The Revival of Buddhist Monasticism in Medieval China

THE REVIVAL OF BUDDHIST MONASTICISM IN MEDIEVAL CHINAHUAIYU CHEN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY RECOMMENDATED FOR ACCEPTANCE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF RELIGION APRIL, 2005 UMI Number: 3156036 Copyright 2005 by Chen, Huaiyu All rights reserved. UMI Microform 3156036 Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 © Copyright by Huaiyu Chen, 2005. All rights reserved. ii ABSTRACT Having recovered from political persecution and resolved problems within the sangha, Buddhism reached a summit in its development during Sui and Early Tang China (581755). Daoxuan (596-667) played an unparalleled role in shaping the direction of Buddhist history during the medieval period through both his rich writings and his innovations of monastic rituals and regulations. This dissertation focuses on several key issues in his work, including the veneration of Buddha-relics and its relationship to the reconstruction and renovation of Buddhist monasteries as authoritative structures and as ground for the monastic community, the recreation of the ordination platform and ordination ritual, and the way in which the Buddhist community reclassified and dealt with monastic property. First, it discusses the historical background of Chinese Buddhism from the fifth to the seventh centuries. This study then argues that, in reinterpreting the image of southern Buddhism as a cultural tradition, Daoxuan sought a new model for the Chinese Buddhist tradition as a whole. More specifically, this study argues that the ritual of venerating relics as a commemorative ceremony functioned to expand the religious power of Buddhism in Chinese society and enhance the bonds within the monastic community. This study also interprets the creation of the ordination platform as a crucial element in the restoration of the Chinese monastic order. In addition, this study suggests that Daoxuan developed his new rules to create an innovative model for the Buddhist community as a ground for individual monks’ spiritual progress. He did this in part by reclassifying monastic property as communal and individual property. In sum, Daoxuan created a new tradition of Chinese Buddhist monasticism. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements Introduction 1. A Case Study in the Revival of Monastic Discipline ----------------------------------1 2. Theorizing Buddhist Monasticism -------------------------------------------------------7 3. Structural Overview ----------------------------------------------------------------------12 Chapter I: Buddhism in South China as a Cultural Imaginaire 1. Introduction --------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 2. Contextualizing Culture in the North and South China-------------------------------21 3. South China as the Kingdom of Culture -----------------------------------------------27 4. From the Kingdom of Culture to the Kingdom of Buddhism -----------------------34 5. Tradition and Training -------------------------------------------------------------------47 6. The Diaspora of Southern Culture ------------------------------------------------------53 7. A Son of a Southern Father and a Disciple of a Southern Master ------------------64 8. Concluding Remarks: Buddhism and Society -----------------------------------------69 Chapter II: Relics and Monasteries in Buddhist Monasticism 1. Introduction --------------------------------------------------------------------------------72 2. An Overview of the Relics in Asian History ------------------------------------------77 3. Authentication and Authority: Relics in China ---------------------------------------82 4. The Practice of Venerating Relics ------------------------------------------------------87 5. Rituals of Releasing life and Self-Destruction ----------------------------------------92 6. The Dead and the Living -----------------------------------------------------------------98 7. Manifestation of Incarnation -----------------------------------------------------------101 8. Multiple Buddhas ------------------------------------------------------------------------105 9. Concluding Remarks: The Past Becomes the Present ------------------------------110 Chapter III: Ordination Platform and Ordination Ritual 1. Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------114 2. Hybridizing the Ordination Tradition: From South China to Central Asia ------121 3. The Origin of Ordination Platform ----------------------------------------------------126 4. Mahāyāna Interpretation on Ordination Platform -----------------------------------136 5. The Scripture of Bequeathed Teaching and Ordination Ritual --------------------144 6. The Roles in the Ordination Ritual ----------------------------------------------------150 7. Ordination Ritual as an Initiation Rite ------------------------------------------------154 8. Concluding Remarks: Dimensions of Power and Knowledge ---------------------158 Chapter IV: Property in Buddhist Monasticism 1. Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------163 2. Contextualizing the Text ---------------------------------------------------------------169 3. Ownership: Private Property and Communal Property -----------------------------173 4. Classifications of Monastic Property -------------------------------------------------180 5. Laborers, Slaves and Servants ---------------------------------------------------------188 iv 6. Animals -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------191 7. Plants --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------197 8. Books --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------201 9. Jewels and Money -----------------------------------------------------------------------206 10. Medicines and Medical Works --------------------------------------------------------209 11. Clothing -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------215 12. Concluding Remarks: Differentiating Individuals and Community---------------219 Conclusions: The Revival of Buddhist Monasticism 1. From Margin to Center -----------------------------------------------------------------224 2. Discipline and Liberation -------------------------------------------------------------- 228 3. Textual Community and Scholasticism ---------------------------------------------- 230 4. Monastic and Secular Spheres -------------------------------------------------------- 232 Appendix The Procedure of Ordination Ritual in Chinese Buddhism ---------------------------- 234 Bibliography Primary Sources 1. Works by Daoxuan -----------------------------------------------------------------------244 2. Works in Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------------245 Secondary Sources 1. Sources in Western Languages ---------------------------------------------------------246 2. Sources in Chinese and Japanese Languages -----------------------------------------268 v Acknowledgements My journey to the West comes to an end. As a report of this long journey, this dissertation marks one of the last steps in the rite of passage of my academic life. It documents my transformation from a novice of Buddhist studies to a monkish scholar. It would never be in the current form without the supports of many “great virtues” (Skt. bhadanta, Ch. dade) at Princeton and beyond. First and foremost, I am extremely grateful to my advisor Stephen (Buzzy) F. Teiser. Buzzy’s supervision has profoundly reshaped the ways I read, write and think about intellectual issues. Buzzy has guided me through the treacherous water of graduate school onto the “correct path” with his infinite wisdom, benevolence, and patience. Professor Willard J. Peterson remains particularly inspiring and insightful, with whom I was fortunate to read both Chinese intellectual history and the tradition of Sinology in the West. I am also grateful to Professor Jacqueline (Jackie) Stone for introducing me to the field of Japanese Religions. In addition to the transfer of knowledge, she also assisted my research in Japan by kindly introducing me to many Japanese scholars in the field. I am also indebted to Professor Jeffrey Stout for giving me the first taste of studying religions at Princeton and in the West, and for his continuous support. My appreciation also goes to Professor Yang Lu for his tireless encouragement and support. As a great teacher and role model, Master Lu (Lu Daren) has not only provided many intellectual nourishments, he has also been uncommonly generous with his time and advice on matters both academic and personal. Lastly, I also would like to offer my appreciation to professors Martin Collcutt, Susan Naquin, and Robert Wuthnow for their various supports. I have also been on the receiving end of Professors Yu Yingshih’s and Zhang Guangda’s invaluable guidance and encouragement. During their three years at Princeton, Professor Zhang Guangda and his wife, Professor Xu Tingyun, warmly invited me to their home many times treated me to delicious home cooking, and most importantly shared with me their experience as Chinese intellectuals and historians. I owe a great deal to many scholars outside of Princeton as well. First of all, Professor Rong Xinjiang at PKU has continuously supported my study and research since I first became his master’s student in 1994. It was he who first introduced me to Buzzy and Professor Zhang Guangda, and to the academic world. Professors Wang Bangwei and Lin Meicun at PKU also showed me great generosity. Professors Cai Hongsheng, Jiang Boqin, and Lin Wushu kindly invited me to Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou and shared with me their insights of Tang history. In Hong Kong, Professor Jao Tsung-i put some time aside from his busy schedule to discuss with me Buddhist historiography. In Taiwan, Professor Cheng A-tsai and his wife, Professor Chu Feng-yu, offered me numerous materials on Dunhuang studies. Professors Chikusa Masaaki, Funayama Toru, Sueki Fumihiko, and Takata Tokio helped my research in Japan. In Europe, I am indebted to the supports of Professors Kuo Li-ying, Jens-Uwe Hartman, and Haiyan Hu-von Hinüber. I am especially grateful to Dr. Joseph McDermott for inviting me to present a chapter of my dissertation at Cambridge University, where I was fortunate to have received comments from Professor Richard F. Gombrich, which have saved me from many errors. Dr. Henrietta Harrison, teaching in Leeds, also helped me in the early stage of my dissertation project during her stay at Institute for Advanced Study. Professor Yung Saihsing also extended to me his helping hands during his stay at Princeton. In the US, many vi scholars have helped me in various stages of this project. Professor Victor H. Mair has kindly answered many of my questions through emails and conversations since we first met in 1997. Professor Yu Chun-fang has devoted hours of her valuable time to discuss with me my dissertation project, most importantly, she offered me an opportunity to teach at Rutgers University. Professors Shinohara Koichi and Eric Reinders and Dr. Tan Zhihui both offered suggestions on my study of Daoxuan during its earliest stage. I am equally indebted to many friends I came to know at Princeton. Ji Xiao-bin (Ji Daren), as a traditional Confucian gentleman, has patiently shared with me his research and teaching experience. Without his helps, my life and study would without doubt be much harder. I am also grateful to Wei Yang Teiser and Lucy Lo for their supports. My life and study at Princeton have also been greatly enriched by a circle of “good friends” (Skt. kalyānamitra, Ch. shanyou). I would like to especially highlight the significance of Caitlin J. Anderson, Jessey J.C Choo, and Alexei K. Ditter for their companionship. Caitlin, Alexei, and I have been on a same boat for a seemingly endless journey of pursuing our degrees. I thank them for the sharing of sadness and happiness in the past seven years and Jessey for kindly brought me lunch and dinner while I was writing general examinations. I am also grateful to Jennifer Eichman and Lori Meeks for their support in the early stage of my graduate school life. In addition, many have helped me through various stages: Micah Auerbach, Ian Chapman, Paul Copp, Chunmei Du, Haiyan Gu, Zhigang Hu, Xiaojuan Huang, Ryan B. Joo, Kevin Osterloh, Mark Rowe, Asuka Sango, Lianying Shan, Fabien Simonis, Yinggang Sun, Tat-kee Tan, Eric Thomas, Huimin Tzeng, Haicheng Wang, Chuck Wooldridge, Xiaojin Wu, Lanjun Xu, Stuart Young, Hui-chun Yu, Jimmy Yu, Ya Zuo. In addition, Courtney Palmbush offers great help with final proofreading. I am also grateful to many friends who kindly hosted me during my academic trips with in the US, as well as those to Asia and Europe: Chen Ming, Steve Covell, Dang Baohai, Egawa Shikibu, Lei Wen, Lin Peiying, Liu Guanglin, Liu Houbin, Meng Xianshi, Wang Chengwen, Wang Xianhua, Wong Yung, Ye Wei, Yu Xin, Zhang Lun, Zhang Mingxin, Zhang Tao, and Zhou Guanghui. My thanks also go to all institutions that funded my study and research in the past several years: Association of Princeton Graduate Alumni, Center for the Study of Religion, Council on Regional Studies, East Asian Studies Department and Program, Graduate School, Religion Department, Princeton; Japanese School, Middlebury College; China Times Cultural Foundation. I would also like to thank the following people for their assistance: Patricia A. Bogdziewicz, Richard Chafey, Lorraine Fuhrmann, Anita Klein, Kerry Smith, and Hue Kim Su. I am also grateful to Martin Heijdra and Yasuko Makino and East Asian Library at Princeton for their bibliographical support. Last but not the least, I am grateful to my family for their indispensable support: my parents, my younger sisters, my wife, my parents-in-law, and all relatives who are now struggling for better life in Jiangxi, Fujian, Hebei and Tianjin. For twenty years I have been away from home and relatives to pursue my study. It has been hard for my parents. Without their understanding and support, I would never be able to concentrate on my study. I also would not complete my dissertation without hearing my wife’s voice across vii the distance: “Little Tiger! Hurry up and complete your dissertation. Come home!” May Buddhas and Bodhisattvas bless them! viii Introduction A Case Study in the Revival of Monastic Discipline This study examines the formation of Buddhist monasticism in medieval China by analyzing the writings of one of most important Chinese Buddhist monks, Daoxuan, who was later viewed as the founder of the Sino-Japanese Vinaya School. My interest in Daoxuan (道宣 596-667) was inspired by a key figure in the modern history of Chinese Buddhism, Hongyi (弘一 1880-1942).1 Both Hongyi and Daoxuan lived in periods when Buddhism in China was thought to be in decline, and they were regarded by later generations as reviving Buddhism through their learning and practice of Buddhist monastic discipline. Hongyi claimed that he was a follower of Daoxuan’s tradition of the Four-part Vinaya (Caturvargika-vinaya, Sifenlü 四分律, usually called Dharmaguptavinaya in modern scholarship).2 Hongyi engaged in the extensive study of this tradition in order to save Chinese Buddhist monastic order from decline. He engaged in strict practice Before Hongyi entered the Buddhist monastic order, his secular name was Li Shutong. Before his time, China had been forced to open up to Western powers since the Opium War (1840-1842). In the 1850s, South China, where Li was raised, experienced the devastation of the Taiping Rebellion (18561864). Taiping rebels destroyed many traditional Confucian and Buddhist cultural expressions and Christianity spread all over the country. Many members of the younger generation became aware of the crisis of Chinese culture and attempted to find solutions. Li Shutong went abroad and studied in Japan. He became very familiar with forms of Western arts. He even performed French dramas. After he went back to China, he became famous for his cultural activities. Yet he soon quit the cultural scene in South China and entered the Buddhist order in his forties. For a recent study of master Hongyi, see Raoil Birnbaum, “Master Hongyi Looks Back: A Modern Man Became a Monk in Twentieth-Century China,” in: Steven Heine and Charles S. Prebish, eds., Buddhism in the Modern World: Adaptation of an Ancient Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 75-124. The Chinese term if Sifenlü. I prefer to use the Sanskrit reconstruction of Caturvargika-Vinaya, which is a direct back-translation of the meaning of the Chinese: “Four-part Vinaya.” My practice runs contrary to current practice, which usually calls the Sifenlü the Dharmagupta-Vinaya, which refers to the school (Dharmagupta) of Buddhism that used the Four-part Vinaya. My reasoning is based on two arguments. One is that the Chinese who inherited and remade the tradition viewed it as a textual tradition based on the Four-part Vinaya, and did not emphasize the specific doctrines of the Dharmagupta School. The other reason is that when Chinese authors did refer explicitly to the Dharmagupta School, they tended to use another word, not associated with the Vinaya: Fazang, which was a more literal translation (“Dharma treasury”) of the School’s name. 2 1 1 of the Vinaya. He studied and commented on numerous writings by Daoxuan. He also wrote a short sketch of Daoxuan’s life. He hoped to revive Chinese culture by bringing about a revival of Buddhist monasticism and scholarship. I see Hongyi in the shadow of Daoxuan, almost as if he were a reincarnation of Daoxuan. Like Hongyi, I have made Daoxuan the subject of this study.3 I also believe that monasticism and scholasticism can play a vital role in reviving Chinese Buddhism, after a period of nearly endless revolution in the twentieth century. My study analyzes the writings of Daoxuan, one of the greatest scholarly-monks in the history of Chinese Buddhism. Daoxuan was born in Jingzhao (Shaanxi) in 596. His family was from southeastern China, and his father rose to a high position in the central government of the Chen Dynasty. As the son of a gentry family, Daoxuan would have received a good education in the Confucian classics. His biography says that he was also good at composing rhyme-prose (fu). His early monastic education under the supervision of Vinaya masters Huijun (564-637) and Zhishou (567-635) took place near the Sui Dynasty (589-618) capital, Chang'an (Shaanxi). In the Tang Dynasty (618-907) he later studied at a variety of monasteries and traveled across China, spreading his interpretation of the monastic code,4 collecting texts for his new interpretation of monastic discipline and ritual, and writing histories and other works. His career in the state-controlled monkhood flourished, and in 658 the Emperor appointed him as superintendent (Skt. sthavira, Ch. shangzuo), the highest monastic position in the empire, and invited him to live in the newly erected Ximing Monastery in Chang’an. He was very active in My dissertation is limited loosely to the problem of monasticism. I hope to return to scholasticism in a later project. 4 3 Skt. vinaya, Ch. lü. 2 administering the Buddhist Church and representing its interests to the state. He died in 667. He composed many Vinaya texts and commentaries, all focusing on the ritual and institutional life of monks and nuns. Later sectarian scholarship canonized his scholarship on Vinaya, calling it “The Five Great Books of the Vinaya School” (“Lüzong wu dabu”): Selections with Annotations on Bhikksu Precepts of the Four-part Vinaya (Sifenlü biqiu hanzhu jieben), Commentary on the Four-part Vinaya with Annotations and Additions (Sifenlü shanfan buque xingshi chao), Occasional Karma with Deletions and Additions of the Four-part Vinaya (Sifenlü shanbu suiji jiemo), Selections from Ten Vinayas of the Four-part Vinaya (Sifenlü shi bini chao), Selections on Bhikhsuni Precepts of the Fourpart Vinaya (Sifenlü biqiuni jieben). He distinguished himself as a Buddhist historian with his Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks (Xu gaoseng zhuan), and as the highest-ranking monk in China he defined the canon of Chinese Buddhism in his Catalogue of Buddhist Scriptures of the Great Tang (Da Tang neidian lu). 5 He also compiled collections of miracle tales and wrote an anthology of apologetic literature concerning debates between Buddhists, Daoists, and Confucians. Daoxuan was one of the most important Buddhist monks of his generation and his writings were prolific. Later generations regarded him as the founder of the Vinaya School and credited his contributions to other schools, including Pure Land, Huayan, and Chan.6 For brief discussion of Daoxuan’s vinaya contribution in English, see Yifa, The Origins of Buddhist Monastic Codes in China: An Annotated Translation and Study of the Chanyuan qinggui (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002), pp. 23-28; and Tso Sze-bong, “The Transformation of Buddhist Vinaya in China” (PhD dissertation. Caberra: Australia National University, 1982). If these schools existed as self-conscius institutional entities or religious movements in China, it is still controversy. See Robert Sharf, Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism: A Reading of the Treasure Store Treatuse (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002), p. 9. 6 5 3 My study is especially concerned with Daoxuan’s understanding of the crisis confronting the Buddhist community. In his view, the crisis was partly caused by shortcomings in ascetic and ritual practice of monks and nuns. My work provides a history of the institution of the celibate monkhood. Daoxuan devoted himself to restoring order to Buddhist monastic communities in a variety of ways. He reformed the ordination system and wrote monastic regulations for both monks and nuns, stressing the importance of personal asceticism and advocating changes in how the monastic community dealt with property. These efforts were the internal side of Daoxuan's broader attempts to assuage conflicts between secular and Buddhist communities. This perspective makes my study different from the conventional approach to early Tang Buddhism and to Daoxuan, which focuses on his external solutions to conflict between the state and the church. Although Daoxuan is one of the most important scholar-monks in Chinese Buddhist history, no comprehensive work on Daoxuan has been written in any language. In Chinese, there is only one book on Daoxuan for general readers. In Japanese, most articles on Daoxuan concern only small segments of his works, either his Vinaya commentaries or his historical scholarship. These works are limited in scope, viewing Daoxuan entirely through a sectarian lens.7 Fujiyoshi Masumi for the first time published a book devoting to Daoxuan’s life. He draws a picture of Daoxuan’s life and work chronically by meticulous textual studies.8 The problem with that approach is that it is not only anachronistic – since the Vinaya “School” did not exist as such in Daoxuan’s time – In this view Daoxuan was the founder of so-called “Vinaya School”. Contemporary scholarship now is more and more aware of the problem of this sectarian approach. For an example on Japanese side, Ryūichi Abé criticizes the sectarian scholarship for their viewing Kūkai as the founder of Shingon School; see Abe, The Weaving of Mantra: Kūkai and the Construction of Esoteric Buddhist Discourse (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), pp. 3-4. 8 7 See Fujiyoshi Masumi, Dōsen den no kenkyū (Kyoto: Kyōtō daigaku shuppankai, 2002). 4 it also underestimates the breadth of Daoxuan’s scholarship and the variety of sources on which we need to draw. And this study is limited within the scope of traditional sectarian Buddhist scholarship. Thus, there is still a great need for a comprehensive study that places Daoxuan in the context of medieval Chinese Buddhist history. In English, there are four dissertations mostly devoted to Daoxuan's historical writings and ritual texts, but most of them pay little attention to Daoxuan's Vinaya texts.9 Many scholars have noted that there has not been any considerable progress in Chinese Vinaya studies.10 Following a long tradition in Buddhology, contemporary scholarship still focuses on scriptures and treatises. By approaching Daoxuan's Vinaya works in relation to monastic life and social history, my work will contribute to this subject as well. My approach broadens the traditional view of Daoxuan's scholarship, which places him in the Buddhist tradition of Sengyou (445-518). A renowned master of John Kieschnick, “The Idea of the Monk in Medieval China: Asceticism, Thaumaturgy, and Scholarship in the Biographies of Eminent Monk” (Ph. D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1995), later it appeared as a book, Eminent Monk: Buddhist Ideals in Medieval Chinese Hagiography (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997); Robin Beth Wagner, “Buddhism, Biography and Power: A Study of Daoxuan's Continued Lives of Eminent Monks” (Ph D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1995); Eric Reinders, “Buddhist Rituals of Obeisance and the Contestation of the Monk’s Body in Medieval China” (PhD. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1997); Tan, Zhihui. “Daoxuan’s Vision of Jetavana: Imagining a Utopian Monastery in Early Tang” (Ph.D. thesis, The University of Arizona, 2002). Friederike Assandri finished a dissertation drawing upon Daoxuan’s work Ji gujin fodao lunheng, but his focus is the debate between Buddhists and Daoists. See “Die Debatten zwischen Daoisten und Buddhisten in der Früher Tang-Zeit und die Changxuan-Lehre des Daoismus” (“The Debates between Daoists and Buddhists in the early Tang and the Chongxuan Teaching of Daoism. A Study of Daoxuan’s Ji gujin fodao lunheng, T. 2104”), Heidelberg University, Germany, 2002. Ann Heirman’s dissertation deals with a section of Four-part Vinaya. It came out as a book titled The Discipline in Four Parts, Rules for Nuns according to the Dharmaguptakavinaya (Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 2002), 3 vols. John McRae, “Chinese Religions -- The State of Field: Buddhism.” Journal of Asian Studies 54: 2 (1995): 354-371. Koichi Shinohara is an exception. He published many articles either dealing with Daoxuan or Vinaya. see his “Buddhist Precepts in Mdeieval Chinese Biographies of Monks,” in Charles Fu et al., Buddhist Behavioral Codes and the Modern World (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994), pp. 7594; “Changing roles for miraculous images in medieval Chinese Buddhism: a study of the miraculous images section of Daoxuan's ‘Ji shenzhou sanbao gantonglu’,” in Richard Davis ed., Images, Miracles, and Authority in Asian Religious Traditions (Boulder: Westview Press, 1998), pp. 141-188; “The Kasaya robe of the past Buddha Kasyapa in the miraculous instruction given to the Vinaya master Daoxuan (596-667),” Chung-hua Buddhist Journal 12 (2000), pp. 299-367. 10 9 5 monastic codes, Sengyou compiled a catalogue of the Buddhist canon and a collection of texts regarding the debates between Buddhists, Daoists, and Confucians. Restricting one's review to Daoxuan's place in Sengyou's scholarly tradition makes it difficult to account for the breadth of Daoxuan's works and his involvement in broader social movements. I will demonstrate that Daoxuan was indebted to a much broader Buddhist heritage than that represented by Sengyou. Daoxuan first studied at Riyan monastery, established in the late Sui Dynasty in the capital Chang'an, where he was trained in the southern tradition under his master Huijun. He was also probably influenced by other masters from South China in the Riyan Monastery. However, contrary to Sengyou, who never left the South, Daoxuan lived in a period of unification that allowed him to travel across the empire and thereby to access more diverse intellectual sources. In his travels, Daoxuan became familiar with the practices of many monastic communities. By carefully exploring the complex interaction between scholarly and monastic concerns in Daoxuan's life, I will present a new picture of the social and cultural history of early Tang Buddhism. Although scholarship has recently made some progress on the Buddhism of the fifth to ninth centuries, it has paid little attention to the changes in Buddhism during the transition from the late douthern and northern dynasties to the early Tang period in the late sixth and early seventh centuries. The main sources I will deal with in this study come from Daoxuan’s writings on Vinaya, ritual, history, and miracle tales, which have been largely neglected in current scholarship. 11 These ritual texts include Record of the Miraculous Responses of the Discipline (Lüxiang gantong zhuan), Illustrated Scripture of the Establishment of the Most of them can be found in the volume 45 of the Taishō edition of the modern Buddhist canon. See primary sources: part 1 for a brief listing of Daoxuan’s writings. 11 6 Ordination Platform within the Pass (Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing), Methods of Instructing Contemplation for Purifying the Mind (Jingxin jieguan fa), Rituals for Buddhist Robes (Shimen zhangfu yi), Ritual for Measuring and Handling Light and Heavy Property (Liangchu qingzhong yi), Ritual on Buddhist Conversion and Veneration (Shimen guijing yi), and Regulations and Rituals for Teaching and Regulating New Monks’ Travel and Safety (Jiaojie xinxue biqiu xinghu lüyi).12 These ritual texts should be read as practical manuals, aimed at simplicity and clarity. They are not doctrinally profound and complex, unlike some of his other work, such as his commentaries on the Four Part Vinaya (Sifenlü). One of the things I attempt to show is that these practical handbooks are just as important, as they function as commentaries on the monastic code. Theorizing Buddhist Monasticism Monasticism is now viewed as a cross-cultural phenomenon and has been examined from many disciplines. However, in modern scholarship, the study of monasticism historically derives from the study of the history of Christianity. In Christianity, monasticism, as a term, derives from the Greek word monos, which means “dwelling alone.” Monasticism as a way of life emerged in the Egyptian deserts as early as the first century C. E. Early Christian monasticism concentrates on individual asceticism and involves three key elements: poverty, chastity, and obedience. All three were established on the basis of Christian faith. Later monasticism was rapidly institutionalized with the establishment of Christian monasteries.13 Although in Victorian T. no. 1892-1898. My study will only focus on several texts here. My future research will further the discussion on asceticism by analyzing other texts including Methods of Instructing Contemplation for Purifying Mind (Jingxin jieguan fa), Ritual on Buddhist Robes (Shimen zhangfu yi), and Daoxuan’s commentaries on Vinayas. Moreover, I will not focus on Daoxuan’s text Zhong tianzhu sheweiguo zhiyuansi tujing, which has been dealt with in Tan Zhihui’s Ph. D. dissertation (University of Arizona, 2002) recently. 12 7 England, Catholic missionaries frequently compared Buddhism and Christianity in terms of monasticism,14 in the field of Buddhist Studies it has emerged only recently.15 Although the word and concept originated in the study of early Christian history, monasticism is now understood and defined in many different ways. In the recently published Encyclopedia of Monasticism, Editor William M. Johnston notes that “Monasticism is defined as a single-minded commitment to religious life conducted apart from the surrounding society (almost always in celibacy and relative poverty) and following a rule that usually involves emulating or obeying a founder.”16 Although the first two conditions usually fit the Buddhist case, the last one does not match so well. In the same encyclopedia, in the entry on monasticism from the Buddhist perspective, Mahinda Deegalle does not even mention the relationship of monasticism to the Buddha as founder. Deegalle points out that the typical definition of Buddhist monasticism is based on a pre-understanding of Christian monasticism. Deegale argues that, compared to the Christian monastic life which was strictly regulated by monastic rules and in which the monasteries functioned as ideal places for practicing austerities, Buddhist Marilyn J. Dunn, The Emergence of Monaticism: From the Desert Fathers to the Early Middle Ages (London: Blackwell Publishers, 2002), chs. 1 and 5. Philip C. Almond, The British Discovery of Buddhism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 111-132. For example, aiming at Tibetan Buddhism, Georges B. J. Dreyfus says that Buddhist monasticism attempts to create a form of disciplined life separate from the world in order to pursue the ascetic world-transcendent religious ideal. See Dreyfus, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist Monk (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), pp. 32-37. Monasticism has also been the focus on Buddhist traditions in other Asian areas. In 2002, there was a conference on Buddhist monasticism in Asia held at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. The conference volume, tentatively titled “Buddhist Monasticism: Asian Perspectives” is unpublished. In 2004, a conference on “Buddhist Monasticism in East Asia” was held in Cambridge University, Cambridge, England. 16 15 14 13 William M. Johnston, ed., Encyclopedia of Monasticism (Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2000), p. 1 8 monasticism combined dwelling, traveling, and preaching. In tracing a short history of Buddhist monastic communities in Asia, he also states that Buddhist monasticism might be the oldest monastic system in the world. Deegalle suggests that Buddhist monasticism does not view renunciation as the first step in religious training. He also agrees against applying the Christian concept to Buddhism because Buddhist monks and nuns were not hermits who lived independently. Instead, Buddhist monks and nuns received support from human settlements and also disseminated the Buddha’s teachings.17 Moreover, in Catholic monasticism, monks developed their own monastic culture, which was independent from the culture of surrounding society. As Jean Gribomont in New Catholic Encyclopedia notes, Monasticism is defined as “an institution of ancient and medieval origins, establishing and regulating the ascetical and social conditions of the manner of religious life lived in common or in contemplative solitude.”18 Gribomont also concludes that, Monasticism was a development of primitive Christian asceticism along various lines: the anchoritic and cenobitic types were not the original nucleus but rather successful forms on which others patterned themselves. The monks had their own culture; it was independent of the classical world of antiquity and often local popular traditions, Coptic and Syriac. The monks brought the church an ideal of asceticism, forms of prayer such as the use of the Psalter, a rich experience of inwardness, and new literary forms. The movement became a triumphant power that, despite its resistance to cultural changes, was to give a distinguishing character to the Middle Ages.19 Gribomont clearly suggests that monks had their own culture independent from local traditions in early Near East. Christian monks created their tradition in Greek which was 17 18 Mahinda Deegalle, “Monasticism, Definitions of: Buddhist Perspective,” ibid., pp. 868-871. New Catholic Encyclopedia, prepared by an editorial staff at the Catholic University of America in association with Thomson-Gale (New York: Thomson-Gale, 2002), p. 786. 19 Ibid., p. 788. 9 different from local Coptic and Syriac cultural traditions. Their practices included asceticism, praying the Psalter, experiencing inwardness, and using their new literary forms. Similarly, Buddhist monks also created their own traditions in Buddhist Sanskrit language, using their own literary forms, praying their eulogies, and practicing their “middle way”. Monasticism can also be defined as an institution of communal living in order to pursue a spiritual state. Monastic members are required to live a disciplined and ritualized daily life. In this context, Livia Kohn emphasizes the social roles played by monastics. For her, “monasticism is always located between the need to provide optimal conditions for the individual’s attainment of holiness and the necessity to keep order and control within the monastic community and in its interaction with normative society.”20 Indeed, the social aspects are very important. In the Middle Ages, in many religious traditions, including Christianity, Buddhism, and Daoism, monasticism centered on the monasteries and monks. The ideal of spiritual practice and salvation dominated the lives of monks. In medieval Chinese Buddhism, particularly, monasticism refers to a single-minded commitment of ascetic religious life pursuing spiritual enlightenment, or pursuing the attainment of Buddhahood. 21 Similar to Christian monasticism, Chinese Buddhist monks also developed their own culture. They had their own educational and training system. As I will show, although the Buddha played an important role in shaping the formation of Livia Kohn, Monastic Life in Medieval Daoism: A Cross-cultural Perspective (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003), p. 1. In early Buddhism, monasticism aimed to seek the attainment of nibbana, escaping from the suffering (dukka). See The Book of the Discipline (Vinaya-pataka), volume V (Callavagga), I. B. Horner trans. (London: Luzac & Company LTD., 1963), p. 219. 21 20 10 Buddhist monastic establishments and the ordination ritual, the monks did not strictly obey the founder, the historical Buddha. Rather, they followed the Buddhist truth they believed for their own spiritual cultivation. However, to me, the Buddha played an indispensable role in authorizing the establishment of Chinese Buddhist monasteries and in overseeing the enterance of the monk to the Buddhist monastic order. There are numerous works dealing with monastic life in medieval China. Most of them deal with monastic life from the perspective of social history.22 The approach of social history successfully reveals the integration between monastic and lay communities, especially via economic activities. However, these works might have missed the religious implication of the monastic life that monasticism stresses. The observation that focuses solely on the physical structure of society therefore ignores the religious mentality of the participants as they carry out economic activities. As I will show, in dealing with monastic property, as a master, Daoxuan has a clear sense of Buddhist ethics, including compassion, detachment from the secular sphere, and so forth. Therefore, in the sense of mentality, the life of monastic members was largely shaped on the basis of their religious faith, their spiritual pursuit. 23 This is particularly true of the elite cleric class, who concentrated on spiritual progress and the stabilization of the monastic order. They were devoted to conferring Buddhist values and principles of an ascetic ideal over to ordinary We may name a few of them, for example, Jacques Gernet, Buddhism in Chinese Society: An Economic History from the Fifth to Tenth Centuries (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995); Hao Chunwen, Tang houqi wudai Song chu Dunhuang sengni de shehui shenghuo (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1997). Both works draw upon large amount of Dunhuang manuscripts, which also largely reflect the locality of Buddhism in Dunhuang, a politically autonomous area in northwestern China. To what extent the conclusion drawn from Dunhuang materials is applicable in central China, it is still under the debate. 23 22 Janet Burton, Medieval Monasticism Headstart Historical Papers (Oxford: Plantagene Press, 1993). 11 monks, generation by generation. These goals are illustrated in their practice of Buddhist monasticism. As my study will show, Daoxuan is one of the great cases. My approach to Buddhist monasticism in medieval China will focus on several essential aspects of monasticism, for example, the relationship between the veneration ritual of the Buddha’s relics and the construction of pagodas, as well as the relationship of these practiese to the renovation of monasteries, the participation of Buddha present in the form of his relics in the ritual of ordination, and with the way that personal and communal property was dealt with in the monastic community. I believe that these issues have been involved with the formation of Buddhist monasticism in medieval China. Structural Overview My study of Daoxuan is divided into four chapters. Chapter one deals with historical context. It lays a historical and structural foundation for later chapters. In this chapter I argue that, after the Chinese empire had been in disunity for several hundred years and was then reunified,24 the history of Chinese Buddhism followed a new path. It essentially followed the Southern tradition, as we can see in Daoxuan’s writings. This tradition puts particular emphasis on monastic practice. It also accentuates the Chinese characteristics of Buddhist monasticism, which are different from Indian Buddhist monasticism.25 It focuses on three issues: the worship of relics and the reconstruction of monasteries, the construction of the ordination platform, and meditation methods.26 Around late third century, with the collapse of the Han Empire, China fell into three kingdoms, and later on even more kingdoms. Only in 589 did the Sui regime reunify the Chinese empire again. For Indian monasticism, see Nalinaksha Dutt, Early Monastic Buddhism (Calcutta: Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay, 1971). More recently, Gregory Schopen has offered a fresh approach to Indian Buddhist monasticism by focusing on inscriptional sources. See his Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1997); and Buddhist Monks and Business Matters: Still More Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2004. 25 24 12 From chapter two to chapter four, I examine three aspects I have selected from Daoxuan’s numerous writings. Chapter two examines the relationship between relics and monasteries. I suggest that in Chinese Buddhism, relics always occupied a central position in the monastic compound. Relics, as a representation of the Buddha, participated in the reconstruction of Chinese monasteries, and therefore, the reconstruction of the monastic order. The ceremony of venerating Buddha’s relics bridges the gap between the dead historcial Buddha and his Chinese followers, and between the monastic community and the lay community. Chapter three moves to discuss the ordination ritual by focusing on the design and construction of the ordination platform. I argue that the promotion of the ordination platform is one of Daoxuan’s greatest contributions to Chinese Buddhism. Daoxuan’s ordination platform mixes both traditional Indian Buddhist ideas with his own creation. Its three-level design creates a new form of ordination ritual in East Asian Buddhism. On this three-level platform, Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and senior masters play a crucial role in leading the ceremony, while other monastic members are merely onlookers. In analyzing how to deal with property in the monastic community, chapter four turns to examine how the monastic community deals with the people and goods it owns, receives, and inherits. I argue that Daoxuan formulated new rules for the ownership and distribution of property in the Chinese Buddhist monastic community.27 26 27 More on meditation practice will be beyond the scope of this study and deserve a future project. I planned to analyze the monastic practices by reading a Daoxuan’s manual about the method of purifying mind. However, I realize that this is a huge topic which goes beyond the scope of this study. I will develop it in future research. 13 In this study, I merely focus on Daoxuan’s creation of a new tradition of medieval Chinese Buddhist monasticism. This study does not cover some appealing issues in Daoxuan’s works, such as his definition of canon, his view of miracles and statues, his biographical standards, and his contributions to scholasticism. I hope to turn to them in other work. 14 Chapter I: Buddhism in South China as a Cultural Imaginaire The island barbarians lived in the Southern Region where the land was low and full of weird ether. The passion and will of people were elevated. Therefore it was called the Prefecture of Elevation (Yangzhou). The Jin regime fled to the South, thus it was called the Cultural Kingdom. And for this reason, it was said that the South was transformed from a barbarian culture to Chinese culture. Thus even Confucius who lived in the nine barbarian regions was not illiterate.28 江表島夷, 地卑氣厲, 情志飛揚, 故曰揚 州。晉氏奔之, 更稱文國。變夷從夏, 斯 言有由, 則孔子居九夷非陋也。 -- Daoxuan Introduction Although Chinese culture usually appears singular and unique in modern Western and Chinese discourse, other interpretations are possible. The assumption that Chinese culture is unitary assumes a cultural system centered on Confucianism, which was believed to have been dominant since the former Han Dynasty (206 BC – 8 AD), especially since the Emperor Wu (r. 140-87 BCE) promoted Dong Zhongshu’s (董仲舒) version of Confucianism as the official ideology. However, other cultural traditions also played a crucial role in the life of Han people in some regions of the Han Empire. For example, in northern Sichuan and Southern Shaanxi area, the people practiced the Fivepeck Rice Way (Wudoumi dao 五 斗 米 道 ). And in the Shandong area, the people practiced the Way of Yellow Emperor and Laozi (Huanglao dao 黃老道). Thus, when we talk about ancient Chinese culture, we should take regional diversity into account. The Han Empire fell and divied into three kingdoms (Wei, Shu, and Wu) in the third century. 28 Guang hongmingji (chapter 6), Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 127a. 15 Developing out of the largest kingdom, Wei, the Jin Empire unified China and thereafter quickly declined under the attack of nomads from the Mongolian plateau. In early fourth century, the Jin court was forced to move to Jiankang (modern Nanjing) and there continued its regime. Before the Sui regime unified China as an empire in the sixth century, Chinese history seems to have been divided into two traditions: Northern dynasties and Southern dynasties. Northern dynasties were usually established by nomads who were called “barbarians” in medieval Chinese sources. Southern dynasties, however, claimed their cultural heritage from the Han Empire. After the fourth century, following the division of political regimes into North and South, different forms of economy and culture developed. Although Buddhism entered China in the first century (the former Han Dynasty), the first Chinese Buddhist community (Sangha) was not established until the third century. These radical developments in Chinese political history beginning in the fourth century had a strong influence on the history of Buddhism in China. As I will show in the following pages, this change can also be discussed taking into account the fact of regional diversity. Modern scholarship has paid some attention to the different traditions of Buddhism in the Northern and Southern dynasties. 29 The dominant viewpoint in this scholarship, initiated by Tang Yongtong, is that Buddhism in the South was a religion devoted to the exegetical study (yixue 義學 ), or the study of wisdom, one of three Erik Zürcher suggests that the Buddhist conquest of China was a historical development of gentry Buddhism by focusing on how the aristocracy in this period accepted Buddhism, but his argument seems to be based on the case in the South. See The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959). His sociological study is indebted to Tang Yongtong’s book titled Wei Jin nanbeichao fojiao shi (Originally published in Shanghai, 1938; Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1982, reprinted). 29 16 divisions of Buddhist practice (morality, concentration, and wisdom). 30 In this view, Southern Buddhism was concerned with the exchange of philosophical ideas between eminent monks and the literati, while in Northern dynasties, Buddhism was a religion centered on meditation practice. This approach suggests that most monks in north China focused on meditation practice, rather than doctrinal debates.31 Tang writes, Buddhist Dharma to the east of the [Yangtze] River focused on the method of meaning [yimen]; as to meditation method, it was probably not [as strong] as it was in [North China].32 Tang explains that the focus of Buddhism in South China was the study of wisdom. He argues that in South China, the monks and lay followers were devoted to studying the meaning of the Buddhist scriptures and treaties, debating theoretical issues, and writing commentaries. His strongest evidence in support of this viewpoint comes from his reading of surviving traditional Buddhist sources, especially the biographies of monks and histories. These biographies, typically, were written by eminent monks. In terms of social class, these biographies were focused on eminent monks who mostly came from big clans. Tang’s viewpoint is based on selective biased biographies.33 In sum, Tang’s Ch. sanxue 三學. However, when we talk about “sanxue” as a single word indicating three learnings, it refers to a textual study of the three practices. So I will use “practices” and “learnings” on different occasions for different indications. Erik Zürcher, The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959); Tang Yongtong. Tang Zhangru echoes Tang’s viewpoint; see Wei Jin nanbeichao Sui Tang shi sanlun (Wuhan: Wuhandaxue chubanshe, 1993), pp. 224-225. Tang Yongtong, Han Wei liang Jin nanbeichao fojiao shi (Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1938), p. 799. I will discuss these biographies in the context of Daoxuan’s scholarship in a seperate project. For more current study on the biographies of eminent monks, see John Kieschnick, Eminent Monk: Buddhist Ideals in Medieval Chinese Hagiography (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997); Robin Beth Wagner, “Buddhism, Biography and Power: A Study of Daoxuan's Continued Lives of Eminent Monks” (Ph D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1995). 33 32 31 30 17 viewpoint does not offer a comprehensive picture of Buddhist monks in the time of the Northern and Southern dynasties. Buddhism was not the only cultural tradition in medieval China. If its learning manifested in different ways in the North and South, other cultural traditions might also reflect this regional difference. Discussing Buddhist learning in a broader context may offer us a better understanding of medieval Chinese Buddhist history in general. In going beyond the field of Buddhist studies, we might broaden our discussion on the different traditions of scholarly learning in Northern and Southern dynasties. In the Sui and Tang Dynasties, scholars were aware of the different modes of Confucian learning in the North and South. For example, Tang official historians commented on the difference between Northern and Southern learning as follows, Mostly the Southerners’ [learning] is simple and plain, grasping the essence of the learning; while Northern learning is profound and sophisticated, exhausting the details [branches and leaves].34 南人約簡﹐得其精華﹔北學深蕪﹐窮其枝葉。 This observation indicates that Southern literati were interested in abstract learning. In other words, they paid more attention to theoretical issues. In the Buddhist tradition, it was called the exegetical study (yixue). This tradition focuses on the search for the philosophical meaning of Buddhist concepts and opinions. 35 This feature of Buddhist The History of Sui (Sui shu), ch. 75: “The Biographies of Confucian scholars” (Rulin zhuan), p. Many contemporary scholars have examined the relationship between Buddhism and Confucianism, as well as Daoism at this time. See Mori Mikisaburō, Rikuchō shidaifu no seishin (Kyoto: Dōhōsha, 1986), pp. 165-196. In his The Buddhist Conquest of China, Zürcher translates the Chinese word “yi” as “opinion, theory, and interpretation” (p. 100), and the word “yixue” as “exegesis” (p. 116). The first translation is fine, while the second translation does not accurately apply to this word which is composed of two Chinese characters. So I translate “yixue” as “exegetical study.” He makes no comments on other relevant Chinese words including “yimen” and “yizong.” I translate “yimen” 義門 as “exegetical method” and “yizong” 義 宗 as “exegetical tradition.” 