acknowledged in Fahaisi temple inscriptions as having played a critical role in the founding of this imperially sponsored Beijing temple. Fahaisi is located on Mt Cuiwei in the Shijingshan district of Beijing and bears typical marks of both Chinese and Tibetan iconography, making it useful for art historical investigations of “Sino-Tibetan” aesthetics. Dpal ldan bkra shis was given the title Jingjue ciji daguoshi or “Purely Enlightened Compassionately Helpful Great State Preceptor.”

Outside Beijing Dpal ldan bkra shis was instrumental in the construction and management of two imperially sponsored provincially located temples that served notably strategic political functions as well as religious ones. These were Qutansi in Qinghai (founded 1392), where he was abbot, and Lhun grub bde chen gling in Gansu, which he founded. Qutansi was originally a Bka’ brgyud temple with close ties to the Sa skya until Dge lugs pas became dominant there in the mid-16th century. It is located at the border of the Northwest Ming frontier and the Eastern edge of Amdo and its abbots were key figures in the Ming imperial courts’ interactions with Tibet. As the seat of the Xining Prefectural Buddhist Registry (Xining Senggangsi) Qutansi’s abbots had jurisdiction over 13 other temples and their estates. The Yongle emperor named Dpal ldan bkra shis abbot in 1408. Artistically, the temple’s exterior is distinctively Chinese, while the interior shows more Tibetan influence in terms of iconography and style.

Dpal ldan bkra shis founded Lhun grub bde chen gling (Longzhu deqinglin, formerly Da Chongjiaosi) in Minzhou, Gansu in 1428. Like the temples mentioned above, this temple exhibits objects and images of both Chinese and Tibetan styles. Dpal ldan bkra shis’s biography records that the imperial patronage of the project included the appointment of two high ministers, one hundred civil officials, 200 district officials, 1, 100 artisans, and 25,000 military corvee laborers. Thus it seems to have been the site of major imperial interest and attention, apparently due in large part to its strategic location.

Dpal ldan bkra shis’s fundamental involvement in these three temples is a key indicator of his role in the Ming imperial courts’ interfacing with Tibet/Tibetan Buddhism.

Source:
Debreczeny, Karl. “Sino-Tibetan Artistic Synthesis in Ming Dynasty Temples at the Core and the Periphery”

Entry by Dominique Townsend

user-1541796311

November 9, 2018

Yongle Emperor

The Yongle Emperor / Chengzu

The Yongle emperor (1360 – 1424), born Zhudi, Chengzu or Cheng di, was the son of the founder of the Ming – the Hongwu emperor. Ascending to power in 1402 after a bloody civil war, in which he overthrew his own nephew, the Yongle emperor ambitiously commissioned public works projects for his new capital in Beijing and launched military expeditions far into Mongol territory and Southeast Asia. He is perhaps most well-known for commissioning eunuch and naval admiral Zheng He’s naval expeditions which reached the coast of Africa. One of his other most notable achievements was repairing the Grand Canal, which made Beijing directly accessible via waterway.

After winning the costly civil war, Chengzu was able to restore economic stability to the empire. His kingdom greatly benefited from the agricultural tax, and while his public works projects and diplomatic envoys began expanding and modernizing the kingdom, they eventually drained the country’s purses and led to economic instability after his death. The opening of the Grand Canal, the beautification of the Beijing capital (including the construction of the Forbidden City), grand maritime and military expeditions and other public works all took their toll on the government, specifically taxpayers, who found it hard to keep up with the government’s “progress.”

The Yongle emperor also promoted the use of paper currency –but confidence in it fell after his reign – and mandated an increase in mining quotas, which led to record and near surpluses of silver for the capital, but an economic crash when his successor scaled back mining practices.

Zhu Di died while on an expedition to what is now Inner Mongolia. He was the first emperor to be buried in the Ming Tombs, north of Beijing, and is entombed in the complexes largest mausoleum.

Sources:

Atwell, William S. “Time, Money, and the Weather: Ming China and the “Great Depression” of the Mid-Fifteenth Century.” The Journal of Asian Studies. 2002.
Kapstein, Matthew T. “The Tibetans.” Blackwell Publishing. Cambridge, England, 2006.

