Tag: Mahakala

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

Mahakala

Mahâkâla

The Mi nyag royal family, including one of its most famous translators, Mi nyag lo tsa ba Rtsa mi Sang rgyas grags pa (fl 12th c.), actively sponsored religious activity associated with Mahâkâla. When we consider what made this tradition attractive to the Mongols who eliminated the Mi nyag dynasty, one short religious text by this translator is very revealing. It is called “The Instructions of the Glorious Mahâkâla: The Usurpation of Government (dpal nag po chen po’i man ngag rgyal srid ‘phrog pa) and describes how to overthrow a state and take power, giving past examples and a guide to the necessary practices.

Sources:
Elliot Sperling. “Rtsa-mi lo-tsā-ba Sangs-rgyas grags-pa and the Tangut Background to Early Mongol-Tibetan Relations,” in Per Kvaerne, ed., Tibetan Studies. Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Oslo, 1994, p. 805.