35 34 18 learning in the South seems to correspond to features of Confucian learning in the south. Likewise, in North China, as the Tang historian indicated, Confucian scholars were more interested in concrete details, as were followers of the Buddhist tradition in the North. Given this correlation to the Confucian approach to learning, it is easier to understand that Northern Buddhists paid more attention to the concrete practice of meditation. However, in my opinion, conventional ideas regarding the similarities and differences between Buddhist development in the North and South do not offer a clear logical position, nor are they an accurate reflection of the historical and cultural milieu of Buddhism in southern dynasties. Tang’s study was mostly based on textual analysis and was written in the 1930s. Some of his observations should be read critically against discovery of new sources and the progress of modern scholarship. On the one hand, vast archaeological discoveries have made it possible to draw a new image of Buddhism in the North. For example, in examining the inscriptions on Buddhist statues, Liu Shufen and Hou Xudong have demonstrated that Buddhist beliefs and practices in the north among the common people were more complex than originally thought. In addition to the practice of meditation, establishing statues and making prayers were of also significant among Buddhists in North China.36 New case studies of Buddhist figures and rituals in south China contribute to our understanding of Buddhism in the South.37 For the South, not many new inscriptions are available; we might not be able to reexamine its history as thoroughly as Hou and Liu have done for the North. Nevertheless, we can still find an Liu Shufen, “Wu zhi liu shiji huabei xiangcun de fojiao xinyang,” Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 63: 3 (1993), pp. 497-544; idem, “Art, Ritual and Society: Buddhist Practice in Rural China during the Northern Dynasties,” Asia Major 8: 1 (1997), pp. 19-46; Hou Xudong, Wu liu shiji beifang minzhong fojiao xinyang (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1998). For example, many scholars have studied the practice of self-immolation in the six dynasties. A detailed discussion on this can be found in chapter two. 37 36 19 alternative way to approach the Buddhism in the South in general through a closer reading of important Buddhist writings beyond the biographies of eminent monks. Among these writings, Daoxuan’s writings should be given more attention. Daoxuan has his own viewpoint about Buddhism in South China, which is quite different from that of Tang Yongtong. In Tang’s scholarship, Daoxuan’s voice is ignored. Tang does not speak about how Buddhist figures throughout history viewed their own history; rather, he applies a method of outside observation. Tang fails to think about why these Buddhist figures had their own viewpoints about the same social facts. I attempt to understand Daoxuan’s viewpoint regarding Buddhism in South China and to ask why he had such a view. In my reading, Daoxuan’s perspective was formed by his observation of the aftermath of the political persecution of Buddhism in the late Northern dynasties, and it led directly to his search for a better model for the development of Buddhism at his time. As I will show below, Daoxuan’s image of Buddhism in the South came not only from his reading in Buddhist history, but also from his early monastic experience in the Riyan Monastery.38 My reading also draws a picture of “Southern Buddhism” as a unique tradition in Daoxuan’s writings. The Riyan Monastery was founded in the nineteenth year of the Kaihuang period (599 AD) by the Prince of Jin Yang Guang when he came to the capital of the Sui Dynasty to see Emperor Wen. In the following year, Yang Guang was made the Crown Prince. All sources in the Buddhist canon cite Yang Guang as the Prince of Jin while mentioning the Riyan Monastery. Yamazaki Hiroshi suggests that it was set up to host many monks from the Huiri Monastery (Daochang) in the South by Emperor Yang (Yang Guang); cf. “Yōdai no shidōjō,” Tōyō gakuhō 34 (1952), pp. 22-35; Zui-Tō bukkyō shi no kenkyū (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1980), p. 100. But he thought its established date was AD 601 by following Ōno Katsutoshi’s opinion; cf. Ono Katsutoshi, Chūgoku Zui-Tō Chōan jiin shiryō shū: Shiryō hen (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1989), p. 141. Two Chinese scholars also agree with his opinion. Tang Yongtong, Sui Tang fojiao shigao (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1982), p. 7. Victor Cun-rui Xiong, Sui-Tang Chang’an – A Study in the Urban History of Medieval China (Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, the University of Michigan, 2000), p. 259 and p. 309 table. In my opinion, this monastery was established by the Prince of Jin Yang Guang in the nineteen year of the Kaihuang period (599) when he came to the capital to see the emperor Yang Jian from Jiangdu (present Yangzhou, Jiangsu province). Many biographies of eminent monks who were invited to Riyan Monastery said that they were invited by the Prince of Jin rather than the Crown Prince, which means that 38 20 Contextualizing Culture in South and North China Daoxuan was born in a newly unified empire, the Sui Dynasty. His life, his thoughts, and his monastic career were greatly shaped by his era. When we discuss his ideas and thoughts, we cannot ignore the historical context. The Sui Empire seceded from the Northern Zhou, which was founded by the nomadic Xianbei. Since the fourth century, the first kingdom, founded by the Xianbei, Northern Wei, had developed a process of absorbing Han cultural and political institutions. However, to a great extent during the period of disunity, the kingdoms in the North debated whether they should accept Han culture. In the South, this had never been a problem. For several hundred years, therefore, in the North and South, the development of culture was shaped by the regional differences created by the collapse of a unified empire. Once the Sui regime unified the country, it proceeded to develop its own cultural traditions. However, the people who survived from the collapse maintained their own memory about their own cultural traditions, which had been developed over time in their own regions. As a welleducated monk, Daoxuan must have been conscious of this situation. In addition to Tang Yongtong’s views, Chen Yinke makes a contribution to the discussion of the historical context of early medieval Chinese history, offering a grand image of Chinese history from the fourth century to seventh century. He claims that the newly unified Sui and Tang regimes took their political institutions, rituals, and cultural heritage from three sources: the Northern kingdoms (former Northern Zhou and Northern Yang Guang was not Crown Prince when he established the Riyan Monastery, cf. “Zhiju,” T. no. 2060, vol. 50: 509b; “Zhituo,” 498c; “Falun,” 500a. According to the History of Sui Dynasty (Suishu), Yang Guang was bestowed the title of Crown Prince in the twentieth year of Kaihuang period (600) and came to Chang’an in the nineteenth year of Kaihuang. So the monastery must be established during his staying in Chang’an in the nineteenth year of Kaihuang (AD 599). Cf. Fang Xuanling et al., Sui shu (The History of Sui Dynasty) (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975), pp. 44, 45, 1469, 1559. 21 Qi Dynasties), the Southern kingdoms (Liang and Chen Dynasties), and the northwestern area (former Han and Wei Dynasties). Chen traces the origin of the rituals and rites in the Sui Dynasty back to the Southern kingdom, the Liang Dynasty.39 Chen suggests that the culture in the Sui and Tang period was a mixture of both Southern and Northern elements. Chen’s viewpoints have been accepted and elaborated by Tang Zhangru. Tang proceeds to suggest that the Southern tradition became dominant in the Sui and Tang Dynasties. His argument broadens many dimensions of early medieval history, and solidly explains the Southern contributions to the formation of the political, economic, and cultural institutions of the Sui and Tang Empires. For instance, Tang argues that Confucian scholarship on the classics in the Tang period accepted the Southern tradition, which focused more on philosophical interpretation than on philological exegesis. He shows that in the Northern and Southern dynasties, Southern scholars under the influence of “mysterious learning” (xuanxue 玄學) emphasized philosophical interpretation when they studied three classics, including the Book of Change of the Zhou Dynasty (Zhou Yi), the Book of Documents (Shangshu), and the Zuo Commentary on the Annals of Spring and Autumn (Chunqiu zuoshi zhuan). In the North, Confucian scholars sought the meaning of each single character in classic texts and the technical term for each institution, place, and person. Tang concludes that this trend of Confucian classical studies in the Southern tradition can be understood as the natural consequence of the conquest of advanced Southern culture after the chaos in the fourth century.40 Tang also claims that the new Chen Yinke, Sui Tang zhengzhi zhidu yuanyuan luelun gao (Taipei: Liren shuju, 1994), pp. 910. Chen also explores the origins of civil institutions, law system, music, military institutions, and financial institutions in the Sui and Tang Dynasties and categorizes them into three regional traditions. Tang Zhangru, Wei Jin nanbeichao Sui Tang shi sanlun (Wuhan: Wuhan daxue chubanshe, 1993), pp. 460-462. 40 39 22 trend of focusing on philosophical issues in Confucian studies began in the Liang Dynasty as a result of the cultural policy of the Liang Emperor Wu. Emperor Wu indeed appeared to be a Buddhist, converting from Daoism. He was very skilled in Confucian interpretation and the “mysterious learning” of Buddhism. By contrast, in the North, the Confucian scholarly atmosphere still followed the tradition of the Han Dynasty. Tang Zhangru supports Tang Yongtong’s viewpoint on the developmental differences of Buddhism in the North and South, which says that the Buddhists focused more on religious practice in the North, while those in the South focused more on mysterious learning and philosophical issues. 41 Tang Zhangru’s idea is particularly important. However, both Tang Zhangru and Tang Yongtong’s arguments seem to concentrate on the scholarly learning of Confucian and Buddhist traditions. Can we also explore other dimensions and aspects of Confucian and Buddhist traditions in early medieval period? My particular interest is in the practice dimension of the Buddhist tradition.42 In the early medieval period, since many Chinese eminent monks were from cultural clans, textual learning retained its significance in monastic life. In the Sui and Tang Dynasties, the governments organized many translation teams and supported large scale translation work. So they invited many Northern monks to the capital, Chang’an. It seems that at least in this period, these monks from North China had more experience with translation. If, as Tang Yongtong has suggested, philosophical learning was not the focus of monastic scholarship in the North, the monks could not have precisely 41 42 Ibid., pp. 212-237, esp. 222. Many scholars have studied the relationship between Buddhism and the state in the early Tang period. See, for instance, Yuki Reimon,“Shotō bukkyō no shisōteki mujun to kokka kenryoku to no kōsatsu,” Tōyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 25 (1961), pp. 1-28. 23 understood the meaning of scriptures and translated them effectively. Hence, it is likely that the Buddhist sources put too much emphasis on translation activities and ignored their efforts toward philosophical learning. On the other hand, many Southern monks moved to Chang’an upon the invitation of the Sui Emperor Yang (Yang Guang 楊廣). Most of them resided in the Riyan Monastery. Most of these Southern monks were well known in philosophical learning.43 This became the turning point where Daoxuan made his connection to the Buddhist tradition of the South. Modern scholarship has posited that Yang Guang played an indispensable role in accepting the cultural tradition of South China. It is not surprising that Yang Guang had a tight connection with south China. In Chinese history, he is portrayed as a hero because he conquered the Chen Dynasty in the South in 589. After that, he governed in the South for ten years. Not only was his political career connected with South China, but he was also famous for his cultural connection with the South. Many facts point to this cultural connection. First, his wife was the daughter of Xiao Kui (蕭巋 542-585), the Emperor Ming of the later Liang Dynasty based in Jiangling (modern Hubei). The Xiao clan was famous for producing the Liang Emperor Wu, who founded the Liang Dynasty; also, it was a clan with strongly defined traditions. It was said of Yang Guang’s wife that “[she] was intelligent, fond of learning and good at literary composition” and “[she] attempted to assist her husband (Yang Guang).” 44 Second, Yang Guang was ordained with Yamazaki Hiroshi, Shina chūsei bukkyō no tenkai (Tokyo: Shimizu shoten, 1942); ibid., Zui-Tō bukkyōshi no kenkyū (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1967). Wang Yarong, “Riyansi kao – Jianlun Suidai nanfang yixue de beichuan,” Zhonghua foxue xuebao 12 (1991), pp. 191-203. Sui shu, ch. 36, “the biography of Xiao Huanghou.” For study of the relationship between notable figure from this clan Xiao Yu and Buddhism, see Atago Hajime, “Zuimatsu tōsho ni okeru ranryō 44 43 24 Bodhisattva precepts by Zhiyi 智顗 , a famous master based at Mount Tiantai in the south.45 Yang Guang also exchanged some letters with Zhiyi. He invited Zhiyi to lecture in Chang’an, but Zhiyi did not accept. Third, Yang Guang had close connections with many Southern literati. He wrote many poems and essays, and exchanged them with these Southern men.46 In sum, Yang Guang seemed to promote both Southern cultural traditions and Southern Buddhism in the North by inviting literati and monks to Chang’an. This effort must have made an impression on Daoxuan during his stay in the Riyan Monastery, which I will document further. Daoxuan’s perspective on Buddhism was also affected by the political situation in the early Tang period. Daoxuan was forced to think about the charge of corruption made against the Buddhist Church. The Buddhist community was curtailed during the Wude period (618-627). In the Zhenguan period (627-649), the Tang Emperor Taizong also expressed his concern for the corruption of Buddhism.47 In the Zhenguan period, Taizong issued this edict: The root of moral practice is non-action. Numerous monks and lay followers indulge in popular customs. They either artificially claim to have had divine shuku no bukkyō juyō – shuyuku o chūshin ni shite,” Chūgoku chūsei no shūkyō to bunka (1982), pp. 539574. Yamauchi Shunyu, “Tendai Chisha Daishi to yotei to no kankei ni tsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 9 (1957), pp. 136-137. For a general survey of the Sui policy towards Buddhism, see Asada Mamoru, “Zuidai bukkyō seisaku ni kann suru kenkyū,” Ryūkoku daigaku daigakuin kiyō 9 (1988), pp. 142-143. Yoshikawa Tadao, “Rikuchōmatsu Zui Tō sho no jurin to bukkyō,” in Amaraki Noritoshi ed., Hokuchō Zui Tō Chūgoku bukkyō shisōshi (2000), pp. 427-455. Arthur F. Wright, “T'ang T'ai-tsung and Buddhism,” in Arthur F. Wright and Denis Twichett, eds. Perspectives on the T'ang (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), pp. 239-263; Shigenoi Shizuka, “Tō no taisō riseimin to bukkyō,” Bukkyō no rekishi to bunka: Bukkyōshi gakkai sanjū shūnen kinen ronshu (1980), pp. 216-235. Jan Yun-hua suggests that late in his life, Taizong realized that his military conquest took too many lives and he began his confession by supporting Buddhism, see “Xuanzang dashi yu Tang Taizong ji qi zhengzhi lixiang tanwei,” Huagang foxue xuebao 8 (1985), pp. 135-157. 47 46 45 25 contact and communication with demons, or state medicine and magic in order to obtain wealth or they visit the offices to send dirty money, or penetrate skin and burn fingers in order surprise the common people.48 但戒行之本唯尚無為。多有僧徒溺於流俗﹐或假託神通妄傳妖怪﹐或謬稱 醫筮左道求財﹐或造詣官曹囑致贓賄﹐或鑽膚焚指駭俗驚愚。 It offered some solutions, as follows: I have asked them to follow Buddhist discipline, supplementing laws with the regulations and institutions. This is for purifying the dharma gate. The local officials should examine them. If in those regions there are any monks violating the law, and the officials do not reveal it, the local office should make a record and inform the central government. Therefore the good monks will be praised, while the evil monks should be scolded. [This is] so that the monastic land will be pure and know the taste of dharma, and the bodhi enlightened path, to cut off from the dust of meaning.49 朕情深護持﹐必無寬捨。已令依附內律﹐參以金科具為條制﹐務使法門清 整。所在官司宜加檢察。其部內有違法僧﹐不舉發者﹐所司錄狀聞奏﹐庶 善者必採﹐惡者必斥。伽藍淨土咸知法味﹐菩提覺路絕諸意垢。 From this passage, we see that at that time, the government believed that many monks and lay followers did not observe the precepts very well. They might have been pursuing fame and wealth as well as a secular life style. This charge from the political authority might have directed Daoxuan’s attention to the historical experience of the political persecution that happened in the Northern Wei and Zhou Dynasties. For Daoxuan, all political persecution toward Buddhism happened in the North. In his historical writing titled The Śākya Gazetteer (Shijia fangzhi 釋迦方 誌), Daoxuan even attempted to connect this persecution with the idea of Final Dharma (mofa).50 Daoxuan wrote, 48 49 50 “Tang taizong du tianxia seng zhao,” in Guang hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 329b. Ibid., T. no. 2103, 52: 329b. About mofa in Northern and Southern dynasties, see Won Yong-sang, “Nanbokujidai no gigikyō niokeru mabō shiso no keisei,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 101(51-1), (2002), pp. 197-199. 26 As the Maya-sūtra said, the Buddha Dharma will last in this world for ten thousand years. Afterwards, the scriptures will return to the Nāga palace and the sculptures will collapse automatically. All monks will be equal to the secular people, different only by keeping shaved heads and wearing the robes (kaśāya). (The Buddha Dharma came to China, and has been persecuted three times [scriptures have been burned, and the monks have been killed]. First, Helian bobo established the so-called Xia Kingdom. This kingdom destroyed Chang’an and the soldiers killed every monk they met. Second, Emperor Taiwu of the Northern Wei Dynasty followed the words of Cui Hao and destroyed the three jewels. Third, the Emperor Wu of the Northern Zhou Dynasty forced monks to give up monkhood and to return to lay life. All evil people died in ways they should not have, as the record has said in details.51 依摩耶經﹐如來滅後﹐正法五百年﹐像法一千年。又依善見毘婆沙云﹕如 來滅後﹐正法千年﹐像法亦爾。以度女人故﹐正法滅五百年。若諸女人能 遵八敬﹐如法行道﹐正法住世還得千年。又云﹕佛法住世一萬年。初五千 年修道出家﹐得三達靈智﹔後五千年出家修道﹐不得三達靈智。過此已後 ﹐經歸龍宮像自頹壞﹐諸比丘等同於俗流。惟有剃髮袈裟而已(佛法之垂 振旦﹐三被誅焚﹕初﹐赫連勃勃號為夏國﹐初破長安﹐遇僧皆殺﹔二﹐魏 太武用崔皓言﹐夷滅三寶﹐後悔皓加五刑﹔三﹐周武帝但令還俗。皆不得 其死﹐如傳所詳也) 。 From Daoxuan’s writing, we can see that Daoxuan recorded three devastating instances of persecution in North China. During these persecutions, Buddhist scriptures were burnt and monks were killed. Buddhist communities were destroyed. Daoxuan connected these persecutions to the coming of the Final Dharma.52 This connection between the idea of degenerating dharma and the experience of Buddhism in North China inspired Daoxuan’s promotion of the Buddhist tradition of South China, because Buddhism seemed more successful in the South. South China as the Kingdom of Culture Daoxuan’s worldview is not related to his contemporary social reality. Having finished its unification, the Sui regime started reconstructing Buddhist communities 51 52 Shijia fangzhi (Gazetteer of the Śakya Clan), Daoxuan, T. no. 2088, 51: 973c. For a detailed study on Final Dharma, see Jan Nattier, Once Upon a Future Time: Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1990). 27 across the country. Daoxuan’s sensitivity came not only from his experience witnessing the reconstruction of Buddhism in the Sui Dynasty, but also from his position as an elite Southern monk. Using Daoxuan as an example, I aim to revise the conventional image of Buddhism in South China. For traditional scholarship, Buddhism in South China was a religion of the gentry class and a religion focused on exegetical study. I aim to show that Southern Buddhism was also characterized by the widespread worship of pagodas with Buddha relics, the widespread establishment of the ordination platform, the practice of purification techniques, and the propagation of meditation practice. I argue that, in the South, it was unlikely that Buddhism was confined to an elite class sponsoring the monastic order or literati involved in philosophical debate. Rather, members of the lower class were also involved with Buddhism; they too practiced Buddhism. Daoxuan writes: The Southerners who saw the elaborate tapestry of mountains and rivers and indulged in the beautiful landscape to the south of Yangtze and Han Rivers were easily moved by these external appearances. They had passion, wisdom, courage, and brave hearts. Thus they could fully comprehend Buddhism and relied on it without any doubt or hesitation, without forgetting it.53 江漢之南﹐山川秀麗綺錯﹐見便忘返者﹐土地之然也。人依外根﹐故使情 智聰敏形心勇銳也。遂能詳度佛教。深有可依﹐無所疑慮﹐不可忘廢也。 My hunch that Daoxuan had a pioneering understanding of Southern Buddhism was inspired by a fascinating new term Daoxuan uses to describe South China. He calls South China “the cultural kingdom” (wenguo 文國) at least four times in his works. For instance, he claims that after the Eastern Jin Dynasty moved to the South, it became a “cultural kingdom.” Daoxuan calls earlier Southerners by the common term “island barbarians” (daoyi 島夷 ), but once the Jin court moved to the South, the land was 53 “Daoxuan lüshi gantong lu,” Daoxuan, T. no. 2107, 52: 441c. 28 transformed from the land of barbarians into the “cultural kingdom.” 54 Daoxuan considered the regime in the North a kingdom established by barbarians, while he regarded the Jin regime as the political orthodoxy of China. So for Daoxuan, the South represented political orthodoxy in a period of disunity. Daoxuan also calls the Chen Dynasty a “cultural kingdom” twice in his writings.55 For Daoxuan, “cultural kingdom” is not just a name for the South in terms of political authority; it also signifies a superior cultural tradition, especially with regard to Buddhism. This term is connected with the flourishing of Buddhism in the South. He writes: Although the historical record of the Southern kingdoms was known in the past generations, does it appear in the written record nowadays? The region of the two rivers in the Central Plain was divided into sixteen kingdoms after the Jin regime moved to the South and these kingdoms fought with each other by force. Buddhism was persecuted three times in the Northern Region where the rulers were the descendants of the Huns, rather than the descendants of the cultural kingdoms. Thus that is the reason. So the rise of the ordination platform is the grand form of the Dharma's enduring.56 南國之紀事﹐雖聞於往代﹐語跡見於今乎﹖中原兩河﹐晉氏南渡之後。分 為一十六國﹐以武猛相陵。佛法三除﹐並是獯鬻之胤。本非文國之後﹐隨 心即斷﹐故其然乎。所以戒壇之舉﹐即住法之弘相也。 Daoxuan believes that in South China both the rulers and lay people respected Buddhism, while in North China, Buddhism faced political persecution because the rulers there 54 55 Guang hongmingji, chapter 6, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 127a. For example, he explicitly writes, “The Chen Dynasty was called ‘the cultural kingdom’ (wenguo).” See “Yuanguang,” Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, vol. 50: 523c. In the biography of his master Huijun (554-637), Daoxuan used the term “the cultural kingdom” again when he mentioned the Chen Dynasty, see “Huijun,” Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 533c. See Guanzhong jietan tujing, Daoxuan, in T. no. 1892, 45: 814a. Daoxuan restates the same idea in his Da Tang neidian lu, T. no. 2149, 55: 326a. 56 29 favored Daoism. The Northern people could not maintain their Buddhist belief after the political persecution.57 When Daoxuan uses “cultural kingdom” to name South China, he seems to indicate that the culture of South China preserved the essence of Chinese culture during the period of disunity. Daoxuan’s viewpoint is unique in discussion of Chinese Buddhist history. The debate between Buddhists and Daoists (as well as Confucians) on the relationship between Buddhism and Chinese culture has a long history. The political, religious, and cultural debates usually centered on the issue of whether civilized Chinese should view Buddhism as a barbarian tradition or not. This debate began with Master Mou in the Han Dynasty. Master Mou’s Treatise on Removing Doubts [toward Buddhism] (Mouzi lihuo lun 牟子理惑論) defended Buddhism against the challenge that it was merely barbarian.58 The modern scholar Tang Yongtong claims, In North China the struggle between Daoism and Buddhism was about power, thus it resulted that military power which had chosen to support Daoism destroyed Buddhism. However, in South China the struggle between Daoism and Buddhism was centered on theoretical debates. The goal for both sides was to undermine each other theoretically. Southern scholars proposed two theories against Buddhism: the disappearance of the spirituality (shen mie) and the distinction between the barbarians (Yi) and Chinese (Xia).59 In the Southern dynasties, a famous Daoist scholar Gu Huan ( 顧歡 420-483) attacked Buddhism as a non-Chinese tradition. Gu wrote a work titled “Treatise on 57 58 59 Guang hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 127a. Mouzi, “Mouzi lihuo lun,” in Hongming ji, Sengyou (445-518), T. no. 2102, 52: 1a-7a. Tang Yongtong, Han Wei liang Jin NanBei chao fojiao shi vol. 2 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1982), Chapter 13: “The Southern Branch of Buddhism,” especially p. 35. 30 Barbarians and Chinese” (Yixia lun 夷夏論).60 In his view, according to The Scripture of How Laozi Transformed the Barbarians (Laozi huahu jing 老子化胡經), Laozi played an important role in the rise and development of Buddhism. Thus, Buddhism came into existence after the rise of Daoism. Second, Buddhists were accused of having customs that were in conflict with those of Chinese culture. For instance, the Chinese kept their hair and wore their own clothes, while Buddhist barbarians cut their hair and wore casual clothes. Third, Buddhist rites and rituals were in conflict with those of China. For instance, the Chinese sat straight and bowed to each other, following the rites, while “the barbarians [sat] like foxes and [stood] like dogs”; Chinese funerary rites required coffins, graves, and tombs; the barbarians burnt the bodies of the deceased or threw the bodies into water. Gu Huan also criticized Chinese people who followed the barbarian style of renouncing family, thereby breaking the clan lineage. This viewpoint clearly reflects that the reaction of Southern scholars holding Confucian family values against the Buddhist ideal of renouncing worldly life. Thus, Chinese Buddhists had to resolve the traditional conflict between Chinese culture and Buddhism. When Daoxuan named South China a cultural kingdom, then, he was making Southern Buddhism a part of the Chinese cultural tradition. Although Buddhism was accepted by millions of Chinese by the time of the Tang Dynasty, critics continued to deplore its barbarian aspects. As Daoxuan’s Extended Collection of Propagating and Illustrating Buddhism documents, in the Tang period, Fu Yi 傅奕, a Daoist official in the Tang court, also accused Buddhism of being a barbarian tradition. Fu Yi said that in Chinese history many generals including Fu Rong 苻融 and 60 Yixia lun, Gu Huan, T. no. 2036, 49: 541c-542b. 31 Lü Guang 呂光 betrayed their emperors because of their belief in Buddhism.61 For Fu Yi, in the Han Dynasty, there were no Buddhists in the Central China (Central Plain); and in the Wei and Jin Dynasties, only one-tenth of the barbarians were Buddhists. By contrast, after Fu Rong and Lü Guang’s rebellions in Central China, the barbarian deity was accepted by more than half of the Chinese. He calls the Buddha a “barbarian deity” (hushen 胡神) and the Buddha Hall the “hall of the barbarian deity” (hushen zhi tang 胡 神之堂).62 He attacked Buddhists for their disrespect toward the emperor and parents. The Buddhists responded to Fu Yi by saying that only Buddhism offered compassion and salvation for the Chinese who encountered chaos during rebellions. 63 Furthermore, a famous Buddhist master in the early Tang period, Falin, suggested that the Buddha was the Great Sage (dasheng 大聖) by discussing the dialogue between Confucius and the Wu Prime Minister Bi.64 Falin also insisted that Laozi learned from the Buddha during his trip to the West. 65 In this approach, the Buddha becomes the ancient sage for both Ogasawara Senshu, “Tō no haibutsuronja fueki ni tsuite,” Shina bukkyō shigaku 1: 3 (1937), pp. 84-93. Yoshioka Yoshitoyo, “Shotō ni okeru butsudōronsō no ichishiryo: dōkyō gisū no seiritsu ni tsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 7 (4-1) (1956), pp. 58-66. “Taishiling chaosandafu chen Fu Yi shang jiansheng sita fei sengni shi shiyou yitiao,” in Guang hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 160b. 63 64 62 61 Guang hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 160b. Nishiyama Fukiko, “Hōrin ‘hajaron’ ni tsuite,” Suzuki gakujūtsu zaidan nenhō 9 (1973), pp. 6986. Takeuchi Hajime, “Hōrin ni okeru ‘jia’ to’shō’ no ishiki: ‘hajaron’ to ‘benshōron’ o chūshin toshite ,” Nihon bukkyō gakkai nenhō 48 (1983), pp. 193-208 Miwa Haruo, “Tō gohō shamon Hōrin nitsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 44 (22-2) (1974): 290-295. Guang hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 161b. Falin’s strategy is to find the contradiction between two Daoist texts. For example, he cited a Daoist text titled the Scripture of the Wisdom, Contemplating the Body and the Great Precepts (Zhihui guanshen dajie jing, actually the full title is Zhongji shangqing dongzhen zhihui guanshen dajie, which can be found in Daoist canon (Daozang: Zhengyi bu)”; in Zhonghua daozang, vol. 6, “Section on Scriptures and Teachings of Three Schools (sandong jingjiao bu),” a scripture Taishang dongxuan lingbao zhihui guanshen jing (no. 02034 in Daoist canon) has nothing to do with what Falin cited and used against the Daoist apocryphal Laozi xisheng jing. 65 32 Confucianism and Daoism. It seems that Falin tried to move the Buddha into Chinese culture. This response did not effectively undermine the standpoint of the Chinese in the North that Buddhism was a barbarian culture. By contrast, Daoxuan’s idea that Buddhism coexisted with Chinese culture in the South was a powerful and plausible challenge to anti-Buddhist rhetoric. If Daoxuan viewed Southern Buddhism as a part of the Chinese cultural tradition, how did he view his contemporaries’ histories of the Northern and Southern dynasties? Historians living in the South, like Shen Yue, wrote the history of the former dynasty through Southern eyes, calling the Northerners “barbarians with braids” (suolu 索虜). In contrast, in the North, historians called the Southerners “barbarians from the islands” (daoyi). In the early Tang period, the historian Li Yanshou realized this problem and tried to write two unbiased histories for the Northern and Southern dynasties (Bei shi 北史 and Nan shi 南史 respectively). 66 Followed Li’s lead in trying to deal with political and cultural divisions, Daoxuan is the prime example of a Buddhist historian forced to reconcile the regional biases of scholarship. Daoxuan believed that the South was a civilized area and he called the South the “Kingdom of Culture.” Fujiyoshi Masumi suggests that, following the order of the consequent collapse of Northern and Southern dynasties, Daoxuan arranges the order of the biographies and Buddhist works in his Catalogue of the Buddhist Canon of the Great Tang Dynasty and Continued Biographies Laozi xisheng jing appeared in the Wei Dynasty and it says that Laozi went to India and kindly achieved nirvana; while the former claimed that Laozi went to the West to pay veneration to Buddha. Daoshi’s Fayuan zhulin also includes the Scripture of the Wisdom, contemplating the Body and the Great Precepts, see Chen Yuzhen, “Fayuan zhulin suoyin waidian zhi yanjiu,” Zhonghua foxue xuebao 6 (1993), p. 317. About the discussion on historiography during this period, see Hu Baoguo, Han Tang jian shixue de fazhan (Beijing: Shangwu yinshu guan, 2003). About the discussion on orthodoxy in historical writings, see Rao Zongyi, Zhongguoshi shang zhi zhengtong lun (Shanghai: Shanghai yuandong chubanshe, 1995). 66 33 of the Eminent Monks.67 As Fujiyoshi shows, arranging the biographies of monks in the order of the collapse of each dynasty and avoiding the issue of political orthodoxy was a good choice. Thus, even though he arranged the order of the biographies of monks following the collapse of each dynasty, he considered the Southern dynasties to be the orthodox culture. From the Kingdom of Culture to the Kingdom of Buddhism In Daoxuan’s eyes, how is the unique tradition of Southern Buddhism different from that of the North? I would highlight at least four elemental differences in monastic practice: the special method of purification, the establishment of state-sponsored meditation centers, the construction of the ordination platform, and the establishment of the pagodas and the wide distribution of Buddha relics. Daoxuan seems to suggest that these practices were unique in the South and that they were not well known in the North. These monastic rituals were central to Buddhist identity.68 Daoxuan was particularly interested in the practice of purification. In his “Preface to Buddhist Methods for Consistent and Concise Purification” (Tonglue jingzhuzi jingxing famen xu 通略淨住子淨行法門序) he tells us a story about the transmission of the method of purification initiated by Xiao Ziliang 蕭子良 69 in the South. Daoxuan Fujiyoshi Masumi, Dōsen den no kenkyū (Kyoto: Kyōtō daigaku shuppankai, 2002), pp. 258260. For Chen Yuan’s evaluation of Fei’s work, see Chen Yuan, Zhongguo fojiao shiji gailun (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1955), pp. 5-12. For rituals in Tibetan monasticism, see Martin A. Mills, Identity, Ritual and State in Tibetan Buddhism: The Foundations of Authority in Gelukpa Monasticism (London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003). According to Daoxuan, Xiao Ziliang was the Prince of Jingling (the Duke of Wenxuan) in the Southern Qi Dynasty and he believed deeply in Buddhism and understood Buddhist teachings. He commented on the Buddhist sutras and abhidharma texts, and he made selections from some Buddhist compositions. He closed the paths of heterodoxy and opened a way into the harbor of truth. He expanded 69 68 67 34 modified this piece to a great extent. However, Xiao Ziliang’s essay is written for lay practitioners. Given that Daoxuan was quite familiar with Xiao’s work (he wrote a preface so as to call more attention to Xiao’s text), I would suggest that Daoxuan probably adapted Xiao’s text for the members of the contemporary monastic community. He was the leader of monastic community, while Xiao was the leader of lay community. Daoxuan starts his narrative about the origin of purification method with Xiao Ziliang’s recollection of a dream. In his dream, in the eighth year of the Yongming period of the Southern Qi Dynasty (490), Xiao Ziliang knew that Tatagātha (rulai 如來), the Heavenly King of the Eastern World of Common Light (Dongfang puguang shijie tianwang 東方普光世界天王 ), had established the method of how to purify mind (jingzhu) and body (jingxing).70 Here the purification of mind is a literal translation of “upavasatha” – “retreat for spiritual refreshment”. It also refers to progress or long-term self-cultivation. Both Buddhist monks and lay people can practice this method. Since purifying the body, mouth, and mind are laid down as the lasting precepts, it is called jingzhu ( 淨住 lasting purification). From the above text, we can see that Daoxuan the one tradition (vehicle, literally) and raised the seven assemblies. He was called “the Sea of Writing and the Mountain of Wisdom” in his time. Sometimes he communicated with the Honored One through his dreams, and received elegant praise from the Heavenly King. Sometimes he alone was granted the music of sutras and he told of the extraordinary nature of the divinity. His virtues were beyond description, so they were not handed down. Xiao Ziliang showed great respect to Buddhism. He even asked the Daoist Meng Jingyi to worship the Buddha, and gave him Buddhist scriptures, but Meng did not worship the Buddha. Meng wrote a piece titled “Zhengyi lun” in response to the Buddhist teaching; see Fozu lidai tongzai, Nianchang (1282-1344?), T. no. 2036, 49: 543a-b. For modern scholarship dealing with Xiao, see Ogasawara Senshu, “Nansei bukkyō to Shō Shiryō,”Shina bukkyō shigaku 3-2 (1939), pp. 63-76; and Tokushi Yusho, “Koji bukkyō nitsuite,” Nikkai bukkyō kenkyūkai nenho 1 (1936), pp. 16-21. In Chusanzang jiji, Sengyou records a preface for Xiao Ziliang’s collection titled Fa ji lu. According to Sengyou’s preface, Xiao Ziliang “feels the mysterious sign in explicit obscurity and communicates the awakening resonance in night dreams;” See T. no. 2145, 55: 85b. Similarly, in the preface to Jingzhuzi jingxing famen, Daoxuan explicitly describes how Xiao Ziliang was enlightened by the Heavenly King; see T. no. 2103, 52: 306a. 70 35 intended to introduce to the North the method of purification that was popular in South. Why Daoxuan introduced this method to the North remains unclear in Buddhist sources. Limited to the scope of this study, I will not discuss Daoxuan’s work on contemplation and purification, but I will discuss the influence of Xiao on Daoxuan here. Xiao’s teaching is designed for lay people. His piece begins with a section regarding conversion to Buddhism. Once lay people convert to Buddhism, they are to remove the results of their deeds in body, mouth, and mind by confession.71 Then they should purify the six roots of their emotions. These acts allow concentration on Buddhist practice. But these acts alone are not enough. A practitioner must continue to understand the four forms of suffering -- birth, aging, sickness, and death. A practitioner should perpetually think about why the body, mouth, and mind bring about suffering. Xiao Ziliang also teaches that a lay practitioner should renounce the family. Whether he renounces family or stays at home, a Buddhist should always perform good deeds and avoid bad deeds. He should always confess his guilt. He should observe the precepts. A lay person should worship and make offerings to the relics and pagodas and support the monastic community and pray for others.72 These are the basic ideas in Xiao’s piece. For a comprehensive discussion of confession in medieval Chinese Buddhism, see Kuo Li-ying. Confession et contrition dans le bouddhisme chinois du V au Xe siècle (Paris: École Française d’ExtrêmeOrient, 1994). 72 71 Jingzhuzi jingxing famen, Xiao Ziliang, T. no. 2103, 52: 306b-321b. 36 Xiao’s piece played a very important role in Daoxuan’s intellectual life,73 and inspired Daoxuan with a method to train new monks. The direct result was the writing of Methods of Instructing Contemplation for Purifying the Mind (Jingxin jieguan fa 淨心誡 觀 法 ). 74 To illustrate the impact of this piece on Daoxuan’s writing, a comparison between these two pieces should be taken into account. I found that the two pieces are of a similar literary genre, though their titles are different. The reason for this similarity is that both texts come from Daoxuan. In many Buddhist catalogues, including Daoxuan’s, Buddhist Methods for Consistent and Concise Purification was attributed to Xiao Ziliang, and in fact it was edited by Daoxuan. In terms of genre, both texts follow the genre of Buddhist scriptures, which include a prose section followed by a verse section of five syllables, a literary form which was popular in the South. Thus, the Southern literary tradition apparent in Xiao Ziliang’s writing on Buddhist themes later had an impact on Daoxuan’s writing. The method of propagating meditation tradition in the Sui Dynasty seems to also have come from the South. Both Liang and Sui emperors established two monasteries with the same names in the capital or important city as meditation centers. These monasteries remained the national, imperially-sponsored meditation centers. Many famous meditation masters were invited to reside there. Daoxuan remarks that in the early period of the Southern dynasties, only a few masters, such as Zhiyan and Huiguan 慧觀, This piece is also relevant to Daoxuan’s discussion of confession in Guang hongming ji (section about confessing sins, “huizui pian”). Daoxuan in his preface to this section says, “A long time ago the official in charge of military affairs in the Southern Qi Dynasty and the Prince of Jingling promoted the method of upasatha and the ritual of purification practice. Those sorts of methods and rituals are very detailed (documented), which has been made explicit elsewhere.” Then Daoxuan offered a shortened version for practitioners. See T. no. 2103, 52: 330b. 74 73 Jingxin jieguan fa, Daoxuan, T. no. 1893, 45: 819a-834a. 37 were famous for their devotion to meditation practice. Liang emperor Wu began to propagate meditation by initiating a project in Yangzhou 揚州, which included erecting two Dinglin monasteries (Shang Dinglin si and Xia Dinglin si) and inviting many great masters to compile texts about meditation traditions.75 Following Liang Emperor Wu, Sui Emperor Wen also established two meditation monasteries (Chanding si 禪定寺) in his capital, Chang’an and invited famous meditation master Tanqian to reside there.76 Moreover, the methods of meditation Daoxuan promoted might also come from the South. Daoxuan suggests that newly ordained monks should practice five contemplations of stopping mind before they moved on to textual learning.77 The method of the five contemplations was introduced to South China from Central Asia in the fifth century. In his Methods of Instructing Contemplation for Purifying the Mind (Jingxin jieguan fa), Daoxuan clarifies the significance of five contemplations of stopping mind (wuting guan) and teaches how to practice them.78 Daoxuan stresses that this method should be viewed as a Mahāyāna Buddhist practice. All new monks should master this 75 76 Daoxuan’s comment on “xichan pian,” Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 596a. Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 597a. For a study on Tanqian and Sui Buddhism, see Chen Jinhua, Monks and Monarchs, Kinship and Kingship: Tanqian in Sui Buddhism and Politics (Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies, 2002), pp. 181-211. 77 78 Jingxin jieguan fa, Daoxuan, T. no. 1893, 45: 827a-b. Daoxuan explains the details of these five contemplations: contemplating impurity (Skt. aśubhāsmrti, Ch. bujing guan) that prevents from the emotional desires to sex and wealth, contemplating compassion (Skt. maitrī-smrti, Ch. cibei guan) that prevents from greed and hatred, contemplating twelvefold chains of the dependent origination (Skt. idampratyayatā-pratītyasa-mutpāda-mrti, Ch. yinyuan guan) that prevents from wrong understanding (wuming) or stupidity; contemplating eighteen concepts (Skt. astādaśa-smrti, Ch. shibajie guan) that prevents from holding ego, and contemplating the counting of breath (Skt. ānāpāna-smrti, Ch. shuxi guan, annabanna guan) that prevents from wrong thinking (luanxiang). 38 method of concentration. 79 The practice of five contemplations aims to prevent the practitioners from five kinds of wrong thinking, which is called the contemplation of stopping mind (tingxin guan).80 Although there were many versions of this meditation system available in Daoxuan’s era, 81 Daoxuan’s version is based on the Meditative Scripture of Dharmatala (Damoduoluo chanjing), which was translated by Buddhabhadra (Fotuobatuoluo, 359-429, Juexian) in the fifth century upon the request of Huiyuan. Huiyuan remarks, Now what have been translated are from Dharmarata and Buddhasena. Both figures were from the Western Regions. They follow the teaching of meditation and collect the essential scriptures in order to enlighten the Mahayana [practice]. They propagate different teachings, so their versions are different in detail.82 Jan Yün-hua gives some comments on this practice. Jan found this practice along with Four Applications of the Mind (sinianchu) in the biography of Seng-yung (543-631), a disciple of Seng-ch’ou. Jan states that this term “wuting” can only be found in Dunhuang manuscripts and biography in Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks. And both are ascribed to Seng-ch’ou. From his reading of Dunhuang manuscript, he says that this practice refers to “the achievement of freedom of mind from material and mental objects. Because the Five Stops are mentioned in connection with the 18 dhatus or realms, my suggestion is that the term means the stopping of the five physical organs, namely eyes, ears, mouth, nose and body from external influences. These five belong to the physical category; the mind alone belongs to another category which is more crucial to spiritual cultivation.”See his article “Seng-ch’ou’s Method of dhyāna,” Jan’s suggestion is pretty correct in the sense of that mind cultivation is very crucial, even in the case of Daoxuan. While Jan fails to locate Daoxuan’s piece on purifying mind and thus he misses the point about the Five Stops stated by Daoxuan. See Jan, “Seng-ch’ou’s Method of dhyāna,” in: Whalen Lai and Lewis R. Lancaster ed. Early Ch’an in China and Tibet (Berkeley: Asian Humanties Press, 1983), pp. 51-63, especially pp. 58-59. Paul Demiéville, “La Yocācārabhūmi de Sangharaksa,” Bulletin de l’École Française d”Extrême-Orient 64: 2 (1954), p. 356, footnote 3. For instance, the explanation of this system can be also found in Dacheng yizhang (ch. 52) by Huiyuan (523-592); see T. no. 1851, 44: 697c. Huaiyuan, “Lushan chu xiuxing fangbian chanjing tongxu,” in Chu sanzang jiji, Sengyou, T. no. 2145, 55: 66a. Also see Huiguan, “Xiuxingdi bujingguan jing xu,” in Chu sanzang jiji, Sengyou, T. no. 2145, 55: 66c. Paul Demieville, Hayashi Nobuaki trans., “Essay on the Image of `Darmatra'," Zen bunka kenkyūjo kiyo 12 (1980), pp. 27-50. Odani Nobuchiyo, “Zenkyō niokeru yuga gyōja – daijō ni kagyō surumono,” Bukkyogaku semeinai 63 (1996), pp. 22-34. Studies on Buddhabhadara, see Katayama Ryosen, “Buddhabadara no nyushin nitsuite,” Jōdōgaku 5 (1933), pp. Shiga Takayoshi, “Buddhabadara den kō,” Otani daigaku kenkyū nenho 36 (1984), pp. 72-97. Kodama Daien, “Shigo seiki no kashumeiru ryugakusō – Rajū, Buddhabadara, domushin,”in: Nichino Akira hakushi kanreki kinen ronbunshū: Rekishi to tenshō (Kyoto: Nagata bunshōdō, 1988), pp. 603-628. Okamoto Ippei, “Budhabadara no tenki kenkyū – Keigōngyō honyaku o chunshin ni,” Bukkyōgaoku 43 (2001), pp. 51-73. 82 81 80 79 39 今之所譯，出自達磨多羅與佛大先。其人西域之俊，禪訓之宗，搜集經 要，勸發大乘。弘教不同，故有詳略之異。 As the title Meditative Scripture of Dharmatala indicated, this system was taught by Dharmatala (or Dharmatrata) who was from in Kapiśi. And Buddhabhadra studied this system there. When a Chinese monk Zhiyan traveled to Kapiśi, he met Buddhabhadra and therefore invited him to China to teach meditation. According to Zhiyan’s biography, he received the Sanskrit version of this scripture in the Western Regions. In the Zhiyuan Monastery, he translated this scripture with Baoyun.83 In my opinion, all these events are interrelated. Zhiyan must have collaborated in Buddhist learning with Central Asian monks.84 Given that Daoxuan was pretty familiar with Zhiyan’s life,85 it is not surprising that he might have borrowed the contemplation method Zhiyan learned from Central Asia. In his Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks (Xu gaoseng zhuan), Daoxuan explicitly says that Zhiyan and Huiguan propagated this meditation system in South China. 86 Thus, Daoxuan’s focus on meditation system for new monks is from the Buddhist Sarvāstivāda tradition of Kapiśi.87 Sengyou first states this point in his collection: “Only Sapoduobu (Sarvāstivāda sect) was popular in the [Southern] Qi region. [It] probably originated from India and spread to 83 Zhiyan’s biography is in Gaoseng zhuan, Huijiao, T. no. 2059, 50: 339a-339c; for his contribution of translations, see Lidai sanbao ji, Fei Changfang, T. 2034, 49: 89b-c. For Buddhabhadra’s biography, see Gaoseng zhuan, Huijiao, T. no. 2059, 50: 334b-335c. Also see Jan Yun-hua, “Zhongguo zaoqi chanfa de liuchan he tedian,” Huagang foxue xuebao, vol. 7 (1984), p. 78. For example, Daoxuan’s the Gazetteer of Śakya Clan (Shijia fangzhi) mentioned his story; see Shijia fangzhi, Daoxuan, T. no. 2088, 51: 969b. See Xu gaoseng zhuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 596a. Also see Jan Yun-hua, “Zhongguo zaoqi chanfa de liuchan he tedian,” Huagang foxue xuebao, vol. 7 (1984), p. 78. Sarvāstivāda tradition dominated in this area. See the Biography of Master Vanshbandu (trans. by Paramatha, Zhendi) (Poshupantuo fashi zhuan), T. no. 2049, 50: 189a. 87 86 85 84 40 Kashmir.” 88 Daoxuan then moves on to talk about the methods of seven skillful means (qi fangbian fa), which include “five contemplations” and other six methods.89 The order of these seven means is same as that of many other sources in other traditions. But archaeological evidence has shed light on the geographical origin of these seven methods. According to a manuscript found in Dunhuang, titled Commentary on Vimalakittidesa (weimojie jing shu), this order should come from the Sarvāstivāda School (Ch. sapoduobu).90 After contemplating these seven skillful means, one can achieve the stage of holy living (Skt. Srota-āpanna, Ch. xutuowan guo). This is the third stage of enlightenment in Hinayana Buddhism according to some Daoxuan’s contemporaries. While in this case, Daoxuan clearly claims that “if [one] first enters the path, whoever is Mahayanist or Hinayanist, he or she should practice this contemplation.”91 Hence, it is “Sapoduobu shiziji mulu xu,” Sengyou, T. no. 2145, 45: 89a. Jan Yun-hua, “Zhongguo zaoqi chanfa de liuchuan he tedian – Huijiao, Daoxuan suozhu xichanpian yanjiu,” Huagang foxue xuebao 7 (1984), pp. 73-74. He remarks, “The meditation scripture Buddhabhadara translated is exactly The Meditation Scripture of Dharmatrata (two vols.). This scripture is also titled Xiuxing daodi, coming from the transliteration of “yogācāra-bhūmi.” Although the Sanskrit title of this scripture is the same as the Xiuxing daodi jing translated by Dharmarakśa (Fahu), the genre and the content are different. This scripture is still a Hinayana text, since it does not have a chapter called “Bodhisattva chapter” and even does not mention bodhisattva at all.” Tang Yongtong suggests that in terms of content, this scripture is close to Sarvāstivāda sect. see Han Wei liang Jin Nanbeichao fojiaoshi, pp. 307-309). For more on this scripture, s also Fukuhara Ryogon, “Chūgoku yōbu kei ritsushi to ritsuhon ritsu sho,” Bukkyōgaku (Ryūkoku Daigaku bukkyōkai) 25 / 26 (1968), pp. 69-92. The Chan text Chuanfa zhengzong lun has a different version about Chan tradition in Jibin; see T. no. 2080, 51: 776b. But this version is not reliable. Here Daoxuan’s seven skillful means (qi fangbian fa) include “five contemplations,” “biexiangnianchu,” “zongxiangnianchu,” “nuanfa,” “dingfa,” “renfa,” and “shidiyifa.” See Kaiyi, et al., eds., Foguang dacidian, second ed., 8 vols. (Gaoxiong: Foguang chubanshe, 1988-1989), p. 9sb-c and 120b-c. See weimojie jing shu, T. no. 2772, 85: 406c. Yang Zengwen says that the Hinayana method of concentration (xiaosheng chanfa) was tremendously influenced by the Sarvāstivāda sect. but he does not pay attention to this new evidence from Dunhuang. See Tang Wudai chanzong shi, p. 7. For An Shigao’s introduction of meditation techniques to China, see Hirakawa Akira, A History of Indian Buddhism (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1993), p. 248; Kenneth Ch’en, Buddhism in China (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), pp. 94-103; also see Charles Willemen, "Sarvastivada Dhyana and Mahayana Prajna: Observations about their Development in India and China", Asiatische Studien 55 (2001), p. 532. 91 90 89 88 Jingxin jieguan fa, Daoxuan, T. no. 1893, 45: 820c. 41 now clear that the method originated as a traditional Hināyānist meditation system from Central Asia and later in Daoxuan’s writing it became a typical practice for new monks as a Mahāyāna tradition. According to Daoxuan, the establishment of the ordination platform was a significant step in enhancing the stability of monastic society.92 Daoxuan writes that from southern Sichuan to south of the Huai River, there were more than three hundred ordination platforms, whereas, in the northern region of the Yellow River, within the Xiao Pass, there were not so many. 93 Daoxuan claims that the construction of the ordination platform is the reason why Southern Buddhism never decayed over four to five hundred years. He argued that the Buddhist Dharma based on ordination and precepts could not be easily destroyed. From his point of view, the ignorance of people on both banks of the Yellow River regarding the ordination platform resulted in the frequent political persecution of Buddhism. Thus, for Daoxuan, the construction of ordination platform is essentially to the enduring of Buddhist Dharma.94 In addition to the establishment of the ordination platform, the flourishing of relic and pagoda worship in the South also played a key role in Daoxuan’s view of Southern Buddhism. Such practices were collective, and included both monks and lay people. I A detailed study of the ordination platform can be found in chapter three. Here I only make some comments on how the ordination platform contributed to southern Buddhism. 