Tag: Qing

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

Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje (Changkya Rolpe Dorje)

Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje (Changkya Rolpe Dorje)

Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje (1717-1786) was an important Buddhist figure in the Qing court, a teacher and close associate of the Qianlong emperor and an important intermediary between the court and Inner Asia. Over the course of his career he acted as Qianlong’s main Buddhist translator, tutor, and National Preceptor. He was of Mongour descent, born in Northeastern Tibet and raised for the most part within the imperial court. He was recognized as a reincarnation of the previous Lcang skya lama (1642-1714) in 1720 and taken to court in 1724, after his home monastery was destroyed by Qing troops in response to a rebellion led by Lobjang Danjin. He would also later be identified as an incarnation of ‘Phags pa. At the Yongzheng Emperor’s court, he was educated in close proximity to the boy who would become the Qianlong emperor. This relationship would prove significant in later years, since Rol pa’i rdo rje served as Qianlong’s main Buddhist teacher and advisor in matters related to Buddhism, including art, literature, religious initiations and practices, and diplomacy. His education included training in most of the languages in use under the Qing as well as Buddhist topics suited to his role as a lama.

In 1734 Rol pa’i rdo rje made his first trip to Lhasa when Yongzheng permitted him to accompany the 7th Dalai Lama on his return to the Tibetan capital. This trip gave Rol pa’i rdo rje the opportunity to meet and study with the Dalai Lama as well as to make offerings to Lhasa’s major monasteries and present gifts from the Qing emperor. In 1735 Lcang skya lama traveled to Shigatse, where he met the Panchen Lama Blo bzang ye shes at Tashilhunpo monastery. Lcang skya took the vows of a novice at this time with the Panchen Lama, who gave him a new Dharma name, Ye shes bstan pa’i sgron me. A few days later he took the vows of a fully ordained monk, under the supervision of the Panchen Lama and other major lamas. When Yongzheng died in 1736, Lcang skya gave up his plans to stay on and study under the Panchen Lama and had to return to Beijing. The Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama offered religious statues and other significant gifts as parting presents.

When Lcang skya arrived in Beijing, the new emperor, his childhood peer the Qianlong, named him chief administrative lama in Beijing. Early in his career as administrator, Lcang skya urged the emperor to grant disputed border areas to the Dalai Lama. While the emperor refused to grant the land, he did follow Lcang skya’s advice in part, by granting the Dalai Lama a yearly allowance of five thousand taels (taken from the Dajianlu revenue). After the internal political tensions in Lhasa came to a climax in 1751 (with the execution of the secular leader ‘Gyur med rnam rgyal), Qianlong named the Dalai Lama the political and religious leader of Tibet. Lcang skya’s biographer Thu’u bkwan asserts that this significant decision was largely due to Lcang skya’s advice.

After the death of the 7th Dalai Lama, the Qianlong sent Lcang skya on a second mission to Lhasa. There was debate among Tibetan officials over whether the new Dalai Lama’s regent, De mo, would have both religious and secular power. The bka’ blon or cabinet members aimed to take over secular control and let the Dalai Lama manage religious matters. Lcang skya advised the emperor to entrust De mo with full religious and secular authority in order to avoid conflict among the cabinet members. The emperor granted De mo religious authority and relied on the ambans to limit the power of the lay elite cabinet members. In 1757, Lcang skya departed for Lhasa again, this time with a large entourage including a minister, several officials, and two Imperial physicians. During this stay, Lcang skya performed various religious and political tasks for the emperor, keeping the Qianlong apprised of the situation in various Inner Asian locales, as far west as Ladakh. He was closely involved with identifying the 8th Dalai Lama and wrote the 7th Dalai lama’s biography. At the same time, Lcang skya studied under major lamas, most significantly the Panchen Lama. In 1779, Lcang skya arranged for the Panchen Lama to undertake a trip to Beijing to celebrate the Qianlong’s birthday. A monastery modeled after Tashilhunpo was built in Jehol in honor of the visit. During the Panchen Lama’s visit Lcang skya performed religious and diplomatic functions such as instructing the lama on how to approach the emperor and translating Dharma teachings between the two. The Panchen Lama contracted smallpox and passed away during this visit.

Lcang skya’s work as a translator was by no means limited to oral translations – he also oversaw the creation of (Mongolian, Tibetan, Manchu, Chinese, and Chagatay language) dictionaries and translations of Buddhist teachings in textual form. As a Buddhist administrator in Beijing, he played an important role in founding Yonghegong, a monastic college for Mongol, Manchu, and Chinese monks. Like Wutaishan, this college combined an Imperial palace and a Tibetan Buddhist monastery. He was also instrumental in developing the systems of iconography, cataloguing, and inscribing that would prove so important to the Qianlong’s projects in Buddhist art.

