Tag: text

Posted on

Zhufopusa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Sources:

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

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

Posted on

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

Posted on

Yuan Buddhist Canon Printing

Yuan Buddhist Canon Printing

In the early fourteenth century the printing of two separate and massive Yuan editions of the Buddhist canon was finally completed in southeast China. The first was a Tangut edition, the Xixiazang (西夏藏) or Xixia Tripitaka, completed in 1302. The second was the “complete” Chinese edition known as the Jishazang (ji砂藏) or Qisha (or Jisha) Tripitaka. Carving the blocks for the Jishazang had extended over almost a century, between 1231 and 1322.

Both of these editions had been ordered by Khubilai Khan (r.1260-1294) but came to fruition only after his reign, under the supervision of the General Secretary of the Buddhist Clergy in Songjiang, named Guanzhuba (管主巴). Guanzhuba (interpreted as bka’ ‘gyur pa or bka’ rgyud pa in Tibetan) was either Tibetan or of Xixia descent with a Tibetan education. The Xixiazang was printed in 3620 chapters at the Dawanshou (大萬壽) Temple in Hangzhou. It was based on earlier texts in the Xixia script engraved and printed in Xixia before Chinggis Khan destroyed the dynasty in 1227. The Jishazang blocks were carved at the Yansheng Yuan (延聖院) monastery on Jisha Island near Suzhou and Hangzhou. Although work began in the fourth year of the Shaoding reign in the Song dynasty, it was not completed until the second year of the Zhizhi reign of the Yuan. The Yansheng Yuan caught fire in 1258, interrupting the work, which was not resumed until 1299. The blocks finished before the fire seem to have survived. Major work was accomplished between 1300 and 1301, and from 1306-1307 Guanzhuba reconstructed and printed “missing” esoteric sections of the canon for inclusion in this second edition. These sections may have been carved at the same workshop as the Xixiazang in Hangzhou. The text of a vow by Guanzhuba was found in the Mogao cave of Dunhang and dated to the twelfth month of the tenth year of Dade 1307 (another similar but shorter colophon exists in volume 562 of the Yingyin Song Jisha Zangjing 影印宋ji砂藏經). This vow states that Guanzhuba was responsible for carving and printing vast numbers of illustrated Buddhist texts. He further committed to distributing these texts to monasteries, including monasteries in the former Xi xia lands, with great fanfare including offerings, assemblies and teachings. In the Yingyin Song Jisha Zangjing, it also states that Guanzhuba himself donated two hundred silver ingots in the form of a money order, and later three hundred silver ingots for the engraving of the woodblocks.

In addition to the canon, a revised catalogue of the Tripitaka was also published during the twenty-second year of the Zhiyuan reign period, also by order of Khublai Khan. This catalogue, the Zhiyuanlu 至元录 [full name: Zhi Yuan Fa Bao Kan Tong Zhong Lu 至元法宝勘同总录 (A Revised General Catalogue of the Dharma-Treasure up to the Yuan)] is said to have been based on three years of work by several tens of Chinese, Tibetan and Uighur monks, using source material from 1440 books in 5580 volumes. They are also said to have drawn from both Chinese and Tibetan versions of the Tripitaka, as well as the Chinese catalogue Buddhist Sutras Catalogue made in the Kaiyuan Reign Period (Kaiyuan Shijiao Lu) and the Tibetan catalogue kept in the Sakya monastery. This comparative catalogue of Tibetan and Chinese Buddhist canons along with a reconstitution of Sanskrit titles was supported by Khubilai Khan (d. 1294) under the direction of ‘Phags pa and with the assistance of Chinese, Tibetan and Uighur Buddhists. It is preserved in the Chinese Buddhist canon, Taisho vol. 99, number 25, in ten juan.

The printing of the Xixia and Jisha Tripitaka show Tibetan Buddhist influence, with a high level of artistic maturity and technical skill, extending all the way to the seaboard of China during the Mongol Yuan dynasty. The texts also intimate the cooperation of Tibetan artists, Yuan Mongol patrons, and Chinese craftsmen during the long-running, expensive and ambitious project. The Xixia edition reveals the continuing importance of the Xixia people – as well as their models of legitimacy and governance – to the Yuan, and in addition, it can be noted that illustrations from the this canon were later replicated in another edition sponsored by the Yongle emperor of the Ming dynasty. Through the impeccable records kept and the obvious grandeur of the projects, it is clear that the printing of the Buddhist canon in Yuan dynasty China was aimed at making a contribution to the economy as well as building a sense of solidarity among subjects of the state and the legitimacy of the rulers.