93 94 92 “Daoxuan lüshi gantong lu,” Daoxuan, T. no. 2107, 52: 441c.. Modern scholars have pointed out about the significance of ordination platform elsewhere. For example, Jacqueline I. Stone demonstrates how newly organized lay Buddhist societies in modern Japan utilized Nichinen’s teaching about how the ordination platform (Honmon no kaidan in Japanese) should be supported by the state as an actual institution serving a legitimate purpose. See her article “‘By Imperial Edict and Shogunal Decree’: Politics and the Issue of the Ordination Platform in Modern lay Nichiren Buddhism,” in Steven Heine and Charles S. Prebish ed. Buddhism in the Modern World: Adaptations of an Ancient Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University press, 2003), pp. 193-219. 42 will analyze the origin of relics in China and their relationship to Chinese monasteries later; in this section I only trace how the relics in the South played a crucial role in Daoxuan’s personal life.95 My discussion here centers on how the Buddha’s relics were transferred among monasteries from the South to the North. Relic and pagoda worship can be traced back to the period of the Wu Dynasty when for the first time a relic was reported, and the first pagoda containing one of Buddha’s relics was built for the purpose of worship in the South.96 Later in the Liang Dynasty, under the sponsorship and propagation of the Emperor Wu (Xiao Yan 蕭衍), more relics were reported and more pagodas were constructed to house them.97 Discovery of Buddha’s relics and the construction of pagodas became a tremendous movement in the South. In the Sui Dynasty, the Emperor Wen distributed the relics to all of the prefectures and constructed more pagodas across the whole Sui Empire. As a witness to 95 96 In chapter two a detailed study deals with relics and monasteries. Kosugi Kazuo, “Rikucho jidai no buttō ni okeru bushari no anchi ni tsuite,” Tōyō gakuhō 21: 3 (1934), pp. 111-161. Apparently, during his reign, in South China, the construction of monasteries was flourishing. For example, at least two monasteries in Sichuan were established during his time. See Wang Bo (650-676), “Yizhou Mianzhuxian Wudushan Jinghi si bei,” in Wang Zi’an ji zhu (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1995), pp. 461-474. According to Wang Bo’s inscription, we know the Jinghui Monastery was built during the Taiqing period of Emperor Wu. Wang Bo’s other essay, “Zizhou Feiniaoxian Baohesi bei,” Wang Zi’an ji zhu, pp. 474-486, also claims the Baihe Monastery was built during Wudi’s period. “Yizhou Deyangxian Shanjisi bei” (pp. 487-500) indicates that this monastery was rebuilt in the Zhenguan period, based on an older one originally erected by Wudi, too. The Huipu Monastery was also built in the Datong period of Liang Emperor Wu, see “Zizhou Tongquanxian Huipusi bei,” pp. 500-510. Wang Bo’s piece “Zizhou Qixian Doushuaisi bei” says that this monastery was built in the Kaihuang period of the Sui Emperor Wen, see Wang Zi’an ji zhu, pp. 510-519, esp. 511. But actually it might have been erected in the Qi and Liang Dynasty, see Du Fu, “Shang Doushuaisi,” Quan Tang wen, ch. 227: 51. This poem claims that the buildings of the Tusita Monastery (Doushuaisi) were constructed in the Southern Qi and Liang Dynasties. Wang Bo’s “Guangzhou Baozhuangyansi shelita bei” indicates that this monastery was built during the Datong period of Wudi. The monk who was sent to distribute Buddha’s relics arrived here in the third year of Datong period (?), see Wang Zi’an ji zhu, pp. 521-547, esp. p. 529. Gijun Suwa surveys the relationship between Buddhism in Sichuan and Liang Emperor Wu. See Suwa, Chūgoku nanchō bukkyō no kenkyū (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1997), pp. 202-228, chapter ten. He does not use the sources I have discussed. His study mostly draws upon official histories such as the Liang shu (the History of Liang). 97 43 the Renshou period (601-604), Daoxuan was relatively familiar with this movement of distribution and construction. In Riyan monastery, Daoxuan witnessed Emperor Yang’s sending of Buddha’s relics from the Changgan Monastery (Changgan si 長干寺 ) and his donation of an inscription. Daoxuan consulted some southern monks living in Riyan monastery for information about the relics. According to Daoxuan's record, the pagoda had a three-story brick base. In his Miraculous Records, Daoxuan writes much about the pagoda with a three-story brick base in the Changgan Monastery. Emperor Yang dug out the relics from this pagoda in Changgan Monastery and brought it to the newly constructed Riyan Monastery in Chang’an. In the seventh year of Wude period (624), the Riyan Monastery was abolished under the edict of the emperor and its residents were distributed among other monasteries.98 Bring the relics, about ten masters and pupils (including Daoxuan) from Riyan Monastery were forced to move into Chongyi Monastery (Chongyi si 崇義 寺). This story shows how the Buddha’s relics in Changgan Monastery were transferred to Chongyi Monastery in Chang’an. Daoxuan thought that the ancient pagoda in the south of the Yangtze River still had shown its miraculous power in the North. 99 Koichi Shinohara suggests that many miracle stories reflect that the prestige of the monastery was served by the miracle images, and that Liang Emperor Wu was the center. He comments that, The tradition of Aśoka images appears to have developed in the South, where these images served to enhance the prestige of temples, many of which had only been recently established in areas where Buddhist missionaries had arrived See Anyang jinshi lu; Quan Tang wen xinbian, ch. 914, (Changchun: Jilin wenshi chubanshe, 2000), pp. 12495-12496. 99 98 Ji shenzhou sanbao gantong lu, Daoxuan, T. no. 2106, 52: 405c-406a. 44 relatively recently. One function of the discovery and location stories would then have been to illustrate dramatically the importance of a new temple as the miraculously chosen home of a specially powerful image. In the South the concern for miraculous images later crystallized around the figure of the emperor Wu of the Liang Dynasty.100 It seems that these miracle images of Aśoka and Liang Emperor Wu should be taken into account together, since many images of Aśoka developed during Liang Emperor Wu’s regime. Besides the practices discussed above, the impact of Southern Buddhism on Daoxuan can also be seen in his work Catalogue of the Buddhist Canon of the Great Tang (Da Tang neidian lu 大唐內典錄). In the title of this work, Daoxuan uses “neidian” to refer to the Buddhist canon. Literally, it means “Inner Classics” or “Inner Books.” The opposite term would be “External Classics” (waidian 外典). “Nei” or “inner” as terms referring to Buddhism derive from a Chinese understanding of Buddhism. Buddhism was viewed by Chinese Buddhists as a solution for inner problems, or the problem of inner nature, mind, or emotion. Following the same pattern, the learning of Buddhism was called “inner learning” (neixue 內 學 ). Historically, this idea seems to have been developed in South China, especially in Southern dynasties. I would suggest that the term “inner classics” (neidian 內 典 ) also came from the Southern tradition of Chinese Buddhism. In the so-called official histories, this term “neidian” first appeared in Shen Yue’s writing in the Southern Qi Dynasty. Shen Yue wrote an essay titled “Preface to the Inner Classics” (Neidian xu 內典序).101 Later this term also appeared in an edict issued Koichi Shinohara, “Changing Roles for Miraculous Images in Medieval Chinese Buddhism: A Study of the Miracle Image Section in Daoxuan’s ‘Collected Records,’” in Richard H. Davis, ed., Images, Miracles, and Authority in Asian Religious Traditions (Boulder, CO.: Westview Press, 1998), p. 163. 100 45 by the Liang Emperor Wu in the eleventh year of the Datong period (545).102 In this edict, the Emperor Wu used word “neidian” to indicate Buddhism, and another word “waijiao” (外教 external teaching) to indicate non-Buddhism.103 Thus, it might be safe to say that “neidian” as a term referring to Buddhist works became known to many Buddhist scholars in South China. It is also worth noting that this term seems to first be used by lay people.104 Furthermore, this word as a term referring to the Buddhist canon seems to begin with Daoxuan as shown in his catalogue, though it 101 102 103 “Neidian xu,” Shen Yue, in Daoxuan ed., Guang hongming ji (ch. 19), T. no. 2103, 52: 231b. “Wudi ji,” Liang shu, 3: 3. (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975), p. 89. Later also in the Liang Dynasty, Yu Xiaojing wrote a book titled Comprehensive Essentials of Buddhist Books (Neidian boyao). This title clearly appeared in many Buddhist works, such as, Daoxuan’s Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks (Xu gaoseng zhuan), see “Sengqie poluo,” Xu gaoseng zhuan, T. no. 2060, vol. 50: 426b. Interestingly, in this work, Daoxuan called Yu’s work Recorded Essentials of Buddhist Books (Neidian zhuanyao). Chinese characters “zhuan” and “bo” look very similar. Given other sources about this title, it is not surprising that in the circulation of Xu gaoseng zhuan this character was misprinted. It is also said that Yu changed his name to “Daoming,” which is inconsistent with Daoxuan’s other records which say that his dharma name was “Huiming.” Daoxuan gives a short sketch of Yu’s life and work. According to Daoxuan, after the Liang regime collapsed, Yu entered the Buddhist monastic order and became a monk. Yu later went to North China and also wrote extensively. And it also appears in Catalogue of Buddhist Canon of the Great Tang, see Da Tang neidian lu, Daoxuan, T. no. 2149, 55: 4. It is very close to Fei Changfang’s record. Both indicate that this work was very important for understanding essential Buddhist books. But Daoxuan’s record has one more item of information about Yu Xiaojing: Yu changed his name to Huiming after he entered the Buddhist monastic order. For its record in Fei Changfang’s Record of Three Treasures through the Ages (Lidai saobao ji), see Lidai sanbao ji, Fei Changfang, T. no. 2034, vol. 49: 100a. For its appearance in Daoshi’s Pearl Forest of the Dharma Grove (Fayuan zhulin), see Fayuan zhulin, Daoshi, T. vol. 2122, vol. 53: 1021c. Daoshi says that this work has forty chapters (juan). This is different from any other records. This must be wrong. In Liang shu, many other biographies also use this term to indicate Buddhist works. For example, Wang Shennian was said to understand Buddhist works very well, see “Wang Shennian liezhuan,” in Liang shu, ch. 39: 33 (Beijing, 1975), p. 556; it is said that He Ying went to Dinglin Monastery to listen to (lecturing on) Buddhist works, see Liang shu, ch. 51: 45 (Beijing, 1975), p. 735. Soon after the Liang Emperor Wu, Yan Zhitui (531-590?) used this term referring to Buddhist works. He said that, “The starting gate of the inner classics (neidian) established five kinds of prohibitions; [while] outer classics (waidian) [has] benevolence, righteousness, rite, wisdom, and trust. All are matched [with the former].” Here Yan clearly used “inner classics” and “outer classics” to indicate Buddhist works and Confucian works. See “Guixin pian,” in Yan Zhitui, Yanshi jiaxun (ch. 5). For a modern annotated edition, see Wang Liqi, Yanshi jiaxun jijie (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1993), p. 368. 104 46 also appears elsewhere. 105 If so, this is also substantial evidence that Daoxuan was influenced by the Southern tradition of Chinese Buddhism. Tradition and Training: Daoxuan on Three Learnings Contrary to the stereotype of southern Buddhism, now it is very clear that Buddhists in South China were not only fond of debating the philosophical meaning of Buddhist scriptures, but they also developed many other practices. Buddhist practice is traditionally divided into three forms: morality (śīla), concentration (samādhī), and wisdom (prajñā). How did Daoxuan view three practices? 106 Daoxuan was very well known as a Vinaya master, and as an especially a successful advocator of the Four-part Vinaya ( 四分律 Sifenlü),107 which would seem to make him a specialist in morality. However, Daoxuan did not confine his training to only one of three practices. For him, monks should not ignore any aspect of the three learnings. Specifically, he insisted that textual learning could not pursue independently of moral cultivation. From Daoxuan’s point of view, in the period of the Northern Zhou Emperor Xuan, the emperor changed the policy towards Buddhism after the Northern Zhou Emperor Wu. More and more scriptures and sculptures were made and the merits of offering feasts increased in Emperor Xuan’s time, yet philosophical learning was very weak. Daoxuan says that in In “Yiwen zhi” (section of arts and literature) of Xin Tang shu, it is said that there was a Buddhist catalogue titled Catalogue of Buddhist Canon in the Zhenguan Period (Zhenguan neidian lu), see Xin Tang shu, 59: 49: 3 (Beijing), p. 1526. However, it does not appear anywhere else. It is unlikely that it exists at all. 106 107 105 Miyabayashi Akihiko, “Dōsen no sangaku kan,” Bukkyō no jisen genri (1977), pp. 189-200. Matsuura Toshiaki, “Dōsen no ritsugaku no kenkyū,” Watanabe Takaoki kyōju kanreki kinen ronbunjū kankōkai ed., Watanabe Takaoki kyōju kanreki kinen ronbunjū: bukkyō shisō bunkashi ronsō (Kyoto: Heirakuji shoten, 1997), pp. 239-256. 47 this time, more Buddhist monks concentrated on textual learning than on observing precepts. He writes, The people who received the knowledge of Buddhist philosophical treatise (abhidharma) and practiced wrong precepts were viewed to be clever and wise; the people who heard the Lankavatara-[Sūtra] while enjoying food and drink were considered to be the profound and ultimate. They exaggerated and were steeped in the world, and admonished those who were previously considered wise. They ridiculed the heavenly river108 and belittled the net of prohibition.109 They called heresy wisdom on the genuine interpretation, and viewed wrong knowledge as the ultimate wisdom.110 受學毘曇行惡戒者﹐奉為聰慧﹔聽習楞伽﹐樂飲噉者﹐用為通極﹔夸罩蒙 俗﹐陵轢往賢﹔眄視天漢﹐率輕禁網﹐謂邪慧為真解﹐以亂識為圓智。 Daoxuan’s position was very clear. He did not agree that textual learning and the observation of precepts could be separated. In early medieval China, compared to translating and learning scripture, learning the Vinayas was considered inferior. Historically, Vinaya learning in China started with translation. There were four canons of Vinayas in Daoxuan’s time. In his postscript to the section on interpreting the Vinayas in Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks, Daoxuan offers a short history of Vinaya learning in China. 111 He describes how the Vinayas were translated from Sanskrit into Chinese and how some masters contributed commentaries on these Vinayas. According to him, the Vinaya-pitaka was collected during the period when the early Sangha was split into the Olders (Sthavira) and the Great Assembly (Mahāsanghika) Schools. The first Vinaya to enter China was Ten- 108 109 110 It refers to the divinely disciplined social atmosphere in monastic community. It refers to the monastic code which functioned like a net regulating the monastic community. Daoxuan’s commentary on the section of philosophical interpretation, see Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 549b. 111 Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 620a-621a. 48 section Vinaya (Daśabhānavāra-Vinaya, Shisonglü 十誦律 ) of the Sarvāstivāda sect. Shortly after it was translated into Chinese by Kumārajīva (鳩摩羅什 Jiumoluoshi, 344413), it became the dominant Vinaya in Chinese Buddhism. It was propagated by Vimalākśa (卑摩羅叉 5th century, Ch. Beimoluocha, also as Blue-Eyed Vinaya Master, Qingmu Lüshi 青目律師 ) in the Jin Dynasty. Huiyuan (334-416), who lived on the Mount Lu, continued to develop it into a school. Faju (法聚 5th century), Fayin (法隱 5th century), Sengyou (445-518), and Fayuan (524-587) also contributed to its hegemony in the regions of Huang and Yangtze Rivers. The second Vinaya to be translated into Chinese was the Four-part Vinaya (Sifenlü) of the Dharmagupta sect.112 Daoxuan says that this Vinaya was translated by Buddhayaśas (佛陀耶舍 4th century, Ch. Fotuoyeshe, Red-bearded Abhidharma Master, Chizi Lunzhu 赤髭論師) in the Later Qin period, while it became popular in the Northern Wei period. Since he did not lecture on this Vinaya, for a long time it was not very well known until Facong (5th century) began to explain it. In the Song Dynasty, Five-part Vinaya (Mahisāsaka-vinaya, Wufenlü 五分律) was translated by Buddhajiva (佛大什 ?423, Ch. Fodashi, Jueshou 覺壽) into Chinese in Yangzhou, the capital of the Song. This Vinaya was translated from 423 to 424. The Vinaya canon of the Kaśayapa Sect (Jiaye bu 迦葉部) was also introduced to China. The Sanskrit version had been extant in China for quite a long time, but the translation was never completed. Only the text of precepts (Pratimksa, jieben 戒本) was circulated. Daoxuan also says that, the Vinaya Canon of the For a recent study on Four-part Vinaya in China, see Ann Heirman, “Can we trace the early Dharmaguptakas?” T’oung Pao 88: 4-5 (2002), pp. 396-429. She uses Dharmagupta-Vinaya to translate Sifenlü. 112 49 Vātsīputrīya Sect (Poluofulu bu) was never introduced in China at all.113 It was listed in the Sanghika Sect (Dazhong bu 大眾部) of the Buddhist canon. So Daoxuan concludes that during his time, Chinese Buddhists knew that there were these five Vinaya canons, and that four of them had been translated into Chinese. However, same as Sengyou, Daoxuan was confused with Vinaya Canon of the Vātsīputrīya Sect and MahāsangikaVinaya. Although it originated from the former, the latter was translated into Chinese.114 In the early Tang period, Daoxuan says that the tradition of the Four-part Vinaya (Sifen zhi zong 四 分 律 宗 , the tradition of Caturvargika-vinaya) was the dominant Vinaya tradition.115 The first great master to interpret the Four-part Vinaya was Facong (法聰, 468-559). He orally transmitted his teachings to his disciples in the Northern Wei Dynasty. Following the effort of Facong, Daofu 道 覆 wrote a six-chapter commentary on Four-part Vinaya. At the end of the Eastern Wei and early Northern Qi period, Huiguang became famous for lecturing on the Four-part Vinaya. Daoxuan comments that every time Huiguang lectured on the Four-part Vinaya, about one thousand monks were present. After Huiguang’s death, his three principal disciples – Daoyun ( 道韻 , 570-607), Daohui ( 道暉 6th century), and Fayuan ( 法願 524-587) -continued to comment on the Four-part Vinaya.116 Soon after, Hongli 弘理, Tanyin 曇隱, Daole, Hongzun (洪遵 530-608), Shen 深, and Dan 誕 also lectured the Four-part Vinaya 113 114 Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 620b. For a discussion of this canon, see Hirakawa Akira, Ritsuzō no kenkyū (Tokyo: Sankido busshorin, 1970), pp. 137-142. 115 116 Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 620c. For Huiguang and his disciples, see his biography, in Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 607b-608b. For Fayuan’s biography, see ibid, 50: 610a-b. 50 in the Central Plain.117 Hongli was Huiguang’s disciple. Tanyin studied the Four-part Vinaya with Daofu and wrote a four-volume commentary on it. Daofu and Daole 道樂 were famous for their study of the Four-part Vinaya tradition. 118 In sum, in the late Northern dynasties in North China, Great Assembly Vinaya was the dominant tradition. While Four-part Vinaya was also learned to some extent.119 In his commentary on the section of Vinaya studies in Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks, Daoxuan criticizes his contemporaries for wrong attitudes toward the study of Vinaya. Particularly, he accuses of the contemporary attitude towards practice and learning. Daoxuan says that even Confucianism disregards the discrepancy between people merely commenting on the classics, without following them. By contrast, Buddhism does not allow its followers to skip the practice of what they study in texts.. Daoxuan compares the failure to practice as directed in the scriptures with reading the Book of Rituals (Liji 禮記) while being arrogant, or reciting the Book of Changes (Yijing 易經) while overlooking the yin and yang.120 Daoxuan also criticizes the textual learning of meditation traditions. In the period of the Liang Emperor Wu, meditation was propagated. The emperor invited all the famous meditation masters in the country to the capital, Yangzhou, and asked them to Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 621a. In Fozu tongji, under the category of “Vinaya Learning of the Mountain [Zhong] Nan,” there is a lineage of the Dharmagupta-Vinaya School. This lineage lists nine patriarchs, including Dharmagupta (Fazang, the founding patriarch), Dharmagala (Fashi, from Western India), Facong, Dafu, Huiguang, Daoyun, Daohong, Zhishou, and Daoxuan. See T. no. 2035, 49: 296c. This lineage might be based on the order Daoxuan remarked upon in his commentary on the section about Vinaya masters in Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks (Xu gaoseng zhuan). 118 119 117 For Tanyin’s biography, see Xu gaozeng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 608c. Vinaya Master Zhishou made a substantial contribution to the learning of the Four-part Vinaya. See Xu gaozeng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 621a. 120 Ibid., T. 50: 622b. 51 compile and classify what they practiced in newly constructed two Dingling Monasteries. The debate between monks was very intense. However, in Daoxuan’s opinion, these monks only cared about making themselves famous.121 Daoxuan also criticizes his contemporaries for their lack of attention to practice. Such monks paid more attention to seeking wisdom than to anything else, and treated monastic regulations very casually.122 Daoxuan claims that if a monk does not practice dhyāna (meditation), he separates himself from real wisdom. The above history of the period helps us clarify some important points about the nature of the “sects,” “lineages,” “school,” or traditions in which Daoxuan took part. Up until Daoxuan’s time, what his contemporaries called “the Vinaya tradition” (lüzong 律 宗) was not very popular. Prior to Daoxuan, the study of Vinaya and the observance of the precepts by monks was not a high priority. Many felt that their identity as Mahāyāna Buddhists meant that they did not need to emphasize monastic precepts. Other felt that they should emphasize other forms of practice instead, including what Daoxuan referred to as “the concentration tradition” (dingzong 定宗 ) and the “philosophical meaning tradition” or “exegetical tradition” (yizong 義宗). Daoxuan not only reordered these priorities, he also redefined what it meant to study “the Vinaya tradition.” Not only should monks study the textual traditions of the Vinaya – which we know was a very complicated matter, with four complete Vinayas available in translation, each with its own Chinese commentarial tradition – they should also, in Daoxuan’s eyes, put the Vinaya into practice. Daoxuan began his career with a 121 122 Ibid., T. 50: 596a. Jiaojie xinxue biqiu xinghu lüyi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1897, 45: 869b. 52 strong interest in meditation, but his teacher Huijun (564-637 慧頵 who came from the south) persuaded him to pay attention to the Vinaya. Daoxuan placed the observance of precepts at the center of monastic practice. Thus, he transformed the meaning of “the Vinaya tradition” from a more limited sense of textual (study of the Vinaya canon) to a broader sense that included observance of the precepts laid down in the Vinaya. This evaluation of Daoxuan also helps us understand better what exactly the Chinese word zong 宗 meant in Daoxuan’s time. As we have seen, Daoxuan discusses three different such zong: a tradition having to do with Vinaya, with concentration, and with philosophical meaning. In this sense, zong means xue (學 learning or study). When Daoxuan refers to “a Vinaya tradition” (lüzong 律宗), then he does not intend a “sect” with clearly articulated articles of faith or a “school” with its own separate social institutions. These more exclusive understandings of zong are inventions of modern scholarship, largely based on Japanese sectarian practice, and later Song-dynasty historians, as many scholars are beginning to recognize.123 Rather, by emphasizing the importance of “the Vinaya tradition” or “the Vinaya school,” he wanted first to elevate the importance of the Vinaya, which he felt was being neglected, and second to redefine what was meant by studying the Vinaya. For him, it meant not only learning the texts and discussing the rules, but putting them into practice. The Diaspora of Southern Culture Tang Yongtong, “Zhongguo wu shizong lun,” in: Tang Yongtong xuanji (Tianjin: Tianjin renmin chubanshe, 1995), pp. 345-360; and “Zhongguo fojiao zongpai wenti bulun,” in Tang Yongtong xuanji, pp. 361-394. Griffith T. Foulk, “Myth, Ritual, and Monastic Practice in Sung Ch’an Buddhism,” in Patricia B. Ebrey and Peter N. Gregory eds., Religion and Society in T’ang and Sung China (Honolulu: Hawaii University Press, 1993), pp. 147-208. 123 53 Why did Daoxuan stress Southern Buddhism? From the discussion above, I would point to two reasons. First, Daoxuan believed that Southern Buddhism escaped political persecution and regime change because it was founded on a strong institutional basis, including the ordination platform and other practices. These practices within the monastic community maintained the monastic order, regulated and enabled new members, forced practitioners to think about resisting the decline of the Dharma. Secondly, Daoxuan viewed South China as a “cultural kingdom” because his education and personal experience was heavily influenced by self-consciously Southern traditions. Both his family background and monastic training were strongly Southern. Daoxuan was born in Chang’an, but his family was from the south. His father, Qian Shen 錢申, was the Secretary of the Personnel Department in the Chen Dynasty, serving as a powerful minister to the Chen court. After the Chen kingdom was taken over, Qian Shen had to move to the capital of the new empire at Chang’an. Since the South and North were separated for several centuries, during this time, Qian Shen’s move made him an immigrant from the South.124 So Daoxuan was in fact was from a Southern immigrant family. In my estimation, since the Qian family was a well known and powerful family in the South over many generations, Qian Shen and his family members may have experienced a kind of culture shock after they moved to the North. They must have been aware that they had come to an area where the barbarians had ruled for several centuries. Daoxuan’s family background and intellectual shaping made him a Southerner. Daoxuan was born in Chang’an where his father occupied a high position in the administration of the Sui government. Before his family moved to Chang’an, they lived 124 Fujiyosho Masumi, Dōsen den no kenkyū (Kyoto: Kyōtō daigaku shuppankai, 2002), pp. 37-67. 54 in Jiankang, the capital of the Chen Dynasty.125 Daoxuan’s father was talented in literary composition, and he probably followed his native training when he taught Daoxuan composition and classics. Therefore, geographically, Daoxuan was a Northerner since he was born in the North, and he exclusively traveled in the North; but culturally he was a Southerner because he was raised in an immigrant family from the South and was educated in the Southern cultural tradition. It is worth noting that the Emperor Yang in the Sui Dynasty favored Southern culture. I believe there is a connection between Daoxuan’s support for Southern Buddhism the Sui Emperor Yang’s favoring of Southern culture. It seems that Daoxuan witnessed the revival of Buddhism during the reign of Emperor Yang and was much impressed by it. In order to clarify this issue, we have to look back to the Buddhist history that Daoxuan wrote. The history of Buddhism during the late Southern and Northern dynasties was very complicated. In his comment on the “Section on Philosophical Interpretation” in Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks, Daoxuan traces the history of Buddhism in this period. 126 Daoxuan mentions distinguished figures that played a vital role in the history of Chinese Buddhism. First, he remarks on the contribution of Dao’an (312-385), Zhu Daosheng (竺道生, 355-434), and Zhidun (支遁 314-366). He continues to reflect on the prospering of Buddhism under the Liang Dynasty. In that era, Emperor Wu devoted himself to Buddhist doctrines and practices. In addition, three masters Fayun (法 125 126 “Daoxuan,” in Song Gaoseng zhuan, Zanning (919-1001), see T. no. 2061, 50: 790b. Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 548a-549a. 55 雲 465-537), Sengmin(僧旻 482-542),127 and Zhizang (智藏 458-522), were singled out for their activities. For Daoxuan, all three masters distinguished themselves among monks, but each was different. Fayun and Sengmin were talented in philosophical interpretation.128 Zhizang was more successful, acclaimed by both monks and lay people, because he distinguished himself in both practice and learning. Daoxuan believed that, for enlightening the compassion of people, there were none better than Zhizang.129 There were several reasons why Daoxuan regarded Zhizang especially highly as master in the Liang Dynasty.130 First, Zhizang was from the Gu clan in Wujun, one of four local great clans (Gu 顧, Lu 陸, Zhu 朱 and Zhang 張) in South China.131 Second, Zhizang once worked with Vinaya Master Sengyou in Upper Dinglin Monastery (Shang Dingling si). 132 We know Sengyou had a crucial intellectual impact on Daoxuan’s Like Zhizang, he was from Wujun. For his biography, see Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 461c-463c, he had a very strong connection with Xiao Ziliang. Fujio Kazuyo, “Ryōdai kara Zuidai no nitaisetsu no kenkyū,” Otani daigaku daigakuin kenkyū kiyō 15 (1998), pp. 55-69. Nomura Yosho, “Ichibutsu no shiso,” Kōzo: Daijō bukkyō 4 (1983). Tamura Yoshiro﹐“Hōon no hokkegiki no kenkyū,” Hokkekyō no chūgoku no tankai: Hokkekyō kenkyū 4 (1972) , p. 175; Kanno Hiroshi, “Hōon Hokkegiki ni okeru ichiō shiso no kaishaku ni tsuite,” Sokka daigaku jinbun ronshū 4 (1992), pp. 3-20. Joaquim Monteiro, “Kōtakuji Hōon ni okeru ‘nitai’ to ‘inga’ ni tsuite -‘Hokkegiki’ o chushin ni,” Komazawa tanki daigaku bukkyō ronshū 9 (2003), pp. 139-174. About Zhizang, see Fukushima Kosai, “Kaizenji Chizō no nitai shisō,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 21 (11-1) (1963), pp. 150-151; Oda Yoshihisa, “Tōsho no jūdaitoku ni tsuite,” Oryo shigaku 5 (1979), pp. 51-64. Okuno Mitsuyoshi, “Kichiō kōgaku to ‘kegokyō’ omekutte,” Kegongaku ronshū (1997), pp. 177-190; Sato, Seijun, “Jōjitsuronji no shisō ni kan suruichi kosatsu,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 23 (12-1) (1964), pp. 202205. 129 130 128 127 Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 548b. Andreas Janousch examines the debate between Liang Emperor Wu and Zhizang and points out that Zhizang played a role in insisting on the self-administration of the Sangha against the secular power; see “The Emperor as Bodhisattva: The Bodisattva and Ritual Assemblies of Emperor Wu of the Liang Dynasty,” in Joseph P. McDermott ed. State and Court Ritual in China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 136-140. For these great clans in medieval China, see the biography of Liu Chong, in Xin Tang shu, ch. 199, p. 5678. 131 56 learning and scholarship. Third, Zhizang initiated the practice of receiving, upholding, and reading and reciting (受持 shouchi133 and 讀誦 dusong) the Diamond Sūtra in the South. 134 In the Tang Dynasty, this practice was very influential. 135 According to his biography in Daoxuan’s Continued Biographies of the Eminent Monks, in his twentyninth year, Zhizang met a famous fortune-teller who told him that, although he was very wise, he would not live more than thirty-one years. Zhizang then went to the “scripture storehouse” (jingzang 經藏) and found the Diamond Sūtra. He upheld and recited this sutra in a quiet room after having bathed with fragrant water. Later he heard a voice in the air that told him that the divine power of reciting the Diamond Sūtra had doubled his life span. His experience then became a model for others. For example, He Hu, a man living in the Liang Dynasty, was a very talented scholar who studied the Commentary of Zuo Qiuming on the Spring and Autumn Annals (Zuoshi chunqiu 左氏春秋). As a filial son, he sought treatment for his mother’s illness. A monk often visited his mother and asked for vegetarian food. His mother recovered gradually. The monk left the Diamond Sūtra to his family and told him that it was responsible for his mother’s healing. He Hu was indebted to the monk, and so donated his house as a monastery, which was called the 132 133 For his biography, see Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 465c-467c. Stephen F. Teiser suggests that “many schools of Buddhist thought advocated receiving and upholding as the sixth of ten ways to devote oneself to sacred texts.” For more details, see his The Scripture on the Ten Kings and the Making of Purgatory in Medieval Chinese Buddhism (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1996), pp. 139-141. For the sense of this term in Buddhist philosophy as one of acts of the law which is to take possession of scriptures of the Great Vehicle with unusual devotion, see Nakamura Hajime, Bukkyōgo daijiten, p. 638a-b. The Diamond-sutra was first translated by Kumarajīva in 402. Since then till Yijing translated the last version in the third year of Chang’an period (703), there are eight translations in total. 135 134 Zhang Guogang, Foxue yu Sui Tang shehui (Shijiazhuang: Hebei renmin chubanshe, 2002), pp. 190-191. 57 Yue’an Monastery.136 Daoxuan reports that after that, both monks and lay people in that area began to uphold and recite this sutra, and they also experienced its divine power. Daoxuan concludes that this is why the Diamond Sūtra brought divine power to help the commoners in his time. Such migrates could resurrect the dead, as many miracle stories in the Tang period attest.137 This practice of upholding and chanting the Diamond Sūtra was also spread to Dunhuang, an oasis city in Northwest China. This is one example of how a practice that originated in the South became popular everywhere. Fourth, Zhizang established a reputation for preventing Emperor Wu from controlling the Buddhist community. Emperor Wu planned to become the chief of the Buddhist community (Sengzheng 僧正), saying that common monks and nuns did not study the monastic code, although he did not know much about Buddhist rules and regulations, either. Zhizang worried that it would be too severe to use secular law to rule the Buddhist community. Zhizang asked the emperor not to interfere in Buddhist affairs; Zhizang opposed the sengzheng institution. 138 Zhizang’s opposition to the imperial control of the Buddhist community was quite similar to Daoxuan’s stance against the law that required monks to bow toward the emperor.139 Chapter seven of Falin’s Bianzheng lun cites the Biography of He Family and tells a story about retribution for their support Buddhism. See T. no. 2110, 52: 538a. Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 466b. Cheng A-tsai has examined the acceptance and impact of this practice in Buddhist popular literature, especially based on Dunhuang manuscripts. See his “Dunhuang lingying xiaoshuo de fojiao shixue jiazhi,” Tang yanjiu 4 (1998), pp. 31-46. 138 139 137 136 Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 467a. Eric Reinders, “Buddhist Rituals of Obeisance and the Contestation of the Monk’s Body in Medieval China” (Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1996). 58 Fayun was famous for his powerful lectures and miraculous responses.140 He had very strong connections with Southern literati, especially Wang Rong and Shen Yue.141 Daoxuan remarks Fayun’s contributions to Chinese Buddhism, which might have impact on Daoxuan’s formation of monasticism in terms of creating about monastic regulations, bringing miraculous power, and writing against anti-Buddhist attack. For instance, after Fayun had been appointed the abbot of the Guangzhai Monastery (Guangzhai si zhu 光宅 寺主) by the Liang emperor, he created regulations for monastic life, which become the model for later monasteries, and particularly interested Daoxuan. Moreover, Fayun always recited the Lotus Sūtra before giving lectures. During this recitation, Fayun evoked a miraculous response: flowers rained down from heaven. His recitation also sparked miracles seen by some who made offerings to him before his lecture.142 This supernatural power he brought up might have also inspired Daoxuan’s practice. Furthermore, Fayun played an important part in writing against Fan Zhen (范縝 450?515)’s Discourse on the Destruction of the Soul (Shenmie lun 神 滅 論 ). Fayun’s powerful influence in the Liang society also impressed Daoxuan.143 Andreas Janousch suggests that, in establishing a direct tie with the Buddha, Fayun resistsed the capture of secular power from Liang Emperor Wu over the Sangha; see “The Emperor as Bodhisattva: The Bodhisattva and Ritual Assemblies of Emperor Wu of the Liang Dynasty,” in Joseph P. McDermott ed. State and Court Ritual in China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp.133-135. For example, one of his close friends was Wang Rong; see Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, vol. 50: 464a. Wang Rong wrote a verse for the first chapter of Xiao Ziliang’s Jingzhuzi jingxing famen. Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 465a. See Toshitaka Morie, “Ryō sandai hoshi no kannō shisō,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 43 (22-1) (1973), pp. 142-143; and Kojaku Akiba, “Hōon, Chigi, Kichizō no ingankan,” Tendai gakuhō 45 (2003), pp. 133-139. 143 142 141 140 Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 52: 464b. 59 An offspring of the royal family of the Wu Kingdom, Sengmin was from Wujun. Daoxuan tells that, besides his reputation as a skillful lecturer, Sengmin also started the tradition of reciting the Scripture of Avalokiteśvara (Guanshiyin jing 觀世音經) before giving lectures, and his audience gave many offerings for that purpose. His second noteworthy activity, according to Daoxuan, was that he once built a sculpture of Maitreya Buddha and made offerings. He worshipped this Buddha twice everyday. This dedicated worship brought a miracle dream to him. In the dream, Maitreya Buddha sent a bodhisattva to present him with a bodhi tree. This miraculous dream came to him as a result of his worship of Maitreya Buddha.144 In addition, Sengmin had a connection with some preeminent lay people, including Xiao Ziliang and Liu Xie. Like Fayun, Sengmin was also a frequent lecturer in Hualin Garden which was sponsored by Xiao Ziliang. Daoxuan also contributes his narrative of the Buddhist history in North during the Northern Qi and Zhou Dynasties. In the North, the West under the control of the Northern Zhou was quite different from the situation of the East under the control of the Northern Qi. After the change of the regime in the North, the revival of Buddhism began. When the Sui Emperor Wen came into power, he began to advocate Buddhism. At the beginning of the Kaihuang period (581-600), he established Buddhist temples wherever there were the Buddhist monks across the country. He invited monks to preach Buddhism in Chang'an. These eminent monks were automatically classified according to their monastic rank. There were twenty-five groups of monks in Chang'an. They enjoyed the freedom to learn and teach under the sponsorship of the Sui government. Every day when the emperor went to the court, there had to be seven monks sitting in attendance. These 144 Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 52: 463b. 60 monks recited scriptures and preached Buddhist teachings. Thus at that time Buddhism was widely known, though in Daoxuan’s eyes it was still weaker in the Sui Dynasty than in the Liang and Northern Qi Dynasties. It still had, however, a hope of a revival.145 Next Daoxuan explores how the Southern monks contributed to the revival of Buddhism in the North. Huiyuan (慧遠 523-592) was one of the most eminent monks working toward this goal at the end of the Northern Qi and Sui Dynasties. Huiyuan once consulted Sengchou (僧稠 480-560), a famous Meditation Master in Hebei area, about meditation. Consequently, Huiyuan always praised dhyana in speaking about concentration. He wrote many commentaries and lectured widely. His abilities in preaching Buddhism brought him a miraculous dream in which he ascended the peak of Mt. Sumeru and saw a Buddha sculpture lying under a jeweled tree. 146 When he arrived in Chang'an, he immediately started teaching. Daoxuan claims that his audience there numbered seven hundred and that he personally converted at least two-thirds of the population of the country to Buddhism. Daoxuan next discusses other monks who contributed to the teaching of Buddhism. Some monks were good at Buddhist scholasticism. For instance, Sengcan (僧 粲 529-613) was known as a philosophical debater among the literati. Sengcan 145 146 Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 549a-b. For his biography, see Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 490a-492b. For his relationship to Sengcan, see Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 492a. Ōcho Enichi, “Eon to Kichizō,” Yūki kyōju shōju kinen: Bukkyō shisōshi ronjū (1964), pp. 433-450; Tamaki Koshiro, “Chūgoku bukkyō ni okeru shutai no hottan,” Hikata hakushi koki kinen ronbunshū (1964), pp. 389-402; Uno Sadatoshi, “Jōyoji Eon Kanmuryōjukyōsho no sanjōkan ,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 61 (31-1) (1982), pp. 140-141; Nitta Masaaki, “Chigi ni okeru bodaishin no seiritsu konkyo ni tsuite: Jōyoji Eon to no higaku nioite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 32 (16-2) (1968), pp. 271-277; Kamata Shigeo, “Jōyoji Eon no ho kannen,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 28 (14-2) (1966), pp. 98-103; Liao Minghuo, “Jingyingsi Huiyuan de panjiao xueshuo,” Zhonghua foxue xuebao 6 (1993), pp. 219-235; Feng Huanzhen, “Jingyingsi Huiyuan de xingchi, zhushu ji qi xianshizong,” Zhonghua foxue xuebao 15 (2002), pp. 177-218. 61 extensively traveled all over the country.147 Huizang (慧藏 522-605) was known for his philological knowledge; 148 Sengxiu (僧休 Huixiu, 556-?) was familiar with the Great Abhidharm (Dazhidu lun). In the seventh year of the Kaihuang period (587), along with Huiyuan, Huizang, Baozhen, Hongzun, and Tanqian together, Sengxiu was appointed one of the six “Great Virtues” (dade). After that he played a key role in the history of Sui Buddhism. Most of these masters were talented philosophers of Buddhism, while Hongzun was a master skillful in Four-part Vinaya (Sifenlü). Sengxiu was invited to the capital in the ninth year of the Zhenguan period (635) and remained in the capital for nineteen years. When Daoxuan wrote his biography, he was still alive at the age of ninety-eight. In this biography, Daoxuan praises his ascetic lifestyle.149 Fajing 法進 was knowledgeable about the history of Buddhism. There were also good monks who distinguished themselves as defenders of Buddhism. The most important of these was Tanyan, who was so distinguished that the emperor asked him to sit on an imperial throne and preach Buddhism to officials in court. Daoxuan notes that, following his father, Emperor Yang continued to patronize Buddhism and some eminent monks. He consulted Daozhuan about Buddhist and nonBuddhist teachings. He also invited Falun(法論 528-605) to the newly erected Riyan For his biography, see Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 500a-501a. He is better known as the third patriarch of Chan School. See Masunaga Reiho, “Sanso Sōsan to sono shisō,” Nikka bukkyō kenkyūkai nenhō 2 (1937), pp. 36-63; Nakagawa Taka, “Sōsan daishi no nendai to shisō,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 11 (6-1) (1958), pp. 229-232; Matsuda Bunyu, “Shijinmei ni tsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 28 (14-2) (1966), pp. 253-256. For his biography, see Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 498a-b. He was famous for lecturing on the Huayan jing. After his death, he was buried near Zhixiang Monastery (Zhixiangsi) on Mt. Zhongnan. 149 148 147 Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 544b-545b. 62 Monastery to give lectures. Falun was familiar with all Buddhist, Confucian and Daoist classics. He was also working on the biographies of eminent monks, which he did not complete.150 Daoxuan continues his story of Buddhism in the North with Xiang and Yuan, who were famous in the two capitals. Zhuang and Zhituo ( 智 脫 538-605) 151 preached Buddhism in the Central Plain. Zhituo was mainly active in South China, and because of his reputation was invited by the Sui Emperor Yang to the Riyan Monastery in Chang’an. Therefore, he was one of the key monks who brought the Southern teachings to the North. He made an abridged version of the work of the Dharma Master Yan of the Liang Dynasty and preached in the North. This abridged version was popular with contemporary readers.152In his biography Daoxuan writes that Zhituo always received help from Indian monks in his dreams when he faced unresolved issues during his lectures.153 In Daoxuan’s eyes, Emperor Yang's virtue and righteousness were unsurpassed. He established two Buddhist monasteries (Huiri and Fayun) 154 and two Daoist monasteries (Yuqing and Jindong). Buddhism spread and Tanyan seemed to have been resurrected. At that time, although all the different Buddhist schools taught different ideas, 150 151 152 For Falun’s biography, see Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 500a. For his biography, see Xu Gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 498c-499c. The work by Yan is titled Chengyun xuanyi, in seventeen stet. See Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 499b. Dreams are important means for reproduction of culture. Dreams have become an important issue in cultural studies recently. For a case in Europe, see Patricia Cox Miller, Dreams in Late Antiquity: Studies in the Imagination of a Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994). For example, Jizang was active in Huiri daochang. See Nakajima Ryuzo, “Kichizō kyōgaku niokeru ‘kanshin’ ni tsuite,” Hiraishūnei hakase koki kinen ronshū: Sanron kyōgaku to bukkyo sho shiso (Tokyo: Shunjusha, 2000), pp. 193-210. 154 153 63 Daoxuan states that most of them focused on nirvāna. Among different texts, the Mahāyānasangrahabāṣya (Shelun 攝 論 , or She dasheng lun 攝 大 乘 論 , written by Vashbandhu, translated by Paramārtha) was richest.155 A Son of a Southern Father and a Disciple of a Southern Master I have attempted to point out the features stressed by Daoxuan in his elaborate vision of Southern Buddhism. Daoxuan’s attention to Southern Buddhism could be due to his own personal memory of being educated in a family from the South, as well as his reading from the collective memory of the Southern monks he worked with in the Riyan Monastery. I would like to draw a sketch of Daoxuan’s cultural background inherited from both his family and his master, as it seems to be essential factor that shaped Daoxuan’s perspective. As I have discussed before, Daoxuan was born in Chang’an while his family moved to Chang’an from Jiankang, the capital of the Chen Dynasty. Daoxuan’s father taught Daoxuan following Southern cultural tradition. Culturally Daoxuan was a Southerner. For his training in Buddhism, Daoxuan was also indebted to his Southern masters, especially Huijun. From his childhood, Daoxuan was indoctrinated in Buddhism, and later he left home for the Riyan Monastery in Chang’an to study Buddhist thought and practice with Master Huijun. Huijun played an important role in Daoxuan’s early learning, and he also helped to shape Daoxuan’s professional career. Because of his influence, Daoxuan later became a Vinaya Master. Daoxuan tells us how he changed his educational direction: Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. 2060, 50: 549a-b. About Mahāyānasangrahabāya, see Hirano Yoshiyuki, “‘Shōdaijōron’ ni okeru daijō busetsu ron,” Otani daigaku daigakuin kenkyū kiyō 16 (1999), pp. 1-19; Katano Michio, “Shōdaijōron ni okeru ichijō shiso,” Bukkyōgaku semenai 72 (2000), pp. 1-14. 155 64 When I first received precepts, I was fond of meditation and talked to my master (Huijun) about it. My master said, “Meditation will be manifested once the precepts have become clear, and this is the order of the Buddhist teaching. So you should learn Vinaya first. If you hold to or violate the rules and precepts, and then visualize and synthesize the Vinaya, that will be enough.”156 初受具後﹐性愛定門﹐啟陳所請。乃曰﹕戒淨定明﹐道之次矣。宜先學律 ﹐持犯照融﹐然後可也。 Daoxuan originally planned to learn meditation, but Huijun made him shift his direction to the study of the Vinayas.157 Later Daoxuan was ordained under the guidance of another preeminent Vinaya Master, Zhishou (567-635), who was particularly familiar with Four-part Vinaya (Sifenlü). 158 There is no apparent reason why Daoxuan was ordained in another monastery rather in his home institution. One possible reason could be that many monks went to a large monastery to get ordained, because the Great Meditation Monastery (Da chanding si) where Zhishou lived was much bigger than Riyan Monastery.159 But the details of Daoxuan’s ordination remain unclear. Considering that Daoxuan was also familiar with the Sarvāstivāda tradition that was dominant in South China,160 it is possible 156 157 See Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 534b. For a study on precepts and meditation methods, see Shi Huimin, Jielü yu chanfa (Taipei: Fagu wenhua shiye gufen youxian gongsi, 1999). Current scholarship focuses more on Zhishou’s impact on Daoxuan’s Vinaya learning. See Yang Zengwen, “Fojiao jielü he Tangdai de lüzong,” Zhongguo wenhua 3 (1990): 5-17; Sato Tatsugen, “Sui Tang gaoseng de jielüguan,” trans. Guan Shiqian, Miaolin zazhi 10: 6 (1998): 18-35. For discussion of Dachandingsi, see Chen Jinhua, Monks and Monarchs, Kinship and Kingship: Tanqian in Sui Buddhism and Politics (Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies, 2002), pp. 181-211. For example, I suggest that Daoxuan was indebted to this tradition in his writing about meditation method, according to his work Jingxin jieguan fa. This tradition was spread by many great monks from Kapiśi (Jibin, modern Afganistan). There even was a monastery called “Jibinsi (Kapiśian Monastery)” in the Song Dynasty. In the first year of Jingping period (423), a monk from Jibin, Buddhajīva (Jueshou, Fotuoshi) came to the capital of the Song Dynasty. Some patrons constructed a monastery to accommodate him. This monastery was called Jibinsi. The name of this monastery appears once in the biography of a monk Baozhi. See Gaoseng zhuan, Huijiao, T. no. 2059, 50: 394b (also see Taiping guangji, 160 159 158 65 that Zhishou might have also taught him this tradition. Zhishou accepted the Ten-stanza Vinaya (Sarvāstivāda-Vinaya, Sapoduobu piposha), which was from the South. According to his preface to Continued Commenatry on Sarvastivada-Vinaya (Xu sapoduo pini piposha 序薩婆多部 毗 尼 毗 婆沙 ), 161 Zhishou was interested in the Ten-stanza Vinaya tradition, but he could not find a complete “Sarvāstivāda-vinaya piposha.” Later he was called to live in the Chanding Monastery upon the request of the Sui Emperor Wen. There he met a Vinaya master from Western Sichuan, Baoxuan. Baoxuan told him that he knew there was a complete text in his hometown. This text was translated in Sichuan, which included nine chapters. But during its dissemination in the North, because of the persecution of the Northern Wei emperor Wu, the first and last chapters were lost. However, the original translation was still preserved in Chengdu. So Zhishou asked many people to search for it in Chengdu, and eventually it was found in the second year of the Daye period (606). This complete version was brought to the Sui capital, Chang’an. Zhishou sent a copy to the Dhyana Master Sengsha, who resided at the Shentong Moanstery, Qizhou (modern Shandong).162 So this text was disseminated to Shandong. ch. 90.). The biography of Buddhajīva, see Chu sanzang ji ji, Sengyou, T. no. 2049, 50: 339a. Also see Liu Shiheng, Nanchao si kao (Taipei: Xinwenfeng chuban gongsi, 1987), p. 38. A manuscript of Sapoduo pini piposha was found in Northwestern China. See Oda Yoshihisa, “Saiiki jutsudo no shakyō danben ni tsuite -- Ōtani bunko shūsei’ō chūshin ni,” Ryūkoku daigaku bykkyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 41 (2002), pp. 1-41; Funayama Toru, “‘Mokunen mon kairitsu chū gohiaku kyōjūji no genke to hensen,” Tōhō gakuho 70 (1998), pp. 203-290. This monastery was erected by the Dhyāna Master Senglang in 351. For Senglang’s biography, Gaoseng zhuan, Huijiao, T. no. 2059, 50: 354b. Daoxuan was very familiar with this monastery. In his Ji shenzhou sanbao gantong lu (chapter 2), he remarks that in the Northern dynasties, many rulers sent letters of veneration to this monastery for merit. Even many foreign kingdoms, like Korea, and some Central Asian kingdoms sent golden and bronze Buddha sculptures to this monastery. See T. no. 2106, 52: 414a. In the third year of the Kaihuang period (583), it was renamed as “Shentong daochang;” See T. vol. 2060, 50: 507a. According to Fazang’s biography in Xu gaoseng zhuan, during the relic-distribution movement launched in the Renshou period, he was sent to venerate relics in this monastery; see T. no. 2060, 50: 506c507a. For other sources about this monastery, also see Li Jifu, Yuanhe junxian tuzhi (Beijing: Zhonghua shujum 1983), ch. 10, “Qizhou lichengxian.” For a modern archaeological survey, see Jin Sanlin and Zhang 162 161 66 But it was still not known in Jin Wei, Zhao and Yan areas. Another one of Zhishou’s students, Vinaya Master Jinghong, received a copy and spread it to the Yellow River and Shuofang area.163 In deepening Huijun’s intellectual impact on Daoxuan, I will document Huijun as an immigrant with a Southern scholarly tradition. Although Daoxuan was ordained by Zhishou, his learning of Vinaya was inspired by his master Huijun. Huijun’s background is, in my opinion, similar to Daoxuan’s. Huijun’s family was originally from the North, but during the political disorder in the North, his family moved to the South. Huijun was raised and educated in the South. After the Sui Empire took over the South, Huijun moved to Jiangdu to stay in the famous Hualin Garden (Hualin yuan 華林園),164 where he worked on Satyasiddhi-śāstra (Chenshi lun 成 實 論 ). When Emperor Yang established the Riyan Monastery, he was invited to Riyan Monastery with other southern masters under the edict of the emperor. 