Lama Shuo

Qianlong’s Pronouncement on Lamas (Lama shuo)

In this 1792 stele pronouncement found in the Yonghe Gong, the Qianlong emperor declared formal Qing patronage over the dGe-lugs-pa which was enjoying high popularity among its Mongol followers. This Pronouncement was inscribed in Chinese, Manchu, Mongol and Tibetan, signifying the Manchu’s (and ultimately Qianlong’s) claim to universal rulership as the Court officially recognised both the Dalai and Panchen Lamas. The Pronouncement claimed that unlike the Mongols, the Qing has never used the term “di shi” (imperial preceptor) to represent the relationship between the Emperor and the leading Tibetan Lama. However, the term “guo shi” or “Teacher of the Kingdom” was only reserved for Lcang Skya who was the Qianlong Emperor’s confidante, as well as the leading Lama representing the Qing Court in Tibetan affairs. Since Qianlong explicitly rejects claims that the Lama had any spiritual superiority over the Emperor and re-establishes the hierarchy of rulership between Lamas and patron. The pronouncement also declared that the process of picking the future Dalai Lama would no longer be concentrated within the hands of certain Tibetan or Mongolian lineages. Instead, the names of the potential incarnates would be placed in a golden urn and selected in a public ceremony to ensure impartiality. This was also in response to the accusations of the defeated Nepalese Gurkhas, (and some Chinese) who claimed that the Qing merely patronised the dGe-lugs-pa for the sake of political expediency in keeping the Mongols in check. However, Qianlong, in the edict, proclaimed in the Manchu inscription that as a devote Tibetan Buddhist, he not only understood but had the right to make the changes that he did as Emperor.

Sources:
Patricia Berger. 2003. Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China. U Hawaii Press pp 34-5, James L. Hevia. 1995. Lamas, Emperors, and Rituals

Entry: 4/28/07

Qianlong Pentaglot Dictionary

Qing text Qianlong Pentaglot Dictionary (Wuti Qingwen Jian五體清文鑒)

The enormous project was to create a pentaglot dictionary (Manchu, Chinese, Mongolian, Tibetan, Chagatay) and seems to have been spearheaded by the guoshi Changkya Rolpay Dorje (Lcang Skya) who found it immensely difficult to provide accurate translations between the different languages employed by the Qing Court. It was completed in 1769 This stemmed from a bigger issue of translating Buddhist documents from the different languages and trying to retain its essential doctrines without compromising on its theology. This included translations of the Tibetan Kanjur into Mongolian, as well as its commentaries; the translation of the Tanjur and the Kanjur into Manchu and the Suramgaman Sutra from Chinese into Tibetan. Rolpay Dorje had also previously compiled an authoritative Manchu-Mongol dictionary to help translators in standardizing all translations.


Source:

Mimaki. A Tibetan Index to the Pentaglot Dictionary from the Qing Dynasty. JIATS 1988, pp. 279-282.

Entry by: ShiQi Wu, 4/2/07

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.

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)

Mantras Yuzhi Man Han Menggu Xifan Hebi Dazang Quanzhu

Yuzhi Man Han Menggu Xifan hebi dazang quanzhou 御製滿漢蒙古西番合壁大藏全咒

This text, which included dharani and mantra in Manchu, Chinese, Mongolian, and Tibetan, was printed and distributed to monasteries throughout the empire in 1773. It restored the proper sounds of Buddhist dharani and mantra, most of which had been rendered in Chinese in the Tang dynasty and were, by the 18th century, pronounced very differently and thus no longer zhenyan 真言—“true speech.” The Qianlong emperor’s uncle, Zhuang Qinwang Yinlu 莊親王胤祿 (1695-1767) supervised this project between 1748 and 1758, using Tibetan sources as a guide to proper pronunciation. His four-part compilation, titled in Chinese Yuzhi Man Han Menggu Xifan hebi dazang quanzhou 御製滿漢蒙古西番合壁大藏全咒.

Source:
Berger, Patricia, “The Jiaqing Emperor’s Magnificent Record of the Western Tour.” Wutaishan and Qing Culture, ed. Gray Tuttle and Johan Eleverskog, forthcoming

Multilingual texts during Qianlong Reign

Multilingual texts during Qianlong Reign

There have been a lot of multilingual texts during Xixia, Yuan, Ming, and Qing periods. “Xixiazang” is one example of it; according to Heather Karmay, Guanzhuba was involved in making this work in Hangzhou. “Xixiazang” was written both in Xixia and Chinese, and made between 1306 and 1307. Among these dynasties and states, Qing empire had especially a lot of multilingual texts; Qianlong Emperor made many multilingual edicts. According to Patricia Berger, Qianlong Emperor carved four languages of empires when he made an edict for Ubasi, the leader of the Torghut Mongols having been arrived from Russia in 1773. The four languages of the Empire were Manchu, Tibetan, Chinese and Mongolian. In 1737, Qianlong Emperor also made “an edict of three languages” in the courtyard of the “Monastery of Blssed Peace (Qingningsi).” Again in 1792, he composed “quadrilingual stele of Yonghegong” in Yonghegong.