Entry by Megan H. Chan

user-1541796320

November 9, 2018

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

November 9, 2018

Da huguo renwang si

Da Huguo Renwang Si 大護國仁王寺

The Da huguo renwang si was built during the years 1270 to 1274 on the Gaoliang river outside of Beijing. The temple owed its founding to the Empress Zhaorui shun-sheng (Mongolian Cabi or Cabui), the principal wife of Qubilai and mother of his chosen heir, Jinggim. Because of the generous patronage of the imperial family, the temple was extremely wealthy. In the Beijing metropolitan area it owned 28,633 qing 51 mou of irrigated fields and 34,414 qing 23 mou of dry fields, as well as the rights for forests, fisheries, moorings, bamboo and firewood in twenty-nine places. In also owned land in fifteen places around Beijing where jade, silver, iron, copper, salt and coal were produced, in addition to 19,061 chestnut trees and a wine-shop. In the Xiangyang region the temple owned 13,651 qing of irrigated and 29,805 qing 68 mou of dry fields. In Jianghuai it owned at least 140 wine shops. The temple also owned many houses and halls, and had a total of 37,059 tenant families as well as 17,988 families providing corvée labor. This list of property is drawn from an inscription written by Cheng Jufu, available in the Cheng Xuelou ji (see Franke 1984 for full reference).

In the fourth month of the Yuanzhen reign year yi-wei (1295), the Tibetan cleric (and posthumously declared Imperial Preceptor) Sga A gnyan dam pa kun dga’ grags (Ch. Gongjia ge la si or Dan pa 膽巴) received an imperial summons to become abbot in the Da huguo renwang temple. The Treasury (tai fu) was ordered to prepare an elaborate welcome ceremony on par with those prepared for the emperor himself, and many officials escorted Danpa/Dam pa Kun dga’ grags/Dan pa to the temple. Later Dan pa was also buried there in the Qing-an stupa. His relics were taken to the stupa by the mayor of Da du [Beijing], along with a retinue of servants and musicians, by order of the emperor Chengzong.

In 1311, An pu, son of the disgraced Yang, became commissioner of the Huifu yuan (會福院), the name by which Da huguo renwang si was known by between the years of 1310 and 1316. At the same time he was ennobled as the Duke of Qin and he was also once again holding the post of commissioner of the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs (Xuanzheng yuan 宣政院). An pu had been dismissed from this post in 1291 because of widespread resentment against his father, who had destroyed the tombs of the Song emperors during a zealous campaign to convert sites in Jiangnan into Buddhist temples.

Sources:

Franke, Herbert. 1984. “Tan-pa, a Tibetan lama at the court of the Great Khans,” Orientalia Venetiana, Volume in onore di Leonello Lanciotti. Firenze: Leo s. Olschiki Editore. pp. 157-180.
Franke, Herbert. 1983. “Tibetans in Yuan China,” in China among equals: the Middle Kingdom and its neighbors, 10th-14th centuries. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sperling, Elliot. 1991. “Some Remarks on Sga A-gnyan dam-pa and the Origins of the Hor-pa Lineage of the Dkar-mdzes Region,” in Ernst Steinkellner, ed., Tibetan History and Language: Studies Dedicated to Uray Gyeaza on his Seventieth Birthday, Vienna. pp. 455-465.

Entry by Stacey Van Vleet, 2/4/07

user-1541794744

November 9, 2018November 9, 2018

Da sheng shou wan an si

Da sheng shou wan an si 大聲壽萬安寺

The Da sheng shou wan an temple (大聲壽萬安寺) was built sometime between 1279 and 1288 in the western part of Beijing by order of Qubilai, and originally housed the renowned Sandalwood Buddha. The sandalwood statue was said to have been the only lifelike portrait of the Buddha, carved during his lifetime in 990 B.C. by his disciple Maudgalyayana. Its presence in Beijing greatly added to the prestige of the Yuan Mongol empire.

The planning of the Da sheng shou wan an si is attributed in his biography to the Nepali architect and sculptor A ni ge (阿尼哥), who came to work at the Yuan court in 1261 and died in 1306. The temple was also known as Baita si (白塔, Temple of the White Stupa), because it was built around the Baita (White Stupa), the oldest and highest stupa or pagoda in Beijing. The 167 foot high stupa was completed in 1279 and long dominated the skyline of the western part of the city.

Just before the Yuan Mongol court fled Beijing for the north, the Da sheng shou wan an si was struck by lightning. This was on June 20, 1368, and except for two halls, the temple burnt to the ground. The Sandalwood Buddha had been moved before this to a temple inside the imperial palace. The White Stupa still stands, although it has been renovated many times during the Yuan, Ming, Qing, and Republican periods. In 1457 a new temple was erected around the stupa and called the Miaoying si (妙應寺, Temple of Miraculous Evidence). Popularly, it was again known as the Baita si.

Sources:

Franke, Herbert. 1978. From tribal chieftain to universal emperor and god: the legitimation of the Yuan dynasty, Sitzungsberichte – Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Munchen: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Franke, Herbert, 1994, “Consecration of the ‘White Stupa’ in 1279,” Asia Major VII (Third Series) (1): 155-184

Entry by Stacey Van Vleet, 2/4/07