Sources:
Berger, Patricia. Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China.
Tuttle, Gray. Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China.
Wang Xiangyun. The Qing Court’s Tibet Connection: Lcang skya Rolpa’i rdo rje and the Qianlong Emperor.

Entry by Dominique Townsend

user-1541802581

Posted on

Nurhaci

Nurghaci / Nurhaci-Qing Taizu

Nurhaci 努爾哈赤 (1558-1626), a member of the Gioro clan of the Suksuhu River tribe, became the national founder after he consolidated the Manchu tribes, declared himself Khan in 1616 and founded the Jin dynasty, which later ruled China as the Qing dynasty.

Starting from 1583, Nurhaci began unifying the Jurchen bands. He beheaded Nikan Wailan, the Jurchen chieftain who killed his father and grandfather. In 1618, Nurhaci commissioned a document, the Seven Great Vexations, enumerating seven grievances against the Ming. It acted as a pretext for his rebelling against the Ming dynasty. Throughout his life, he led many successful military campaigns against the Ming dynasty, the Koreans, the Mongols and the Jurchen clans.

Sometime before 1621, due to the growing influence of Buddhism, Nurhaci appointed his lama, the Olug Darhan Nagso, as Dharma master of the Manchu realm. This instance marked the beginning of the Manchu imperial patronage of the Tibetan Buddhism. His most important achievement was probably the creation and organization of the Eight Banners system, which formed the strong military backbone throughout the Qing dynasty.

In 1625, just a year before his death, Nurhaci moved the capital to Shenyang and depended on the help of his Chinese officials to develop a civil administration. In 1626, he was seriously wounded during the battle against the Ming general Yuan Chonghuan in Ningyuan. He died 2 days later.

Sources:
· The Columbia Encyclopedia, Six Edition. 2001-05. 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. pp.27

Entry by Agnes Lin. 3/6/07

user-1541802585

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

The Shunzi Emperor

Shizu/The Shunzhi Emperor/Fulin (also Shih-tsu and Shun-chih)

During his time as emperor, Hong Taiji’s son Fulin was known as the Qing Shizu or the Shunzhi Emperor (1638-1661, r. 1644-1661). He was the third Manchu emperor, following Emperor Taizong (r. 1626-43). In 1653 he received the Fifth Dalai Lama in Peking and 20th century sources claim that he publicly demonstrated his support of Tibetan Buddhism during the Dalai Lama’s visit. The Dalai Lama is sometimes said to have presented Shunzhi with a golden plate that said, “ God of the Sky, Manjughosha-Emperor and Great Being” (Tib. Gnam gyi lha ‘jam dbyangs gong ma bdag po chen po) although this has not yet been confirmed by Qing sources. The Chinese monk Ngag dbang blo bzang whom the Shunzhi emperor appointed to oversee Wutaishan in 1660 requested the composition of one of the earliest examples of books printed in China for the Mongols. In this guidebook to Wutaishan, called Uta-yin tabun agulan-u orosil susugten-u cikin cimeg, the Qing emperor is referred to as the “reincarnation of Manjushri.” Shunzhi was also posthumously referred to as the “sublime Manjusri Shunzhi” in the first Lcang-skya Qutugtu’s biography written by Ngag dbang chos ldan in 1729. In addition to and perhaps surpassing his connections with Tibetan Buddhists, he was closely affiliated with Chan monks, some of whom lived in the imperial palace during his reign.

Sources:
Crossley, Pamela. 1999. A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Farquhar, David. 1978. “Emperor as Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Ch’ing Empire,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 38 (1): 5-34.

user-1541802626

Posted on

The Yongzheng Emperor

Qing Shizong/Yinzhen (The Yongzheng Emperor)

The Yongzheng emperor (r. 1723–35) was the son of the Kangxi emperor (r. 1661-1722), and the father of the Qianlong emperor (r. 1735-96). The period of the 18th century was significant in establishing the relationship between the emperors and their bureaucracies, while marginalizing the power of the aristocracy. Despite his short reign, the Yongzheng emperor’s greatest contribution was consolidating the power of the monarch within the bureaucracy, thus ending the serious threats to power posed by the Manchu princes. He ran his own intelligence and command network and adapted a military command office called the “Grand Council” to streamline control over many areas of governance. Historical studies point to the existence of two court bureaucracies, those of an “inner” and “outer,” which continued under the Qianlong reign. The “outer” bureaucracy was found in the statutes of empire, which were resurrected from the Ming, while the “inner” bureaucracy was a series of extra-statutory innovations that preserved a direct line of imperial power against that of the bureaucracy.