The reason for these dynasties and especially Qing Empire having a lot of multilingual texts has not been clearly known. However, Patricia Berger suggests the reason of Qianlong Emperor’s having made a lot of multilingual texts in her “Empire of Emptiness”; Qianlong Emperor thought he had power over other states, by mastering and using the languages of the states that Qing was ruling. Berger quoted Qianlong emperor saying,

“In 1743 I first practiced Mongolian. In 1760 after I pacified the Muslims, I acquainted myself with Uighur. In 1776 after the two pacifications of Jinchuan I became roughly conversant in Tibetan. In 1780 because the Panchen Lama was coming to visit I also studied Tangut. Thus when the rota of Mongols, Muslims and Tibetans come every year to the capital for audience I use their languages and do not rely on an interpreter… to express the idea of conquering by kindness.” [[#_ftn1|[1]]]

The quote shows that Qianlong Emperor actually thought knowing the language and showing his knowledge of the language itself show that Qing Empire’s power over the other states.

[[#_ftnref1|[1]]] Berger, p 38, note to Yuan Hongqi, “Qianlong shiqi de gongting jieqing huodong,” Gugongbowuyuan yuankan 53, no. 3 (1991: 85)

Chengde (Rehe)

Rehe (熱河, Jehol), Chengde (承德)

Rehe Province is located in today’s Hebei (河北)Province. The name Jehol has been used since the 1930s, for the Chinese province north of the Great Wall, west of Manchuria, and east of Mongolia. The capital of Rehe Province is Chengde. Rehe (Jehol) is a formal name for Chengde.

Chengde was the summer capital of Qing dynasty. It was selected as a summer capital both for practical and symbolic reasons. It is located north of the Great Wall, between Northern China and Mongolian steppe. Phillipe Forêt argues that “Khans of the Manchu-Mongolian populations and bodhisattva for Lamaist believers led to the elaboration of a system of three capitals, one in Manchuria (Mukden), one in China proper (Beijing), and one in Inner Mongolia (Chengde),” with Chengde also serving as “religious capital of Tibet.”

Even though Chengde did not get an official designation, as such it functioned as a third capital of the Qing empire. According to Evelyn Rawski’s The Last Emperors, “the region surrounding the imperial villa was administratively designated as a subprefecture (Rehe ting) during the 1720s, then in 1733 made into a department, Chengde zhou,” and “symbolically it was the outer capital, where Mongols, Uighurs, and Tibetan performed court rituals under the jurisdiction of the Lifanyuan.”

In Chengde, there were a lot of lavish spectacles during the Qianlong reign, such as more than forty celebrations of the emperor’s birthday. According to Rawski, it was at “Bishu shanzang” that the emperor celebrated the submission of the Dorbot Mongols (1754) and received the Sixth Panchen Lama (1780) and Lord Macartney’s embassy(1793).

Sources:

Evelyn Rawski, “The Last Emperor.” (California, 1998)
Philippe Forêt, “Making an Imperial Landscape in Chengde, Jehol: The Manchu Landscape Enterprise.” (Ph. D. diss., University of Chicago, 1992)
See also: Lipton & Ragnubs 1996. “Appendix A: The Chinese Lama Temple: The Golden Pavilon of Jehol.” Treasures of Tibetan Art. 261-267.

Entry by Seul kyi Park

Chengde Pule Si

Pule Si

Pule si, built by the Qianlong emperor between 1766–67, was the 6th of 12 outer temples built at Chengde. Although called the Eight Outer Temples in Chinese (Wai ba miao) the twelve were built in the following order (the first two by Kangxi, and the rest by Qianlong): Puren si, Pushan si, Puning si, Puyou si, Anyuan miao, Pule si, Putuozongcheng miao, Guang’an si, Shuxiang si, Luohan tang, Xumifushou miao, and Anguo si. These outer temples flanked the eastern and northern edges of the imperial summer resort, the Bishu shanzhuang. The innovative and deliberate reinterpretations of architectural styles and landscapes from Chinese and Inner Asian sources at Chengde have been likened to a rational political tool used to further modern conceptions of state formation. Pule Si was part of a larger scenic landscape, with 36 landscape vistas, that illustrated a series of perspectives that the Kangxi and Qianlong emperors deliberately displayed to their Chinese bureaucrats and Inner Asian nobles. Each layer of the landscape was created to resonate with only select audiences of the emperor’s empire, with the emperor as the unifying center able to mediate all the landscape layers. These scenes were displayed to show the dynamism of landscape as an aesthetic medium that was then circulated through the empire via multilingual publications such as the imperially-sponsored Album of Imperial Poems.