165 Thus, Huijun shared a similar historical experience with Daoxuan, which might be the reason why Daoxuan was more loyal to Huijun than to Zhishou, who simply belonged to the North culturally. Huijun’s biography shows that he had an encyclopedic knowledge of both Buddhism and Daoism. Daoxuan was not alone in being influenced by Huijun. According to Huijun’s biography, Zhishou and Daoyue (568-636) from Chanding Monastery (Chandingsi) also benefited from Heyun, “Shentongsi shiji chubu diaocha jilue,” Wenwu cankao ziliao 10 (1956), pp. 28-36. For Senglang, also see Tsukamoto Zenryu, “Hokugi kenkoku jidai no bukkyō seisaku to kahoku no bukkyō,” Tōhō gakuho 11 (1939), pp. 49-85. 163 164 See the preface to Xu sapoduobu pini piposha, Zhishou, T. no. 1440, 23: 558c-559a. Fujii Teruyuki, “Karinen to bukkyō,”Bukkyō daigaku bukkyō bunka kenkyūjo johō 2 (1985), Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 533c. pp. 15-17. 165 67 Huijun.166 They often came to the Riyan Monastery to discuss monastic code and rules with Huijun. 167 Daoyue was a disciple of Dhyana Master Sengcan. He also studied Satyasiddhi-śāstra, Samyuktābhidharmahrdayaśāstra (Zaxin abidamo lun), and other treatises with Zhinian (525-608)168 and Zhitong. Huijun had a relatively complex family background and experience. His family belonged to a famous clan in the North, and fled to the South during the chaos; after reunification, Huijun was invited to a monastery in the North. Although Huijun was from Qinghe (in present Hebei) in the North, his family became refugees and fled to Jianye (present Nanjing, Jiangsu Province) during the Yongjia period of the Jin Dynasty (307312). He learned Confucian classics and other skills under the guidance of his father, Zhang Jian, who was a famous literatus in the Chen Dynasty (557-589). The Zhang family also had a tradition of learning and practicing Buddhism. Later Huijun left home for monastery. At the end of the Kaihuang period (581-601), Huijun moved into the Riyan Monastery upon the invitation of the Prince of Jin (later the Emperor Yang, Yang Guang). Huijun read through all hagiographies, made comparisons with what he learned about the past, and helped reform the monastic rules.169 Like Daoxuan’s father, Huijun’s father was also a famous literatus in the Chen Dynasty. Huijun’s educational background also covers classics and literary composition. Despite the obvious influences from the 166 167 Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 534a. Daoyue was from a Confucian family. He studied the Book of Songs, the Book of Change, and the Annals of Spring and Autumn in his childhood. See Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 527a. Given that he shared similar background with Huijun, he might have discussed Confucianism with Huijun in the Riyan Monastery. His brother Mingkuang was an expert in Mahāsanghika-vinaya. 168 169 Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 508b-509b. Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 533c. 68 north, especially his family’s origins, Huijun was most strongly influenced by Southern culture. Therefore, apparently, both Huijun and Daoxuan grew up under the influence of Southern cultural tradition, and, Daoxuan expresses strong cultural favoritism to the South. Concluding Remarks: Buddhism and Society From all that I have discussed, it seems to me that it is very unusual that Daoxuan called the South “cultural kingdom.” In Chinese tradition, the cultural kingdom indicated the area where people accepted Confucian values. However, in Daoxuan’s writings, the cultural kingdom was transformed to indicate the area where people accepted Buddhist values and carried out Buddhist practices. Hence, we can see that Daoxuan in fact considered the cultural kingdom (wenguo) to be the kingdom of Buddhism. Not simply a mirror like reflection, Daoxuan’s image of the South also involves his selection, subjectivity, and even distortion. He selected Southern Buddhism as a successful model because in South China there was no political persecution toward Buddhism. Southern Buddhism survived longer than Northern Buddhism. On the contrary, the Buddhist community in the North had suffered from political persecution for three times. For Daoxuan, Southern Buddhism included some practices which northern Buddhism lacked, for instance, the veneration of Buddha’s relics in the monasteries, the establishment of the ordination platform and the performance of ordination ritual, the practice of purifying mind, and so forth. His subjectivity came from his family background and his monastic training. Since the Southern masters transmitted their stories in the South orally, this oral tradition might be different from the textual sources Daoxuan read. In the specific case of the relics from the Riyan Monastery, 69 Daoxuan seems to rely more on the oral tradition. Daoxuan’s personal experience of collecting historical sources also has limitations, which constitute the unreliability of his image of Southern Buddhism. As a scholarly monk, he was a follower of Sengyou in the Liang Dynasty, which had an impact on his selecting Xiao Ziliang’s text on the practice of purification. For example, his master Huijun enlightened him to study the monastic code first. These stories never appeared as the focus in the writings of Daoxuan’s contemporaries. Daoxuan believed Xiao Ziliang’s teaching of purification practice were significant, but it was never seriously practiced by his fellow monks. Hence, Daoxuan’s writings aimed at creating a renewal of monastic practice only by his subjective intention. In drawing a new image of Buddhism in the South, Daoxuan creates a utopia of Chinese Buddhism. In seems to me that Daoxuan’s image of Southern Buddhism is tightly linked to his personal history. Daoxuan uses his cultural memory to write his history of medieval Chinese Buddhism, in which he renews many ritual traditons. 170 Daoxuan’s picture of the South as the cultural kingdom is very different from that of his contemporaries, including both Buddhist and non-Buddhist historians. For example, as a Daoxuan’s colleague in Ximing Monastery, Daoshi never applied the label “cultural kingdom” to South China; and neither did other early Tang historians who served in Tang court or worked on private writings. Thus, I view his image rather as a cultural imaginaire than as a mere historical memory. In sum, I suggest that Daoxuan visualizes Southern society as a Buddhist society by creating an idea of a Buddhist kingdom and maintaining that each individual of the For the discussion on relationship between historiography and memory in medieval Europe, see Gerd Althoff, Johannes Fried, and Patrick Geary ed. Medieval Concept of the Past: Ritual, Memory, Historiography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). 170 70 Southern society has adopted this idea. And furthermore, Daoxuan seems to create a utopia for all Buddhists in his era by canonizing his writings. As Durkheim claims, Society is not simply constituted by the mass of the individuals who compose it, by the territory they occupy, by the things they make use of, by the movements they carry out, but primarily by the idea of itself which it makes itself.171 Following the above statement, we have seen that, in the image of South China Daoxuan offered to us, Buddhist society in the South is not simply constituted by the mass of the individuals (including both ruling class and common people) who compose it, by the South they occupy, by the relics and stupas as well as monasteries they worship and construct, by the vegetarian practice and purification rituals they carry out, but primarily by the idea of Buddhist society itself. This idea was created by Daoxuan, and named “cultural kingdom.” This cultural kingdom refers to a Buddhist kingdom where all social classes are devoted to Buddhist beliefs, being involved in the ritual of venerating the Buddha’s relics and reconstructing monasteries; moreover, in this society the monks were ordained on the ordination platform and were then able to defend the ideal way of Buddhism. 171 Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (New York: Free Press, 1995), p. 425. 71 Chapter II: Relics and Monasteries in Buddhist Monasticism The foundation of monasteries and pagodas originated long ago. Since the present period began and all Buddhas achieved their Buddhahood, they have guided the four forms of birth and enlightened the three kinds of saint, guided the five vehicles and united them in one ultimate.172 夫寺塔之基其源遠矣,自賢劫創啟, 諸佛告 成,引四生而開三聖,引五乘而會一極。 -- Daoxuan Introduction In Daoxuan’s biography, the Song Buddhist historian Zanning (贊寧 919-1001) tells a miracle story about Daoxuan and the Buddha’s relics. According to this legend, Daoxuan slipped and started to fall while walking down the stairway in Ximing Monastery, but suddenly felt someone supporting him. Then he found a boy before him. This boy told Daoxuan that he actually was the Prince Nazha 哪吒, the son of King Vaiśravana 毗沙門天王. The boy presented Daoxuan with a tooth relic of the Buddha and said that he had come to protect Daoxuan.173 This story does not appear in any of Daoxuan’s writings, but since it appears in other Song Buddhist accounts, it seems to have been accepted by many Song Buddhist historians.174 The popularity of this story suggests that five hundred years after Daoxuan lived, he was linked to Buddha-relics.175 172 Zhong tianzhu sheweiguo zhiyuansi tujing 中天竺舍衛國衹園寺圖經, Daoxuan, T. no. 1899, “Daoxuan,” Song gaoseng zhuan, Zanning, T. no. 2061, 50: 791a. 45: 882c. 173 Shishi jigu lue(釋氏稽古略), chapter 4, see T. no. 2037, 49: 861b, 862c, 866c, 867a, 880c. Chen Yuan, “Foya gushi,” Chen Yuan’an xiansheng quanji 14 (Taipei: Xinwenfeng chuban gongsi, 1993), pp. 305-314. 174 72 In fact, Daoxuan wrote much about the Buddha’s relics, especially in The Record of the Miraculous Responses of Vinaya Master Daoxuan (Daoxuan lüshi gantong zhuan 道宣律 師感通傳, or Daoxuan ganying ji 道宣感應記).176 Daoxuan completed this piece in 667, shortly before his death, although he also discusses relics in other work.177 Thus, the circulation of the Song tale disseminated information about Daoxuan’s clear interest in the subject of relics. Relics were important to Daoxuan, and they were an important component of his understanding of Buddhist monasticism. For Daoxuan, relics represented the Buddha, and hence played an authoritative role in the ordination ritual, as I will show in chapter three. This chapter examines how Daoxuan used relics to authorize the construction and reconstruction of monasteries in medieval China, and shows how relics are related to Daoxuan’s understanding of the degeneration of the dharma. Relics were helpful to Daoxuan because he believed that the Buddha was himself present in his relics, and so via his relics, he would restore a decayed monastic order. In addition to this tooth relic recorded in Daoxuan’s biography in Song gaosengzhuan, there were two more famous tooth relics in Song China. The first one was called the tooth relic brought by Faxian from Khotan. This tooth relic was venerated in the Upper Monastery of Dinglin (Shangdinglinsi 上 定林寺). For Faxian’s biography, see Gaoseng zhuan, Faxian, T. 2059, 50: 411c; Chen Yuan, “Faxian foya yingxian ji,” Chen Yuan shixue lunzhu xuan (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1981), pp. 568-578. The second one was the tooth relic venerated in the Famen Monastery (Famensi 法門寺). In the late Tang period, the veneration ceremony of Buddha’s tooth relic in the Famen Monastery was a fantastic event. The story became more famous because it received first the veneration of the Empress Wu Zetian 武則天 and later the Emperor Xianzong 憲宗. The latter was more famous due to the protestation of Han Yu (韓愈 768-828), a renowned literati-official. This text tells the story about the encounter between Daoxuan and several figures in the form of a dream. Dream is an important theme in Chinese Buddhism. A detailed account can be found in the Pearl Forest of the Dharma Grove (Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林), the collection completed by Daoshi, a colleague of Daoxuan in the Ximing Monastery. According to Daoshi, there are four kinds of dreams. See Fayuan zhulin, Daoshi, T. no. 2122, 53: 533b-c. Kajihama Ryoshun, “Bibasharon ni okeru yume no kenkyū,”Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 79 (1991), pp. 21-27. Tanaka Keishin, “Dōsen no shinikan – Ninju zōtō yori,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 41(21-1) (1972), pp. 142-143; Yamazaki Hiroshi, “Tō no Dōsen no kanto ni tsuite,” Tsukamoto hakushi shōju kinenkai ed., Tsukamoto hakushi shōju kinen: Bukkyōshigaku ronjū (1961), pp. 895-906. 177 176 175 73 Buddha’s relics (Skt. śārira, Ch. sheli 舍利) were any physically solid remains of the Buddha after his body was cremated, for instance, bones, teeth, flesh, and so on.178 They were usually fragmented and sometimes pearl-like, translucent, and multi-colored. Historically, in many Buddhist traditions across Asia, relics were collected and stored and usually enshrined in pagodas (stūpas).179 For instance, a very great old pagoda at Sañci, India, contains relics of the Buddha. Later in East Asia, relics also could be stored within a reliquary in the Buddha Hall of a monastery. In the history of Chinese Buddhism, the Buddha’s relics were always associated with pagodas and monasteries. Roderick Whitfield offers a summary of this issue. He writes: The pagoda in China, though differing so much in external appearance from the Indian stūpa, inherited the stūpa’s function as the center of worship in Buddhist monasteries and the place where the relics of the Buddha were stored. In early Chinese Buddhist architecture, the pagoda occupied a central position in the monastery, as it did in Korea and Japan. Many of the finest pagodas built in major As the founder legitimized by his followers, the Buddha has remained the charismatic authority through his words and relics in the Buddhist community since he achieved nirvana. Bernard Faure says that relics are associated with a saint and create an immortal ritual body. He explores the narrow and broad senses of relics. The narrow sense indicates that the power is embodied in the Buddha or in the Buddhist saint in terms of the presence of his fragmented body. In a broad sense, relics can indicate anything that is associated with a saint--ashes, bones, flesh-body, bowl, robe, text and places. See his “Substitute Bodies in Chan/Zen Buddhism,” in: Jane Marie Law ed., Religious Reflections on the Human Body (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1995), pp. 213-214. See also Brian D. Ruppert, Jewel in the Ashes: Buddha Relics and Power in Early Medieval Japan (Harvard University Asia Center, 2000), pp. 2-3, 7; Bernard Faure, “Relics and Flesh Bodies: The Creation of Ch’an Pilgrimage Sites,” in Susan Naquin and Chün-fang Yü eds., Pilgrims and Sacred Sites in China (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), p. 166; Bernard Faure, The Red Thread: Buddhist Approaches to Sexuality (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998) pp. 19-20; Kevin Trainor, Relics, Ritual and Representation in Buddhism: Rematerializing the Sri Lankan Theravada Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); Gregory Schopen, “Relic,” in Critical Terms for Religious Studies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), pp. 259-260; Robert Sharf, “On the Allure of Buddhist Relics,” Representations 66 (1999), pp. 75-99; John Kieschnick, The Buddhist Impact on Chinese Material Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), pp. 48-52. John Strong, Relics of the Buddha (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). In Chinese Buddhism, usually monks indicate that only the architecture housing relics is viewed as caitya. See Yiqiejing yinyi, Huiling (742-801), T. no. 2128, 54: 455b. Ratna Handurukande, Three Sanskrit Texts on Caitya Worship: In Relation to the Ahoratravrata (Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 2000). 179 178 74 Chinese cities, such as Chang’an and Luoyang, in the period of Buddhism’s greatest prosperity in China, from the Northern Wei to the Tang Dynasty, have not survived, since they were built of wood. However, many others built of brick or stone, or with a brick or stone core and exterior parts only of wood, still stand in every part of China, even where all trace of their respective monasteries have long since disappeared...The pagoda has served as a reliquary and symbol of the nirvana of the Buddha ever since the earliest Buddhist times. He continues: In China, reliquary deposits were probably made as early as the period of the Three Kingdoms, following the Han Dynasty in 220. The earliest to have been found date from the Northern Wei, under whose rule Buddhism enjoyed the status of a state religion. In the Chinese pagoda, relics might be enshrined in various parts of the structure, but usually in a chamber centrally sited in the foundation. From 1957 to the present, some thirty instances of such deposits have been investigated and published. 180 We know from Whitfield’s summary that, as in India, the pagoda in China functioned as the center of worship, while its external appearance differed from that in India.181 It is clear that the pagoda or stupa occupied a central position in early Chinese monasteries, from the earliest period to the Tang period. From an architectural perspective, Whitfield tells us that the function and the religious meaning of the pagoda were as the depository of the Buddha’s relics. In addition to these questions, we also need to consider several large-scale, state-run movements of relic deposit in medieval China, as well as the religious procedure and the religious implication of the ritual of deposit itself. The deposit of relics in medieval China has been viewed as a political and religious movement. Many scholars have made progress by approaching this issue via the Roderick Whitfield, “Buddhist Monuments in China: Some Recent Finds of Śarīra Deposits,” in The Buddhist Heritage: Papers delivered at the Symposium of the same name convened at the School of Oriental and African Studies University of London, November 1985, edited by Tadeusz Skorupski (Tring: The Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1989), pp. 129-131. For a discussion of the stupa in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism, see Giuseppe Tucci, Stupa: Art, Architectonics and Symbolism: Indo-Tibetica I, edited by Lokesh Chandra (New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 1988, reprinted). 181 180 75 relationship between the imperial state and Buddhism, and more specifically, by focusing on how the Chinese imperial state used veneration of the Buddha’s relics to fulfill its ideological needs. For instance, the distribution of the relics and the reconstruction of the monasteries have been viewed as efforts of the imperial court of the Sui regime.182 Other scholars have worked on relics and their deposit in China in later periods. 183 These approaches stress the political function rather than the religious meaning of this ceremony in the Buddhist monastic community. In closely reading Daoxaun’s writings, especially miracle stories about relics and relevant rituals, along with religious practice,184 this chapter aims to contextualize relics in the history of medieval Chinese Buddhism by focusing on the visionary experience Arthur F. Wright, The Sui Dynasty: The Unification of China, A.D. 581-617 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978); Kegasawa Yasunori, “Zui niju gennen (601) no gakko shakukan to shari kyōyō,” Shundai shigaku 111 (Tokyo: Meiji Daigaku daigakuin, 2001), pp. 17-36; Jinhua Chen, Monks and Monarchs, Kinship and Kingship: Tanqian in Sui Buddhism and Politics (Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies, 2002), pp. 51-107. John Kieschnick traces the introduction of Indian relics to China; see Kieschnick, The Buddhist Impact on Chinese Material Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), pp. 31-33; Huang Chichiang highlights the importance of the Buddha’s bodily relics and the imperial veneration of these relics by dealing with the relic-veneration ritual performed in the palaces of the imperial dynasties from the Wei Jin period through the Tang Dynasty; see Huang Chi-chiang, “Consecrating the Buddha: Legend, Lore, and History of the Imperial Relic-Veneration Ritual in the T’ang Dynasty,” Chung-hwa Journal of Buddhist Studies 11 (1998), pp. 483-533; Shen Hsueh-man focuses on relic deposits in the Tang, Song and Liao Dynasties from the discipline of art history; see Hsueh-Man Shen, “Buddhist Relic Deposits from Tang (618-907) to Northern Song (960-1127) and Liao (907-1125)” (D. Phil. Thesis, University of Oxford, 1999); and her article, “Realizing the Buddha’s Dharma Body during the Mofa Period: A Study of Liao Buddhist Relic Deposits,” Artibus Asiae 61: 2 (2001), pp. 263-303. The Buddha’s relics appear in many of Daoxuan’s writings, both in his historical works and miracle collections. These important works include the Record of the Miraculous Responses of Three Treasures in China, and the Record of the Miraculous Responses of Vinaya Master Daoxuan and the Continued Biographies of the Eminent Monks. Historians have been extremely cautious to bring fictions and stories to the discussion of the history. For them, only Daoxuan’s historical works are reliable sources to explore the history of relics. Attempts to use miracle tales for historical purpose include Glen Dudbridge’s effort dealing with religious experience by analyzing a story. Dudbridge develops a model of the inner and outer stories to analyze those miracles. Glen Dudbridge, Religious Experience and Lay Society in T'ang China: A Reading of Tai Fu's 'Kuang-i chi' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Robert F. Campany, Strange Writing: Anomaly Accounts in Early Medieval China (Albany: State University of New York, 1996). 184 183 182 76 Daoxuan gained through his strictly disciplined practice and comprehension of miracles among participants in relic-veneration rituals. These miracle stories in Daoxuan’s collections will also help us understand the cultural context within which these stories were produced and maintained. In medieval China, the ritual of enshrining relics always accompanied the construction of Buddhist monasteries. They relics they housed were symbols of the Buddha’s presence and became the source of religious authority for the monastic community. While not denying the political meanings of relics, this approach emphasizes the religious experience of the participants of the enshrinement ritual. In particular, it addresses the following issues: how the participants commemorated the Buddha by viewing his relics; how the participants of the ritual prayed, and what they prayed for; and what religious practices the participants performed during the ritual. An Overview of Relics in Asian History In Daoxuan’s account, the Buddha’s relics had been venerated everywhere in Asia including India, Central Asia, China, and Korea.185 In Śakya’s Gazetteer (Shijia fangzhi 釋迦方誌), relying on Xuanzang’s Records of the Western Regions in the Great Tang Dynasty (Da Tang xiyu ji 大唐西域記), Daoxuan said that in ancient India, King Aśoka ordered the distribution of the relics and erection of the stupas to house these relics across his empire. Sources show that Daoxuan was well aware that these relics were sent to China and other places besides India. This phenomenon, which was important for Daoxuan’s understanding of relics, bears further investigation. As is well known, in India, the Buddha’s body was cremated, and then the relics were distributed to eight kingdoms. David Germano and Kevin Trainor eds., Embodying the Dharma: Buddhist Relic Veneration in Asia (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004); John Strong, Relics of the Buddha (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). 185 77 Later King Aśoka redistributed the relics everywhere in India under his regime, and the rituals of enshrinement were held across his empire.186 We also know that along with the distribution and enshrinement of relics, stupas were erected everywhere in India and in other places. Many scholars have traced the history of Buddha’s funeral ceremony, from the cremation to the distribution of his relics from both textual and archaeological evidence. 187 Although it is said that King Aśoka distributed the relics everywhere, including Central Asia and China, and constructed the stupas in these areas, no historical John Strong, Relics of the Buddha (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), pp. 98-123; T.W. Rhys Davids, “Aśoka and the Buddha-Relics,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1901), pp. 397410; Ernst Waldschmidt, Das Mahāparinirvānasūtra (Berlin: 1950); K. M. Srivastava, Buddha’s Relics from Kapilavastu (Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan, 1986); André Bareau, Recherches sur la biographie du Buddha dans les Sūtrapitaka et les Vinayapitaka anciens. Vol. II. Les derniers mois, le parinirvāna et les funérailles (Paris: École Franşaise d’Extrême Orient, 1970); David L. Snellgrove, “Sakyamuni’s Final ‘nirvana’,” Bulletin of the School of Orient and African Studies 36: 2 (1973), pp. 399-411; Richard F. Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo (London and New York: Routledge, 1988), pp. 123-124; Yael Bentor, “On the Indian Origins of the Tibetan Practice of Depositing Relics and Dhāraņīs in Stūpas and Images,” Journal of American Oriental Society 115: 1 (1995), pp. 1-27; Christina Anna Scherrer-Shaub, “Some Dhāraņī Written on Paper Functioning as Dharmakāya Relics: A Tentative Approach to PT 350." In: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Fagernes, 1992 (Oslo: The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, 1994), pp. 711-727. Based on the Legend of Aśoka (Skt. Aśokāvadāna), John S. Strong describes the process of the distribution of the Buddha’s relics: “after collecting the relics, Aśoka has eighty-four thousand urns prepared, places the relics in them, and with the help of the yaksas, he sends off one share of the relics to every city of one hundred -thousand people throughout the earth as far as the surrounding ocean,” and “the dedication of the eighty-four thousand stupas must take place simultaneously since it is collectively that they represent the Buddha.” see John S. Strong, The Legend of King Aśoka: A Study and Translation of the Aśokāvadāna (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), pp. 109-119, esp. 115. Xinru Liu writes about the significance of the ritual of worshipping relics as follows; see Xinru Liu, The Silk Road. Overland Trade and Cultural Interactions in Eurasia (Washington D.C., American Historical Association, 1998), pp. Hirakawa Akira connects the worship of relics and the erection of stupas in India to the rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism; see his A History of Indian Buddhism: From Śākyamuni to Early Mahāyāna, translated by Paul Groner (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990), pp. 273-274. Hirakawa attempts to establish a connection between the emergence of Mahāyāna Buddhist order and the erection of stupas. He does not particularly emphasize the role of relics in this connection. We cannot tell if the distribution of relics resulted in the erection of stupas, and therefore resulted in the emergence of the Mahāyāna Buddhist order. Richard Gombrich has proven Hirakawa false; see his “Organized Bodhisattvas: A Blind Alley in Buddhist Historiography,” in: Sëryacandråya: Essays in Honour of Akira Yuyama, eds. Paul Harrison and Gregory Schopen (Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica, 1998), pp. 43–56. Reprinted in Studies in Hindu and Buddhist Art, ed. P. K. Mishra (New Delhi, Abhinav Publications, 1999). 187 186 78 evidence indicates the existence of these stupas in Central Asia and China. In examining the stupas and monasteries in Central Asia, it seems not to be the case that the construction of monasteries happened along with the construction of stupas in these areas. In citing some Chinese pilgrims’ travel accounts, Daoxaun also informs us of some cases involving relics in Central Asia, especially Khotan.188 Khotan was famous for its tooth relic, which later was housed in Famen Monastery in China. However, no clue indicates that it was from King Aśoka’s distribution movement. In the kingdom of Kapiśi, there were numerous relics venerated in three monasteries. 189 In his Extended Collection Propagating and Illuminating Buddhism (Guang hongming ji 廣弘明集), Daoxuan says that Koreans asked the Sui Emperor Wendi for relics,190 so the relics were brought to Korea and then Japan in the sixth century.191 In early sixth century, there were many relics in Japan.192 Khotan was a famous Buddhist kingdom from fourth to tenth century in both Chinese and Khotanese sources. For Buddhism in Central Asia, see the following references: Ronald Emmerick, "Buddhism in Central Asia," Encyclopedia of Religion (ed. Mirceau Eliade), (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 2: 400-404; John McRae and Jan Nattier eds. Collection of Essays 1993: Buddhism across Boundaries Chinese Buddhism and the Western Regions (Sanchung, Taipei: Fo Guang Shan Foundation, 1999). Marylin Martin Rhie, Early Buddhist Art of China and Central Asia, vol. 1: Later Han, Three Kingdoms and Western Chin in China and Bactria to Shan-shan in Central Asia (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999). First, in a Chinese monastery that was established by an ambassador from the Han court there was a huge stupa where a Buddha’s bone and hair relics were venerated. These relics were contained in a gold box decorated with seven jewels. In the Northwest outside of the capital, there was a royal monastery where a small relic was venerated. In the Southwest outside of the capital there was a monastery erected by a king’s concubine. The bone relic was venerated in a stupa within the monastic compound. See Pearl Forest of the Dharma Garden (Fayuan zhulin), Daoshi, T. no. 2122, 53: 589b. Daoxuan cites the Gazetteer of the Western Regions (Xiyu zhi). 190 191 189 188 “Qing sheli ganying biao,” in Guang hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 217a. Eunsu Cho, “Manifestation of the Buddha's Land in the Here and Now: Relic Installation and Territorial Transformation in Medieval Korea,” paper presented at the conference on “Formation and Transformation of Buddhist Sacred Site,” September 2004, at the University of British Columbia, Canada. Bernard Faure offers an excellent summary of the history of relics in medieval Japan. In 588, under the reign of the Emperor Sujun, two priests from the Korean kingdom of Paekche offered relics to the court. In 593, relics of the Buddha were placed in the foundation stone of the pillar of the pagoda of Hōkōji. In mid-seventh century, a Chinese master Jianzhen (Jpn. Ganjin, 688-763), founder of Tōshōdaiji in Nara, 192 79 In China, the distribution and veneration of the relics went rather differently. Along with the enshrinement of the relics and the construction of the stupas, monasteries were also constructed, reconstructed, and renovated, and more and more people joined the monastic order.193 A stupa apparently was the most important part of the monastic compound in the early period. Early non-Buddhist sources do not distinguish between stupas and monasteries. The “Chronicle of Buddhism and Daoism (Shilaozhi 釋老志)” of the History of Wei Dynasty (Weishu 魏書) states: After Buddha’s death, his body was burned by fragrant wood, and his bones were split into small parts. These bones cannot be damaged and burnt. Then the luminous light manifested perfectly. These bones were called relics. Buddha’s disciples collected them and made offerings of flowers and incense to the relics, and paid veneration. They built the monastery and called it stupa, (because) it is like a monastery [zongmiao]. Thus at that time, it was called stupa-monastery (tamiao). One hundred years later, King Aśoka used the mysterious power to split the Buddha’s relics, and forced the ghosts and deities to build eight-four thousand stupas and distribute them throughout the world in one day. Those relics were held in these stupas. Nowadays there are Aśoka monasteries in Luoyang, Pengcheng, Guzang, and Linzi. They were inherited remains of ancient Aśoka monasteries.194 brought to Japan thirty śarīra grains. See Visions of Power: Imagining Medieval Japanese Buddhism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 163. Faure also denotes the relationship between nuns and relics in Japan. Based on a story in Hokkeji shari engi recorded by Eizon, a nun named Jitsua in Hokkeji used to have auspicious dreams in which the empress Kōmyō told her about the miraculous efficacy of the Buddha’s relics. Faure suggests that this case reflects the ambivalent nature of Hokkeji nuns as channels of sacred power. See his The Power of Denial: Buddhism, Purity, and Gender (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2003), pp. 31-32. For a detailed study on relics in medieval Japanese Buddhism, see Brian D. Ruppert, Jewel in the Ashes: Buddha Relics and Power in Early Medieval Japan (Harvard University Asia Center, 2000). This historical fact runs counter to the situation in India. Akira Hirakawa’s theory views relics and stupas as the center of lay Buddhism. He even states that “Vinayas, the legal codes for the orders, indicate that the stupas were independent of the monastic order.” See A History of Indian Buddhism: From Śākyamuni to Early Mahāyāna, p. 272. I cannot agree with him at this point. Many other scholars have criticized this point; see David L. Snellgrove, “Śākyamuni’s Final Nirvāna,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 36 (1973), pp. 399-411; Gregory Schopen’s many articles in Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks. Collected Paper on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997); Robert Sharf, “On the Allure of Buddhist Relics,” Representations 66 (1999), 75-99. I cite the passage from Daoxuan’s collection, rather than the original History of Wei; see Guang hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 101b. For an English translation of the passage in Wei shu, see Leon Hurvitz, Wei Shou: Treatise on Buddhism and Taoism, an English Translation of the Original 194 193 80 佛既謝往,香木焚屍靈骨分碎,大小如粒,擊之不壞,焚亦不燋,而有光明神驗, 謂之舍利。弟子收奉,竭香花,致敬慕,建宮宇,謂之為塔。猶宗廟也。故時稱 為塔廟者是矣。於後百年,有王阿育者,以神力分佛舍利,役諸鬼神造八萬四 千塔布於世界,皆同日而就。今雒陽彭城姑臧臨淄皆有阿育王寺。蓋承其遺 跡焉。 In Indian sources, it is clear that what the King built were stupas which housed relics. Daoxuan’s citation, however, indicates that in the early period of Buddhism in China, authors did not make an explicit distinction between two forms of Buddhist architecture: stūpas and monasteries. In China, new monasteries were constructed around these stupas. According to the Chinese version of The Biography of Aśoka (Ch. Ayuwang zhuan 阿育王傳), it is said that, after Buddha achieved nirvana, King Aśoka took the Buddha’s relics and drove the deities and ghosts to divide them. Then he erected eighty-four thousand stupas all over the world, including Central Asia and East Asia, to house them. In China, these stupas were typically called “monasteries of King Aśoka” (Ayuwang si 阿育王寺). In Chinese sources, it is said that nineteen “monasteries of King Aśoka” were built in China.195 Interestingly, the biography of Liu Sahe recorded in Biographies of the Eminent Monks (Gaoseng zhuan) is the first instance of a Chinese monk finding Buddha’s relics on Chinese soil. This is also the first time that a large-scale discovery of relics was made. He found these relics in Changgan Monastery in Jiankang – the capital of Eastern Jin Chinese Text of Wei-shu CXIV and the Japanese Annotation of Tsukamoto Zenryū (Kyoto: Jimbunkagaku kenkyūjo, Kyoto University, 1956). Fayuan zhulin, ch. 38, gives the names of these nineteen stupas and their locations. Erik Zürcher lists the nine cases about the Aśoka monasteries in China; see The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959), pp. 277-280. 195 81 Dynasty – in late fourth century. The large-scale discovery of relics made the distribution of relics possible. Authentication and Authority: Relics in China From Daoxuan’s numerous accounts, we gain a sense of the breadth of relic-belief in China. As we have seen previously, Daoxuan’s biography reveals that Daoxuan received a tooth relic from a divine prince for his extreme asceticism. In fact, this model of encountering divine power was very popular in Daoxuan’s numerous accounts. It seems that this model was well accepted in the medieval period. For instance, Indian and Central Asian monks brought them to China, as when in the Sui Dynasty, before the Emperor Wen had come into power, he received a bag of relics from a Brahman monk.196 Chinese pilgrims like Faxian and Xuanzang brought them from India or Central Asia to China. We also know how the authenticity of these relics was attested and sanctioned by monks and how the monks and local followers venerated them. Hinged on the ceremony of veneration, many religious practices were carried out. All of these should receive a special attention, because Daoxuan seems to have two particular monographs dedicated to these subjects regarding the Buddha-relic. Daoxuan notes that the discovery of relics seemed to originate in South China. In the historical account of Chinese Buddhism, the first of the Buddha’s relics to appear in Arthur F. Wright, The Sui Dynasty: The Unification of China, A.D. 581-617 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978). Based on edict issued by the Sui Emperor Wendi, John Kieschnick writes, “The edict makes no mention of the provenance of the relics. Presumably they were thought to be relics of the Buddha, but the edict does not explain just how the emperor came to possess them. Another source states that the relics appeared spontaneously to the emperor and in the quarters of the palace women. If any questioned the authenticity of the relics, they left behind no record of it. It is not surprising. Monks certainly had much to gain from the campaign, giving all but the most fastidious little reason to question points of detail, and for any official to challenge the authenticity of the relics at the heart of a campaign redolent with the symbolism of political unification would have bordered on sedition,” Kieschnick, The Buddhist Impact on Chinese Material Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 41. 196 82 the Wu Kingdom in the third century was not from King Aśoka. One of the most important stories concerns how relics are associated with the construction of a monastery in the Wu Kingdom. Daoxuan’s Record of the Miracle Responses of the Vinaya Master Daoxuan tells a story about how a Sogdian monk Kang Senghui (3rd century) received relics in Jiankang, the capital of the Wu Kingdom.197 In the fourth year of Chiwu period (248), Kang Senghui came to the Jiankang to propagate Buddhism. He built a small house for private practice and carried a Buddhist image with him. The king of Wu, Sun Quan, asked him about the miraculous power of Buddha. Kang said that the Buddha’s relic appears everywhere, even after the Buddha had been gone for more than one thousand years. Sun Quan promised that he would build a pagoda to hold relics if they appeared in his kingdom. Twenty-one days later, Kang Senghui claimed that he found a relic. The relic had five colors, illuminating the sky. Sword could not split it, nor could fire damage it. The king constructed a pagoda to cover it, ordained monks, and erected a monastery as well.198 From this story, it is clear that the relic Kang received did not come from India. Instead, it was a local manifestation. Following mythology of the time, this relic could not be destroyed and it radiated five colors. We also know that after its discovery, a pagoda was set up, and a new monastery was established. There are many records about earlier relics and monasteries in China, but they do not specify where those relics came 197 This discovery was recorded in the biography of Kang in Gaoseng zhuan; see T. no. 2059, 50: 325b. Guang hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 99. This story also appears in “Shang Qinwang lunqi” (the document to the Prince of Qin), Falin, in Guang hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no.2103, 52: 166; and T. no. 2103, 52: 170, Shi Mingqu (a monk from Zhenxiang Monastery in Mianzhou), “Juedui Fu Yi fei fofaseng shi bing biao” (“Decisive Response to Fu Yi about Abolishing Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, and edict”). 198 83 from or if the monasteries were erected because of relics. However, this story for the first time in the history of Chinese Buddhism reveals a causal relationship between the discovery of a relic and the construction of a monastery. More importantly, it appears in a work written by Daoxuan. Hence, we can draw some conclusions here. First, it is noteworthy that this relic miraculously appeared in South China, rather than in Luoyang or other parts of North China, which usually were believed to be the center of Buddhism at that time. Following the discovery of this relic, the first monastery was established under the sponsorship of the Wu court in order to house the relic. Second, it is also important to note that this relic was obtained by a Central Asian monk, rather than a Chinese monk. In theory, relics were for both monks and lay people. But based on sources recorded by Daoxuan, in the early period of Chinese Buddhism, only monks found relics and reported their discovery. At first, only enlightened monks could report the discovery of relics, but later, ordinary monks could find relics also. This means that only monks could access and obtain the relics, and points to a system of superiority instituted by monks over the lay people. Not only Central Asian monks were able to receive the relics; Chinese monks also could receive relics. In the ninth century, the Japanese pilgrim Ennin (794-864) recorded a story about the discovery of relics in North China. He writes: At the entrance to the mountain was a small monastery called the Shimensi (Stone Gate Monastery), in which there was a monk who for many years had been reciting the Lotus Sūtra. Recently some Buddhist relics were revealed to him, and everybody in the whole city came to make offerings. The monastery was overwhelmed with monks and laymen. I don’t know how many there were. The origin of the discovery of the relics [was as follows]: The scripture-reciting monk was sitting in his room at night, reciting the scriptures, when three beams of light shone in and illumined the whole room and lit up the whole monastery. Seeking 84 the source of the light, [he discovered that] it came from the foot of the cliff west of the monastery. Each night it lit up the room and the monastery. After several days the monk followed the light to the cliff and dug down into the ground ten feet and came upon three jars of relics of the Buddha. In a blue lapis lazuli jar were seven grains of relics, in a white lapis lazuli jar were five grains of relics, and in a golden jar three grains of relics. He brought them back and placed them in the Buddha Hall and made offerings to them. The noble and the lowly, and the men and women of Taiyuan city and the various villages, and the officials both high and low, all came and paid reverence and made offerings. Everyone said, “This has been revealed because of the wondrous strength of the Priest in his devotion to the Lotus Sūtra.” The people coming from the city to the mountain filled the roads and in great crowds worshipped and marveled.199 This is a typical legend about the origin of relics in North China. In this story, we can see that reciting sutras will bring supernatural power, and this power will bring the relics to the Buddhist monastic community. The ability of monks to discover the relics was supposed to have been the result of their meditation and ascetic practice.200 And Daoxuan’s biography in Song Biographies of the Eminent Monks clearly shows that Daoxuan’s ascetic practice brought him into a miraculous scene in which he was presented with a Buddha’s tooth by a deity. Lay bodhisattvas also could receive the relics. In Daoxuan’s Extended Collection Propagating and Illuminating Buddhism, an essay written by Wang Shao (王邵 6th-7th centuries) titled “The Record of the Miraculous Response of the Stūpas for Relics” (“Shelita ganying ji” 舍利塔感應記) indicates that even a Chinese emperor and his wife could receive relics because of their sincerity and veneration. This story concerns the Sui Edwin O.Reischauer, trans., Ennin's Diary: The Record of a Pilgrimage to China in Search of the Law (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1955). pp. 271-272; transcription modified to Pinyin system. Paul Harrison has noted that Buddhism is a shamanic type of religion, and monastic members play roles as masters of techniques of ecstasy. These monastic members therefore can generate power from their ascetic practices. See “Searching for the Origins of the Mahāyāna: What are We Looking For?” The Eastern Buddhist 28: 1 (1995), p. 64. 200 199 85 Emperor Wen (r. 589-604) and his family. It says that within ten months after distributing the relics to thirty prefectures, he often discovered small relics under his teeth while eating, as did his wife. The emperor placed the relics in water in a silver bowl to show to his officials. Not only did the emperor and his wife discover the relics while eating, his concubines and sons did too. When the emperor bestowed seafood on his two concubines and his two sons (the Prince of Jin, Yang Zhao and the Prince of Yuzhang, Yang Jian), relics were found in their seafood. Not more than twenty days later, there were nineteen relics found at court. After that, discoveries of relics from local places were also reported to the court. The emperor suspected that some relics might not be real. Several monks came to examine them and found thirteen pieces of millet.201 This story clearly tells us that the emperor gained merit by distributing relics, and that the act of erecting stupas and monasteries could also bring up relics. These miracles were responses to the emperor’s deeds and merits. Both the emperor and his family members were lay followers, and they received bodhisattva precepts. In other words, lay people could discover relics through their veneration and prayers.202 On the other hand, the authenticity of the relics was an important issue. The story states that monks were required to verify the authenticity of the relics, because only monastic cleric members had the authority to declare a relic authentic. This story illustrates the belief that relics manifested themselves in response to prayer, meditation, recitation of sutras, and so on.203 201 202 Wang Shao, “Sheli ganying ji,” in Guang hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 216c. For a discussion of relics and prayer in medieval Europe, see Thomas E. A. Dale, Relics, Prayer, and Politics in Medieval Venetia: Romanesque Painting in the Crypt of Aquileia Cathedral (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997). It is worth noting that relics could also be brought up by meditation in Japan. Bernard Faure suggests that “relics are the effect and the proof of supernatural powers, and fluctuations in the cult of relics 203 86 The Practice of Venerating Relics As a ritual, the ceremony of venerating relics brought both Buddhist monks and lay people together to commemorate the Buddha. The ceremony of venerating relics in medieval China was an important commemoration ritual for local people to reenact the funeral of the historical Buddha in ancient India. In Daoxuan’s collection, Wang Shao’s “A Record of the Miraculous Response of the Stūpas for Relics” (“Sheli ganying ji”) offers us a telling of the ceremony for receiving relics.204 After the Sui Empeor Wen came to power, he and his wife built a multiple-level stupa in Fajie Nunnery (Fajie nisi) in order to deposit relics under the stupa. On the twentieth-third day of the sixth month, in the first year of the Renshou period (601), in memory of his birthday and being grateful to his parents, the emperor visited the Renshou Hall and invited the Monks of Great Virtue (dade) to hold lectures. He planned to choose thirty pure locations to construct the stupas for housing relics. The emperor placed the seven-jeweled container of relics on his table, and he and the monks burned incense and worshiped the relics. They also made a vow as follows: “We, disciples (of Buddha) will protect and embrace three jewels by the True Dharma (zhengfa 正法) and wish that the Three Jewels (sanbao) will offer salvation to all sentient beings.” Then these relics were put into gold vases and sealed in bronze reflect changes in the attitudes of Buddhists toward these powers.” As one example, he traces a tradition reported by Keizan in his Denkōroku, when the tenth patriarch, Pārśva, saw thirty-seven śarīra grains appear in front of him in response to his meditative practice. About this story, see T. no. 2585, 82: 356c. See also Bernard Faure, Visions of Power: Imagining Medieval Japanese Buddhism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 162. Wang Shao’s collection was criticized by Wei Zheng in the Tang Dynasty; see Sui shu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975), 69, p. 1613; translations see Arthur F. Wright, The Sui Dynasty: The Unification of China, A.D. 581-617 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978), p. 19. For a detailed textual analysis of Wang’s work, see Koichi Shinohara, “Two Sources of Chinese Buddhist Biographies: Stupa Inscriptions and Miracle Stories,” in Phyllis Granoff and Koichi Shinohara, eds., Monks and Magicians: Religious Biographies in Asia (Oakville: Mosaic Press, 1988), pp. 212-214. 204 87 and stone containers. On the fifteenth day of the tenth month, they were sent to thirty prefectures for building stupas.”205 The ceremony was very important. Chen Jinhua notes that the resulting Buddhist practice is called the Seven-Day Observance (qiri xingdao 七 日 行 道 ). During the ceremony, “Before formally engaging people in this observance, the leading monk read the Repentance-Text (chanwen 懺 文 ) aloud, making clear to them the benefits of confessing and repenting the crimes they had committed in their innumerable previous lives. The strong religious atmosphere drew people into a ceremony in which they worshiped the Buddha, repented their sins, and finally received the Bodhisattva precepts.”206 As Chen has suggested, this observance included many forms of Buddhist practice: meditation (samādhi 定), confession (falu 發露), repentance (chanhui 懺悔), paying homage to the Buddha (lifo 禮佛), and conferment of the Bodhisattva precepts. He states that this observance was based on the Scripture of Golden Light (Skt. Suvarnaprabhāsa-sūtra, Ch. Jin guangming jing 金光明經) translated by Dharmakśena (Tan Wuchan 曇 無 懺 ) in the Northern Liang Dynasty. 207 Ennin’s account of the ceremony dedicated to relics in Famensi makes no mention of the Seven-Day Observance.208 205 206 Wang Shao, “Sheli ganying ji,” in Guang hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 216c. Chen Jinhua, Monks and Monarchs, Kinship and Kingship: Tanqian in Sui Buddhism and Politics (Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies, 2002), p. 69. Ibid. p. 68-75. I can not find any Sui confession text whose title includes this scripture in Daoxuan’s comprehensive collection Guang hongming ji, but there is a confession text attributed to the Chen Emperor Wen. See Guang hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 333b-c. Edwin O. Reischauer, trans. Ennin's Diary: The Record of a Pilgrimage to China (New York: Ronald Press, 1955); and Ennin’s Travels in T’ang China (New York: Ronald Press, 1955). 