Sources:

Patricia Berger. 1994. Preserving the Nation: The Political Uses of Tantric Art in China. In Latter Days of the Law: Images of Chinese Buddhism 85-1850. Lawrence: Spencer Museum of Art, University of Kansas. 89-125.
Heather Karmay (Stoddard). 1975. Early Sino-Tibetan Art. Aris and Phillips.
Rinchen Trashi. 1988. “Tibetan Buddhism and the Yuan Royal Court.” Tibet Studies 1-26.
Françoise Wang-Toutain, “Circulation du savior entre la Chine, la Mongolie, et le Tibet au XVIIe siècle. Le prince Mgon-po skyabs.” Études chinoises, vol XXIV, (2005), 57-111, which cites Huang Hao Zai Beijing de Zangzu wenwu (1993), p. 55.

Entry by Stacey Van Vleet, 1/30/07, with additions by Gray Tuttle 9/22/08

user-1541794279

Posted on

Multilingual text canon Zhiyuanlu

Zhiyuanlu 至元录/Zhiyuan fabao kantong zonglu至元法宝勘同总录

Comparative catalogue of Tibetan and Chinese Buddhist canons and reconstitution of Sanskrit titles supported by Qubilai Khan (d. 1294) under the direction of ‘Phags pa and with the assistance of Chinese, Tibetan and Uighur Buddhists. Preserved in the Chinese Buddhist canon, Taisho vol. 99, number 25, in ten juan.


Source:

Françoise Wang-Toutain, “Circulation du savior entre la Chine, la Mongolie, et le Tibet au XVIIe siècle. Le prince Mgon-po skyabs.” Études chinoises, vol XXIV, (2005), 57-111, which cites Huang Hao Zai Beijing de Zangzu wenwu (1993), p. 55.

Posted on

Snar thang Canon

Snar thang Canon

During the Yuan dynasty, Buyantu Khan (r.1312-1320) sponsored ‘Jam dbyang “the Wise” to compile the Bstan ‘gyur at Snar thang. The Snar thang canon reputedly provided the model for all later editions of the canon.


Sources:

Badashkeyeva, T.T. 1989. “The History of Tibetan Medicine in Mongolia.” In Tibetan Medicine: The History, Methodology and Prospects for Use. Ulan-Ude: USSR Academy of Science, pp. 77-81.
Vogel, Claus. 1965. Vagbhata’s Astangahrdayasamhita. Wiesbaden: Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft.
Silk, Jonathan A. 1996. “Notes on the History of the Yongle Kanjur.” In Suhrllekhah: Festgabe für Helmut Eimer. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tiebetica Verlag.

Entry by Stacey Van Vleet, 4/23/07

user-1541794282

Posted on

Shes bya rab gsal

Shes bya rab gsal

Shes bya rab gsal, which is also known as Zhang suo zhi lun彰所知論 in Chinese, was the Abhidharma work made by ‘Phags-pa Blo-gros rgyal-mtshan (1235-1280) for teaching the Mongolian crown prince Jinggim (1243-1286,Chi. Zhen jin 真金). In order to legitimize the regime of Mongolians, Shes bya rab gsal traced the origin of Mongolians to Tibet, which had inherited Buddhist teaching from India. It is believed that Shes bya rab gsal was originally composed in Tibetan in 1278, and then translated into Mongolian and Chinese. Although past scholars have been familiar with the Chinese version of Zhang suo zhi lun collected in Chinese Tripitaka (Taisho Tripitaka Vol. T32, No. 1645), the Tibetan (in Sa skya bka’ ‘bum Vol. 13, pp. 13) and Mongolian versions were lately studied in 1980s and 2006 respectively (Hoog, 1983; Uspensky, 2006).

It seems that Shes bya rab gsal was not widely circulated during 13-14th century; nevertheless, it left significant legacies to later Mongolian historiographies that played big roles in making of the cosmology of early-modern Mongolians. For instance, the Buddhist cosmology in Shes bya rab gsal that suggested Mongol, Tibet and India shared a common origin was later adopted by Erderni-yin Tobči (Chi. Meng gu yuan liu蒙古源流) by Sagang Sečen in 1662. Moreover, Shes bya rab gsal did not only influence the historical writings, but also provide a theoretical antecedent for Manchu emperors that also linked their empire to the universal Buddhist origin that shared by Mongol, Tibet and India.


References

Chen, yin-ke 陳寅恪. Zhang suo zhi lun yu meng gu yuan liu (Shes bya rab gsal and Erdeni-yin Tobči). Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica. 2:3, 1931, pp. 302-309.
Shen, weirong 沈衛榮. A Re-examination of the Shes bya rab gsal and the Erdeniyin Tobči. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica. 77:4, 2006, pp. 697-727.
Uspensky, Vladimir. “Explanation of the Knowable” by ‘Phags-pa bla-ma Blo-gros rgyal-mtshan (1235-1280). Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 2006.
Hoog, Constance. Prince Jin-Gim’s Texkbook of Tibetan Buddhism. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1983

Entry by Ling-wei Kung 10/18/14