Pule si, resembling Beijing’s Temple of Heaven (and possibly suggesting a link to the altar of Heaven in the old Manchu capital, Mukden) and described as a stupa and mandala, was built for the western Mongols coming for the yearly tribute. Its name links it to two other outer temples. Together, Pule si, Anyuan miao, and Puning si contain the three characters, le, an, ning, that signify the three ways to nirvana. Unlike other outer temples that face south according to Qing imperial tradition, Pule si (and like Anyuan miao) is oriented toward the west, recalling the orientation of older Tibetan temples such as the Jokhang in Lhasa and Samye.

Pule si is situated south of Anyuan miao and aligned with the Bangchui rock formation to the east, which connects it in a straight line, through the center of the temple, to the imperial residence. The main temple of Pule si is a triple terrace. The lowest level, no longer extant, was a surrounding gallery. The upper terrace is a wooden, Indian-style mandala containing a statue of Samvara and covered by a circular golden ceiling decorated with an imperial dragon. The link between Pule si and the Qianlong emperor is further clarified by the imperial inscription that mentions the role of Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje in constructing the temple. Lcang skya had given the Qianlong emperor the Samvara initiation. Thus the construction of Pule si with its Samvara mandala has been said to symbolize the lama-patron relationship between Lcang skya and the Qianlong emperor, while its construction on the eve of the western Mongols’ tributary visit can possibly be interpreted as a symbol of their new link with the empire.

Readings of Pule si must take into account its context within the larger imperial landscape production at Chengde. As such, it was part of an aesthetic, consumerist, and thus modern, instrument of unification for the producer, the emperor, as well as an instrument of alienation for the consumer, the imperial subjects.

Sources:
Philippe Forêt. 2000. Mapping Chengde: The Qing landscape enterprise. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i. pp. 49-53, 116-138.
Anne Chayet. 2004. Architectural Wonderland: An Empire of Fictions. In James Millward, et al. eds. New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde. pp. 33-52.

Entry by Eveline S. Yang 4/17/07

Puning Si

Puning Si

One of the Eight Outer Temples at Qianlong’s Jehol complex, was built in 1755, in conjunction with the anticipated defeat of the Dzunghar Mongols. It was modeled on Samye (or on painted representations of Samye) the 8th Century Central Tibetan monastic site famed as the first Buddhist monastery built in Tibet. Puning si is one of three Jehol temples modeled on pre-existing Tibetan structures – Putuozongcheng miao is modeled on the Potala and Xumifushou is modeled on Tashilhunpo. The degree to which the temples in Jehol actually resembled the originals is subject to debate. It seems that the effort was not to exactly duplicate the Tibetan buildings, but rather to evoke an impression of these important and distinctive Tibetan Buddhist sites. Samye’s architecture incorporates Tibetan, Chinese, and Indian influences; each floor of the main temple is based on one of these distinct styles. The overall complex is said to be modeled after an eariler Indian Buddhist temple. The complex is made up of three concentric structures, housing various chapels with a statue of Shakyamuni occupying the central-most position. Samye is generally regarded as a mandala. Likewise, Puning si brings together various architectural and aesthetic styles, and its designers under Qianlong claimed that it too was a mandala-like structure based on the Indian original. Puning si’s main hall or Dasheng ge, houses a large statue of Avalokiteshvara in Shakyamuni’s stead and the overall structure of the buildings does not follow Samye’s model. The doors of Puning si display scroll motifs evocative of the Yuanming yuan style.

Link to 360 view of main image:
view from the first floor: link
view from the second floor: link

Sources:
Chayet, Anne. “Architectural Wonderland: An Empire of Fictions.” In James Millward, et al. eds. New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde. pp. 33-52. 20pp.

Chengde Shuxiang Si

Chengde Shuxiang Si

Shuxiang si 殊像寺 built by Qianlong Emperor in the valley north of his Bishu shanzhuang 避暑山莊is one of the eight temples on the outskirts of Chengde of the Heibei province. According to the records, after Qianlong accompanied his mother to Wutai shan 五台山, he decided to build a temple dedicated to Manjusri. Its architecture is based on a temple with the same name on Wutai shan.

The Shuxiang si in Chengde, just like the model it is based on in Wutai shan, has a classical architectural appearance. Echoing Qianlong emperor’s proclamation that he was the reincarnation of Manjusri, the bodhisattva’s statue in the Shuxiang si seemed to be a portrait of the emperor himself.

Something that set Shuxiang si apart from other monasteries was the fact that it was renowned for the scholarly work that was done there. It was truly a working monastery under the imperial patronage.

Sources:
Anne Chayet. 2004. “Architectural Wonderland: An Empire of Fictions.” In James Millward, et al. eds. New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde. pp. 33-52.
Philippe Forêt. 2000. Mapping Chengde: The Qing landscape enterprise. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i. 49-53, 116-138.

Entry by Agnes Lin