208 207 88 The ceremony of venerating relics involved both monks and lay people, both officials and common people. Among them, the monks, as the virtuosi, played a leading role. The monks held the relics, while the local people had to clean their houses, and the lay people and the officials came out of the cities to wait for the arrival of the relics. All four assemblies observed proper ritual deportment. The objects used to make offerings included jewel-banners, flags, well-decorated altars, Buddhist carriages, incense, bowls for incense, and all sorts of music. These offerings were similar to those used in the ancient ceremony when the Buddha’s relic was entering the city of Kuśinagara. The monk who held the relics spoke to the four assemblies as follows: “The Ultimate Honored One with his great boundless and endless compassion as a Bodhisattva shows his pity for all sentient beings deeply from his bone. Thus his relics should be distributed all over the world as the cause of making good merit.”209 Wang also states that the monk says that the Buddha enlightened the four assemblies. Several other details are important to note.210 The prayers and repentance texts were read by monks on the behalf of the emperor. In the texts, the emperor prayed for benefits for both himself and his people. For instance, a prayer says: I, Emperor, such-and-such, a disciple of the Buddha who has received the Bodhisattva precepts, respectfully inform all the Buddhas of the ten directions in the three periods, all the Dharmas, and all the worthy, saintly Sangha. Your disciple receives the merit and help from the Three Jewels on behalf of [sentient beings and king and father], contemplates giving it to all commoners, so that everyone can achieve enlightenment. Now I wish to distribute relics and build stūpas in every prefecture, which I hope will cause everyone to cultivate good deeds and together achieve the wondrous fruits. I confess and walk on the path on behalf of myself, my empress, the crown prince, all princes, the imperial children, the inner and outer court officials, all bright and dark beings in all dharma realms 209 210 Wang Shao, “Sheli ganying ji,” in Guang hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 213c. Chen’s account of venerating relics does not cover every aspect of the ritual. 89 (fajie), on three paths (santu) and eight disasters (banan).211 I admirably inquire of all everlasting Buddhas from ten directions, the twelve classes of sūtras, the profound dharma treasure, all venerable Bodhisattvas, all wise saints, I wish that all of you will receive my inquiry with your compassion and descend to the Bodhi Ground (daochang, monastery), to authenticate my confession on behalf of all sentient beings.” 212 菩薩戒佛弟子皇帝某﹐敬白十方三世一切諸佛一切諸法一切賢聖僧﹕弟子蒙 三寶福祐﹐為蒼生君父﹐思與一切民庶﹐共逮菩提。今欲分布舍利﹐諸州起 塔﹐欲使普修善業同登妙果﹐為弟子及皇后皇太子廣諸王子孫等內外官人一 切法界幽顯生靈三塗八難﹐懺悔行道。奉請十方常住諸佛十二部經甚深法藏 諸尊菩薩一切賢聖﹐願起慈悲受弟子等請﹐降赴道場﹐證明弟子為一切眾生 發露懺悔。 Following this confession, the monk worshiped the relics three times. From this repentance text, we know that the monk made this confession on the behalf of lay bodhisattvas. The lay bodhisattvas called for the merits of confession to benefit all sentient beings. The goal of confession was to escape the cycle of rebirth and to achieve enlightenment. In all of this, the emperor who received the bodhisattva actually claims to represent all the people living in his country. The prayer says: The disciple of Buddha with Bodhisattva Precepts, the emperor, universally reveals ten evil deeds done since the beginning for all sentient beings. He does not only practice himself, but he also instructs the others. He rejoices in the welfare of others while benefiting the others. This sin causes the falling into the paths of hell, animals, and the hungry ghosts. …… He reveals and confesses his sins before the three jewels, and he wishes that under the wisdom sun of the Buddha, all these sins will be eliminated. From now until he becomes a Buddha, he will never commit any sin like this!213 菩薩戒佛弟子皇帝某﹐普為一切眾生發露無始已來所作十種惡業。自作教 他﹐見作隨喜。是罪因緣﹐墮於地獄畜生餓鬼。 於三寶前發露懺悔﹐承佛慧日﹐願悉消除﹐自從今身乃至成佛﹐願不更作 此等諸罪。 211 212 213 Mahāvyutpatti, no. 2298. Wang Shao, “Sheli ganying ji,” in Guang hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 213c. Ibid. T. no. 2103, 52: 214a. 90 From the above passage, we know that the emperor made a confession for all sentient beings. He was the representative of all sentient beings in the ceremony dedicated to the relics. The ceremony feast therefore became an occasion for all sentient beings to reveal their sins via the confession of the emperor. The ceremony of venerating relics also included the practices of releasing life and self-sacrifice. From Daoxuan’s many accounts, we know that in the early period, in particular, in the Wu Kingdom, when relics were venerated, not many practices were carried out. But in the Southern dynasties, in particular in the Liang Dynasty, Emperor Wu developed practices in addition to venerating relics and constructing monasteries. For Wudi, releasing prisoners was an important practice.214 Emperor Wu issued his “Edict on the Manifestation of the Relics in the Ancient Stupa of Aśoka” as follows: In August, the fourth year of the Datong Period (538), the government renovated the Aśoka Stupa in Changgan Monastery. There Buddha’s hair and his nail were found. Aśoka is the King of the Iron Wheel. He unified the country and asked the ghosts and deities to construct forty-eight thousand stupas in one day. This stupa in Changgan monastery is one of them. His Holiness came to Changgan Monastery and set up the feast without prohibition (wuzhe)… now the relics in their true form (zhenxing sheli) appear in this world again, which is a precious thing, and invokes the mind of rare encounter. Now the feast without prohibition was held in Aśoka Monastery, and neither the aged nor the children felt unhappy, as if people who are long hungry receive food, or [people] are reunited after a long separation. Both the hidden and the manifest converted their minds and the [people] from far and near admired this event. The literati and noble ladies all came together, their hats and banners gathered like the clouds. For this occasion virtue was spread in order to please and aid the spirits. Then [the emperor] released all prisoners, no matter whether they committed heavy or light crimes.215 “Chu gu ayuwangta xia fo sheli zhao,” Liang Gaozu (Liang Emperor Wu), in Guang hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 203c. For a discussion of Liang Emperor Wu as a Buddhist who received Bodhisatva ordination, see Suwa Gijun. Chūgoku Nanchō bukkyōshi kenkyū (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1997); Andreas Janousch, “The Emperor as Bodhisattva: The Bodhisattva and Ritual Assemblies of Emperor Wu of the Liang Dynasty,” in Joseph P. McDermott ed. State and Court Ritual in China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 112-149. 215 214 Guang Hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 203c. 91 大同四年八月,月犯五車﹐老人星見。改造長干寺阿育王塔﹐出舍別佛髮爪 ﹐阿育鐵輪王也。王閻浮一天下﹐一日夜役鬼神﹐造八萬四千塔。此其一 焉。乘輿幸長干寺﹐設無礙法喜食……今真形舍利復現於世﹐逢希有之事﹐ 起難遭之想。今出阿育王寺說無礙會﹐耆年童齒﹐莫不欣悅。如積飢得食﹐ 如久別見親。幽顯歸心﹐遠近馳仰。士女霞布﹐冠蓋雲集。因時布德﹐允協 人靈﹐凡天下罪﹐無輕重皆赦除之。 From this passage we know that Emperor Wu hosted a feast for monks and invited them to celebrate the relics found in the ruins of Changgan Monastery,216 and that he released all prisoners. Daoxaun must have been very familiar with this story, since he incorporated the edict into his collection (Guang hongming ji). Furthermore, the relics in the Changgan Monastery were later enshrined under the stupa of the Riyan Monastery where Daoxuan lived. After the Riyan Monastery was abolished in the seventh year of the Wude period (610), Daoxuan and his master brought the relics to the Chongyi Monastery. Rituals of Releasing life and Self-Destruction The practice of releasing prisoners started in the Liang Dynasty, and later it was accepted by the Sui rulers. The Liang Emperor Wu released many prisoners, and then the emperor Wendi of the Sui Dynasty did the same thing. In the Sui Dynasty, it was linked to the practice of releasing creatures. Both aimed to earn merits for lay bodhisattvas. Releasing life was a required duty for those who would receive the Bodhisattva precepts. 217 This duty was particularly advocated in the Sūtra of Brahman Net (Skt. Brahmajālasūtra, Ch. Fanwang jing 梵網經). It is said that: Huang Chi-chiang traces how these relics were moved to Changgan Monastery and then to Riyan Monastery and then to Chongyi Monastery in the accounts of Daoxuan. See Huang, “Consecrating the Buddha: Legend, Lore, and History of the Imperial Relic-Veneration Ritual in the T’ang Dynasty,” Chung-hwa Journal of Buddhist Studies 11 (1998), pp. 494-495. 217 216 Huang I-mei, “Kaisatu Hōjō to Jin no shiso,” Oryō shigaku 13 (1987), pp. 29-55. 92 If one is a follower of the Buddha, he should practice the karma of releasing creatures with a heart of compassion. All men are my father, and all women are my mother. None of my lives are given but through birth from them. Therefore all sentient beings in the six paths are my parents. Then if someone is killing creatures, he is killing my parents, and also killing my previous life. All earth and water is my previous body, and all fire and wind is my original body. Thus, if often practicing releasing creatures, one will receive the method of keeping life everlasting for all lives and will enlighten others to release creatures. If they see the people in this world killing animals, one should save the animals by skillful means, and free them from suffering. One should often teach, instruct, preach, and speak of the Bodhisattva precepts in order to save sentient beings.218 若佛子﹐以慈心故﹐行放生業。一切男子是我父﹐一切女人是我母。我生生 無不從之受生﹐故六道眾生皆是我父母。而殺而食者﹐即殺我父母﹐亦殺我 故身。一切地水是我先身﹐一切火風是我本體﹐故常行放生。生生受生常住 之法﹐教人放生。若見世人殺畜生時﹐應方便救護﹐解其苦難。常教化講說 菩薩戒﹐救度眾生。 The ceremony of receiving relics accompanies the ceremony of receiving Bodhisattva precepts, according to known cases from the Liang and Sui Dynasties.219 Though the idea was mostly propagated in the Sui Dynasty, especially due to the effort of Tiantai master Zhiyi,220 the origin of this practice can be traced back to the Liang Dynasty, where it was initiated by Liang Emperor Wu. This is a typical case where a practice initiated in 218 Fanwang jing, T. no. 1484, 24: 1006b. Funayama Toru, “Rikuchō jidai ni okeru bosatsukai no juyō katei: Ryū Sō Nan Sei ki o chūshin ni,” Tōhō gakuhō 67 (1995), pp. 1-135; Bernard Faure, The Will to Orthodoxy: A Critical Gealogy of Northern Chan Buddhism (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1997), pp. 108-113; Chen Jinhua, Monks and Monarchs, Kinship and Kingship: Tanqian in Sui Buddhism and Politics (Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies, 2002), pp. 68-75; Paul Groner, "The Fan-wang ching and Monastic Discipline in Japanese Tendai: A Study of Annen's `Futsu jubosatsukai koshaku,'" in Robert Buswell, ed., Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990), pp. 251-290. In Japanese Buddhology, there are many articles dealing with the idea of releasing life in Tiantai tradition. This tradition is centered on the founder of Tiantai School, Zhiyi. See Kuwatani Yuken, “Hōjō shisō ni okeru kyōsei” Nihon bukkyō gakkai nenhō 64 (1999), pp. 213-227; Chiba Shokan, “Chūgoku ni okeru hōjō shisō no tenkai: seshoku shisō no kannen o chūshin ni,” Tendai gakuhō 36 (1993), pp. 89-95; Namura Takatsuna, “Chigi daishi no hōjōchi ni tsuite,” Shūgakuin ronjū 22 (1976), pp. 72-85. On the relationship between Zhiyi and Fanwang jing, see Fujii Kyoko, “Tendai Chigi to bonmōkyō,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 90 (1997), pp. 241-247. 220 219 93 South China spread to the North and then became popular.221 In the Tang Dynasty, Yijing even wrote a piece to propagate the meaning of releasing life. He says, For the Holy Teaching of the Thus-Come One (Buddhism), compassion and benevolence are the root. According to the precepts and monastic code, guilt is [justified] by nature and prohibition. The prohibition is justified by the events in accord with canon. The nature is [reasoned] by the severe punishment. Of all sins, the primary one is killing. Therefore, the wise man particularly should protect lives. If he views this sin lightly, what could be worse? If people can behave according to the teaching, they will receive the reward of long life in present life, and they will be reborn into a pure land in the next life.222 但以如來聖教﹐慈悲為本。所制戒律﹐罪有性遮﹐遮則准事合經﹐性乃理 應從重。性罪之內﹐殺生最初。是故智人特宜存護﹐若將此為輕者﹐更復 何有重哉﹖若能依教作者﹐現在得長命果報﹐來世當生淨土。 In this passage, killing is cited as the principal sin of a monk, and it is promised that releasing life will bring good retribution. Yijing also says that even if a monk has mastered all three learnings, and has achieved the fourth stage of meditation, he will be criticized by the Buddha for killing creatures. This connection between releasing life and reward has been accepted since the Tang period.223 For example, Shi Daozhou’s biography in Xu gaoseng zhuan (ch. 29) tells us that he established many pools everywhere for releasing creatures; see Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 623a. Facheng’s biography in Song gaoseng zhuan (ch. 26) says that, under Empress Wu, a monk Facheng created a releasing pool in the Western Market of the capital, Chang’an; see T. no. 2061, 50: 872c. Jiashang was a monk working with Xuanzang in Da ci’en si. His biography is in Song gaoseng zhuan (ch. 4) says that he recited the text of releasing creatures. This practice was accompanied with copying scriptures and lighting lanterns; see T. no. 2061, 50: 728b. “Huming fangsheng guiyi fa” (護命放生軌儀法), Yijing, T. no. 1901, 45: 902c. The title of this text varies in different Buddhist sources. The biography of famous pilgrim Yijing in Song gaoseng zhuan (ch. 1) mentions that Yijing wrote a ritual manual titled “Fangsheng huwu yigui,” see T. no. 2061, 50. 711a. Many catalogues since the Kaiyuan period have recorded this text. Many stories in Taiping guangji (太平廣記) support this. See chs. 467 and 472. For a later development of the idea of releasing life, see Chün-fang Yu, Renewal of Buddhism in China: Chu-Hung and the Late Ming Synthesis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981); Joanna F. Handlin Smith, “Liberating Animals in Ming-Qing China: Buddhist Inspiration and Elite Imagination,” Journal of Asian Studies 58: 1 (1999), pp. 51-84; Duncan Williams examines how this practice was carried out in medieval Japan. See his “Animal Liberation, Death, and the State: Rites to Release Animals in Medieval Japan,” in Mary Evelyn Tucker and Duncan Williams eds. Buddhism and Ecology: The Interconnection of Dharma and Deed (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), pp. 149-164. 223 222 221 94 Another distinctive practice during the ceremony of relic-veneration is selfimmolation, or burning the body (self-sacrifice).224 According to Wang Shao’s record, it did not happen in the capital, but rather in Tai Prefecture (modern Shandong province). When the relics arrived in the Daiyue Monastery, a boy who was reciting the Lotus Sūtra came to venerate the relics, and then burned his body in the field outside of monastery as an offering. The practice of burning the body has attracted much attention in contemporary scholarship.225 In particular, Funayana Toru suggests that burning the body is a means to make an offering to the three jewels – Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha – and a way for Mahāyāna Buddhists to pursue the goal of the Bodhisattva path. 226 Many scholars have traced the scriptural source of this practice to the chapter titled “The When Chen Jinhua discussed how Fajin was given Bodhisattva precepts, he noted that this monk committed to self-immolation. But Chen Jinhua does not indicate that the practice of selfimmolation occurred during the Seven-Day Observance. See Monks and Monarchs, Kinship and Kingship: Tanqian in Sui Buddhism and Politics (Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies, 2002), p. 71, note 58. James Benn, “Burning for the Buddha: Self-Immolation in Chinese Buddhism,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angels, 2001. Jacques Gernet, “Les suicides par le feu chez les bouddhistes chinois du Ve au Xe siècle,” Mélanges publiés par l’Institut des hautes etudes chinoises (2, 1960); Jean Filliozat, “La mort volontaire par le feu et la tradition bouddhique indienne,” Journal Asiatique (1963), 1; Jan Yün-hua, “Buddhist Self-immolation in Medieval China,” History of Religions 4: 2 (1965); John Kieschnick, The Eminent Monk: Buddhist Ideas in Medieval Chinese Hagiography (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997), pp. 35-50; James Benn, “Where Text Meets Flesh: Burning the Body as an Apocryphal Practice in Chinese Buddhism,” History of Religions 37: 4 (1998), pp. 295-322; Herbert Durt, “Two Interpretations of Human-flesh Offering: Misdeed or Supreme Sacrifice,” Kokusai bukkyogaku daigakuin daigaku kiyo 1 (1998), pp. 236-253; idem., “The Offering of the Children of Prince Viśvantara / Sudāna in the Chinese Tradition,” Kokusai bukkyō daigakuin daigaku kiyo 2 (1999), pp. 266-309; Reiko Ohnuma, “The Gift of Body and the Gift of Dharma,” History of Religions 37: 4 (1998), pp. 323-359; and her forthcoming book, Head, Eyes, Flesh, and Blood: Giving Away the Body in Indian Buddhist Literature. Bernard Faure suggests that this practice contributed significantly to the vogue of immolation in China after the sixth century: “If one does not burn one’s body, one’s arm, or one’s finger as an offering to the Buddha, one is not a Bodhisattva;” see The Red Thread: Buddhist Approaches to Sexuality (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), p. 93; his quotation is from J. M. de Groot, Le code du Mahāyāna en chine: Son influence sur la vie monacale et sur le monde laïque (Amsterdam, reprinted Wiesbaden: Johannes Müller, 1976), p. 207. His study is based on the sources from the Lotus Sūtra and the Sūtra of Brahma Net and many biographies of monks. See “Shashin no shiso – Rokucho bukkyōshi no yichi tanmei,” Tōhō gakuhō 74 (2000), pp. 54-56. An early study on same topic in Japanese scholarship, see Nabata Ojun, “Shina chūsei o nikeru shashin ni tsuite,” Ōtani gakuhō 12: 2 (1931), pp. 1-43. 226 225 224 95 Former Affairs of the Bodhisattva Medicine King” of the Lotus Sūtra, in which burning the body is referenced as a Dharma-offering.227 It says that, After he (the Bodhisattva) had made this offering, he arose from samādhi and thought to himself, “Though by resort to supernatural power I have made an offering to the Buddha, it is not as if I had made an offering of my own body.” Straightway then he applied [to his body] various scents, candana, kunduruk, turuska [two kinds of frankincense], prkkā [trigonella], the scent that sinks in water, and the scent of pine-tar; and he also drank the fragrant oils of campsakaflowers. When one thousand two hundred years had been fulfilled, he painted his body with fragrant oil and, in the presence of the Buddha Pure and Bright Excellence of Sun and Moon, he wrapped his body in a garment adorned with divine jewels, anointed himself with fragrant oils, with the force of supernatural penetration took a vow, and then burnt his own body.228 Reciting this chapter and then burning the body as an offering to the “Three Jewels” was very common in Buddhist practice in the Southern dynasties. For instance, a monk living in the Liang Dynasty, Shi Sengman, was very skilled at lecturing on the Lotus Sūtra. His biography says that he always sighed when he read the chapter about the Medicine King. Later he made a vow and burnt his body, dedicating the action to this scripture in Changsha Prefecture. 229 Similar stories also appear in many biographies of eminent monks.230 Nevertheless, some scholars have suggested that the purpose of self-sacrifice in the presence of Buddha’s relics was meant to honor the Buddha. Gregory Schopen claims, “There is no distinction between a living Buddha and a collection of relics – both make Daoxuan writes a preface for the Lotus Sutra, see “Miaofa lianhua jing yiyhi xu,” T. no. 262, 9: 1b-c. At his time, there were three translations: Dharmarakśa in the third century, Kumarajīva in the fifth century and Xuanzang in the early seventh century; but Kumarajīva’s version was the most popular one. Daoxuan says, “From Han to Tang, the most popular scripture is no more than this scripture.” Fahua jing, T. no. 262, 9: 53b. Leon Hurvitz trans., Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), pp. 293-294, chapter 23: “Former Affairs of the Bodhisattva Medicine King”. 229 230 228 227 Fahuajing zhuanji (chapter 2), Sengxiang, T. no. 2068, 51: 56c. The biographies of Fayu, Huishao, Sengyu, and Huiyi, see Gaoseng zhuan, Huijiao, T. no. 2059, 50: 404c, 405a, and 405b-c. 96 the sacred person equally present as an object of worship.” 231 But self-immolation may not necessarily have reflected a single religious value, as Koichi Shinohara suggests in his investigation of miracle stories. He suggests that this act may have also brought a political message to the acting ruler, as in the case of the monk Zhuli in the Southern dynasties.232 Thus, an alternative interpretation is possible, and necessary. Self-sacrifice appears in many religious traditions. In Christianity, it is said that, “Jesus told his disciples, ‘If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life from my sake will find it.’”233 This may direct us back to Indian tradition. In Indian tradition, some scholars have suggested that self-sacrifice is “not an act of worship, but the mystery of the cosmogonic act.”234 This means that a man engaging in sacrifice is not a victim at all. Rather, he is the sacrificer. In the case of Chinese Buddhism, the sacrificer seeks spiritual liberation by renouncing his physical body.235 In this way, he seems to also imitate the cremation ritual of the body of the historical Buddha. This cremation was an honor for a monk in See Schopen, Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks (Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 1997), p. 132. John Strong, Relics of the Buddha (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), p. 20. 232 Koichi Shinohara, “Dynastic Politics and Miraculous Images: The Example of Zhuli of the Changlesi Temple in Yangzhou,” in Richard H. Davis ed. Images, Miracles, and Authority in Asian Religious Traditions (Boulder, CO.: Westview Press, 1998), pp. 199-201. Matthew 16.24-25. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1989). There is also another passage in Romans 12.1: “I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.” J. C. Heesterman, “Self-Sacrifice in Vedic Ritual,” in S. Sharked, D. Shulman and G. G. Strouma ed. Gilgul: Essays on Transformation, Revolution and Performance in the History of Religions – Dedicated to R. J. Zwi Werblowsky (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987), pp. 91-106, especially p. 92. Heesterman writes, “(Sacrifice) is performed by the gods and, when man performs sacrifice, the sacrificer and his officiants are equated with gods.” We know in Daoist tradition the human beings can become immortals after a long journey of spiritual and physical practice toward final liberation. 235 234 233 231 97 medieval China. Unlike the traditional sacrifice of human beings in ancient China, it was not necessary that self-sacrifice takes place before the relics or images of the historical Buddha. Thus, the act may have an alternative interpretation, which can be linked to the story of how the Buddha gave or renounced his head to hungry tigers in jataka stories, because he was a compassionate Bodhisattva. Again, immolation can be viewed as a commemorative ritual dedicated to the Buddha. The Dead and the Living As shown above, in ancient India, the Buddha died, and afterward, the living commemorated him. The bodily relic was viewed as a living being.236 In medieval China, the living dedicated their bodies to the dead Buddha. From the veneration ritual, we have seen a communal feast dedicated to the Buddha. This feast involved both the monks and lay people, both the dead and the living. A contemporary anthropological approach might be helpful to understand the link between the living and the dead. As Clifford Geertz noted, religion not only describes the social order, but also shapes the social order, like environment, political power, wealth, jural obligation, personal affection, and a sense of beauty.237 In his study of the syncretism of Javanese religion, he stresses that the central ritual form is a communal feast, called the slametan. This communal feast is given on almost all occasions of religious significance. At this feast, offerings are made to the Through reading an old inscription in Northwest India, Étienne Lamotte observes the relationship between relics and two distinguished devotees: Viyakamitra and Vijayamitra. Lamotte suggests that this inscription is believed to be placed on the reliquary of Shinkot, and “this reliquary was presented and placed after many years interval by two Indians, Viyakamitra and Vijayamitra, one of whom was a vassal of the Indo-Greek king Menander. For these two devotees, the bodily relic (śarīra) of the Buddha is more than an element (dhātu) for commemoration: it is a living being ‘endowed with breath’ (prānasameta), in the presence of which one may ‘conciliate the ancestors with offerings and water.” Étienne Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Śaka Era, translated by Sara WebbBoin, under the supervision of Jean Dantinne (Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catholique Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1988), p. 431. 237 236 Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), p. 119. 98 spirits, and it is intended to be the commensal mechanism of social integration for the living. Geertz continues, “the result of this quiet, undramatic little ritual is twofold: the spirits are appeased and neighborhood solidarity is strengthened.”238 The veneration of relics in a dramatic and grand ritual is also twofold: the Buddha is memorialized, and the solidarity and coherence of the monastic community is enhanced. The reception ritual of relics bears much resemblance to the Javanese slametans. As the previous section shows, the veneration ritual of the relics was a communal feast too, that involved a feast for monks, burning incense, chanting prayers, the admission of new members to the monastic order, and the release of creatures for merits .239 On the other hand, individual and collective religious experience should also be taken into account in the case of relic veneration.240 From the records written by the witnesses of the ceremony, we are able to know individual experiences--for example, how one enjoyed the ceremony, how one sacrificed, how one made offerings, how one prayed, and so on. This style of relic veneration recurred from the third century to the sixth century. What was the dynamic force behind this repeated veneration ceremony? Many scholars have suggested that the Chinese rulers used this veneration ceremony as a political 238 239 Ibid., p. 147. Machihata Ryoshu suggests that the releasing-creatures theory is based on six Buddhist scriptures which include The Sūtra of Braman Net (Fanwang jing), Mahāsanghika-vinaya, Sarvāstivādavinaya, Zhengfa nian jing, Zhidulun, and Shanjian lü, see Chūgoku bukkyō shisoshi no kenkyū (Kyoto: Heirakuji shoden, 1979), pp. 228-248. In his study, he does not mention releasing prisoners. It seems that he does not view this as a form of releasing creatures. Glen Dudbridge, Religious Experience and Lay Society in T'ang China: A Reading of Tai Fu's 'Kuang-i chi' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). 240 99 ideology. If we look from another angle to understand this historical constant, we find that the Buddhists used it as religious ideology, a religious remembrance.241 Jacques Le Goff gives us a more plausible possibility to consider, involving memory in the medieval period. He writes, Memory is an essential element of what will henceforth be called individual or collective identity, the feverish and anxious quest for which is today one of the fundamental activities of individuals and societies. But collective memory is not only a conquest, it is also an instrument and an objective of power. It is societies whose social memory is primarily oral or which are in the process of establishing a written collective memory that offer us the best chance of understanding this struggle for domination over remembrance and tradition, this manipulation of memory.242 From my point of view, the reception of relics and the construction of stupas and monasteries can be viewed as a set of practices governed by the accepted rules articulated by Buddhist historians. These practices also could be viewed as a repetition of the practices that reflect continuity with the past. The later generations repeatedly received the relics, built stupas, and constructed monasteries. These activities of receiving, Gerdien Jonker argues that in ancient Mesopotamian society, architectural settings were used to be the tools of remembering gods and goddesses as well as the donors. Then the continuous events construct a cultural memory. He writes, “Gifts add written accounts to the gods of temple restorations, expeditions, lawgiving and other “good” actions offered as a means of moving the gods to “recall” the givers. Statues were thought to repeat continuously the deeds of their donors in front of the god or goddess of the city. By means of such actions the deity was reminded of the existence of the donors. Moreover, the donors saw to it that the work would continue after their death by setting up funds for the care of their statues. By so doing, they created the possibility of being remembered even after their death, since the statues and written messages stood as guarantors for the preservation of the memory.” See his The Topography of Remembrance: The Dead, Tradition and Collective Memory in Mesopotamia (Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1995), pp. 178-179. Jacques Le Goff, History and Memory (translated by Steven Rendall and Elizabeth Claman) (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), p. 98. For discussions on history and memory, also see Dominick Lacapra, Writing History, Writing Trauma (Parallax: Re-Visions of Culture and Society). David Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country (Cambridge University Press, 1985). Thomas Butler, ed. Memory: History, Culture, and the Mind (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989). Patrick H. Hutton, History as an Art of Memory (University Press of New England, 1993). Jeffrey K. Olick and Joyce Robbins, “Social Memory Studies: From ‘Collective Memory’ to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices,” Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998), 105-140. Susan Engel, Context is Everything: The Nature of Memory (Princeton University Press, 1999). 242 241 100 building, and constructing kept continuity with the past and invented tradition by modifying the rituals, thereby, transmitting the values and norms of Buddhism from India and Central Asia to China. Daoxuan mentions the veneration rituals many times in his numerous writings. It seems that during the degenerative period of the dharma, the relic veneration ritual became a tool to enhance the authority of the Buddhist community. For the common Buddhist believers, this ritual was a commemorative ceremony serving as a dedication to the historical Buddha, the founder of Buddhism. Commemorative ceremony has been viewed as a constituent of the communal memory. For example, Paul Connerton suggests that, commemorative ceremonies and bodily practices “are by no means the only constituents of communal memory; for the production of informally told narrative histories is both a basic activity for our everyday characterization of human actions and a feature of all social memory.”243 In the case of a Buddhist ceremony for venerating relics, the ceremony is a constituent of the communal memory of the monastic community. This ceremony allows the monastic community members to recall the funeral of the Buddha, which was held in the fifth century before the Christian era. Therefore, in venerating the Buddha’s relics, the commemorative ceremony helps the members of the Chinese Buddhist community recall the historical Buddha’s funeral. The sacrificial ceremony in the veneration of relics provided a powerful means of integration and serve to enhance the monastic community’s solidarity. And as we have Paul Connerton, How Societies Remember (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 40. Olick, Jeffrey K. and Joyce Robbins, “Social Memory Studies: From ‘Collective Memory’ to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices,” Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998), pp. 105-140. 243 101 seen previously, the monks played leading roles in this ceremony, and in the formation of this solidarity. Manifestation of Incarnation Daoxuan’s Miraculous Record mentions a story involving Liu Sahe in which a stūpa with relics came out of the ground. According to the tale, in the second year of the Jin Dynasty, Liu Sahe, a native of Lishi, Bing Prefecture, died. He returned to life, and said that in his dream he was told by a Brahman monk that he had severe karma and he would fall into an evil path. There were stupas erected by Aśoka in Luoyang, Qicheng, Dayang, and Kuaiji, so he could make confession at these stupas in order to free himself from his past karma. After he was resurrected, he shaved his head and became a monk named Huida. He went to Zou County and practiced asceticism there. One night, he heard a bell ringing. Three days later, he saw three Brahman monks walking in the air and the earth was rolling. An illuminated platform rose up. Then Huida dug out a box in which a stupa with relics was found.244 This story reflects the belief that a stūpa with relics could be discovered through supernatural power if a monk made confession. The stūpa was said to be the one erected by King Aśoka. Aśoka was famous in mythology and was involved with emperors. Finding his stūpas is a way of localizing him and drawing on the convincing nature of his myth to authenticate a local monastery. Daoxuan presents a backdrop for Liu Sahe. He says that Liu Sahe’s previous life was lived as Bodhisattva Libin. In his Miracle Record, Daoxuan tells us a story about how Bodhisattva Libin converted the local people in Liang Prefecture to Buddhism by 244 Lüxiang gantong zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 1898, 45: 878c. 102 venerating Buddha. According to this story, at the time of Kāśyapa Buddha (Pali. Kassapa; Ch. Jiayefo),245 a Bodhisattva named Libin came to the Liang area and found that the local people were engaged in killing. This Bodhisattva started to build monasteries to generate merit for these people. He asked the Great King Brahma to make a Buddha sculpture, who used his divine power to make this sculpture as authentic as Buddha, without any deviation. Then the Bodhisattva began to preach, but the local people did not accept him or his teachings. Therefore, the Bodhisattva decided to manifest his miraculous power. He held a huge stone in his hand and pretended that he would throw it. After this, the local residents began to turn to Buddhism for help. The miraculous sculpture then manifested its divine power. Moreover, in thirteen years, the Bodhisattva persuaded local people to build seven magnificent monasteries. In the meantime, twenty thousand people entered the monastic order and lived in the monasteries. Three hundred years later, the local victims of murder began to seek revenge. The dead set fire to the monasteries and villages and began killing people. At that time, the mountain deity picked up the sculpture of Buddha and held it in the air to keep it safe from fire. After the monastery was destroyed, the deity stored the sculpture in a stone room underground and made offerings. Much later, when Liu Sahe worshiped the mountain, the sculpture manifested itself because he was the manifestation of the Bodhisattva Libin.246 In Mahāyāna Buddhism, he is believed to be the sixth of seven Buddhas in the past and the third Buddhas of a thousand Buddhas in the Bhadrakalpa period (xianjie). He was one of the previous lives of Śakyamuni Buddha. 246 245 Lüxiang gantong zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 1898, 45: 876c. 103 Daoxuan tries to connect this Bodhissattva with Liu Sahe. This Bodhisattva saved the local people from their past evil deeds. Liu Sahe was said to contribute to the reconstruction of the monastery and the monastic order after the age of the Last Dharma.247 Besides this legend, Daoxuan also tells us a story about himself in which he became the manifestation of the eminent monk Sengyou in the Liang Dynasty. In his dream, Daoxuan viewed himself as the resurrected body of Sengyou. Daoxuan thought that the miraculous vision was the result of his diligent practice. 248 His story again illustrates the teaching of how to survive from the age of the Final Dharma.249 Like Liu Sahe, Daoxuan advocates a new style of monastery to house the relics. Through the reconstruction of the monasteries, the set of the relics, and the reconstruction of the monastic order, the new monasticism helped Chinese Buddhists endure the age of According to Huang Chi-chiang, Daoxuan’s account of the Liu Sahe story contains more additional anecdotes that are not found in the Liang shu. See Huang, “Consecrating the Buddha: Legend, Lore, and History of the Imperial Relic-Veneration Ritual in the T’ang Dynasty,” Chung-hua Journal of Buddhist Studies 11 (1998), p. 493. For other discussions of Liu Sahe, see Jao Tsung-i, “Liu Sahe shiji yu ruixiang tu,” Dunhuang shiku yanjiu guoji taolunhui wenji: Shiku kaogu, 1987 (Shenyang: Liaoning meishu chubanshe, 1990), pp. 336-349; Hida Romi, “Ryōshū bankaken zuizō no setsuwa to zōkei,” Bukkyō gejiutsu 217 (1994), pp. 33-54; Wu Hung, “Rethinking Liu Sahe: The Creation of a Buddhist Saint and the Invention of a ‘Miraculous Image,’” Orientations special issue on Dunhuang 2 (1996), pp.32-43. Lüxiang gantong zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 1898, 45. It might be viewed as a self-transformation. For discussion on this perspective, See David Shulman and Guy G. Stroumsa ed. Self and SelfTransformation in the History of Religions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). Erik Zürcher, “Eschatology and Messianism in Early Chinese Buddhism,” in Wilt L. Idema ed., Leyden Studies in Sinology (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981), pp. 34-56; ibid., “Prince Moonlight, Messianism and Eschatology in Early Medieval Chinese Budddhism,” T’oung Pao 68 (1982), pp. 1-75; Jan Nattier, Once upon a Future Time. Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline. (Berkeley, CA: Asia Humanities Press, 1991); Hubert Seiwert, “End of Time and New Time in Medieval Chinese Buddhism,” in: Albert I. Baumgarten ed. Apocalyptic Time (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000), pp. 1-14. Seiwert notes the events of apocalypticism in Chinese Buddhism as follows: “The horror of the apocalyptic time is paired with the promise of a paradise-like life after the catastrophe. This paradise is of course open only to those who follow Buddhist teachings or more particularly the teachings revealed in their apocalyptic scriptures. Thus, the dichotomy of destruction and paradise is complemented by the dichotomy of the annihilation of the sinners and the salvation of the true followers of the teachings. Furthermore, there is a dichotomy of the supernatural agents in this comic battle: on the one hand, devils and demons are ravaging the world and its sinful inhabitants. On the other hand, divine powers, Buddhas and bodhisattvas fight to rescue the few that have practiced the true teachings.” See p. 10. 249 248 247 104 the Last Dharma. Remembering one’s former lives is an ability among five (or six) superknowledges (abhijñā) in Buddhism.250 From many of Daoxuan’s other writings, we know that Daoxuan criticized his contemporaries for their disregard of morality.251 By reporting the discovery of the Buddha’s relics and circulating the legend about this discovery, Chinese Buddhists granted great importance to the Buddha. This is illustrated in Daoxuan’s writings. According to Daoxuan’s Miracle Record, at his time, all sorts of stūpas and monasteries were the remains of ancient Buddhas. For example, he mentions Guozhongsi in Gan Prefecture, The West Corridor of the River. There is an ancient Buddha’s relic in the stupa of this monastery. Lingyansi in He Prefecture, close to Gan Prefecture, also has relic under the Buddha Hall. Near Maiji Bank of Qin Prefecture, there is a monastery called Lingansi where a relic is hidden under the Buddha Hall by the mountain deity, as Daoxuan believed. The Multiple Buddhas The Buddha’s relics could reveal the power of the Buddha everywhere, and a relic symbolized the presence of the Buddha. Can we link this idea to the idea of multiple Buddhas in Mahayana Buddhism? Daoxuan says in his Miracle Record that Buddha has three bodies (Skt. trayah-kāyāh, Ch. sanshen 三身): the Dharma-body (Skt. dharma-kāya, Ch. fashen 法身), the reward-body (Skt. sambhoga-kāya, Ch. baoshen 報身), and the transformation-body (Skt. nirmāna-kāya, Ch. huashen 化身 ). 252 The dharma-body and Louis de La Vallée Poussin, “Le Bouddha et les Abhijñās,” Le Muséon XLIV (1931), pp. 335342; Paul Demiéville, “Sur la mémoire des existences antérieures,” BEFEO XXVII (1927), pp. 283-298. 251 252 250 For example, Jingxin jieguan fa, Daoxuan, T. no. 1893, 45. A number of scholars have discussed the bodies of the Buddha, i. e. Nagao Gadjin, Mādhyamika and Yogacāra: A Study of Mahāyāna Philosophies (trans. By Leslie S. Kwamura; New York: 105 reward-body are not visible to human beings, and are transcendent. Only the transformation-body can universally manifest in billions of forms under the heaven. Thus there are ten billion Buddhas, who can appear as the result of the miraculous vows of human beings.253 According to Daoxuan, these Buddhas can appear everywhere and will manifest themselves in response to people’s veneration. It appears that, at least in the context of the history of medieval Chinese Buddhism, Mahāyāna Buddhism taught that there are many Buddhas, not only three Buddhas or even one Buddha in this world. It follows then that a relic of Buddha indicated the presence of one such Buddha. The discovery of relics was not just related to the act of distribution of the relics in King Aśoka’s time. As relics were discovered in East Asia, they gave way to the flourishing of Buddhism and belief in the presence of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas there. Furthermore, Mahāyāna Buddhism teaches that both monastic and lay Buddhists can access the Buddha and achieve Buddhahood. 254 This theme is also present in Daoxuan’s work; so the relics provide both monastic and lay Buddhists a subject of worship. State University of New York press, 1991), pp. 103-122; Paul Harrison, “Is the Dharma-kāya the Real Phantom Body of the Buddha?” Journal of the International Association for Buddhist Studies 15 (1992), pp. 45-95. 253 254 Lüxiang gantong zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 1898, 45: 879a. The origin and the nature of Mahāyāna Buddhism seem to be ongoing issues. See Richard Gombrich, “How the Mahāyāna Began,” Journal of Pali and Buddhist Studies 1 (1988), pp. 29-46. reprinted in: T. Sporupski ed., The Buddhist Forum vol. 1 (London, 1990), pp. 21-30. Gregory Schopen, “The Mahāyāna and the Middle Period in Indian Buddhism: Through a Chinese Looking-glass,” The Eastern Buddhist 32: 2 (2000), pp. 1-25. Paul Harrison, “Searching for the Origins of Mahāyāna: What are We Looking for?,” The Eastern Buddhist 28: 1 (1995), pp. 48-69. Sasaki Shizuka, “A Study on the Origin of Mahāyāna Buddhism,” The Eastern Buddhist 30 (1997), pp. 79-113. Florin Deleanu, “A Preliminary Study on Meditation and the Beginnings of Mahāyāna Buddhism,” Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University for the Academic Year 1999 11 (2000), 65-113. Jan Nattier, A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugrapariprccha) (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003). 106 As I argue more fully in chapter three, being present in his relics, the Buddha can be said to have participated in ordination rituals and the reconstruction of Chinese monasteries. When the masters conducted the ritual ordination, the Buddha, like the audience seated below the platform, could not say anything about the ritual. Buddha could oversee the ritual, and judge the correctness of the ritual’s performance. He was the spiritual witness and leader of the ritual performance, because, as in Daoxuan’s design, he was placed on the top level of the platform. The ritual performers were aware of the presence of Buddha when the relics were set up on the ordination platform. Similarly, when some monasteries were established, Buddha was also involved in the form of relics. The authority of the monastic community was built upon the Buddha’s presence in his relics. Here is a passage from the “Record of the Ordination Platform in Tōshodaiji” (“Tōshodaiji” kaiten ki 唐招提寺戒壇記): Relics are the authentic body of the ancient Buddha. The authentic body is extant, the dharma is enduring, the Sangha is enduring, and then three jewels are complete.255 From this passage, we know that the relics were regarded as the body of the Buddha. When the people saw the relics, they regarded them as the presence of the Buddha. They “saw” the Buddha, and believed in the presence of the dharma. They believed in the presence of the Sangha, and that the three jewels endure. That is why the relic of Buddha was an indispensable element for stable monastic order. It functioned as the Buddha, and it, as the Buddha, witnessed the construction of the monastery. Two religious meanings of relics in Chinese monasteries should be particularly highlighted. Relics, as the presence of the Buddha, played an indispensable role in 255 Dainihon bukkyō zenshu, no. 710, 85: 100b. 107 overseeing, guiding, and supporting the practice of monasticism. Additionally, as the presence of Buddha, relics constituted one of the three elements of everlasting Buddhism. We should pay special attention to Daoxuan’s view on Buddha’s relics and their significance for Chinese Buddhism. In Daoxuan’s era, Buddhist masters viewed Buddha’s relics as sacred objects superior to the remains of other sages. Daoshi’s writing provides a good example of the common ideas about the superiority of the Buddha over Chinese sages. As a colleague of Daoxuan in Ximing Monastery, Daoshi tells us that the relic plays an indispensable role in manifesting the supreme and unparalleled virtue of Buddha. According to Daoshi, Buddha’s relics were split in order to spread his merit and virtue to gods and other sentient beings. Daoshi argues that, in ancient times, China’s sage kings, including three emperors, five kings, the kings of Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasties, Confucius, Laozi, and Zhuangzi, were all respected and venerated, but once they died, they had to be buried underground and would be forgotten. However, Buddha’s relics and shadows did not perish, and were bequeathed to later generations.256 Daoshi highlights the superiority of Buddha, and indicates that only Buddha’s virtue can be passed down by his relics. Without the transmission of relics, the virtue of Chinese sage-kings cannot be passed down to the later generations. From a Buddhist viewpoint, relics were superior to than any other physical form symbolizing the presence of the Buddha. Although Chinese Buddhists were able to reproduce or create Buddha’s image in painting and sculpture, only relics were indestructible and could be passed down generation to generation. On the one hand, Fayuan zhulin, Daoshi, T. no. 2122, 53: 598-605. In his preface to Guang hongming ji, “guizheng pian” (Section on Conversion to the Right Path), Daoxuan also states that Chinese sages can not challenge the Buddha, because these sages were still common people; see Guang hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 98a. 256 108 images, sculptures, scriptures and relics all had mobility, but compared to scriptures and the other forms, relics were more powerful in preserving Buddha’s teachings because they were considered indestructible. Chinese Confucians could also produce images and sculptures for their great sages and sage-kings, but they could not produce their sages’ and sage-kings’ relics.257 In sum, relics were unique to Buddhism, and exclusive of any other religions. The discovery of Buddha’s relics and the construction of stupas with relics paved the way for a new type – the Chinese type – of Buddhist monastery.258 We know the first Buddha’s relic was found in the Wu Kingdom in the third century. Once this relic was found, a new monastery, named Jianchu (建初寺,literally “Establishing the Beginning”), was built to contain it upon the sponsorship of the Emperor of Wu. Previous monasteries only contained Buddha’s statues, paintings, and texts. The Jianchu Monastery was the first monastery established following the construction of a pagoda with a Buddha’s relic. 259 In the Jianchu Monastery, for the first time, China had a monastery with a Buddha’s relic in which Buddhists believed. Robert Sharf suggests that the allure of relics lies in what they are – their corporeal essence – rather than in their representational or iconic qualities. At the same time it is clear that, unlike sentient beings, relics are what they are by virtue of how they are physically and ritually framed. See Robert Sharf, “On the Allure of Buddhist Relics,” Representations 66 (1999), pp. 75-99, esp. p.90. Kevin Trainor suggests that a relic is very different from an image, because a relic is regarded as an appropriate means of re-presenting the Buddha because of its historical connection with him through space and time; in other words, either it was actually part of his body or it came in physical contact with his body. See Relics, Ritual and Representation in Buddhism: Rematerializing the Sri Lankan Theravada Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 30. Even Nestorian Christians who came to China in the Tang Dynasty produced the images and hung up paintings of emperors in their monastery; see Da Qin jingjiao liuxing zhongguo bei song bing xu, T. no. 2144, 54: 1289c. Reginald A Ray presents a study on the relationship between the cults of the stūpa and their relation to monasticization. See Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), chapters 10-12. 258 257 109 In the Northern Zhou Dynasty, the situation was quite different than in the South. In one of Daoxuan’s works, we are told that an official suggested that the Emperor Tianyuan should “look for the people with good virtue, and preserve only one temple in each prefecture in order to simplify the management of Buddhism. For other mountains and cave temples, let the monks live there. Wherever there is a relic, please allow for the erection of a stupa.”260 The most important information we can obtain from this passage is that wherever there was a relic, a stupa was to be erected. Concluding Remarks: The Past Becomes the Present Daoxuan recorded many accounts of Buddha’s relics in his writings, and he finally incorporated all these accounts into the official Buddhist canon defined in his Catalogue of the Buddhist Canon in the Great Tang (Da Tang neidian lu 大唐內典錄). This catalogue canonizes Daoxuan’s accounts, making them standard materials for daily monastic learning. Stories of miracles involving relics thus became the intellectual sources for the next generation of the Sangha.261 As Daoxuan wrote in the preface to A Collection of the Miracle Responses to the Three Jewels in China (Ji shenzhou sanbao gantong lu), he compiled the miracle stories Daoxuan’s Guang hongming ji cites a passage from the History of Wu (Wu shu) which is one part of The History of Three Kingdoms (Sanguo zhi), written by Chen Shou (4th century). This piece, cited in Daoxuan’s Guang hongming ji, is entitled “The Ruler of the Wu Kingdom talking about Buddhism and Daoism.” It says that Buddhism had been spread into Central China for a long time, yet did not come to the South at the beginning of the Wu period. “Zhou Tianyuan li you shang shi zhe dui Wei Yuansong,” Guang hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 158c. In medieval Europe, the Christian community faced the destruction of the monastic order and they attempted to reconstruct the monasteries in order to respond to the challenge during the period of chaos. As Patrick J. Geary states, “in the custom-bound world of the eleventh century, monasteries had to reestablish ties with a distant and ill-remembered past in order to maintain dignity and importance in the present.” See Furta Sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. 59. Also see his Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994). In the case of Chinese Buddhism, the relics were distributed by a secular authority, but they served the same goal -- rebuilding the dignity of the monastic order. 261 260 259 110 about the relics because these miracles “either manifested themselves in the past or will appear in the future. [They] either enlighten the monastics and the lay followers, or generate faith among the deluded and the enlightened.” 