As seen in previous dynasties, religion and ideology played important roles in the ruling of empire. Numerous historical studies on the Qing era have shown their willingness to entertain and employ different religious and ideological frameworks for their diverse polities. The Yongzheng emperor’s contributions to Buddhism and Confucianism may be viewed in the context of an ongoing struggle between court literati as well as the emperor to define the basic tenets of emperorship, and thus the normative interpretations of different ideologies. Thought to be partial to Chan Buddhism, the Yongzheng emperor established a Buddhist publishing house and prepared a nineteen-volume anthology of what he regarded as model Buddhist writings in Chinese, entitled Yu xuan yu lu (御选语录) in 1732. He also showed support for Tibetan Buddhism by donating the Yonghegong Monastery to the dGe lugs pa sect in 1722 (in which his son, the Qianlong emperor was born). While the Qing emperors were generally hesitant to proclaim themselves as Buddhist kings or reincarnations, especially to their Chinese constituents, an inscription erected in 1744 by the Qianlong emperor honors his father by hinting that his father achieved buddhahood, not through reincarnation, but through his own spiritual piety.

The widely-distributed, multilingual “Sacred Edicts,” Shengyu guangxun (圣谕广训) of 1724 may be an example of the Yongzheng emperor’s attempt to negotiate and align the diverse ideologies of his empire. It contained the imperially-sanctioned view of universal doctrines of state, society, and morals, which were to be taught to and obeyed by all subjects in the empire. The famous “Lecture on Heterodox Doctrines” (VII) in the Chinese version, states:

From ancient times, three religions have continued in propagation, that is, the school of Confucianism and besides this, those of Taoism and Buddhism. The philosopher Zhu Xi says that Buddhism does not bother with the material universe but considers only the subject of the mind, and that Taoism merely aims at the preservation of the spiritual essence of man. This fair statement from Zhu Xi clarifies the fundamental objects of Buddhism and Taoism. But a class of loafers, with neither livelihood nor abode, has since come forth to usurp the name of these religions and corrupt the practical use of the same…

However, the Mongolian version points out that this clarification of the roles of Buddhism and Taoism targets Chinese Buddhism and pre-Buddhist religions, demonstrating the use of language in the filtering of imperial communications.

Of note is the reference to Zhu Xi (1130-1200), whose Confucian ideologies were declared “orthodox” by the Yuan in 1313 in response to petitions from Chinese literati. Zhu Xi’s attraction as an imperial ideology may be found in his rhetorical “dualism” that enabled a construction, upon moral grounds, of a subject-object relationship between the emperor and his domain. However, Zhu Xi’s claim that any person endeavoring toward and achieving sagehood could become such a moral ruler was contested particularly by Qianlong. This reflected the differing views on rulership held by the Kangxi, Yongzheng and Qianlong emperors. The Yongzheng emperor promoted the idea of emperorship as found in the “Great Righteousness Resolving Confusion” where civilization was absolute and the emperor was the personal embodiment of civilization. The goal of the ruler was the erosion of cultural differences and achievement of a morally correct world. However, the Qianlong emperor later repudiated this view, putting forth his own emphasis on the identity of the emperor as absolute, not civilization. In this framework, the emperor was the single consciousness that transcended all civilizations and the goal of ruler was the clarification of cultural differences, which would confirm the universal competence of the emperor.

Sources:

Pamela Kyle Crossley.1992. The Rulerships of China. The American historical review, 1468-1483.
David Farquhar . 1978. Emperor as Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Ch’ing Empire. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 38 (1): 5-34.
Pamela Kyle Crossley.1999. A translucent mirror: history and identity in Qing imperial ideology. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 221-246, 262-273.

Entry by Eveline S. Yang 3/20/07

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

Jasagh Lama

Jasagh Da Lama-Jasagh Lama

The term jasagh or yasa originally designated the law code (sometimes referred to as “army order” or “army law”) developed among the Mongols under Chinggis Khan. In addition to laying out laws in general, the code was concerned with the distribution of power among tribal leaders, princes, etc and is described as having secured “secular” control as opposed to religious law (Togan, 149). In the Qing the term jasagh by itself came to refer to certain of the princes within a Mongol banner. These princes were recognized as the descendents of Chinggis Khan.

The terms jasagh dalama (grand prince of the church) and jasagh lama (prince of the church) evolved from the Mongol terms mentioned above. They were created by the Qing court and conferred on the head monks of imperial monasteries, augmenting traditional Tibetan monastic titles such as khanpo (which lack the secular tone of “prince”). Beginning in the Kangxi period, the Jasagh titles combined religious and secular power, drawing on models of combined religious-secular roles from the Ming and the Yuan. Introduced into the Tibetan/Mongolian Buddhist monastic context (in which a Tibetan lama would typically be placed in charge of a community of Mongolian monks) the titles also served to draw together Tibetan and Mongol concepts of authority. (So the titles were simultaneously secular and religious, and resonated strongly with Tibetans and Mongolians.)