262 In his preface to Extended Collection Propagating and Illuminating Buddhism (Guang hongmingji), Daoxaun says that he meticulously consulted many sources about Buddhist history and amended the Collection Propagating and Illuminating Buddhism (Hongmingji) compiled by Sengyou. He aimed to reveal the real history that had been neglected by many of his contemporaries.263 My conclusions are based on Daoxuan’s insistence, now supported by modern scholarship, that relics were considered to be the Buddha himself, and did not merely symbolize him. As we have seen, according to Daoxuan, the Buddha himself actually participated in the construction of Chinese monasteries, that is, Chinese-style monasteries possessing Buddha’s relics. Buddha’s presence thus helped restore the Chinese monastic order in the aftermath of political persecution and the decline of Buddhist institutions under the late Northern dynasties. Secondly, in Daoxuan’s work we see that the appearance and spread of Buddha’s relics in China meant that Chinese Buddhists could communicate with the Buddha directly, without going to visit the sacred sites in Northwest India. Appearing as relics, Buddha then became easily accessible to common monks, nuns, and lay people in China. Chinese Buddhists could obtain immediate help and benefits from Buddha by going to visit his relics. 262 263 Ji shenzhou sanbao gantong lu, Daoxuan, T. no. 2106, 52: 404a. Guang hongming ji, Daoxuan, T. no. 2103, 52: 97a-b. 111 It is worth noting that the pagoda (or stupa) was the center of a Buddhist monastery. Later the Buddha Hall became the center of the Buddhist monastery. We will see that the center of monastery always held the relics, no matter where it was. At the very beginning, the relics were held in the stupa and then the relics were worshipped in the Buddha Hall. The architectural design is then related to Buddhist doctrine – the relationship between Buddha and the community – Buddha and Sangha. Livia Kohn pays attention to the Daoist monastery and suggests that the religious architectures in China inherited the traditional style of the Hall of Light (mingtang 明堂). She indicates that Buddhist architecture also followed the style of the Hall of Light, and that the main hall played a significant role in the monastic compound.264 However, apparently, the stūpa was the center of the early monastic compound of Chinese Buddhism. Thus, relics were an important means by which Buddhist spaces were made distinct from Daoist spaces. Livia Kohn, Monastic Life in Medieval Daoism: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003), chapter five, especially pp. 88-91. The archeological evidence from Korea also helps us understand the early Buddhist compound, see Youngsook Pak, “Excavations of Buddhist Temple Sites in Korea since 1960,” in: The Buddhist Heritage: Papers delivered at the Symposium of the same name convened at the School of Oriental and African Studies University of London, November 1985. Edited by Tadeusz Skorupski (Tring: The Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1989), pp. 157-178; the author wrote, “The ruined temple site in Ch’ŏng’an-ni, known as the Kŭm-gang-sa site, located south-east of P’yŏngyang in the former territory of the Koguryŏ kingdom, was excavated in 19381939 by Japanese archaeologists (Kim Chong-ki, “Bukkyō kenchiku”, in Yoshikawa Kōbunkan ed. Shiragi ro Nihon kodai bunka (Tokyo, 1981, 108ff). This temple is important in determining the characteristic features of the Koguryŏ monastic plan and its impact on Japanese temple layout. The Koguryŏ temple in Ch’ong’am-ni, probably built in the fifth to sixth century, shows an octagonal pagod in the centre surrounded by three main halls in the east, north and west sides, connected by corridors to the central pagoda, with the entrance gate to the south. In this early temple layout, it is discernible that emphasis was given to the pagoda as a central sacred building, still retaining the archaic Indian conception of the stūpa as the centre of religious life. However, it has also been suggested that such a plan might be based on the ancient Chinese astrological notion of the Five Stars diagram of the Heavenly Offices of the Han Dynasty which is described in the “Tianguanshu” chapter of the Shi Ji.” (pp. 171-172) In Sri Lanka, from archaeological evidence unearthed in Mahāvihāra, we know stupas also play the most significant roles in the monastic compound; see R. A. L. H. Gunawardana, Robe and Plough: Monasticism and Economic Interest in Early Medieval Sri Lanka (The Association for Asian Studies, Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press, 1979), p. 15. 264 112 At last, but not less significant, the Buddha in the form of his relics became the symbolic object that connected most Chinese monasteries. Unlike Catholic Christianity in the Middle Ages, which had a supreme Church and the Pope leading and governing all churches, in medieval China, there was no supreme church and leader governing all monastic communities. Chinese Buddhist society appeared as a network of monasteries connected together by possession and veneration of relics from the same historical Buddha. Thus, the historical Buddha remained an indispensable presence in the Chinese Buddhist monastic network. 113 Chapter III: Ordination Platform and Ordination Ritual The rise of the ordination platform is based on the precepts. Precepts are the foundation of the practice of all sages and the live root of the three learnings. Because of august awakening giving rise to compassion, common doubts come to an end through it.265 原夫戒壇之興,所以立於戒也。戒為眾聖 之行本,又是三法之命根。皇覺由此以興 慈,凡惑假斯而致滅。 -- Daoxuan Introduction In purely functional terms, ritual promotes social unity and cultural coherence. In the context of medieval China, the Buddhist ordination ritual not only enhanced the solidarity of all members of a monastic order, but also promoted a closer relationship between monks and lay Buddhists. By reiterating the basic values of Buddhism, the ordination ritual also strengthened the cultural coherence of the Buddhist community. For example, in analyzing Theravada Buddhism, Ilana Friedrich Silber notes, The most important principle of continuity in the monastic order was the lineage of ordination – upasampada – which required the presence of five fully ordained monks to ordain another one. As such the lineage of ordination constituted the minimal requisite, and necessary warrant, of the Sangha’s continuity and purity.266 In this view, by recruiting new members through ordination, the monastic order maintains its continuity and purity. However, as I will demonstrate below, Daoxuan redesigned the Guangzhong chuangli jietan tujing (The Illustrated Text with Preface on the Establishment of the Ordination Platform within Pass), Daoxuan (596-667), T. no. 1892, 45: 807a-819a. Ilana Friedrich Silber, Virtuosity, Charisma, and Social Order: A Comparative Sociological Study of Monasticism in Theravada Buddhism and Medieval Catholicism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 81. 266 265 114 ordination platform (Ch. Jietan, Jpn. Kaiden 戒 壇 ) 267 and rewrote the ordination ceremony, taking into account new interpretations of Mahāyāna ideas and introducing new scriptures. Thus, he was able to not only maintain a preexisting solidarity, but also produce new cultural forms. The ordination platform was one of the essential elements of Daoxuan’s solution to the crisis of the monastic order. As I have discussed in the previous chapters, all of Daoxuan’s works aimed to construct a standard monastic order that would create a strong monastic identity and refine the entire institution. In this chapter I argue that ordination, as the initiatory ritual into monastic culture, was indispensable to the stability of monastic order and the renewal of monastic culture.268 It initiated new members into a Buddhist value system. Moreover, it is my opinion that Daoxuan’s standardization of the ordination platform was central to his concept of hierarchy required in a successful Sangha. I will argue that Daoxuan clarified the distinction between secular society and In Genshi bukkyō no kenkyū (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1964), p. 373, Hirakawa Akira reconstructs the Sanskrit name of the ordination platform as Upasampadā-śīmā-mandala, from Samantapāsādikā (Ch. Shanjianlü biposha), meaning “the place of boundaries for full ordination” (Skt. upasampadā, Ch. juzujie 具足戒) (Hirakawa, 2000, p. 97). The Sanskrit word sīmā means “boundary” (Ch. jie 界). Hirakawa points out that the name of ordination platform jietan in Chinese is from Mahisāsaka-Vinaya; in CarturgikaVinaya, it is called jiechang (戒場 “the place of ordination”); yet in Daśabhānavāra-Vinaya, it is called as jiechang (界場 “the place of boundaries”); but in Mahāsangha-Vinaya, both words jiechang 戒場 and jiechang 界場 were used. Cf., Hirakawa, Genshi bukkyō no kyotan soshiki (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 2000), p. 94. His statement and reconstruction of the ordination platform in Sanskrit should be wrong. There should not be any ordination platform in Indian Buddhism. Étienne Lamotte has a short description about ordination in his monumental monograph on Indian Buddhism without mentioning anything about ordination platform, see History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Śaka Era (Historie du bouddhisme indien), translated from the French by Sara Webb-Boin under the supervision of Jean Dantinne (Louvain: Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, Louvain-La-Neuve, 1988), pp. 55-57. Sukumar Dutt, Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of India: Their History and Their Contribution to Indian Culture, (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. 1962, reprinted in Delhi: Motial Banarsidass, 2000), p. 135 mentions that there might be an ordination hall remaining in the Amarāvatī. But Dutt did not mention any archaeological findings related to ordination platform; see pp. 138-161; 211-223. Sato Mitsuo makes a textual analysis on the subject of ordination ritual. See his “The Ceremony of the Ordination and Its Understanding in Chinese Texts of Vinaya,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 22 (1963), pp. 1-8. 268 267 115 Buddhist society, the distinction between Buddhist senior and junior monks, and the reciprocity between these components. Finally, I will show below that Daoxuan also successfully solved the problems raised by other masters about the Vinaya tradition by using contemporary Mahāyāna ideas in his interpretation of Buddhist ordination. This chapter focuses on Daoxuan’s monumental work entitled Illustrated Scripture with Preface on the Establishment of an Ordination Platform within the Pass (Ch. Guanzhong chuanglu jietan tujing 關中創立戒壇圖經 , hereafter abbreviated as Illustrated Scripture on Ordination Platform). Daoxuan wrote this text shortly before his death. It is the first document about ordination ritual composed by a native Chinese monk. It served as the foundation for later attempts to establish ordination platforms and to develop the monastic order. Daoxuan’s piece on the ordination platform also had an impact on Japanese Buddhism along with Daoxuan's other legacies after the Four-part Vinaya tradition was introduced into Japan by Chinese monk Jianzhen (鑒真 Jap. Ganjin, 688-763) in 654. 269 By titling his work a “Scripture” or “Sutra,” Daoxuan may have intended that his book be a codification of this important practice. Current scholarship on Buddhism has made limited progress studying the ordination platform.270 English language scholarship has rarely touched on the issue of ordination ritual in medieval China. Japanese scholars have discussed the ordination According to Daoxuan, even in his time, the Four-part Vinaya was the dominant Vinaya text in the Tang period; see the commentary written by Daoxuan on the section of the biographies of Vinaya masters in Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 620a. John McRae, “Chinese Religions -- The State of the Field: Buddhism,” Journal of Asian Studies 54: 2 (1995), pp. 354-371. He states that there has not been much progress in the field of Buddhist Vinaya studies. 270 269 116 platform, but only in a sectarian context.271 Most of them describe the origin and the form of the ordination platform based on traditional Buddhist sources in Buddhist history, especially the Biographies of the Eminent Monks. Given that current scholarship has largely neglected Daoxuan’s text, Illustrated Scripture on Ordination Platform, I will examine the book in the context of Daoxuan’s discourse on the Buddhist monastic order. Moreover, this text appeared with several other texts written by Daoxuan just before his death. As one of the final statements made by Daoxuan on his theory of Buddhist monasticism, it might illuminate his thinking as a whole. I will use it to examine other texts written by Daoxuan, such as his commentary on the Four-part Vinaya (Sifenlü), and his other commentaries on Vinaya texts. Japanese Buddhist scholarship has focused exclusively on Bodhisattva ordination in medieval China, rather than on the conventional ordination ritual conducted by monks within the Sangha. Traditional Japanese Buddhology argues that Bodhisattva ordination flourished in East Asia, especially in Japan, as one of the features of Mahāyāna Buddhism. 272 However, I believe that Bodhisattva ordination did not have a very For example, Sato Tatsugen briefly outlines the origin of the ordination platform, see Sato, Chūgoku bukkyō ni okeru kairitsu no kenkyū (Tokyo: Mokujisha, 1986); Ōcho Enichi tries to trace the form of the ordination platform back to the traditional Chinese altar, see, his article “Kaidan ni tsuite,” Shina bukkyō shigaku (1946); Tsuchihashi Shūkō also mentions the ordination platform, but he does not explain it further from the basic viewpoint of Japanese Buddhology; see Kairitsu no kenkyū 2 vols. (Kyoto: Nagata bunshodo, 1980-1982). The most recent work on Daoxuan’s ordination platform has been done by Fujiyoshi Masumi, see his Dōsen den no kenkyū (Kyoto: Kyōtō daigaku shuppankai, 2002), pp. 376-387; but he only summarizes the main idea of Daoxuan’s piece. For example, Okimoto Katsumi, “Daijōkai,” in Daijō bukkyō towa nannika, ed. by Akira Hirakawa, Kajiyama Yuichi and Takasaki Jikidō (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1981), pp. 184-221; Tsuchihashi Shūkō, Kairitsu no kenkyu 2 vols. (Kyoto: Nagata Bunshodō, 1980-82); Mori Shoji, “Busatsukai to daijō bukkyo kodan,” Kanaoka Shūyū hakasei kanreki kinen ronbunshū: Daijō bosatsu no seikai (1987), pp. 2546; Takeda Choten, “Chūgoku bukkyō to bosatsu kai,” Chūgoku no shūkyō shisō to kagaku: Makio Ryōkai hakushi shōju kinen ronshū (Tokyo: Kokusho konkōkai, 1984), pp. 273-290; Michihata Ryoshu, “Daijō bodatsukai tozaike bukkyō – zaike bosatsu to shuke bosatsu,” Hokugi bukkyō no kenkyū (1970), pp. 315-336; Sato Tatsugen, “Chūgoku ni okeru daijōkai no tankai -- Sanjujōkai ni tsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 36 (1970), p. 769; Tsuchihasi Shuko, “Kairitsu no zaizokusei – Chūgoku no bosatsu 272 271 117 significant impact on Buddhist monastic order. As a ritual for lay people Bodhisattva ordination does not function within the Sangha. Rather, it functions by establishing a strong relationship between the Buddhist monastic group and lay society. Mahāyāna Buddhism also influenced the monastic order and the monk-oriented. 273 Although Bodhisattva ordination was very popular in the Southern and Northern dynasties and many rulers received this ordination, it was of less importance to the monastic order itself. I would rather stress the significance of Daoxuan’s Mahāyāna interpretation of the ordination ritual in shaping a new monastic order in medieval China. Japanese Buddhologists have developed a systematic theory concerning Bodhisattva ordination, based on the study of The Sutra of Brahmā’s Net (Fanwang jing). The principle statements of this theory can be summarized as follows. At first, this approach claims that The Sutra of Brahmā’s Net, as a Chinese Buddhist apocryphal text affiliated with Mahāyāna Buddhism, was the origin of Bodhisattva ordination. This scripture has been recorded in the Mahāyāna Vinaya (Dasheng lü 大 乘 律 ) in the Buddhist canons through the ages. Thus, textually, the type of ordination that this scripture promoted was a typical Mahāyāna ordination. Moreover, since this scripture was a Chinese apocryphal text, the popularity of The Sutra of Brahmā’s Net indicates that the Chinese people had accepted the Buddhist practice of Bodhisattva ordination. For kaihon yori,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 46 (1975), pp. 31-36; Hirakawa Akira, “Chigi inokeru shōmonkai to bosatsu kai,” Tendai daishi senyohyaku nen goonki kenen: Tendai daishi kenkyū (1997), pp. 1-26. Gregory Schopen suggests that “from its first appearance in inscriptions, the Mahāyāna was a monk-dominated movement; and that it continued to be so until the thirteenth century, the date of our last known Mahāyāna inscription.” See his article “Two Problems in the History of Indian Buddhism: The Layman/Monk Distinction and the Doctrines of the Transference of Merit,” in: Bones, Stones and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997), p. 32. Also see his article, “Mahāyāna in Indian Inscriptions,” Indo-Iranian Journal 21 (1979), pp. 1-19. 273 118 example, many literati such as Shen Yue converted to Buddhism by receiving Bodhisattva ordination, and many rulers in medieval China including the Sui Emperors Wen and Yang also received Bodhisattva ordination. From this perspective, acceptance by the ruling class of the Bodhisattva ordination highlights the importance of Bodhisattva ordination in East Asian Mahāyāna Buddhism, and how the Bodhisattva ordination seems to have taken root in medieval Chinese society. This conclusion, however, focuses on the Bodhisattva practice of lay followers and ignores the fact that in China, the Buddhist Sangha was also organized with Mahāyāna principles; Chinese monks and nuns also were ordained with Mahāyāna precepts. Since early Tang period, more and more monks and nuns were ordained on the Mahāyāna ordination platform that Daoxuan designed. Contemporary scholarship in the past five decades has made great progress on the ritual of Buddhist ordination, but most of the works in Western languages focuses on the ritual of ordination in South and Southeast Asian countries. 274 Japanese scholarship Étienne Lamotte has a short introduction to ordination ritual in Indian Buddhism: “The ordination (Upasampadā) is fixed down to the smallest detail by the ritual of the Karmavācanās, and is conferred by a chapter of a minimum of ten monks (daśavarga). The applicant, equipped with an alms-bowl and three robes, requests ordination three times. The celebrant makes sure he is free from any impediments and enquires details of his name, age and upādhyāya. Then follows the ordination proper: it is a jñapticaturthakarma, an ecclesiastic act in which the motion is fourfold. It in fact consists of a motion (jñapti) followed by three propositions (karmavācanā) concerning the admission of the motion by the chapter;” see his History of Indian Buddhism (Louvain, 1988), p. 56. Several Sanskrit fragments of Karmavācanā have been found in Central Asia. A fragment belonging to Sarvāstivāda school has been found in Kucha; see Herbert Härtel, Karmavācanā – Formulare für den Gebrauch im buddhistischen Gemeindeleben aus ostturkistanischen Sanskrit-Handschriften (Berlin, 1956); another fragment in a Central Asian language has been found in Tumshuq; see Harold W. Bailey, “The Tumshuq Karmavācanā,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies XIII (1949-1950), pp. 649-670; Ronald E. Emmerick, The Tumshuqese Karmavācanā Text (Adademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz: Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang, Nr. 2, Stuttgart: Steiner-Verlag-WiesbadenGmbH, 1985). On a Sanskrit fragment found in Dunhuang, see Louis de la Vallée Poussin, “Nouveaux fragments de la collection Stein,” Journal of Royal Asiatic Society (1913), pp. 843-847. On Bhiksunīkarmavācanā, see C. M. Ridding & Louis de la Vallée Poussin, “A Fragment of the Sanskrit Vinaya, Bhiksunīkarmavācanā,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (1919), pp. 123-143; Ernst Waldschimidt, “Zum ersten buddhistischen Konzil in Rājagrha, Sanskrit-Bruchstücke aus kanonischen Bericht der Sarvāstivādins,” Asiatica, Festschrift Friedrich Weller, (Leipzig, 1954), pp. 817828; Hirakawa Akira, Ritsuzō no kenkyū (Tokyo: Sankibo busshorin, 1970), pp. 58-113. For the ordination 274 119 focuses on the ritual of ordination in Japanese Buddhism, referring occasionally to medieval Chinese precedents. 275 Ordination ritual has also been examined from sociological and anthropological perspectives. Paul Lévy developed a theory of initiatory ritual to explore the ritual of Buddhist ordination. 276 Lévy’s study focuses on the Therāvadīn ordination ritual in Southeast Asia. He traces many teachings and practices back to primitive Buddhism, based on European scholarship of his time. He attempts to link the structure of the ordination ceremony to the life of Buddha, first by investigating the ordination ceremony in Southeast Asia, and then by discussing the Mahāyāna ordination ritual in the Himalayas, China, and Mongolia. He emphasizes ecclesiastical hierarchy in the process of ordination ritual. He does not discuss the details of the performance of ordination, a task which I will attempt in this chapter. Lévy analyzes the myth of the First Council in early Buddhist history and argues that Ananda was the prototype of the ordination. In his analysis, as Buddhist saints, Gavāmpati became the representative of Buddhist asceticism, and Kāśyapa played an important role in the ordination ceremony. These roles, which frequently appear in Buddhist ritual literature, ritual in Sri Lanka, see Richard F. Gombrich, “Temporary Ordination in Sri Lanka,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 7: 2 (1984), pp. 41-65; and H. L. Seneviratne, “L’ ordination bouddhique à Ceylon,” Social Compass 20 (1973), pp. 251-256. For ordination in contemporary Thailand, see Jane Bunnag, Buddhist Monk, Buddhist Layman: A Study of Urban Monastic Organization in Central Thailand (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp. 39-42 especially pp. 41-42, the author summarizes that “the ordination ceremony in Thailand can be said to act as a selective mechanism in so far as it requires the consent of a number of laymen and of members of the Sangha” and requirements do not “demand a high level of intellectual ability or previous educational attainment.” Ann Heirman, “Some Remarks on the Rise of the Bhiksunisamgha and on the Ordination Ceremony for Bhiksunis according to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 20: 2 (1997), pp. 33-85. Tsuchihashi Shūkō, Sato Tatsugen, Akira Hirakawa, and Ishida Mizumaro, Bommō kyō, Butten kōza, vol. 14 (Tokyo: Daizō shuppansha, 1971); Ōchi Enichi, “Kaiden ni tsuite,” Shina bukkyo shigaku 5: 1 (June 1941), pp. 15-41; Murata Jiro, “Kaidan shōko,” Bukkyō geijutsu 50 (December 1961), pp. 1-16. Paul Lévy, Buddhism and “Mystery Religions.” (London: The Athlone Press, University of London, 1957). The author cites Mauss and other anthropologists. 276 275 120 will be discussed in the context of the Chinese Buddhist ordination ritual in this chapter. Lévy argues, “entering a Buddhist monastic order is not only a liberation for the monk, but also for the promoter of the ordination, whether it be parent, master, or spiritual guide of the candidate.”277 Lévy also realizes that one of the features of primitive religious initiation involved a specific age requirement, which meant that “major ordination was only accorded to young men who had definitely attained puberty.”278 Lévy pays attention to the fact that the ordination ritual gave importance to dress and to the “prophylactic value of clothes.” Lévy concludes that the Buddhist mythologico-ritual complex centered on ordination reflects a system of gift and exchange. These are all fruitful insights. I will build on them below and ask which of them are applicable to Chinese Buddhism. Hybridizing the Ordination Tradition: From South China to Central Asia Why was Daoxuan concerned with the ordination platform? Daoxuan believed that Buddhism had declined in North China because, unlike in South China, there were no ordination platforms. In Record of Miraculous Responses of Vinaya Master Daoxuan, he writes: In South China, from Yu prefecture to the south of the Yangtze and Huai rivers, there are more than three hundred ordination platforms. In the eastern region of the Xiao Mountains, the northern region of the Yellow River, within the Pass, and the region south of the Jianmen Gate, there are not as many ordination platforms. It is because of the ordination platforms that the Buddhist Dharma in the south of the Yangtze River has not decayed in the past four to five hundred years. Ordination is the beginning of Dharma. The basis is established and cannot be destroyed. Thus, on both banks of the Yellow River, the people had never heard of ordination platforms, so there Buddhism suffered persecution three times. Furthermore, to the south of the Yangtze and Han rivers, the land is such that once people see it, they forget to return home. Because people are moved by these external sources, they have passion, wisdom, bravery, and fierce bodies and 277 278 Ibid., p. 99. Ibid., p. 101. 121 minds. Thus they can fully comprehend Buddhism and rely completely on it without any doubt or hesitation, and they cannot forget it or reject it.279 江左渝州已下﹐迄于江淮之南﹐通計戒壇總有三百餘所。山東河北關內劍南 戒壇事不絕﹐故使江表佛法經今四五百年曾不退廢﹐由戒壇也。戒為佛法之 初源﹐本立而不可傾也。自此河之左右曾不聞名﹐由此佛法三被誅殄。又﹐ 江漢之南﹐山川秀麗綺錯﹐見便忘返者﹐土地之然也。人依外報﹐故使情智 聰敏﹐形心勇銳﹐遂能詳度佛教﹐深有可依﹐無所疑慮﹐不可忘廢也。 Daoxuan claims that ordination platforms helped sustain the Buddhist Dharma in the South. He believed that that the persecution of Buddhism was due to a lack of ordination platforms. Daoxuan did not have a chance to visit the South but he claimed that there were many ordination platforms there and that these platforms prevented Buddhism from being persecuted as it had been in the North. This reasoning indicates that Daoxuan thought seriously about the internal problems of the Buddhist monastic order, rather than laying blame on external and non-Buddhist sources. In other words, Daoxuan attempted to find a way from within the monastic order to stabilize the monastic order, and he did so by emphasizing the establishment of the ordination platform. For Daoxuan, the ordination platform contributed to the flourishing of the Buddhist Dharma in South China for four or five hundred years. Daoxuan recorded a story about the prominent master Gunnavarman (求那跋摩 ), 280 who was from Kapiśi (modern Afghanistan). Gunnavarman arrived in Yangzhou in the seventh year of Yuanjia period (430) and translated many sūtras and vinayas under the support of Emperor Wen. He decided to stay for the rest of his life after he made a trip to the Nanlin Monastery 279 280 Lüxiang gantong zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 1898, 45: 881b. Kapiśi is referred to “Jibin” in Chinese historical sources. See Enomoto Fumio, “A Note on Kashmir as referred to in Chinese Literature: Ji-bin,” A Study of the Nīlamata. Aspects of Hinduism in Ancient Kashmir, ed. Ikari Yasuke (Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 1994), pp. 357-365; Kuwayama Shoshin, “Historical Notes on Kapiśi and Kabul in the Sixth-Eighth Centuries,” Zinbun 34: 1 (1999), pp. 25-77, especially pp. 41-45. 122 (Nanlin si 南林寺 ) and found the environment supportive. 281 A miracle story about Gunnavarman in Daoxuan’s writing suggests that only a monk who had achieved enlightenment could authorize an ordination platform in China. Daoxuan’s Illustrated Scripture of the Ordination Platform patently links Gunnavarman’s achieving enlightenment to his authentic, full ordination. Gunnavarman once constructed an ordination platform in front of the garden within a monastery, and there he ordained many monks. The local people doubted his abilities as a monk because they saw no evidence of enlightenment, so they devised a test for him. They followed the practice described in the Scripture of Inviting Pindola. 282 They furtively set flowers under the seats of monks and they invited the monks to sit down. Later they found that only the flowers under Gunnavarman’s seat remained fresh.283 This event convinced them that Gunnavarman had definitely achieved enlightenment. In Daoxuan’s eyes, receiving ordination on the proper platform was tantamount to achieving enlightenment. Buddhist tradition from Kapiśi had a tremendous influence on Chinese Buddhism, both in Vinaya scholarship as well as on the shape of the monastic order. As a preeminent Vinaya master, Daoxuan benefited from the Buddhist tradition from Kapiśi. In addition to the burial rites for Buddhist monks, other burial rites were also brought to China by masters from Kapiśi. In the eyes of Chinese authors, burial rites were connected to the acceptance of full ordination. According to Chinese sources, in Kapiśi the eminent monks About the platform erected by Gunnavarman, see Ōchō Enichi, “Kaidan ni tsuite,” Shina bukkyō shigaku 5: 1 (1941), pp. 15-41. For a new study on the relationship between the Chan school and this master, see Ishii Kosei, “Zenshū no senku -- Gunabatsuma sanzō no denki to yuike,” Zengaku kenkyū no shosō: Tanaka Ryōshō hakase koki kinen ronshū (Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 2003), pp. 63-84. 282 283 281 Qing Bingtoulu fa, trans. Huijian, T. no. 1689, 32: 784b-c. Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing, Daoxuan, T. no. 1892, 45: 812c. 123 who had received full ordination could be buried in a special place, while the common monks who did not achieve enlightenment would be buried in an ordinary place. There is story about this in Sengyou’s Collection of Records concerning the Translation of Three Collections (Chu sanzang jiji 出三藏記集): [The monk] Zhiyan received the five precepts before he left home at twenty, and later he went to the Western Regions to study Buddhism. He arrived in Kapiśi to meet the famous master Buddhabhadra. They came to central China together. When he joined the Buddhist Sangha, he received full ordination, yet for many years he worried that he did not truly receive full ordination. He had to visit India again to seek the answer from some preeminent masters there. In India, he met an Arhat who could not decide the question. The Arhat meditated to ask Maitreya in Tusita heaven, and he received the confirmation for Zhiyan. Zhiyan felt very pleased with this information. He passed away in Kapiśi on the journey back to China at the age of seventy-eight. As a custom in Kapiśi, only the monks who achieved enlightenment could be buried in a special place, which was different from the regular place for unenlightened monks. The local people in Kapiśi did not know whether Zhiyan had achieved enlightenment, and they decided to bury him as an ordinary monk. But they could not lift up Zhiyan’s body even though there were many of them. So they switched and buried his body in the place for enlightened monks. This time they felt that his body was very light and they could walk very quickly. He was successfully buried in the end.284 其未出家時﹐常受五戒﹐有所虧犯。後入道受具足﹐常疑不得戒﹐每以為懼。 積年禪觀﹐而不能自了。遂更汎海重到天竺﹐諮諸明達。值羅漢比丘﹐具以事 問羅漢。羅漢不敢判決﹐乃為嚴入定﹐往兜率宮諮彌勒。彌勒答稱得戒。嚴大 喜躍。於是步歸行至罽賓﹐無疾而卒﹐時年七十八。外國之法﹐得道僧無常與 凡僧別葬一處。嚴雖苦行絕倫﹐而時眾未判其得道信不﹐欲葬凡僧之墓﹐抗舉 嚴喪﹐永不肯起﹐又益人眾﹐不動如初。眾咸驚怪﹐試改向得道墓所﹐於是四 人輿之﹐行駃如風﹐遂得窆葬。 Kapiśi appears twice in this story: the first time is when Zhiyan meets Buddhabhadra there, and the other is when Zhiyan dies and is buried there. This story clearly illustrates Chu sanzang jiji, Sengyou, T. no. 2145, 55: 112c-113a. For a modern edition, see Sengyou, Chu sanzang jiji (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995), pp. 576-578, especially 577. This story is rarely mentioned in contemporary scholarship. Li Yumin notes this story in his article “Dunhuang Mogaoku erwujiu ku zhi yanjiu,” Guoli Taiwan daxue meishushi yanjiu jikan 2 (1995), pp. 1-26. Current scholarship rarely touches the issue of ancient Indian burial ritual. For some discussion on this issue, see Sasaki Shizuka, “Indo bukkyō ni okeru girei to shūzoku,” Bukkyō no rekishi teki chii teki tankai: Bukkyōshi gakkai goju shūnen kinen ronshū (2003), pp. 163-182; and Oda Yoshihisa,”Saiiki ni okeru soso yōshiki ni tsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 22 (1963), pp. 182-183. 284 124 that in Kapiśi, the monks who were believed to be enlightened, who in theory had received full ordination, were to be buried separately. Thus, legitimate, full ordination was typically linked to enlightenment. Since he was intimately familiar with the scholarship of Sengyou ( 僧祐 445-518), Daoxuan must have known this tradition of burying deceased monks. He had read Sengyou’s Collection of Records Concerning Translation of Three Collections, and he mentioned Zhiyan’s story in his account of sixteen pilgrims who traveled to India (called Gazetteer of the Śakya Clan).285 Daoxuan’s effort to stabilize the Chinese Buddhist monastic order was rooted in Southern Buddhist tradition and centered on the establishment of the ordination platform. Since the fourth century, Chinese southern Buddhist tradition had largely followed the massive influence of the Ten-section Vinaya.286 Monks from Kapiśi brought this Vinaya tradition to South China. Though Daoxuan was mainly trained in the Four-part Vinaya tradition, he still attempted to incorporate Ten-section Vinaya into his new theory of the ordination platform in order to make it accessible to a wider audience. Like most domestic monks in China, Daoxuan did not have a chance to make a pilgrimage to Central Asia and India. This made it difficult for him to find solid justification for his views on the ordination platform. He faced criticism from some pilgrims who had witnessed Buddhist architecture in Central Asia and India. Daoxuan solved the problem by basing himself on the Western tradition from Kāpiśi, trying to Shijia fangzhi, Daoxuan, T. no. 2088, 51: 969b. See Fan Xiangyong ed., Shijia fangzhi (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2000), pp. 97-98. Moreover, Daoxuan followed the model of Sengyou, who was a preeminent Vinaya master in Ten-section Vinaya, to establish his reputation in Buddhist scholarship and Vinaya learning; see “Daoxuan,” Song gaoseng zhuan, Zanning (919-1001), T. no. 2061, 50: 790c. It was believed to belong to the Sarvāstivada School (Ch. Shuo yiqieyou bu), one of the traditional Hinayana Schools; see Charles Willemen, Bart Dessein and Collett Cox, Sarvāstivāda Buddhist Scholasticism (Handbuch der Orientalistik: Indien. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998), especially pp. 16-35. 286 285 125 avoid confrontation with other pilgrims like Xuanzang and Yijing. He may also have done this because he thought that the Sarvāstivāda tradition from Kāpiśi was successful in South China, and that certain features of the tradition could be valuable to the whole sangha if he integrated these features into his design of the ordination platform. Memory and Imagination: The Origin of the Ordination of Platform Daoxuan tells a legend about the origin of the ordination platform in early Buddhism.287 The legend is important because it is one of the techniques Daoxuan uses to create what was, in effect, a new tradition. Drawing inspiration from early Buddhist sources, Daoxuan’s story takes place at the time of the Buddha in the Jetevana Garden supported by Anathapindada. At the very beginning, three ordination platforms were established. The first, established by the Great Brahmā King (Skt. mahābrahmādeva, Ch. da Fantian wang 大梵天王), was “the platform for the ordination of bhiksus defined by the Buddha (fo wei biqiu jiejie tan 佛為比丘結戒壇 )” in the eastern corner of the courtyard where Buddha stayed. The second, established by the Demon King Mārapapiyas (Mowang Boxun 魔 王 波 旬 ), was “the platform for the ordination of bhiksunis by the Buddha (biqiuni jiejie tan 比丘尼戒壇) ” in the western corner of the courtyard.288 There is no clue about who built the third platform, “the platform for the ordination of monks by the sangha (seng wei biqiu shoujie tan 僧為比丘授戒壇).” The first two platforms were established by the gods, not by the Buddha or by his disciples and laymen. Daoxuan next explains how a number of Buddhas ascended the platforms, In the first section of Daoxuan’s Illustrated Scripture on the Ordination Platform named “The Original Creation and the Rise of the Teaching of the Ordination Platform” (“jietan yuanjie jiaoxing”); see T. no. 1892, 45: 807c. 288 287 Guanzhong jietan tujing bing xu, Daoxuan, T. no. 1892, 45: 807c. 126 and, through discussion, they established the basic rules governing the violation of the prohibitions, the conduct of the ordinations, and so on. The legend Daoxuan tells here illustrates how medieval Chinese Buddhists returned to an early Buddhist myth when they speculated on the construction of the Buddhist ordination platform. Many scholars have argued that in traditional society, many rituals repeat an act performed at the beginning of time by a god, a hero, or an ancestor.289 In our case, Daoxuan explains that divine kings constructed the first platform at the founding of the Buddhist community in Buddha’s time. Daoxuan repeats the tale, thus using the founding myth to frame his own generation’s practice. In this way, the myth is repeated and reinterpreted by each generation as it instructs the next generation. In Daoxuan’s imagination of early Buddhist history, only Buddhas could ascend the platforms. Daoxuan’s account distinguishes between the events happening on the platforms and the events happening on the ground. The Buddhas’ discussion of the proper procedure for ordination, which takes place on the elevated platform, serves as a model for the assembly on the ground. In Daoxuan’s eyes, every detail of the design of the ordination platform was a telling reflection of fundamental Buddhist truths. He uses the technical term, “appearance” (Skt. lakśana; Ch. xiang 相 ), 290 to stress how the construction of the ordination platform conveyed the everlasting Dharma. The power of the platform to symbolize the Dharma was based on the fact that it was Buddhas, not humans, who Mircea Eliade, The Myth of The Eternal Return, or Cosmos and History, translated from the French by Willard R. Trask (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), p. 22. This word also refers to nimitta in Sanskrit, which means a distinctive mark, sign or designation. In Buddhism, xiang and xing 性 refer to form and nature, in other words, phenomenon and noumenon. 290 289 127 established the platform. Daoxuan implied that monks were able to grasp the Dharma fully only by receiving ordination on a proper platform. What were some of the important symbolic features of Daoxuan’s ideal ordination platform? Daoxuan’s Illustrated Scripture on the Ordination Platform clearly describes the shape and decoration of the ordination platform. First of all, Daoxuan makes a distinction between the design of the ordination platform and that of traditional Chinese altars for sacrificing to mountains, heavens, and ancestors. In my reading, the difference is that the former has two sets of stairways, the latter only one.291 As noted above, there were a pair of stairways on the southern side and one pair of stairways on the western side of the square platform, according to Daoxuan’s commentary on the Four-part Vinaya. Although no archaeological evidence about the ordination platform survives from Daoxuan’s time, the ordination platforms existing in Japan, believed to have been constructed on the basis of Daoxuan’s Vinaya tradition, might help us. The extant ordination platform in Todaiji 東大寺 in Japan provides us with some sense of the original shape of the old ordination platform. Although the current ordination platform in Todaiji was reconstructed in the thirteenth century, its history, as I show below, can be traced back to the eighth century, when Ganjin for the first time built an ordination platform in 754. This platform had a pair of stairways connecting each level on its southern, western, and eastern sides, and only one central stairway connecting each level on the north.292 Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing, Daoxuan, T. no. 1892, 45: 808b. So far, there are no any archaeological reports about ordination platform in Indian or Central Asia. I assume that the problem is not whether there are any remaining sites of ordination platform; rather the problem is how to identify the architecture of ordination platform among the many ruins archaeologists found. 291 128 Figure 1: Tōdaiji Ordination Platform Figure 2: Tōshodaiji Ordination Platform The illustration of the Golden Hall of Kaidan’in appears in Kinji Nihon Tetsudo ed. Tōdaiji (Osaka, 1963), p. 85. 292 129 Ishida Mizumaru suggests that this platform was constructed under the guidance of Daoxuan’s Illustrated Scripture on the Ordination Platform, according to which the platform would have three levels and stūpa-style relic container in the middle.293 Ganjin’s biography confirms that he brought Daoxuan’s Illustrated Scripture on the Ordination Platform back to Japan on his sixth trip. 294 The history of the construction of the ordination platform in Todaiji can be traced in Japanese sources. In the Record of the Ordination Platform of Tōshōdaiji (founded in 759 by Ganjin), it is said that, [Ganjin] arrived in Nanpa in the second month of the six year of Tianping shengbao period (759). In the fourth month, he arrived in Kyoto, and settled down at Todaiji. Under the edict of the emperor, the monk constructed the ordination platform at Todaiji. The clay for construction was from the clay used in Nalanda Monastery of India and the Ordination Platform in Qingguan County, Chang’an, Tang China.295 In this passage we learn that the construction of this ordination platform in Todaiji followed the model of Daoxuan’s ordination platform in the suburbs of Chang’an. The clay for this Japanese ordination platform was from India, while the design was from Chinese master Daoxuan. This platform constructed by Ganjin was the first ordination platform in the history of Japanese Buddhism. It is a clear example of Daoxuan’s legacy. Daoxuan explained the symbolism of the three-level design of the platform. The vertical levels symbolized the important idea of the three emptinesses. 296 The three 293 294 Ishida Mizumaro, Ganjin: sono kairitsu shisō (Tokyo: Daizō shuppansha, 1973), pp 201-202. Andō Kosei, Ganjin daiwajōden no kenkyū (Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1960); Ganjin Wajō, ed. Nihon rekishi gakkai henshū, (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1967), p. 163. Dainihon bukkyō zenshu 大日本佛教全書, no. 710, 85: 100a-b. For a study on the platform, see Tokuda Myohon, “Toshodaiji kaidan ko,” Nantō bukkyō (1961), pp. 30-45. Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing, Daoxuan, T. no. 1892, 45: 808b. Richard H. Robinson, Early Mādhyamika in India and China (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967); Liu Ming-Wood, Mādhyamaka Thought in China (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994). 296 295 130 emptinesses are emptiness (Skt. śūnyata, Ch. kong 空), non-form (Ch. wuxiang 無相) and non-vow (Skt. apranidhāna, Ch. wuyuan 無願 ). In Buddhism, the basic idea of emptiness is that all constituent elements (dharmas) lack their own innate nature (Skt. svabhāva, Ch. zixing 自性) and will be manifested by a variety of natural and social phenomena. Because all things are interdependent rather than immutable and independent, people should avoid attachment to things. The idea of the three forms of emptiness appears in a famous Mahāyāna text, the Scripture of Vimalakirti (Skt. Vimalakirtinirdeśa 維摩詰經), which was very popular in medieval China.297 Daoxuan discusses the symbolism of each level of the ordination platform, correlating the details of each component to the various doctrinal formulations of Chinese Buddhism. For example, the two-inch high first level symbolized the two truths (Ch. erdi 二諦),298 and the second level of the platform, which was seven feet long and seven feet wide, symbolized the seven means of achieving enlightenment (Skt. saptabodhyangāni, Ch. qijue 七覺). This concept of seven means of achieving enlightenment is attested in standard sources that Daoxuan knew, like the Samyukt-āgama Sūtra.299 The organization of the third level was related to the series (Skt. varga, Ch. pin 品 ) of thirty-seven dharmas.300 This is found in the series of thirty-seven dharmas cited in the famous text A 297 298 Weimojie suoshuo jing, trans. Kumārajīva (344-413), T. no. 475, 14: 551b. It includes the divine truth (Skt. paramārtha-satya, Pāli. paramattha-sacca) and the secular truth (Skt. samvrti-satya, Pāli. sammuti-sacca). 299 Ch. Za ahan jing 雜阿含經, chapter twenty-six. Skt. bodhipākśikadharmā, Ch. sanshiqi pin 三十七品. 300 131 Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom. 301 For the fourth level, according to Daoxuan, on the top of the ordination platform, there was an inverted-bowl reliquary that was originally added by Indra.302 Following Indra, Brahmā added an invaluable pearl to this reliquary. Thus, in Daoxuan’s eyes, the ordination platform had five levels, which corresponded to “the five attributes of the dharmakāya.”303 Why did Daoxuan use this kind of language to analyze the ordination platform? In Daoxuan’s era, Buddhism had been flourishing in China for hundreds of years. Mahāyāna Buddhism had become the mainstream in Chinese Buddhist tradition, but there were also other traditions. In my opinion, Daoxuan aimed at preaching his ideas to all Buddhists, whatever tradition they belonged to. As part of his efforts to restore the Buddhist order, Daoxuan, acting as the head of the sangha, used a common language to organize his ideas. In this way, his choice of terms was a way of bridging his ideas and the world of his audience. He chose his ideas, wherever possible, from texts his audience already accepted as authoritative. More specifically, we need to consider which texts, which sub-traditions in Buddhist thought, and which geographical areas Daoxuan drew upon. The names of deities Daoxuan cites come from the following scriptures: The Treatise of Sudarśana,304 Skt. Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra, Ch. Da zhidu lun 大智度論, attributed to Nāgārjuna. T. 1509, vol. 25. For a French translation, see Étienne Lamotte, Le traité de la grande vertu de sagesse (Louvain 1944). 302 301 Skt. Śakra-Devānāmindra, Ch. Dishitian 帝釋天. Skt. pañca-dharmakāya, the spiritual body of the Tathāgata. See Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing, Daoxuan, T. no. 1892, 45: 808b. 304 303 Skt. Samantapāsādikā, Ch. Shanjian lun 善見論. 132 The Sūtra of Consecration, 305 The Sūtra of the King Peacock’s Miscellaneous Divine Incantations, 306 The Sūtra on the Wise and the Foolish,307 and The Sūtra on the Magic of Upasena.308 Daoxuan also cites many passages from “Miscellaneous Collected Āgama Sutras.” 309 Upasena Sūtra is a selection from the Samyukt-āgama, but it also has a separate short Chinese translation.310 Skt. Mahābhiśekamantra, Ch. Guanding jing 灌頂經. Michel Strickmann suggests that this sūtra was a Chinese apocryphal text, though it occupies a place in Chinese ritual literature. He argues that this sūtra appeared in the context of the development of the thought of Latter Dharma (Ch. mofa); see Michel Strickmann, “The Consecration Sūtra: A Buddhist Book of Spells,” in Robert Buswell, Jr., ed., Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990), pp. 75-118, especially, p. 79, 89. Skt. Mahāmāyūri[vidyārājñī], Ch. Kongque wang za shenzhou jing 孔雀王雜神咒經. Ch. shenzhou, refers to Skt. riddhi-mantra, dhāranī, also translated as “spirit-spell”. Ōmura Seigai takes the use of this spirit-spell into account in his study on Esoteric Buddhism, see Mikkyō hattatsu shi (1918; Tokyo: Kokusho kankōkai, 1972, reprinted), pp. 128-133; and Takubo Shuyo, “Shoki kujiakukyōrui to sono daijōn o tankai,” Buzan kyōgaku taikai kiyō 6 (1978), pp. 1-31. Ch. Xianyu jing 賢愚經. Takahashi Moritaka translated and annotated the Tibetan version in, Hdsaris Blun or the Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish (Osaka: Kansei Daigaku, The Institute of Oriental and Occidental Studies, 1969). Sylvain Lévi, “Le Sutra u sage et du fou dans la litterature de l'Asie centrale,” Journal Asiatique (1925), pp. 304-332. Victor H. Mair has a comprehensive study on Xianyu jing; see his “The Linguistic and Textual Antecedents of The Sutra of the Wise and the Foolish,” Sino-Platonic Papers 38 (1993), pp. 1-95; and “The Khotanese Antecedents of The Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish (Xianyu jing),” in Erik Zürcher et al. eds., Collection of Essays 1993: Buddhism Across BoundariesChinese Buddhism and the Western Regions (1999), pp. 361-420; see also Liang Liling, Xianyu jing yanjiu (Taipei: Dongchu chubanshe, 1997); and Ding Min, Fojiao biyu wenxue yanjiu (Taipei: Dongchu chubanshe, 1996), pp. 166ff. 308 307 306 305 Ch. Youposina zhou jing 優婆斯那咒經. Skt. Samyukt-āgama, Ch. Za ahan jing; see Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing, Daoxuan, T. no. 1892, 45: 808b. The parallel Samyukt-āgama, Samyutta-Nikāya has been translated into English from Pali. See The Samyutta-Nikāya, 6 vols., (The Pali Text Society, London, 1975-1991). A Sanskrit fragment from Central Asia has been identified. See Ernst Waldschmidt, “Ein Fragment des Samyuktagama aus den ‘Turfan-Funden’ (M 476),” in: Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. I. Philol.-hist. Kl. 3 (Göttingen, 1956), pp. 45-53; Gregory Bongard-Levin, Daniel J. Boucher, Takamichi Fukita, and Klaus Wille, “The Ngaropamasūtra: An Apotropaic Text from the Samyuktāgama. A Translation, Reconstruction and Translation of the Central Asian Sanskrit Manuscripts,” in Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texts aus den Turfan-Funden Beiheft 6. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996). Ernst Waldschmidt, “Das Upasena Sutra, ein Zauber gegen Schlangenbiss aus dem Samyuktagama,” in Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. I. Philol.-hist. Kl. 2 310 309 133 It is worth noting that, from a geographical perspective, these texts seem to represent a single Buddhist tradition located in Central Asia. For instance, The Sūtra on the Wise and the Foolish was formulated in Khotan311 by Chinese monks who heard the stories in the remote Western Regions and translated them into Chinese in the Northern Wei Dynasty. The translator of Samyukt-āgama, Gunnabhadra, studied in Kapiśi and he translated Samyukt-āgama in the Zhiyuan Monastery of Jiankang – the capital of the Eastern Jin Dynasty.312 Some of the stories in The Sūtra on the Wise and Foolish also appear in the collection of Vinaya (Vinaya-pitaka). Moreover, the relationship between Śrimitra ( 帛 尸 梨 蜜 多 羅 Ch. Bo shili miduoluo, Western Jin Dynasty, 4th CE), 313 the translator of both The Sutra of Consecration314 and The Sutra of the King Peacock’s Miscellaneous Divine Incantations, and the southern tradition of Chinese Buddhist historiography is also very interesting. Daoxuan’s Catalogue to the Buddhist Canon in the Great Tang (Da Tang neidian lu) ascribes the translation of The Sutra of Consecration to Śrimitra. Daoxuan also says that Śrimitra was very talented with Buddhist magical techniques, which were popular in the (Göttingen, 1957), pp.27-44; Yin Shun, Chunqi dasheng fojiao zhi qiyuan yu zhankai (Taipei: Zhengwen chubanshe, 1994), p.509. On Buddhist history in Khotan, see Ronald E. Emmerick, A Guide of Khotanese Buddhist Literature (Tokyo: Reiyukai, 1995). 312 311 In 435 he arrived in China and worked at translation till 443, and in 468 he died in his seventy- fifth year. Chu sanzang jiji, Sengyou, T. no. 2149, 55: 244b-c; for a modern edition, see Chu sanzang jiji (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995), p. 522. Hayashiya Tomojirō argues that this sūtra was wrongly ascribed to the Kuchean translator Śrimitra; see Iyaku kyōrui no kenkyū (Tokyo: Tōyō bunko, 1945), English summary, p. 3; Michel Strickmann confirms his argument; see “The Consecration Sūtra: A Buddhist Book of Spells,” in Robert Buswell, Jr. ed., Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990), p. 79 and footnote 9. 314 313 134 capital of South China. 315 While Śrimitra engaged in translation, he lived in Jianchu Monastery (Jiankang), which was an important location for Daoxuan three centuries later. Sengyou (445-518) and his friend Liu Xie (465? - 520?) lived there, and Sengyou also wrote a biography of Śrimitra.316 According to a later biographer, Daoxuan modeled his life and scholarship after that of Sengyou.317 Moreover, in his catalogue of the Buddhist canon, Daoxuan explicitly recorded that Sengyou wrote commentaries on three texts, including The Sutra of the Great Assembly,318 The Sutra on the Wise and the Foolish, and The Treatise of Sudarśana (Shanjian lun). 