Under the Qing, seven large monasteries run by jasagh lamas were designated banner units. They were distinct from secular banners. As the head of such a banner monastery, the jasagh lama or jasagh dalama had administrative and judicial control. In cases where a reincarnated lama presided over more than 800 people, a Jasagh lama was appointed to take charge of the secular aspects of the banner. (Rawski, 254). The jasagh lamas were especially significant in their roles at Wutaishan and at the imperial monastery Yonghegong in Beijing. Starting in the mid-seventeenth century, with the Fifth Dalai Lama’s visit to Beijing, these titles were conferred on Tibetans or Mongolians by Tibetan officials in Lhasa. The designated monks were often sent from Lhasa and served as important liaisons between the Dalai Lama’s government and the court. In addition to overseeing imperial monasteries, jasagh lamas also taught Tibetan language and Buddhism to the imperial families.

Sources:
Rawski, Evelyn. The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions
Togan, Isenbike. Flexibility and Limitation in Steppe Formations: the Kerait Khanate and Chinggis Khan.
Tuttle, Gray. Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China
Tuttle, Gray. “Tibetan Buddhist Intermediaries between the Qing Court and the Tibetan Government.” Presented at AAS Annual Meeting, China and Inner Asia Session 37.

Posted on

Wutaishan Pusading

Pusading 普薩頂/ Zhenrong yuan 真容院

Pusading, a small monastery located on the summit of Lingjiushan or Vulture Peak Mountain, is the highest point in Taihuai, the valley town between the five terraces of Wutai shan. Pusading has been an ongoing center of pilgrimage and imperial sponsorship since at least the Tang dynasty. According to the Expanded Record of the Clear and Cool Mountains (Guang Qingliang zhuan), compiled about 1057-63, the first temple at the site was Wenshuyuan (Cloister of Manjushri), built by Xiaowen (r. 471-499), emperor of the Northern Wei dynasty (385-534). The same record indicates that though apparitions of Manjushri were known to appear on this peak frequently, it was not until the time of the Tang Emperor Ruizong (662-716) that the temple became home to a sculpted image of Manjushri.

The tale of this sculpted image gave Pusading its other name, Zhenrong yuan, or Cloister of True Countenance. According to the Expanded Record, the reclusive sculptor Ansheng repeatedly failed in attempts to complete an image of Manjushri without cracks. Finally he appealed to the bodhisattva himself and then succeeded in making a perfect image by modeling it after seventy-two manifestations of Manjushri that accompanied him as he completed his work. Thereafter the monastery was known by the name Zhenrong yuan and was patronized by the emperors of successive dynasties until it was renamed during the Ming Yongle reign period as Pusading, or Bodhisattva Peak, also identified as Manjushri Peak.

The Ming Yongle emperor took a great interest in Pusading. The monastery was the site of Dawenshu-dian (大文殊殿), the first temple to house a copy of the Yongle edition of the Tibetan Buddhist canon or Kangyur (bka’ ‘gyur). Today, Dawenshu-dian is also sometimes referred to just as Pusading or Zhenrong yuan. The Ming Yongle emperor ordered the reconstruction of Dawenshu dian and then made an offering to the temple of the first printed copy of his Kangyur edition as soon as it was completed around 1410. There were also two temples on Pusading that housed copies of the Wanli print of the Kangyur, Luohou si bentang (羅喉寺本堂) and the Pule yuan bentang (普樂院本堂). Luohou si now houses the only known exemplar of a forty-two volume supplement to the Wanli Kangyur print, but it is missing two volumes.

The Qing Shunzhi emperor (r.1644-61) renovated Pusading extensively into an official imperial establishment and installed a Tibetan Buddhist lama from Beijing. Local legend says that the Shunzhi emperor staged his death and then took monastic vows at Pusading, and that his son the Kangxi emperor came in search of him there, performing many heroic deeds along the way. Both the Kangxi (1662-1722) and Qianlong (1736-1795) emperors stayed at this monastery during their numerous visits to Wutai shan.


Sources:

Jonathan A. Silk. 1996. Notes on the History of the Yongle Kanjur. In Suhrllekhah: Festgabe für Helmut Eimer. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tiebtica Verlag.
Wen-shing Chou. “Ineffable Paths: Mapping Wutaishang in Qing Dynasty China,” The Art Bulletin, Mar 2007, 89 (1): pp.108-129.

Entry by Stacey Van Vleet, 2/20/07