319 All these texts appear in Daoxuan’s Illustrated Scripture on the Ordination Platform. Therefore, Daoxuan’s citation of Śrimitra’s sūtras is important not only in and of itself, but also because it shows that Sengyou’s works had an important influence on Daoxuan’s writing. In sum, these scriptures are either related to Buddhist traditions in Kapiśi, or related to the Four-part Vinaya tradition. These traditions were the most two important sources for Daoxuan’s scholarship. The Vinaya tradition from Kapiśi became a powerful force in Chinese Buddhist circles when its texts were translated into Chinese in the early Chu sanzang jiji, Sengyou, T. no. 2149, 55: 244b-c. According to Daoxuan, Śrimitra translated three scriptures, eleven scrolls in total. It is said that Śrimitra’s translation of The Sutra of Consecration has nine scrolls, rather than the version with twelve scrolls Michel Strickmann deals with, which is from Kaiyuan catalogue apparently. The biography of Śrimitra in the Kaiyuan catalogue is closer to that in the Biographies of Eminent Monks, and much longer than that in Daoxuan’s catalogue; see Kaiyuan shijiao lu, Zhisheng (before 700-after 786), T. no. 2154, 55: 503a-b. Chu sanzang jiji, Sengyou, T. no. 2149, 55: 244b-c; for a modern edition, see Chu sanzang jiji (Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1995), pp. 521-522. “Daoxuan,” in Song Gaoseng zhuan, Zanning (919-1001), see T. no. 2061, 50: 790b; for a modern edition, see Song gaoseng zhuan (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1993), pp. 327. 318 319 317 316 315 Skt. Mahāsamnipāta-sūtra Ch. Daji jing. Chu sanzang jiji, Sengyou, T. no. 2149, 55: 265a-b. Sengyou wrote three works as Daoxuan ascribed: The Record of Three Sūtras including Mahāsamnipāta-Sūtra (Daji deng sanjing ji), The Record of The Sūtra on the Wise and the Foolish (Xianyu jing ji), and The Record of The Treatise of Sudarśana (Shanjianlü piposha ji); see Da Tang neidian lu, Daoxuan, T. no. 2149, 55: 331b. 135 fifth century. The Four-part Vinaya soon became so familiar to most Chinese Buddhists that they could easily accept it as a communal heritage. The early translators of Chinese Buddhist texts invented the tradition, basing it on a variety of textual traditions in Indian and Central Asian Buddhism, and then Daoxuan further refined it through his interpretation into a language that later generations could accept. Therefore, Daoxuan played a crucial and innovative role by creating a new language through which his generation understood the Buddhist tradition. Mahāyāna Interpretation of the Ordination Platform Contrary to some modern scholarship, I think that Daoxuan made a point of emphasizing the Mahāyāna qualities of monastic ordination. In studying Daoxuan’s view of the ordination platform, Japanese Buddhologists overlook its Mahāyāna features.320 However, I would suggest that Daoxuan integrated the ordination ritual as a feature of Mahāyāna Buddhism. I offer a reading of Daoxuan’s Illustrated Scripture on Ordination Platform to show how Daoxuan used contemporary Mahāyāna ideas to make the ordination platform more acceptable to the Chinese monastic community. First of all, I need to specify what Daoxuan understood as “Mahāyāna,” despite the fact that he never addressed the question directly. In India, different scholastic traditions (eg. Sthavira, Dharmagupta, etc.) developed their own individual Vinaya canons prior to the birth of Mahāyāna movements. As Mahāyāna schools did develop, they maintained the older Vinayas. As Frauwallner says, At the time of the rise of Mahāyāna the followers of the new current for a long time had to adhere, from the point of view of the Vinaya, to one of the older Oya Tokujo, “Daijō kaidan no mondai,” Shina bukkyō shigaka 5: 2 (1941), pp. 1-7; Michihata Ryōshū, “Sōdai no daijō kaidan,” Indokagu bukkyōgaku kenkyū 41 (1972), pp. 50-55; and his “Daijō kaidan to bosatsusō,” Tenkyō daishi kenkyū (1980), pp. 1405-1422; Tamura Koyu, “Daijō kaidan dokuritsu ni tsuite,” Kairitsu no sekai (1993), pp. 695-702. 320 136 Hinayāna schools. Thus the Vinaya remained at first untouched by this totally new and revolutionary development.321 In China, however, by the time Daoxuan was born in the late sixth century, most Buddhists held the position that Mahāyāna was superior to Hīnayāna. Many of Daoxuan’s contemporaries believed, consequently, that the Vinaya was unworthy of serious study because all known Vinaya collections were derived from Hīnayāna schools.322 This was a doctrinal problem Daoxuan had to overcome. Daoxuan criticized the attitude of contemporary masters toward the study of Vinaya. He stated that the Vinaya was also the goal of the practitioners of Mahāyāna Buddhism.323 He wrote: Among those Mahāyānists who delight in the Mahāyāna, there are some whose aims are superficial and illusory and whose emotions are devoted solely to attachment. Therefore, they deviate from the net of precepts and they discard ritual and loosen deportment. They regard those who follow discipline as Hīnayānists, and those who damage the pure precepts as Mahāyānists … [People] should know Vinaya is none other than Mahāyāna learning. It is nowadays the complete cultivation for clarifying the beginner’s mind. [People] also should regard discipline and ritual as the repository of the Bodhisattva. Even more so should people comprehend the principle and the teaching, and embody [it] in order to transform [themselves] and achieve knowledge of the spirit.324 Ernst Frauwallner, The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature (Serie Orientale Roma viii, Roma: Is. M. E. O., 1956), p. 5. As the footnote indicates, Frauwallner restates the point of La Vallée Poussin. Cf. L. de la Vallée Poussin, Opinions sur les relations des deux 1céhicules au point de vue du Vinaya (Académie Royale de Belgique, Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences morales et politiques, eme série, 16.1-2 (1930): 20-39. Jonathan Silk has recently discussed the debate in current Western-language scholarship on Mahāyāna Buddhism, but he does not use Chinese sources. See Silk, “What, If Anything, is Mahāyāna Buddhism? Problems of Definitions and Classifications,” Numen 49 (2002), pp. 355-405; see also Richard S. Cohen, “Discontented Categories: Hinayana and Mahayana in Indian History,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 63: 1 (1995), pp. 1-25. 323 324 322 321 Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, vol. 50: 620a. Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, vol. 50: 621b-c. Daoxuan advocates the same idea in his commentary on Dharmaguptavinaya, see T. no. 1428, vol. 40: 49c. Daoxuan says that three poisons (desire, hatred, and ignorance) should be seized by precepts first, and then be wrapped by meditation, and then be killed by wisdom. There is no distinction between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna in terms of the aim for enlightenment. 137 想當迷責樂大乘者﹐志尚浮虛﹐情專貪附﹐故有排委戒網﹐捐縱威儀﹐見奉 律者輕為小乘﹐毀淨戒者重為大道。。。猶知毘尼即大乘學也﹐時所明初心 之具修也﹐尚識律儀即菩薩藏﹐何況諳達理教體化知神。 For Daoxuan, studying and practicing the Vinaya were the foundation for Mahāyāna Buddhism, the path of the Bodhisattva. As I will show below, by invoking several key Mahāyāna texts in The Illustrated Scripture on the Ordination Platform, Daoxuan attempted to advocate important Mahāyāna doctrines, a point not lost on later generations of medieval Buddhist scholars.325 Daoxuan explicitly claimed that the Vinaya regulations could compromise “being (you)” and “emptiness (kong),” by which he means the Mādhyamika 326 and Yogācāra Schools. 327 The ideas commonly believed to denote Mahāyāna Buddhism in Daoxuan’s era included the notion of multiple Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. The idea of multiple Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, a significant feature of Mahāyāna Buddhism, occurs often in Daoxuan’s Illustrated Scripture on Ordination Platform.328 The concept of multiple Buddhas existed in early Buddhism, but Mahāyāna Buddhism For example, a medieval Japanese Buddhist Master Ninen (d.?) in his Essential Outline of Eight Schools (Hasshū kōyō) remarks, “The Vinaya Master of Mount Zhongnan [Daoxuan] says that, the study of Dharmaguptavinaya is a part of Mahāyāna Buddhism in terms of doctrine.” See Dai Nihon bukkyō zenshu, no. 102, 29: 16b. Ch. Shuo yiqieyou bu. It refers to one of the traditional Hinayana Schools. For more details, see Charles Willemen, Bart Dessein and Collett Cox, Sarvāstivāda Buddhist Scholasticism, Handbuch der Orientalistik: Indien (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998), especially pp. 16-35. Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing bing xu, Daoxuan, T. no. 1892, vol. 45: 817b. On these two concepts kong and you in the work of Jizang, see Sato Seijun, Chūgoku bukkyō shisōshi no kenkyū (Tokyo: Sankidō bushorin, 1985), pp. 141-171; on these two schools of Mahāyāna Buddhism, see Gadjin M. Nagao, Mādhyamika and Yogācāra: A Study of Mahāyāna Philosophies, edited, collected and translated by Leslie S. Kawamura (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1991), especially pp. 155-225. Hirakawa, “The Rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Its Relationship to the Worship of Stupas,” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 22 (1963), p. 57. Hirakawa says, “The Mahāsāmghika held advanced ideas on the concept of Buddhahood. They advocated that the Buddhas are free of sāsravadharma and are eternal in body and life. This approaches the concept of Sambhoga-kāya in the Mahāyāna.” 328 327 326 325 138 extended it significantly. As Jan Nattier remarks, “In the hands of the Mahāyānists the system of five Buddhas was transformed into a list of one thousand, all but four of whom were still to appear in this age.” 329 In the earlier conception, there were three periods (past, present, and future) and there was only one Buddha existing in each period (Dīpamkaya, Śākyamuni, and Maitreya). However, according to some Chinese masters, in Mahāyāna Buddhism, there were three periods and one thousand Buddhas in each period. This idea clearly appears in the work of Jizang (549-623).330 Jizang wrote: Mahāyāna Buddhism fully comprehends the transformation of the Buddhas of ten directions and the transformation of the Buddhas of three periods. These two kinds of ideas are what Mahāyāna Buddhism manifests. Therefore, this is consistent. In other words, Mahāyāna Buddhism fully comprehends these two kinds of transformation of Buddhas. However, Hīnayāna does not recognize the Buddhas of ten directions, and they only comprehend Buddhas of three periods, so there is only one Buddha in Hīnayāna Buddhism.331 大乘具明十方佛化及三世佛化﹐此二種皆是大乘中所明﹐故是通也。別而為 論﹐大乘具明二化。小乘不辨十方﹐但明三世佛﹐故唯有一佛也。 Jizang offers an influential understanding of the distinction between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna Buddhism. According to Jizang, early Buddhism subscribed to the belief that each time period (past, present, and future) had only one Buddha. So-called Hīnayānists did not follow the Mahāyāna schools in conceiving of space according to the “ten directions” (the four cardinal points, the four points in between, zenith, and nadir), each of which contained one Buddha or one-thousand Buddhas. Jizang was not a stranger to Daoxuan, because he lived in the same monastery – Riyan Monastery. Daoxuan wrote Jan Nattier, Once Upon a Future Time: Studies in Buddhist Prophecy of Decline (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1991), p. 23. See Guan wuliangshoufo jing yishu, Jizang, T. no. 1752, 37. For his biography see Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 513c-5151a. He was Daoxuan’s colleague while he was staying at Riyan Monastery under the invitation of the Sui Emperor Yang. See Liu Ming-wood, Madhymaka Thought in China (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), chapter three. 331 330 329 Guan wuliangshou jing yishu, Jizang, T. no. 1752, 37: 236a. 139 a biography of Jizang in his Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks. Daoxuan should have been well aware of Jizang’s idea of Mahāyāna Buddhism. In addition, according to Daoxuan and his contemporaries, Mahāyāna taught that the relics of the Buddha could be seen as the body of Buddha, and that distributing the Buddha’s relics was equivalent to disseminating multiple Buddhas.332 In his Illustrated Scripture on Ordination Platform, Daoxuan states that the relics of the Buddha should be enshrined on the ordination platform. The concept of multiple Buddhas was an indispensable doctrinal basis for the different activities involving distribution of relics. In the late Sui Dynasty, Daoxuan witnessed the movement initiated by the emperor to distribute the Buddha relics across the whole empire. In many places in Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks, Daoxuan refers to this distribution movement. The biographies of many monks who stayed with Daoxuan in Riyan Monastery located in the southeastern corner of the Sui capital city of Chang’an tell us that these monks were sent to local monasteries to distribute the relics and set up stūpas.333 Mahāyāna Buddhists in India also worshipped Bodhisattvas, as the famous Chinese pilgrim Yijing (635-713) explains in his travel record. Yijing, who lived about the same time as Daoxuan, writes: Hirakawa Akira states that worshipping relics can earn merits. See, Shoki daijō bukkyō kenkyū (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1968), pp. 562-577, and 675-680 says that Dharmagupta-Vinaya has the feature of early Mahāyāna Buddhism. Hirakawa also found that this idea is from the Lotus Sūtra, see his article “The Rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relationship to the Worship of Stupas,” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 22 (1963), p. 88; Gregory Schopen, Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1997); Hakamaya Horiki, Bukkyō kyōdan shiron (Tokyo: Daizō shuppan, 2002). Although Schopen criticizes Hirakawa, they seem to agree on this point. Arthur Wright: The Sui Dynasty (New York: Knopf, 1978); Kegasawa Yasunori, “Zui niju gennen (601) no gakko shakukan to shari kyoyo,” Sundai shigaku 111 (Tokyo: Meiji Daigaku daigakuin, 2001), pp. 17-36. Chen Jinhua, Monks and Monarchs: Kinship and Kingship (Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies, 2002). 333 332 140 The Buddhists of North India and the South China Sea regions follow the Small Vehicle (xiaosheng) exclusively; the Buddhists in China follow the Great Teaching (dajiao). However, in other areas they are mixed in practice. In considering the reason, the disciplines and prātimoksa of both Mahāyānists and Hīnayānists are not different. Both of them equally follow the five Vinaya texts, and equally practice the Four Noble Truths.334 If one worships the bodhisattvas and recites Mahāyāna scriptures, the practice is called Mahāyāna; if not, the practice is named Hinayāna. So-called Mahāyāna Buddhism includes two schools: Madhyāmaka and Yogācāra.335 北天南海之郡﹐ 純是小乘。神州赤縣之鄉﹐ 意存大教。自餘諸處 ﹐ 大小雜 行。考其致也﹐則律撿不殊﹐齊制五篇﹐通修四諦。若禮菩薩﹐讀大乘經﹐ 名之為大。不行斯事﹐號之為小。所云大乘﹐無過二種﹕一則中觀﹐二乃瑜 伽。 According to Yijing, in many places people did not distinguish between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna at all, and their practice was mixed. Both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna shared practicing the disciplines and prātimoksa as well as studying five Vinaya texts. Thus, according to one early Tang figure, the distinguishing feature of Mahāyāna was the worship of Bodhisattvas. 336 This feature was reflected clearly in Daoxuan’s Illustrated Scripture on Ordination Platform. Daoxuan says: Ten masters (on the platform) stand at attention, cultivate an imposing manner, and broadly activate their thinking: they should invite current Buddhas of ten directions, all the great Bodhisattvas, and the sangha of śrāvakas to attend the gathering at the platform.337 十師卓立具修威儀﹐廣運心想﹐請十方現在諸佛諸大菩薩聲聞僧眾普會戒壇。 Thus, according to Daoxuan, both the Buddhas of the ten directions as well as Bodhisattvas were supposed to take part in the ritual of ordination. 334 Skt. catur-āryasatya, Ch. si shengdi 四聖諦. Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan, Yijing, T. no. 2125, 54: 205c. Hirakawa Akira, “The Worship of Stupa and the Rise of Mahayana Buddhism,”1963, p. 73. I modify the translation because the English translation of this passage in Hirakawa’s article is not precise. A detailed annotated edition in Chinese, see Wang Bangwei, Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan jiaozhu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1988). H. Dayal, The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhist Sanskrit Literature (London, 1932); Yamada Ryujō, Daijō bukkyō seiritsurun josetsu (Kyoto: Heirakuji shōten, 1959), pp. 334-347. 337 336 335 Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing, Daoxuan, T. no. 1892, 45: 815b. 141 In addition, Daoxuan had a relatively inclusive understanding of Mahāyāna teachings in his interpretation of the ordination platform. Daoxuan incorporates Mahāyāna teachings contained in the Vimalakirtinirdeśa into his discussion of the ordination platform. Daoxuan mentions several key Mahāyāna concepts, including, as noted above, such terms as “Thirty-seven Paths to Enlightenment,” 338 “Three Emptinesses,”339 and “Five-part Dharma Body.”340 Elsewhere (The Illustrated Scripture on Jetavana Monastery in Central India, Ch. Zhong Tianzhu sheweiyuan qiyuansi tujing 中天竺舍衛國衹園寺圖經) Daoxuan invokes the doctrines of the “Three Emptinesses” and “Seven Enlightenments.”341 According to this piece, at the southern side of Jetevana Monastery there was a three-floor pavilion with five gates. According to Daoxuan, three floors were supposed to symbolize Three Emptinesses.342 In the middle court of Jetevana Monastery, there was a seven-door gate at the southern side, which symbolized the Seven Enlightenments.343 Weimojie suoshuo jing, T. no. 475, 14: 538b, and 542c. Takasaki Jikido points out that this thought also appears Avatamsaka-sūtra. See “Kogen shisō no tenkai,” in Hirakawa Akira, Kajiyama Yuichi, and Takasaki Jikido, eds., Kegon shisō (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1983), pp. 24-25. 339 338 It appears in Weimojie suoshuo jing, T. no. 475, 14: 551b. Skt. pañca-dharmakāya, Ch. wufen fashen 五分法身 . It appears in Weimojie suoshuo jing, T. no. 475, 14: 539c. It is said, “The Buddha body is the Pañca-dharmakāya.” Since all these ideas only appear together in one scripture, the Vimalakirtinirdeśa, it is likely that Daoxuan borrowed these ideas directly from the text. For a recent study on this text, see Tan Zhihui, “Daoxuan’s Vision of Jetavana: Imagining a Utopian Monastery in Early Tang” (Ph.D. thesis. The University of Arizona, 2002). 342 343 341 340 Zhong Tianzhu Sheweiguo qiyuansi tujing, Daoxuan, T. no. 1899, 45: 883c. Zhong Tianzhu Sheweiguo qiyuansi tujing, Daoxuan, T. no. 1899, 45: 886c. Daoxuan also refers to other other Mahāyāna texts in his Illustrated Scripture on Ordination Platform. See Paul Williams, Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations (Routledge: London and New York, 1989), pp. 116-138. He also mentions Za ahan jing (Skt. Samyukta-āgama). Hirakawa suggests that these texts have a kind of textual connection. He says, “The majority of the Mahāyāna texts utilize the dvādaśānga and very few the navānga. And many texts carry the Sarvāstivādin sequence of the dvādaśānga. In the Mahāvibhāsa-sāstra, a 142 We also need to consider Daoxuan’s audience. I would suggest that Daoxuan attempted to infuse the ordination platform with some Mahāyāna features in order to make it acceptable to his contemporaries. In my opinion, Daoxuan’s Illustrated Scripture on Ordination Platform targets two kinds of audiences. The first audience consists of those masters who misread the Vinaya texts and misunderstood Buddhist practice, who he criticizes at the very beginning of Illustrated Scripture on Ordination Platform. The second audience is the Chinese state, whose support Daoxuan had to secure in order to reform the sangha. Daoxuan had to face the Chinese state in his attempt to enhance the identity of the Buddhist sangha through the institution of the ordination platform. As a Vinaya master, Daoxuan inherited a textual tradition composed of a great number of translations and commentaries by early Buddhist monks.344 Daoxuan believed that many of his contemporaries underestimated the significance of the Vinaya. Tang Yongtong suggests that prior to Daoxuan’s time many masters devoted themselves to philosophical debates because monks as well as secular literati were engaged in studying representative work of the Sarvāstivādin, the dvādaśānga is listed, as follows: 1. sūtras, 2. geya, 3. vyākarana, 4. gāthā, 5. udāna, 6. nidāna, 7. avadāna, 8. itivrttaka, 9. jātaka, 10. vaipulya, 11. adhūtadharma, 12. upadeśa. The characteristic feature of this sequence is that the avadāna is seventh. The Chinese translation of the Samyuktāgama has the same order and is thought to be of identical transmission. The following Mahāyāna Sūtras also have the same sequence: the Chinese translation of the Pañcavimśatisāhasrikā-prajñā-pāramitā-Sūtra, Samdhinirmocana-Sūtra, Mahāyāna-mahāparinirvāna-Sūtra, Mahāsamnipāta-Sūtra, Mahākarunā-Sūtra, Kuśalamūlasamgraha, Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sāstra, Yogācārabhūmi-sāstra, Prakaranāryavācā-sāstra, Mahāyānābhidharma-samuccaya-vyākhyā, and Mahāvyutpatti;” see Hirakawa Akira, “The Rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relationship to the Worship of Stupas,” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 22 (Tokyo: the Toyo Bunko, 1963), pp. 61-62. Hirakawa’s argument on dvādaśānga and navānga and their relationship to Mahāyāna Buddhism is based on the theory of Mizuno Kogen in his article “The Characteristics of Mahāyāna Texts” in Miyamoto Shoson, ed., Daijō bukkyō no seiritsu no kenkyū (Tokyo, 1954), pp. 284 ff. Interestingly, these two Sūtras and Daoxuan’s Scripture on Ordination Platform also appeared in the list of texts brought by Ganjin to Japan. Ganjin’s list also includes Dapin jing and Da niepan jing (Mahā-parinirvana-sūtra) typical Mahāyāna texts. See Andō, Ganjin daiwajōden no kenkyū (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1960), pp. 124-125; idem, Ganjin, Nihon rekishi gakkai henshū ed. (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1967), p. 53. Their biographies are available in Huijiao’s (497-554) Biographies of Eminent Monks and Daoxuan’s Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks. About Gaoseng zhuan and its author Huijiao, also see Makita Tairyo, Chūgoku bukkyō shi kenkyū (Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 1980), pp. 1-59. 344 143 metaphysics and practicing meditation. 345 Daoxuan’s contemporaries viewed both of these practices as acceptable forms of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Daoxuan tried to draw their attention back to Vinaya learning by reinterpreting the Vinaya and the ordination platform in terms of Mahāyāna doctrine. Speaking to his other audience, Daoxuan interpreted the ordination platform for the state. He was the superintendent (shangzuo) of Ximing Monastery, which was sponsored by the court, and he led a demonstration objecting to the law requiring that monks bow to secular rulers. 346 I believe that Daoxuan was aware of the crisis the Buddhist sangha faced, and that he had a very clear sense of the criticism of the monastic order brought by many secular literati and officials. In Daoxuan’s eyes, the stability of the Buddhist monastic order in South China was a result of the establishment of the ordination platform. The Scripture of the Bequeathed Teachings and Ordination Ritual The Scripture of the Bequeathed Teachings (Yijiao jing 遺教經)347 seems to play a very important role in the ordination ritual. According to Daoxuan, it should be recited three times during the procedure of ordination. In my opinion, not only is the text most Tang Yongtong’s argument is that the pursuit of wisdom was popular in the Southern dynasties, and meditation was popular in the Northern dynasties. Tang Yongtong, Han Wei liang Jin nanbei chao fojiao shi (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1982), pp. 189-252; 253-298. See my criticism of Tang’s theory in chapter one. Eric Reinders takes an anthropological perspective in his dissertation, “Buddhist Rituals of Obeisance and the Contestation of the Monk’s Body in Medieval China” (PhD. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1997). Yijiao jing, T. no. 389, 12. The translation of this scripture is attributed to Kumārajīva. Fukaura Shobun translates the text in Kokuyaku issaikyō: Indo senjutsubu (Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 1972), vol. 48. His introduction indicates that this scripture might be an apocryphal text. See Fukaura, “Kaidai,” especially pp. 133-139. 347 346 345 144 likely a central Asian apocryphon, but its central place in the ordination ritual is probably Daoxuan’s doing. This scripture aims to teach monks and nuns the basis of Buddhist monastic practice. According to this scripture, a monk should respect the precepts (that is, the list of offenses recited semi-monthly, the Prātimoksa) because the precepts are the foundation for liberation.348 A monk also should follow the five (lay) precepts by controlling the five senses.349 A monk should practice the four deeds (karmas), including food, medicine, clothes, and so on. To control desires and develop asceticism, the scripture offers several techniques. Monks should recite the scripture at midnight, reminding themselves that the fire of impermanence burns in this world. The scripture also teaches the doctrines of knowing satisfaction (Ch. zhizu 知足),350 separation from worldly life (Skt. vivrj, Ch. yuanli 遠離), vigor (Skt. vīrya, Ch. jingjin 精進), the mental ability of not forgetting (Ch. buwangnian 不忘念),351 concentrative state (Skt. samādhi, Ch. ding 定), wisdom (Skt. prajñā, Ch. zhihui 智慧), and no needless argument (Skt. prapañca, Ch. buxilun 不戲論). It offers a monastic version of the Buddhist path, comprising morality, mental concentration, and wisdom. 352 Thus, the scripture offers a model for monastic life, 348 Yijiao jing, T. no. 389, 12: 1110c. Skt. pañcendriyāni, Ch. wugen 五根; five organs of sense: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body. 349 The original passage tells us that monks who decrease their desire and know satisfaction will be happy. A person who knows when enough is enough will feel contented even if he sleeps on the ground, while the person who does not know satisfaction will feel unsatisfied even if he lives in paradise. See Yijiao jing, T. no. 389, 12: 1111c. In the text, it is said that monks should guard their memory (Skt. smrti, Ch. nian) which is a power (Skt. smrtibāla, Ch. nianli 念力) against delusion. This method is also viewed as one of the seven bodhyanga (Skt. sapta bodhyanga, Ch. qi puti fen 七菩提分). 352 351 350 Yijiao jing, T. no. 389, 12: 1111-1112. 145 explaining concretely how monks should live in the community and follow the path to enlightenment. This scripture narrates – and hence replays for the audience – the death of the Buddha and the rebirth of a new monastic order that survives without the presence of the Buddha. Referring to his imminent demise, the Buddha in the text says: I am now about to achieve extinction [nirvāna], which is like the curing of a bad disease. This object, worthy of being abandoned and marked by sin and evil, comes into provisional existence as a body with a name and is sunk in the great sea of birth, old age, sickness, and death. How could a wise person not be delighted with the extinction of it, which is like the killing of evil thieves?353 我今得滅﹐如除惡病。此是應捨罪惡之物﹐假名為身﹐沒在生老病死大海。 何有智者得除滅之﹐如殺怨賊而不歡喜﹖ Next the Buddha extends the discussion from the impermanence of the self to the impermanence of things. He tells his disciples that all elements (dharmas) of this world, regardless of whether they are active or inactive, are unstable and bound to extinction. Applying the doctrine to himself, he tells his disciples that he will soon achieve extinction and that this text is his final teaching. As this text says: You Bhiksus should always diligently seek a path to leave the world with one mind. All mutable and immutable dharmas in this world are the marks of fading, impermanence, and instability. You too will have to stop; you won’t be able to speak further [with me]. I am about to cross into extinction, and this is my last teaching.354 汝等比丘﹐常當一心勤求出道。一切世間動不動法﹐皆是敗壞不安之相。汝 等且止﹐勿得復語。時將欲過﹐我欲滅度﹐是我最後之所教誨。 Thus, I suggest that the recitation of this scripture in the context of the ordination ritual reminds all participants on the platform of the death of the Buddha and their connection to him, via the rite. 353 354 Yijiao jing, T. no. 389, 12: 1111b. Yijiao jing, T. no. 389, 12: 1112b. 146 In my reading, the recitation of the scripture in the ordination ritual is intended to bring about the rebirth of the new monk. Specifically, the ordained dies to the secular world and is reborn into a pure monastic world. This is not a unique case in the history of religion. In the Christian tradition, baptism is similar to the ordination ritual of Buddhism. Some scholars also try to relate baptism to the death of Christ and the rebirth of the Holy Spirit.355 Similarly, the text of the Scripture of Bequeathed Teachings illustrates that after Buddha himself achieves extinction, there is a rebirth. The recitation of the text during ordination is a way of giving new life to the Buddha’s Dharma, similar to the birth of the Holy Spirit in the baptism. The institution as a whole also undergoes rebirth, as the sangha recruits new members to enlarge its body. No evidence suggests that the Scripture of Bequeathed Teachings was recited in any Buddhist ritual before Daoxuan introduced it into the ordination ritual in his Illustrated Scripture on the Ordination Platform. Therefore, Daoxuan’s inclusion of this text is a turning point for the ordination ritual. No Sanskrit version of this text is available, nor do sources reveal whether an original version in Sanskrit or Central Asian languages existed. Lucy Bregman, “Baptism as Death and Birth: A Psychological Interpretation of its Imagery.” Journal of Ritual Studies 1: 2 (1987), pp. 27-41. She believes that baptism was once a powerful and meaningful rite of initiation. To summarize the current findings on ancient Christian baptism: It was a rite of specifically Christian initiation, which often required a time of preparation and instruction so that the candidate would know what to expect from Christian life. Its imagery was linked both to Christ and his death and to a new birth from water and the Spirit. It was designed for, and performed upon, adults, although children and infants apparently were baptized in the ancient period. It was taken very seriously, by both church officials and potential candidates. Bregman concludes (p. 39), “I have tried to illuminate a few of the ways being crucified with Christ and the action of the baptismal rite may have worked psychologically to evoke clusters of emotionally powerful imagery. This imagery, arising out of early experiences with death equivalents and their corresponding polarities, could have helped baptism become a transforming event for Christians in the ancient church. It provided a way to symbolize a fresh start, yet one in which being alive in Christ was balanced by an awareness of death and its power in the midst of life. It seems to have worked, not only as a rite of initiation into an unpopular religious movement, but as a symbolic expression of many of the themes Lifton and other psychologists see as critical for human beings to encounter and express.” 355 147 The Chinese version of the text attributed to Kumārajīva in the late fourth century made this scripture accessible to Chinese monks. Afterwards, several Buddhist scholars wrote commentaries on this scripture. 356 Since it was attributed to Kumārajīva, it probably circulated mostly in the North at the very beginning, and later it entered South China. According to Daoxuan’s catalogue of the Buddhist canon, Xiao Ziliang (?-494), the Prince of Jinling in Southern Qi Dynasty, wrote a commentary on this scripture.357 The intellectual connection between Daoxuan and Xiao Ziliang may also be one of the reasons why Daoxuan incorporated this scripture in his reinterpretation of ordination ritual.358 Evidently, Daoxuan’s colleague Daoshi (道世,7th century) in Ximing monastery mentions this scripture in the section on “bestowing precepts (shoujie 授戒 )” in his encyclopedic work The Forest of Jewels of the Dharma Grove (Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠 林 ). 359 Daoshi’s work was completed after Daoxuan’s death, which may indicate that Daoxuan’s prescriptions were still being carried out in the main temples in the capital. A master of a later generation following Daoxuan’s legacy, Yuanzhao, by arguing against Aśvaghosa’s position which tries to interpret this scripture from the perspective of Mahāyāna Buddhism, suggests that the text is a Hināyāna sūtra based on the following reasons: the traditional Buddhist catalogues listed it in the Hināyāna section, Daoxuan also listed it into Hināyāna section, Miaoxuan classified it in the Āgama section, the content of this sūtra is the Four Noble Truths, and it explicitly points out that the results of achieving enlightenment are the four fruits of śrāvakas. See Yuanzhao, Yijiaojing fazhu ji, Zokuzōkyō, 1: 3: 86. Da Tang neidian lu, Daoxuan, T. no. 2149, 55: 263a-b. Daoxuan gives a list of Xiao’s works, including those about rituals and practice. Daoxuan portrays Xiao Ziliang as a model of Buddhist practice. According to Daoxuan, besides this commentary, Xiao Ziliang also composed a text titled Buddhist Methods for Consistent and Concise Purification (Tonglue jingzhuzi jingxing famen). Later, Daoxuan wrote a preface for it; see T. no. 2103, 52: 306a-b. Fayuan zhulin, Daoshi, T. no. 2122, 53: 921b. For an introduction to this work, see Stephen F. Teiser, “T’ang Buddhist Encyclopedias: A Bibliographical Introduction to Fa-yüan chu-lin and Chu-ching yao-chi,” T’ang Studies 3 (1985), pp. 109-128. 359 358 357 356 148 Moreover, many of Daoxuan’s contemporaries cited the Scripture of the Bequeathed Teachings when they interpreted Mahāyāna teachings, which indicates the popularity of this scripture at the time. The incorporation of this scripture into Daoxuan’s works suggests that Daoxuan used a popular scripture to explain his ideas about the ordination platform so that those who were Mahāyāna Buddhists could accept it.360 This scripture also appears in his other writings. Its concise format indicates that it was targeted to new members of monastic community. It is safe to say that Daoxuan paid particular attention to this scripture late in his life.361 First of all, canonical Vinaya texts of the Dharmagupta tradition do not mention the Scripture of Bequeath Teachings. Daoxuan’s most comprehensive text on Vinaya, Commentary on the Four-part Vinaya with Annotations and Additions (Sifenlü shanfan buque xingshi chao 四分律刪繁補闕行 事鈔 ), does not even mention this scripture by name, though it cites several of its sentences, introducing them with the words, “the text says (wenyue 文 曰 ).” The commentary was completed in 626, whereas the Illustrated Text on the Ordination Platform, which promotes the Scripture of the Bequeathed Teachings, was completed in the final year of Daoxuan’s life, 667. Nor do Daoxuan’s other texts mention this scripture. For example, Xuanzang’s disciple Kuiji (632-682) cited this scripture in his commentary on the Diamond Sūtra, titled A Comprehensive Interpretation on the Treatise of Diamond Sūtra (Jingang bore lun huishi), see T. no. 1816, 40: 736c. See also his piece about Mahāyāna teachings titled the Treatise of the Forest of Principles of the Mahāyāna Dharma Grove (Dasheng dayuan yilin zhang), see T. no. 1861, 45: 247c, 258c. According to Daoxuan’s Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks, Lingyu, a master in the Sui Dynasty, also wrote a commentary on the Sūtra of the Bequeathed Teachings; see T. no. 2060, 50: 495b. It is not surprising that Lingyu had an intellectual influence on Daoxuan. Another master who had an impact on Daoxuan, Jizang, also cited the Sūtra of the Bequeathed Teachings in his piece titled A Mysterious Treatise on Mahāyāna (Dasheng xuanlun). It might be under the inspiration of the edict issued by Emperor Taizong in the Zhenguan period. About this edict and its influence, see Shigenoi Shizuka, “Tō jōkan chū no yuigyōkyō shikō ni tsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 51 (1977), pp. 280-283. 361 360 149 This suggests that this scripture was incorporated into Daoxuan’s text about the ordination platform late in his life. Since ordination required literacy of its candidates, we might say that the Buddhist monastic order was a textual society in which ritual played a crucial role. In the ordination ritual, by reciting the scriptures and recalling the funeral of the historical Buddha, the Buddhist community became a textual community in which its members realized that they belonged to a coherent unit. The text – in the form of scripture in this case – became a means of social solidarity in serving the reconstruction of monastic order. As Brian Stock writes: An aspect of the social lives of the group’s members will from that moment be determined by the rules of membership in the community. There has to be a common understanding of these guidelines, as well as mechanisms for interpretation and transmission.362 Indeed, in Chinese Buddhism, the participants of the ordination ritual should also have a common understanding of the guidelines. The Roles in the Ordination Ritual In Daoxuan’s piece on the ordination platform, ten senior masters, consisting of “three masters and seven witnesses” (sanshi qizheng 三師七證), play the main roles in conducting the ordination ritual. These ten masters stand on the ordination platform while the ordination ritual is being carried out. According to Daoxuan, this follows a traditional Indian Buddhist ordination ritual, in which only ten masters stood on the platform.363 The three key masters include the “principal master” (Skt. upajjhāya, Ch. heshang 和尚), the Brian Stock, Listening for the Text: On the Uses of the Past (Baltimore: the Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), p. 150. Daoxuan writes, “For the ordination rituals in Central India, only ten masters stand on the ordination platform.” See T. no. 1892, 45: 815b. 363 362 150 “master in charge of karma” (Skt. karmakāraka, Ch. jiemoshi 羯 磨 師 ) and the “instructor” or “master in charge of deportment” (Skt. raho‘nuśāsaka, Ch. jiaoshoushi 教 授師 or weiyishi 威儀師). Daoxuan has selected these names from Four-part Vinaya, based on his study of the Vinaya tradition of the Dharmagupta School, although the same names are used in the Sarvāstivāda-Vinaya.364 Paul Lévy draws a clear picture of how three principle ordinants play vital roles in the ordination ceremony, and how these masters are chosen in Mahāyāna tradition: The roles of the three principal ordinants, the upādhyāya, the ācārya and the master of ceremonies (who is the equivalent of the abbot in lands further to the south), is clearer here than in the Theravadin canon. The first one is chosen by the candidate, whom he shaves. After this, he presides at the ceremony, in which he plays an almost silent part. The second (the ācārya), who is chosen by the sangha, questions the candidate is in the midst of the ordinants; in addition he will have him admitted to the sangha and acquaint him with the major prohibitions and obligations of monastic life. The first of these three ordinants is a person from outside the sangha who vouches for the candidate. The second is the specially appointed representative of the community, and he interviews the candidate in order to ascertain whether he is properly prepared. The third, who is an administrator of the sangha, speaks only on behalf of the assembly and in its presence.365 Contemporary scholarship has paid much attention to the names of the three masters and their selection, and their function. For example, Hirakara Akira found out that the names of three masters in Dharmagupta and Sarvāstivāda vinayas are the same, yet in other Vinaya traditions, these names of three masters are slightly different. See his Genshi bukkyō no kyōtan soshiki II (Tokyo: Shunjusha, 2000), pp. 194-195. However, Hirakawa does not pay attention to the names of the three masters used by Daoxuan specifically. Paul Lévy, Buddhism and “Mystery Religions” (London: The Athlone Press, University of London, 1957), pp. 40-41. Recently, Jan Nattier offers a picture of monastic Bodhisattva’s internal relationship. See A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugrapariprccha) (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003), pp. 82-83. A detailed study about Daoxuan’s discourse on the relationship between master and disciple in Chinese monastic community in general will be presented in chapter four. 365 364 151 In this passage, Lévy argues that the Mahāyāna ordination ceremony had a clearer image of the roles of the three key masters -- upādhyāya, ācārya, and abbot – than did the ceremony of the Theravadin tradition. What all of these analyses miss is the fact that in Daoxuan’s understanding of the ordination ritual, there are other important participants in the ritual also standing on the platform. As mentioned above, in Daoxuan’s legendary story about the origin of the ordination platform, the Buddhas ascended the platform to conduct the ordination ritual in the early period of Buddhism. In his instructions, he writes that once the ten masters ascend the platform, they should invite the Buddhas and bodhisattvas to attend also. The coming of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas should be accompanied by the ringing of a bell, the singing of eulogies, and the reciting of scriptures.366 The performances create the fare bella figura (making beautiful figures) of senior members of the Buddhist monastic community. In my reading, the ten masters stand at center stage, while the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas invoked through scripture-chanting and eulogies stand in the background. The ten masters are part of the ceremony, but Daoxuan makes it clear that the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are present for participants, too. The participation of these Buddhas and Bodhisattvas enhances the authority of the ordination ritual. Daoxuan’s legacy regarding the participation of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in the ordination ritual had an impact on Japanese Buddhism.367 In this case, bell, song, and scriptures can be seen as Buddhist components in the scene like other parts of the social drama. Bernard Faure suggests that Bodhisattva precepts involved the participation of three Buddhas and even Buddhas of the ten directions. He says that in the Heian period, the Bodhisattva ordination ritual required three invisible preceptors (Śākyamuni, Mañjuśrī, and Maitreya) instead of three masters, and all the Buddhas of the ten directions instead of seven witnesses. Bernard Faure, The Red Thread: Buddhist Approaches to Sexuality (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), p. 95. Faure evidently found three invisible preceptors in the new ordination ritual of Bodhisattva precepts. My examination of Daoxuan’s 367 366 152 In detail, we should review the process of the ordination ritual. According to Daoxuan, the instructor368 carries the incense burner and leads the ten masters to ascend the platform, walking along the eastern walkway from south to north. Then the candidates for ordination follow the instructor around the platform once. The superintendent (shangzuo) stands in the west and worships the Buddha three times. Then the ten masters stand on the platform and invoke all Buddhas and all Bodhisattvas as well as all monastic order members from the ten directions to come to the platform. While this is occurring, gods, nāgas and other members of the eight groups of beings (tianlongbabu 天龍八部) are flying in the sky. This scene reconstructs the story of how early Buddhism started its ordination ritual. Moreover, the ten masters can be viewed as the original monastic order who witness the presence of Buddhas and deities on the platform. In sum, I would suggest that for Daoxuan, the ten masters invited the Buddhas to attend the ordination ritual through their mediation. The Buddhas occupy the highest position, with the highest among them, Śakyamuni Buddha, appearing in his relics on the highest level of the platform. All figures on the platform-- including Śakyamuni Buddha or in the form of material – including masters, Buddha, and ordination candidates, are historical, which means they currently exist or once existed in a specific period of human history. Daoxuan creates a legend to demonstrate that the Buddha himself attended the first ordination ritual and in the form of his relics attended ordination rituals from the design of the ordination platform further demonstrates that the Buddhas of ten directions oversaw the ordination ritual, even if it was a “traditional ordination ritual” from Faure’s perspective. Faure correctly points out the attendance of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas to the ritual, but he doesn't discuss the mechanic force behind these figures coming, leaving the question unresolved whether Buddhas come by some kind of force or by themselves; nor does he provide an explanation about the their position in the hierarchal structure of this ritual. For discussion on social drama, see Victor Turner, “Social Dramas and Stories about Them,” Critical Inquiry 7: 1(1980), pp. 141-168; Victor Turner, On the Edge of the Bush: Anthropology as Experience (Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press, (1985), p. 196. 368 Skt. raho’nuśāsaka, Ch. weiyishi or jiaoshoushi. 153 time of his death. Other comic Buddhas than the historical Buddha, and Bodhisattvas called by the ten masters through their meditation are ahistorical, transcendental, and they can appear in any situation if requested to participate in the ritual. Summarizing the above discussion, the three masters use their authority to make manifest Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. 369 Additionally, these masters exhibit familiarity with the monastic code as well as the rituals. According to the Four-part Vinaya, the masters should have been ordained for at least ten years.370 They should have five deeds, which means that they should distinguish themselves in the practice of precepts (jie), concentration (ding) and wisdom (hui), liberation (jietuo), and the knowledge and insights toward liberation (jietuo zhijian). 371 So the masters should have sufficient wisdom in order to bestow the complete ordination to the disciples. They instruct the assembly and inspire the ordination candidates with the recollection of the communal memory of early Buddhism and initiation into monastic life during the procedure of the ritual. Ordination Ritual as an Initiation Rite I view Daoxuan’s ordination platform as an attempt to reconstruct the monastic order of Chinese Buddhism. The Buddhist monastic order in Daoxuan’s era was undergoing political persecution and secular attack, and Daoxuan sought a new model for its future development. In composing the piece on ordination platform, Daoxuan seems to Paul Harrison suggests that the power of monastic members come from their ascetic practices, especially meditation, “Searching for the Origins of the Mahāyāna: What are We Looking for?” The Eastern Buddhist 28: 1 (1995), pp. 64-65. It seems to me, that in the case of ordination ritual narrated by Daoxuan, masters also did meditation to make Buddhas and Bodhisattvas present, because these masters were supposed to have been successful in doing meditation, possessing morality and wisdom. 370 371 369 Sifenlü, T. no. 1428, 22: 800b-c. Sifenlü, T. no. 1428, 22: 806b. 154 want to ensure that the members of the monastic order would seriously receive ordination on a genuine platform, because Daoxuan felt that use of the ordination platform in South China over the past several hundred years had played an essential role in preserving the monastic order there. Furthermore, Daoxuan created a new structure for the ordination platform and used new language that appealed to Chinese Buddhists from various traditions. The analysis of rites of passage suggested by Van Gennep and others is useful, with some modifications, for analyzing ordination as Daoxuan understood it. 372 According to Van Gennep, life-crisis rites display a three-stage sequence: separation, transition, and incorporation. 373 Through this sequence of activities, rituals effect the personal removal from one social grouping, dramatize this change by holding the person in a suspended “betwixt and between” state for a period of time, and then reincorporate him or her into a new identity and status within another social grouping. As Catherine Bell writes, The first stage, separation, is often marked by rites of purification and symbolic allusion to the loss of the old identity: the person is bathed, hair shaved, clothes are switched, marks are made on the body, and so on. In the second or transition stage, the person is kept for a time in a place that is symbolically outside the conventional socio-cultural order: normal routines are suspended while rules distinctive to this state are carefully followed. In the third stage, symbolic acts of incorporation focus on welcoming the person into a new status: there is the conferral of a new name and symbolic insignia, usually some form of communal meal, and so on.374 372 Turner, Victor, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1985). Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of Passage (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960). See also Pierre Bourdieu’s comment that, “rites of passage (ordination) are above all rites of demarcation,” Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power (Cambridge: Polity in Association with Basil Blackwell, 1991), p. 118; and Bernard Faure, The Red Thread: Buddhist Approaches to Sexuality (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1998), p. 70. 373 155 In my opinion, the ritual of ordination is indeed a rite of the three-stage pattern. Through being ordained, a person is removed from a prior secular life and is incorporated into a new social order – Buddhist order. The different stages of ordination correspond to different stages in building up status as a member of the Buddhist order. For example, being ordained with five precepts is the most elementary stage of acceptance by the Buddhist sangha. After that, being ordained fully means full acceptance into the Buddhist group.375 Between these steps, the monk-to-be is a novitiate, not yet confirmed in his new status. Originally, the theory of Van Gennep was designated to analyze the rites of birth, marriage, and funeral in particular, but I suggest that the ritual of ordination in Buddhism might be interpreted with Van Gennep’s pattern if we revise his theory to the extent that we clarify the issues about the rites of Buddhist death, mortuary, and rebirth. For Daoxuan, ordination involves a kind of funeral ritual for the Buddha. He says: In the center of top level of (the ordination platform in Uddyana) there is a Buddha’s relic set up and covered by an inverted bowl, as I have said previously. On the day of bestowing ordination the monks gather together as it is said above. A high seat is set on the platform. At first, [a monk] recites the Scripture of 374 Catherine Bell, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 36. John Holt takes the ordination (upasampadā) as an example of the transition stage of a ritual. He argues that upasampadā represents a spiritual rebirth. See Discipline: The Canonical Buddhism of the Vinayapitaka (Columbia, MI: South Asia Books, 1983), p. 124. It seems that Holt does not take the change of the life style of the ordination receiver during the ordination for granted. For instance, he does not pay attention to how ordination candidate experienced stepping on the ordination platform to see the Buddha’s relics. However, John S. Strong argues against the traditional viewpoint of Buddhist ordination ritual as an initiation from the perspective of Buddhist soteriology. He suggests that the upasampadā is the end of death and rebirth. His emphasis on arhatship in the case of the ordination platform might not apply to the case of ordination platform in Medieval China, because in Chinese Buddhism, the Sūtra of the Bequeathed Teaching is recited three times, which means that the death of Buddha was repeated. See his, The Legend and Cult of Upagupta: Sanskrit Buddhism in North India and Southeast Asia (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), p. 89. 375 156 Bequeathed Teaching, all the bhiksus, listening to the recitation, weep and cry. After receiving ordination, the Sūtra of Bequeathed Teaching is recited again.376 上壇中心安佛舍利﹐覆釜在上﹐如前所述。受戒之日如上集僧﹐別施高座﹐ 先誦遺教經。諸比丘聞皆悉涕泣。及受戒訖﹐又誦遺教。 The assembly reiterates the story of the nirvana of the historical Buddha, and as the scripture is recited, the monks were moved to tears. Other aspects of the rite that Daoxuan mentions elsewhere – ringing of bells, chanting of eulogies, burning of incense – help to recreate the scene recorded in the Mahā-parinirvāna-sūtra. In this scene ordination is a ritual marking both the death of the Buddha in the past and presence in the present. The monks involved in the ritual symbolically experience the Buddha’s death and rebirth, and are moved to tears. In the meantime, the new monk who receives ordination also experiences his own spiritual death and rebirth and joins the monastic community once he has attended the feast for the ceremony, wearing his new Buddhist robes.377 The feast includes both new and old members of monastic community, and it marks the end of the ceremony and the reincorporation of the new monk to the community. In the Buddhist monastic order, ordination is a ritual to welcome new members to the order. Via the ritual, the ideals and values of the order are passed down from one generation to the next. New members learn new relationships among members of the new order, for example, the relationship between masters and disciples. 378 Masters should 376 377 Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing bing xu, Daoxuan, T. no. 1892, 45: 810b. Mircea Eliade, Rites and Symbols of Initiation: the Mysteries of Birth and Rebirth (Dallas: Spring Publications, 1958). C. J. Bleeker, Initiation: Contributions to the Theme of the Study – Conference of the International Association for the History of Religions held at Strasburg, September 17th to 22nd 1964 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965). 157 view their disciples as their sons, teaching them monastic codes for five years. Disciples should take care of their master in daily life, cleaning the bathhouse, washing bowls, caring for the ill, and so forth. So rather than simply dying, the new monk is taught how to be a member of a new social group. 379 Part of joining a new group involves learning the rules of interaction based on the new group’s hierarchy. Concluding Remarks: Dimensions of Power and Knowledge Daoxuan’s ordination platform created a way of redistributing power and knowledge. 380 I suggest that Daoxuan designed an ordination ritual within a welldisciplined social organization, and that the ritual was a kind of social drama.381 If we view ordination ritual as a social drama, we can see how the ritual functioned to enhance shared values among monastic order members, to spread meaning in both horizontal and vertical dimensions, and to redistribute power. It can be argued that Buddhist communities are different from secular communities. In the Buddhist community, members practice Buddhist rituals and maintain their disciplines full-time in order to achieve enlightenment. In the case of Sato Tatsugen examines the method dealing with the relationship of monk and novice (heshang fa and dizi fa) in terms of textual studies. See Chūgoku bukkyō ni okeru kairitsu no kenkyū (Tokyo: Mokujisha, 1986), English summary, pp. 1-2. Some scholars have argued that “communities can be revived from time to time, within institutions, thanks to rituals and other means for what has been called the symbolic construction of community.” Peter Burke, History and Social Theory (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992), p. 57. Anthony P. Cohen, The Symbolic Construction of Community, (Chichetser, E. Horwood; London; New York: Tavistock Publications, 1985). André Groogers proposes a three-dimensional model for the study of power relations in a Christian community; see “The Power Dimensions of the Christian Community: An Anthropological Model,” Religion 33 (2993), pp. 263-280. Social drama is defined by Victor Turner as an eruption from the level surface of ongoing social life, with its interactions, transactions, reciprocities, its customs making for regular, orderly sequences of behavior; see “Social Dramas and Stories About Them,” Critical Inquiry 7: 1(1980), pp. 141168. 381 380 379 378 158 ordination ritual, in my opinion, a series of settings based on Buddhist traditions are designed by a senior master so that the creation and the distribution of the power and knowledge can be handed over to the next generation. By the concept of social drama, I am trying to single out two kinds of settings: physical setting (illustrated by the architectural designation of the ordination platform) and spiritual setting. Two kinds of power derive from these settings. One is religious power; the other is political power. Religious power is based on the wisdom and practice of the monastic members. For example, they have more knowledge any other participants in the case of ordination ritual; moreover, they have more experience practicing Buddhism than other participants; and finally, but not less important, they have a closer relationship with Buddha in terms of physical proximity on the ordination platform. The other is political power arising from their position in the Buddhist community. They oversee the deportment of members and keep the order of assembly in the course of the ordination ritual, like military police. They bestow the precepts on the new ordination candidates, like teachers in schools. They make decisions about how the process of the ordination ritual should progress, like policy-makers. They supervise and define boundaries. My analysis of the physical setting is based on the social function of architecture. The physical setting of the ordination platform also had a social function in controlling the roles performed on it. Michel Foucault takes Jeremy Bentham's plan for the Panopticon (1791) as an example to explain how social control functions through specific architectural design.382 Foucault suggests that space design can be viewed a means for the Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Vintage Books, 1995), p. 200. Steven Collins takes a similar position, writing “If we are to believe Foucault’s claim in Discipline and Punishment, the monastic model, with its timetables, separation and individuation of subjects and rigorous 382 159 operation of power and manifestation of social structure. Before we move on to analyze the similar structure of monastic community, I would rather take a moment to clarify in what sense this model might be useful. Some monks might not view their society as part of Foucault’s “wordly society,” because although they live in the physical world, they feel they do not share society’s mentality. In their view, the monastic community is a divine, heavenly community; from a spiritual standpoint, it is not a part of normative society. However, in my opinion, in any organization of human beings – or in Buddhist terms, sentient beings -- no matter what spirituality a community claims, that spiritual power is created and distributed through the space, setting, and the positions community members occupy. Furthermore, the spiritual structure taken for granted is a construction of the community members themselves. As scholars have long recognized, renunciation is itself a social choice and leads to its own form of social organization. In this light, I will probe the horizontal and vertical structure of the ordination platform to consider the operation of spiritual power among the participants in ordination. Horizontally, we can distinguish the marginal or peripheral realm, middle realm, and center of the ordination platform architecture. In each of these realms, we can see the placement of different groups of monastic order members. Common monks or ordination members of the order occupy the peripheral realm. Ten senior masters who play a leading role in the ritual occupy the middle realm. Buddhas, represented by relics, are placed in control of the body, was applied from the latter half of the 18th-century onwards to the practical development of such institutions as hospitals, schools, prisons and factories, and finally to the organization – both imagined and real – of society as a whole. This view of the history of the gradual individuation of members of society as autonomous subjects involves just as much the existence and apparatus of bureaucratic surveillance and control as it does freeing the individual’s independent powers of rational choice;” See Collins, “Monasticism, Utopias and Comparative Social Theory,” Religion 18 (1988), p. 119. 160 the center of the platform, and Bodhisattvas, produced by visualizations of the ten masters, occupy the center of the platform. Vertically, we can distinguish three levels of the platform: ground level, middle level, and top level. On the ground level, common monks gather to watch the procedure of the ordination ritual. On the middle level, ten senior masters as a group oversee the ritual. Finally, on the top level, where the relic container is set up, Buddha watches the ritual. Thus, the procedure of the ordination ritual identifies three differently ranked groups in Buddhism: common monks, senior monks, and Buddhas (Bodhisattvas, specifically for Mahāyāna Buddhism). In terms of education, the senior monks seem to be closer to Buddhas and Bodhisattvas than the common monks. According to Daoxuan, these masters should fulfill the following three requirements: firstly, they should have been ordained for at least ten years; secondly, they should have a certain amount of wisdom; thirdly, they should be devoted to supervising their disciples. Daoxuan cites The Treatise of Sudarśana (Shanjianlun) in which it is said that if the masters have a good understanding of the scriptures (sūtras) and treatises (śāstras), but not monastic codes (Vinayas), they cannot ordain novices.383 The top level of the structure was restricted to Buddhas. From the top, Buddhas with complete knowledge and senior masters with a high degree of knowledge observed the common monks, lay people, and ordinants below them. Common monks and senior masters could not access the highest level not only because it was too small, but also because it was beyond their capabilities as defined in Buddhist regulations. From the For Daoxuan, a master must know four teachings: what conduct violates the rules, what conduct does not violate the rules, what is light guilt, and what is heavy guilt. Only those who knew all these were eligible to be masters (heshang). See Sifenlü shanfan buque xingshi chao, Daoxuan, T. no. 1804, 40: 32c. 383 161 bottom to the top, from the periphery to the center, the figures become more knowledgeable, more powerful, more respected, more dependable, more disciplined, even more sacred. Power here derives from knowledge and discipline. In sum, in the Buddhist ordination ritual, the relics do not simply symbolize the Buddha, they are the Buddha. The structure of the ordination platform symbolizes the basic principles of Buddhism, for example, the Three Emptinesses and Seven Enlightenments. The monastic order stretching over many generations and including Buddhas and Bodhisattvas takes part in the ordination. In pure functionalist term, we could say that the ordination ritual strengthens the social and cultural bonds of the monastic community through obedience of the common monks to the senior monks, and of the senior monks (and all members) to Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, within a framework of the distribution of power and wisdom. But beyond that, by analyzing the spatial and temporal aspects of the ordination ritual, we see that ordination in Daoxuan’s eyes recreates the ideal Buddhist community. 162 Chapter IV: Property and Buddhist Monasticism [If] words are not helpful to the Way, they can be violated even though they are spoken by Buddha; yet there are common words, not from Scriptures, and they should be followed. Thus the Buddha said, even though what is not made by me should not be violated, if they purify the rest of all quarters.384 言非助道, 雖是佛說亦違; 縱是凡言, 雖 非經文亦準。故佛言: 雖非我制, 於餘方 為清淨者, 不得不行。 -- Daoxuan Introduction Buddhist monasticism advocated the ideals of renunciation, poverty, and chastity, but at the same time, the Buddhist monastic community had to be supported materially, for example, with land for monastic buildings, food and clothing for monks, and so forth. In early Buddhism, at least in northwest India in the several centuries BCE, monks were not involved in daily labor to produce goods. Instead, they often received goods from donors by offering ritual services. This promoted a relationship of reciprocity between the monastic and lay communities and ensured the survival of the Buddhist monastic community. 385 If the goods given were beyond the minimum needs of the monks, the rest would be stored and therefore became communal property. In several early Buddhist monastic codes (Vinayas), there were numerous regulations developed to deal with property. 386 For example, in examining Mūlasarvāstivāda-Vinaya, Gregory 384 385 Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 854b. For a discussion on the reciprocity between monastic and lay communities, see Ilana FriedrichSilber, Virtuosity, Charisma, and Social Order: A Comparative Sociological Study of Monasticism in Theravada Buddhism and Medieval Catholicism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). For some preliminary observations about dealing with property in monastic codes, see He Ziquan, “Fojiao jinglü guanyu siyuan caichan de guiding,” Zhongguo shi yanjiu 1 (1982), pp. 68-78; He 386 163 Schopen gives an image of the economic governance of early medieval Indian Buddhist monasticism. He writes, We now know that the Buddhist monks who wrote or redacted it [Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya] in early medieval North India did not share our assumptions about Buddhist monks and the renunciation of private wealth or property, and we – under the enormous influence of St. Benedict – think that this is an important element of any monastic ideal. Those same monks also apparently did not have the same attitude that we do in regard to monks’ involvement with money. They either knew monks who did, or wanted monks to do, all sorts of things that do not fit our assumptions: pay debts and tolls and transport taxable goods; own their own furniture and have the means to pay for any damage they might do to that of other monks; carry personal seals; pay for their own medicine and healing rituals; leave estates, sometimes huge; borrow money from laymen; inherit property from both other monks and laymen; accept and service permanent endowments; make loans and charge interests; accept and use negotiable securities; provide care for sick and dying laymen, with the understanding that, when the layman died, his estate would go to the monastery; and receive precious and semiprecious materials, sell books, receive gold in various forms, accept money, sell the property of deceased monks, hire and oversee laborers, and buy food. And this, of course, is only a provisional list of the sorts of things that Mūlasarvāstivādin monks were – in most cases – not only expected but also required to do by their own monastic rule.387 Thus it seems that in the Mūlasarvāstivādin order, common monks were involved in many economic activities in the Buddhist community. They had to deal with issues of property, debts, payment, and so forth. When Buddhism spread to other Asian regions, the monastic codes were translated into other languages and interpreted by local Buddhist masters. Therefore, the regulations for monastic economic activities varied code by code, region by region, and historical period by historical period. In Chinese Buddhist monasticism, the formation of regulations dealing with economic issues also experienced long-term historical Ziquan ed. Wushi nian lai Han Tang fojiao siyuan jingji yanjiu (1934-1984) (Beijing: Beijing shifan daxue chubanshe, 1986). Gregory Schopen, “The Good Monk and His Money in a Buddhist Monasticism of ‘the Mahāyāna Period’,” Buddhist Monks and Business Matters: Still More Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2004), pp. 14-15. 387 164 development.388 As I have shown before, Chinese Buddhist masters had translated four monastic codes in Daoxuan’s era. Theoretically, there would be four different traditions developed for regulating the daily activities of the monastic community based on these four codes. However, even within one tradition following one code, each master had his own interpretation of this tradition. Many masters produced more and more regulations deriving from their personal understanding and interpretation of various Vinaya traditions. Moreover, given the fact that Chinese Buddhism developed in a vast land, Chinese masters had to deal with different economic issues. Thus, following same code, these masters might still have disagreement on many points. In the historical period of disunity, these disagreements might not have caused problems to Buddhist communities in North and South China, but once China was reunified in the sixth century, if Buddhist communities could not engage in a consistent system of monastic regulation concerning properties donated by lay society, the identity of Buddhist society would be damaged by criticism from outside the Buddhist monastery. Thus, an effort toward instituting a consistent and solid system of monastic regulation to deal with properties would enhance and protect the coherence of Buddhist monastic society. Many contemporary scholars have made efforts to reveal that the monastic community was closely connected with the local society in an economic relationship. For example, drawn from the documents found in Dunhuang, Jacques Gernet and Hao Chunwen demonstrated how local society developed a mutual relationship with the Buddhist community. However, this scholarship represents a scholarly approach from outside observation. From the viewpoint of the inside, some Buddhist masters, such as Daoxuan, might have drawn a different image of monastic community. They aimed to develop many regulations to formulate a community for spiritual pursuit. Jacques Gernet, Buddhism in Chinese Society: An Economic History from the Fifth to the Tenth Centuries (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995); Hao Chunwen, Tang houqi wudai Song chu Dunhuang sengni de siyuan shenghuo (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1997). For earlier discussions of Buddhism and Chinese economy, see Yang Lien-sheng, “Buddhist Monasteries and Four Money-Raising Institutions in Chinese History,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 13: 1-2 (1950), pp. 174-191, reprinted in Studies in Chinese Institutional History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961), pp. 198-215; Twitchett, Denis C. “The Monasteries and China’s Economy in Medieval Times,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 19 (1959), pp. 526-549. 388 165 As a famous master and a leader of the Buddhist community in the capital, Chang’an, Daoxuan made an effort to write regulations for all Chinese monastic communities, crossing the boundaries of many different Vinaya traditions. Daoxuan was not the only master who made this effort. He explained that he once consulted another master, Fali, who also wrote works dealing with monastic property. Nevertheless, Daoxuan’s work Ritual for Measuring and Handling Light and Heavy Property (Liangchu qingzhong yi) successfully achieved the goal and became the foremost influential system in tandem with the rise of his reputation as a Buddhist monastic leader after his death.389 In Daoxuan’s words, his work aimed to effectively remove the doubts of his contemporaries about how to deal with the monastic property, and to essentially help Chinese Buddhists improve the quality of monastic life.390 Thus, analyzing Daoxuan’s discussion on how to deal with property in monasteries will help us clarify how the laws in Chinese Buddhist monasticism were formulated since Daoxuan’s era. Specifically, I would clarify the significance of Daoxuan’s work Ritual for Measuring and Handling Light and Heavy Property from a broader context of East Asian Buddhist monasticism. As the extant earliest ritual text dealing with monastic property, Daoxuan’s work remains one of the most comprehensive documents available for our understanding of medieval Chinese monasticism. It should become the textual basis of discussions of the economic history of Chinese Buddhism. Although in the medieval period there might have been many documents about similar subjects composed and produced by other Chinese Vinaya Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45. The title of this text also appears as Shimen wangwu qingzhongyi, see Da Tang neidian lu, Daoxuan, T. no. 2149, 55: 282a; and Xin Tang shu (ch. 59), “Section of Arts and Literature” (“Yiwenzhi”), Liu Xu et al. (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975), p. 1527. Alan J. Berkowitz, Patterns of Disengagement: The Practice and Portrayal of Reclusion in Early Medieval China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000). 390 389 166 masters, only Daoxuan’s work is currently extant. Daoxuan’s interpretation of Four-part Vinaya tradition became hegemony after his death. Therefore, his work is more important than any others that came later. Furthermore, Daoxuan’s work also had an impact on the Japanese Vinaya School. It was first brought by Jianzhen (Jp. Ganjin) to Japan. Later, Japanese Vinaya master Chenchun proofread and published it. Chenchun asked his fellow master Ciguang in Nara to write a preface for this new edition. Ciguang expressed his wishes in his preface that this text might contribute to the Buddhist monastic community in the era of degenerating dharma.391 Therefore, this text is also integral to understanding East Asian Buddhist monasticism in general.392 Moreover, Daoxuan’s work Ritual for Measuring and Handling Light and Heavy Property is important for its practical feature. Daoxuan was famous for his five commentaries on Four-part Vinaya (Sifen lü). However, from my point of view, compared to his scholastic and exegetical commentaries, Daoxuan’s Ritual for Measuring and Handling Light and Heavy Property can be seen as a practical manual for a monastic community to deal with property. As Daoxuan explained, this ritual document was based on his commentary, but many new viewpoints which he adopted during his learning and travel were added. For this reason, the Ritual for Measuring and Handling Light and Heavy Property provided historical information along with Daoxuan’s understanding and interpretation of monastic economic features. Daoxuan explained the many reasons that led him to write such a piece. He claimed he wrote this piece for his contemporaries, who 391 392 Lianghchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45. Ishida Mizumaro touches many issues about Daoxuan’s legacy in Japanese Buddhism, but he rarely mentions this text. See his “Wagakuni ni okeru Ganjin torai izen no kairitsu ni tsuite,” Shūkyō kenkyū 125 (1951), pp. 1-20; “Ganjin no kairitsu,” Kanazawa bunko kenkyū 96 (1963), pp. 1-5. 167 were awkward when it came to dealing with property. From a practical standpoint, Daoxuan also wrote this piece to accuse some administrative masters (zhishi) 393 of wrongly charging some properties to the monastic community, and some common monks of wrongly possessing communal property for themselves. In addition, Daoxuan indicated that different monastic property had different names and served different purposes in respective cultural traditions. 394 These differences should be regulated appropriately. Thus, Daoxuan decided to create a system of classification and codes to help the monastic community deal with its properties. Terminologically, Daoxuan’s classification of the monastic properties based on their ownership was not different from the traditional system of Buddhist monastic codes. Following a scholastic tradition in the Chinese translations of monastic codes (Vinayas) and commentaries on these codes, Daoxuan used two words to classify monastic property and reflect ownership: light (qing) and heavy (zhong). The former term refers to property that is light enough to be owned by individual monk, while the latter refers to property that should belong to the monastic community.395 Classifying property as light and heavy was very important as these terms appeared in the title of Daoxuan’s work, Ritual for Skt. Karmadāna. See Zokuzokyō, 150: 302c. Also see Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan, Yijing, T. no. 2125, 54: 226b. Gregory Schopen, “Deaths, Funerals, and the Division of Property in a Monastic Code,” in: Donald Lopez ed. Buddhism in Practice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), pp. 473-502; reprinted in Buddhist Monks and Business Matters: Still More Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2004), pp. 91-121. In Indian Buddhism, two Sanskrit words refer to these two forms of properties: sāmghika and paudgalika. The former refers to communal property; the latter refers to individual property. For a discussion on these two terms of property in Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya, see Gregory Schopen, “The Good Monk and His Money in a Buddhist Monasticism of ‘the Mahāyāna Period’,” Buddhist Monks and Business Matters: Still More Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2004), pp. 4-5. 395 394 393 168 Measuring and Handling Light and Heavy Property.396 Daoxuan claimed that it was a crime for monks to keep heavy property which rightfuly belonged to the sangha.397 Based on this idea, property was classified as light and heavy. Contextualizing the Text Before moving into a discussion of some essential issues in Daoxuan’s work dealing with monastic property, contextualizing Daoxuan’s work in its historical and intellectual background is necessary. According to Daoxuan, at least two masters’ implausible interpretations in dealing with property inspired Daoxuan to complete his work Ritual for Measuring and Handling Light and Heavy Property. These two masters were Zhishou and Fali. In his youth, Daoxuan traveled around and attended many lectures on Vinaya in Chang’an. He was ordained in the Four-part Vinaya tradition under the supervision of famous Vinaya master Zhishou. Zhishou wrote a great number of commentaries on Vinaya and attracted a lot of disciples to work with him. However, Zhishou did not satisfy Daoxuan with his explanation of how to make a proper judgment regarding light and heavy property. One of his instructions to Daoxuan was that he should not confine his learning to one tradition of monastic code. In the fourth year of Zhenguan period About the distinction between these two properties in Theravada tradition, see Thanissaro Bhikkhu translated and explained, The Buddhist Monastic Code (volume II) (2002), chapter seven: Monastery Buildings & Property. In a glossary for Pali monastic code, Garubhānda refers to a heavy or expensive article. Garubhānda belonging to the Sangha includes monasteries and monastery land; dwellings, land on which dwellings are built; furnishings such as couches, chairs, and mattresses; metal vessels and tools; building materials, except for such things as rushes, reeds, grass, and clay; and articles made of pottery or wood. Lahubhānda: a light or inexpensive article. Lahubha.n.da of the Sangha includes such things as cloth, food, and medicine; small personal accessories such as scissors, sandals, and water strainers; and light building materials, such as rushes, reeds, grass, and clay. I. B. Horner, trans. The Book of Discipline. 6 vols. (London: Pali Text Society, 1970-86). Oskar von Hinüber, "Khandhakavatta. Loss of Text in the Pali Vinaya," Journal of the Pali Text Society 15 (1990), pp. 127-138. Nandasena Ratnapala, Crime and Punishment in the Buddhist Tradition (New Delhi: Mittal Publications, 1993). 397 396 169 (630), Daoxuan traveled to the Central Plain to learn from another Vinaya master, Fali. He found that Fali was not helpful concerning the issue of monastic property, either. Thus Daoxuan decided to write his own ritual document. Given that Four-part Vinaya learning was the dominant tradition in China, Daoxuan wrote his ritual document based on this tradition. Daoxuan wrote, Nowadays in China the Four-part Vinaya (Dharmagupta-vinaya, Sifen lü) is well circulated all over the country. Within the pass, the Great Assembly Vinaya (Mahāsanghika-vinaya, Senzhi lü) was popular at first; while in Southeast China, Ten-section Vinaya (Sarvāstivāda-vinaya, Shisong lü) was popular. Yet for practicing receiving ordination and other rituals, the rituals of Four-part Vinaya were conducted.398 In addition, Daoxuan frequently criticized other masters’ viewpoints in dealing with property. According to his preface and postscript, Daoxuan wrote this text in the eleventh year of the Zhenguan period (637) after he came back from a trip to the Central Plain (Zhongyuan) and realized that his contemporaries were very confused about dealing with property. He revised this ritual document once again in the second year of the Qianfeng period (667) before he passed away. Daoxuan’s interpretation was based not only on his understanding of the monastic life; but also upon on scriptures and treatises. In his words, in the case that the monastic codes did not offer an explanation, a doctrinal judgment (yiduan, literally: a judgment of meaning) should be applied.399 Doctrinally, he classified monastic property based on a three-category system. These three categories referred to “the nature of (materials)” (xing), “matters” (shi), and “functions” (yong). According to Daoxuan, ownership of 398 399 Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 839c. Ibid., T. no. 1895, 45: 849b; 850a-b. As a term, “yiduan” surely comes from “yixue.” I translate it as doctrinal judgement. It can also be translated as philosophical judgement, if we understand that yixue refers to the Buddhist learning mainly dealing with philosophical issues. As Daoxuan’s work shows, he cites many scriptures and treatises including Da zhidu lun, Zhong ahan jing, Chishi fozang jing, and so on. 170 some monastic properties should be determined by the elemental nature of the property, i.e. metal or wood. These terms apparently are the opposite of another set of three terms in the Chinese Buddhist philosophical system: forms (xiang), principles (li) and substances (ti). Daoxuan’s application of these categories indicated that he was surely familiar with such categories, and he used material, matter, and the function of goods to justify ownership rather than attending to specific form and substance. Daoxuan based his system on his Buddhist principles (li), which should serve the Way (Dao) of Buddhist practice leading to enlightenment. However, Daoxuan did not offer a clear philosophical interpretation of all these terms; he confined himself to Vinaya learning. He did not further discuss philosophical issues. However, it is worth noting that he did apply philosophical categories in his interpretation of monasticism. Daoxuan was also concerned with authority as he formed a new interpretation of monastic regulations. He did not view the Buddha as the ultimate authority in teaching monastic regulations. Daoxuan stated that if the Buddha’s words did not help one pursue the Buddhist Way (Dao), they should not be followed, while if some words did not come from scriptures, but they taught about the Way, they should be followed.400 Here it is very clear that Daoxuan could adjust his interpretation of Buddhist teaching to accord with the situation, rather than unquestioningly rely upon the authority of the Buddha or the Scriptures. At the same time, Daoxuan indicated that his authority had been sanctioned by a heavenly being. Daoxuan mentioned that he met a heavenly being with miraculous power in the second year of the Qianfeng period.401 This heavenly being is a figure from 400 401 Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 854b. Daoxuan lüshi gantong lu, Daoxuan, T. no. 1898, 45: 844c-845a. 171 Sichuan (Shu) with a surname Fei. Daoxuan claimed that Fei was born in the Xia Dynasty as an attendant to the heavenly king in the South Heaven (nantian). He was familiar with the miracles of Vinaya. He told Daoxuan that Daoxuan’s commentaries and rituals as well as his records were rigorous, while his work on weight and lightness was more informal. 402 In sum, Daoxuan’s authority was not only of his own making, but given him by a heavenly being. In the meantime, Daoxuan put the Way (Dao) in the highest position. For him, the Way is superior to the Dharma, which was manifested in monastic codes and scriptures taught by the Buddha. Although Daoxuan seems to indicate that the Way means the personal enlightenment, he did not offer an explicit interpretation of the Way anywhere in his numerous writings. Daoxuan’s Ritual for Measuring and Handling Light and Heavy Property aimed to deal with the goods left by dead five assemblies (wang wuzhong wu, the goods left by dead monks and lay people). I will give an overview of the issues Daoxuan discusses in his work. These issues include how to make a donation to the Buddhist community, how the donation is accounted for as monastic property, and how to classify these properties, how to deal with communal properties, how and when to accept outside donations , how monks pay debt and interest, how to distinguish between personal and communal properties, how to distribute personal goods on different occasions, how to value and award labor, how to differentiate between light and heavy properties, and how to classify all goods in general. In my study, I will focus on some essential issues in Ritual for Measuring and Handling Light and Heavy Property, such as the ownership of property, the means of dealing with property, and the classifications of property. My discussion 402 Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45. 172 will broaden, moving into the issue of the internal economic structure of the monastic community and the relationship between religious ideas and the economic environment in the Chinese monastery. Ownership: Private Property and Communal Property The issue of ownership has been essential in the study of Buddhist monastic institutional history. It informs of the economic structure of Buddhist society. In analyzing ownership, we can gain a better understanding of the natural and human resources that Buddhist society could own and direct for their economic and religious activities. My study will analyze how Daoxuan classified the ownership of monastic properties, and the implications of his classification through a close reading of his Ritual for Measuring and Handling Light and Heavy property. Daoxuan first discussed the ritual of determining monastic properties, and in this ritual, how the authority of this determination functioned. He indicated that the determination of ownership of monastic properties was a ritual shaped by the communal lifestyle of Buddhist society. Daoxuan wrote this text for the monastic assembly assigned to deal with monastic properties. When dealing with property, Daoxuan stated that the community should ring the bell and call all monks together. Then all pending property (xiancai) should be collected, recorded, and documented. The documented list should be declared to all monks so that they all know the properties to be discussed. A detailed handling activity followed, at the start of which the authority figure of the community asked what property was shared property, and made a judgment about it. Next, the authority figure asked if any property had been inherited under a contract or authorization, and then made a judgment. Third, 173 the authority figure dealt with the debts of dead monastic members. The idea of communal possession in Daoxuan’s writing indicates that Daoxuan was targeting Buddhist society rather than a few individual monks who lacked certainty about what they should own and what they should not own. It also provides evidence of having been drawn from Daoxuan’s catalogue of the Buddhist canon in the Tang Dyansty. Since Daoxuan incorporated this writing about communal possession into the catalogue, it would appear that Daoxuan intended that all monastic members would read his text.403 In Buddhist monasticism, ownership had a particular meaning which differed from concepts developed in modern economics. Modern readers might easily understand this classification as the way of modern economic ownership of which there are two types: private ownership and communal ownership. Following this model, it is easily assumed that in Buddhism, if an individual monk could own some property, then such a monk would have ultimate control over his property. In other words, private property could be transferred or sold from one monk to another, or to lay people or other social organizations, or destroyed by its owner. However, in Chinese Buddhism, such ultimate control could not be guaranteed. Enormous regulations were made to deal with private property, case by case. Even though the properties were owned by individuals, all trading, selling, and storing activities were based on these regulations. This was a feature of a ritualized society. As Jan Nattier comments, the early monastic community established a series of rules to regulate its member’s daily activities because it faced social pressure. She writes: “(Once again) they are criticized by the general public, and the Buddha instituted the biweekly recitation of the prātimoksa rules in response. (Vinaya I. 101-102). Here too we no doubt have the traces of an actual incident (or series of incidents) reflecting the Buddhist community’s gradual adjustment to prevailing norms as the result of public pressure.” See A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path according to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugrapariprccha) (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003), p. 66. 403 174 In his text Ritual for Measuring and Handling Light and Heavy Property, Daoxuan frequently mentioned two owners, which he called two “sanghas” (Ch. erseng).404 The first one appeared as “permanent dwelling sangha” (Ch. chang-zhu seng), referring to the Buddhist community.405 It also meant “the sangha of four directions” (Ch. sifang seng). This community referred to not only a present community in a certain region, but also to a historical and future Buddhist community. This community was created by the historical Buddha and his followers in ancient India. The form of this social organization was introduced to China in the Han Dynasty. It seemed to Daoxuan that this community existed in the early period when Buddhism entered China, and it still existed in his own era, and would be flourishing after his era. In other words, this “permanent dwelling sangha” should be an enduring Buddhist community in both abstract and concrete senses. The second sort of owner was called “present sangha” (Ch. xianqian seng). It exclusively involved the present residents in a certain monastery, which could include the regular monks dwelling in a certain monastery, and the visiting and short-term students, In his commentary on Four-part Vinaya, Daoxuan seems to use “seng” to refer to the property of the sangha. And he said that there were four types of properties: permanent property belonging to “permanent dwelling sangha”, permanent property belonging to “the sangha of ten directions,” present property belonging to “present sangha,” and present property belonging to “the sangha of ten directions”. See Sifenlü shanfan buque xingshi chao, Daoxuan, T. no. 1804, 40: 55c. Chinese term “changzhu” usually refers to the property belonging to the sangha, which also appears as “changzhu sengwu” in Chinese. This is clearly stated in a Mahāyāna scripture, The Sutra of the Great Assembly (Skt. Mahāsamnipāta-sutra Ch. Daji jing). See T. no. 397, 13: 292c. “Changzhu” also appears in”changzhu baixing” in some monastic archives from Dunhuang, which means “permanent dwelling ordinary people.” See P. 2187 “Duanhuang zhusi fengshiya chufen changzhu wenshu.” For a detailed discussion, see Jiang Boqin, Tang wudai Dunhuang sihu zhidu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1987), chapter three. Jiang notes that the “permanent dwelling ordinary people” as a term frequently appeared in Dunhuang monastic archives after the political persecution during the Huichang period (841-845). These people should be protected by the secular law under the regime of the Guiyijun government. While it seems that Jiang only deals with Daoxuan’s commentary on Dharmagupta-vinaya. He does not mention Daoxuan’s Liangchu qingzhong yi. 405 404 175 who might have been regular dwellers in other monasteries. It was very common in medieval China for a monk to travel around and stay and learn in many monasteries at different ages. For example, Daoxuan always lived in various monasteries, such as Riyan Monastery, Chongyi Monastery, Fengde Monastery, Zhixiang Monastery, and Ximing Monastery. 406 In short, for Daoxuan, some property should belong to the “permanent dwelling sangha”, while some other property could be owned by the “present sangha”. Daoxuan’s classification of the two owners may convey further implications. The ownership of the “permanent dwelling sangha” was permanent, while the present community had only temporary ownership of it property. If a property belonged to the “permanent dwelling sangha” as Daoxuan defined, it seemed that this property should belong to a universal sangha in a broad sense, thus belonging to all Buddhist monks and nuns, regardless of race, nationality and region, or gender. Furthermore, these properties could also be owned by the Buddha, or the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. In other words, ownership of the property belonging to the “permanent dwelling sangha” was divided by the historical and present sangha, and both the dead and living members of the sangha. The “present sangha” was composed of only the living of a certain community in a certain period, not the historical and the dead. Daoxuan’s classification was confined within the tradition of monastic codes, despite the complexity of the terminology used in his ritual text. This complex terminology can be analyzed by a modern critical reading. Daoxuan stated that there were generally two owners in Buddhist society, sangha and monks. Sangha as an owner should be examined more carefully. In particular, it seems to me that there were three levels of A detailed account of Daoxuan’s life, see Fujiyoshi Masumi, Dōsen den no kenkyū (Kyoto: Kyōtō daigaku shuppankai, 2002). 406 176 ownership in Chinese monasticism. First, the level of sangha in general; second, the level of the monastic community; and third, the level of the individual monk. The sangha seems like a modern nation which namely and abstractly had ownership, while actual ownership belonged to the monastic authority. The monastic community seems to have had incorporate ownership. There was no a “highest church” to regulate all monasteries. One monastic community in a certain region did not follow the order of any other monastic community. Therefore, at the level of monastic community, it looked like a private, incorporated unit. In Buddhist monasticism, even though a monastic community claimed the ownership of its property, the communal authority actually governed these properties. Thus, the distinction among owners should be explicitly clarified. The third level is the one of individual ownership. Monks could own their daily food, robes, bowl, and other small things, but they were not encouraged to sell them or exchange them for pleasure and profit. Furthermore, not only the ownership of the sangha caused confusion, but also the role of Buddha in study of the ownership. Given that many sources have illustrated that donations were addressed to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, the role the Buddha played in the ownership of monastic property must be clarified. From a historical perspective, the Buddha could be viewed as the founder of the sangha, the monastic community. He was not the owner of the monasteries; instead, he was one of members of the monastic community. Daoxuan did not specify the role of the historical Buddha in the ownership of property in the Chinese Buddhist monastery. In no case, did he indicate that property in Chinese monasteries should belong to the Buddha. 407 For Daoxuan, the 177 historical Buddha only played a role in initiating the regulations and legitimizing the code. The Buddha was viewed as the first teacher to set up the rules about how to deal with property in the monastic community. 408 Like the Buddha, Daoxuan also delivered regulations regarding monastic property. As he attempted to initiate a new system of regulations in China to deal with monastic property, he imitated the role played by the historical Buddha, and so established himself as an authority able to make rules for the Chinese monastic community. Daoxuan taught that the owners of monastic property had six means of dealing with donations. First, some property should be given to the monastic community. Daoxuan uses a word, “entering as heavy property” (ruzhong). It meant that such property should be charged as communal property, including lands, gardens, houses, slaves, money, animals, and so on. Second, some property should be distributed to individual monks. Daoxuan uses a word, “entering as light property” (ruqing). It meant that such property could belong to individual monks, including three Buddhist robes, Buddhist scriptures, small tools for daily life, a small bathing vessel, and so on. The third way of dealing with property was returning. In the case of servants, if donated by lay owners for short-term labor, they should be returned their original owners after finishing their duty in the monastic community. The fourth way of dealing with property was selling.409 If a monastic community received musical instruments, drama decorative tools, Gregory Schopen, “The Buddha as an Owner of Property and Permanent Resident in Medieval Indian Monasteries,” in: Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997), pp. 258-289. 408 407 At least, there are two cases. See Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 840c, 843b-c. 178 drama clothes, and game tools,410 these four kinds of property should be sold and the income should be given to the community. This selling necessitated commercial contact with lay society or even beyond. This could be viewed as a trade activity. It is imaginable that monks in charge of these properties would measure the value of these properties for sale. The fifth way of dealing with property was releasing. According to Daoxuan, a monastic community should release wild animals if it received these animals from lay donors. If these animals were small, monks were to feed them food and raise them until they were big enough to be released. However, the ethical foundation of this releasing did not simply derive from compassion; rather, in Daoxuan’s (metaphorical) understanding, releasing came from the idea that these animals were like obstacles on the Buddhist path. 411 The sixth means of dealing with property was destruction. If weapons were donated to a monastic community, they should not be charged into community, nor should they be sold. Instead, they should be destroyed by fire.412 If the cages or trunks for confining animals were donated to the monastic community, they should be destroyed by fire too. From the discussion of the six means of dealing with property, it is also very clear that the income from selling goods was not regular, but rather an occasional income. This occasional income, in the form of money, was generated only when goods needed to We do not know if they would make a profit from this sale. But in Europe, profit economy had a connection with the religious community. See Lester K. Little, Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy in Medieval Europe (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978). Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 842c. The drama could be played by lay people. Monks did not really get involved in playing drama as actors, though they might have appeared as guests during the drama. In medieval China, all kinds of games seem to have been very popular. For example, playing go became a fashion among literati class. About games in the Tang Dynasty, see Niu Zhiping, Tangdai youyi (Xi’an: Sanqin chubanshe, 1988). Among many games Daoxuan mentioned, “Touhu” was another popular game. See Wen Duobin, “Liang Han Sanguo zhi Sui Tang Wudai shiqi de tou (BC 206-AD960),” Taidong daxue jiaoyu xuebao 14: 1 (2003). 411 412 410 409 Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 845c. Ibid., T. no. 1895, 45: 849c. 179 be sold. The regular income for a monastery, in the form of goods and money, came from donations, services, and products from gardens, fields, and inheritances. In addition, authority to deal with the property came from the property’s owners. This meant that the monastic community administration owned most of the wealth of the community. The administration controlled the ownership of all property, distributing property, selling property, and destroying property, under the guidance of the monastic code by way of their understanding. Individual monks were not to get involved in trade activities, and therefore they could not profit from commercial exchange and trade, whether goods or money. Although, as Daoxuan claims, all monks came together while dealing with property and participated in discussion regarding the property, the authority of making decisions still remained with the senior monks, especially the three top administrative monks: superintendent (shangzuo), abbot (sizhu), and discipline master (weina). Legally, the community owned all communal property; the monastic economy could be viewed as a monastic communism.413 Common monks could only accept what the monastic administration, or the monastic community, in Daoxuan’s words, distributed to them. This was quite different from Buddhist monasticism in ancient North India. However, in medieval Chinese monasticism, at least as Daoxuan envisioned it, the monastic authority held these rights. Classifications of Monastic Property As I have shown above, ownership of monastic properties was determined by their classification. The classifications of monastic properties were different accorcing to The difference between the monastic communism and secular communism is that in monastic communism, common monks are not working class. In modern communism, legally, all citizens are the owners of all property; but in the meantime, they are also all working class. 413 180 different Buddhist traditions. They varied time by time and place by place. Therefore, providing an overview of how Daoxuan classified monastic property will help us understand how Daoxuan inherited the tradition of the Four-part Vinaya, and how he understood and interpreted the ownership of property in his own way. Generally, Daoxuan classified the monastic properties into thirteen categories based on the Four– part Vinaya tradition he inherited. However, he also offered a renovated classification system based on his own understanding and interpretation. His classification of monastic properties is a significant part of understanding Daoxuan’s overall idea about monasticism in medieval China. First, Daoxuan’s categorization of the property in a monastic community explicitly reflects his new formulation of the relationship between materials owned by the monastic community and the Buddhist monastic ideal. For example, Daoxuan suggests that as individuals, monastic community members should not possess any property with commercial values, but they could possess some trivial property for daily life necessities, such as medicines in the case of unpredictable illness, or Buddhist books for daily learning and training. Second, Daoxuan’s classification also aims to bridge the gap between the differences of the material world in Indian and Chinese Buddhist monasticism. It is likely that Daoxuan found a strategy to reconcile the conflict in Buddhist monasticism between Indian heritage and Chinese context. Daoxuan realizes that many properties have different names and serve different purposes in India and China as well as other places. For instance, Indian and Chinese monks used different materials to make Buddhist robes, even though they shared the same Buddhist value of poverty. 181 In terms of inheriting an Indian Buddhist tradition, Daoxuan first classified property into four categories based on the ownership of these properties. These four categories include property belonging to the certain permanent dwelling sangha (juxian changzhu senwu),414 the property belonging to the permanent dwelling sangha of four directions (sifang changzhu senwu),415 the property belonging to the present sangha of four directions,416 and the distributable property belonging to the present sangha (dangfen xianqian senwu).417 This classification is based on Daoxuan’s commentary on Four-part Vinaya (Sifenlü), so its basis is ownership. The first category actually includes fields, gardens, mountains, woods, ponds, and humans, as well as animals. These properties exclusively belonged to a certain monastery, and were not to be used by other monasteries. Daoxuan also described the punishment for violation. If any monk stole anything from this category, he was convicted of a second-level crime. If he was convicted of a fifth-level crime, he would be removed from the monastic community. Otherwise, he would be punished in public by the community.418 The second category included prepared food (sushi) which served the daily needs of the monks. Daoxuan states that the historical Buddha made the rule for all monks that food should be supplied only when it was time for food. At that moment, the receivers should uphold their bowls Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 848a-b. “Juxian” here means the limitation. It refers to a limited monastic community whose property might not be open to the members of other monasteries. 415 416 417 418 414 Ibid., T. no. 1895, 45: 848b-849a Ibid., T. no. 1895, 45: 849a Ibid., T. no. 1895, 45: 849a Ibid., T. no. 1895, 45: 848a 182 with respect, while the benefactors distributed the food with joy.419 In this situation, it means that monks should not own food. The third category includes the donations from seven assemblies, inheritance from dead monks, and other light property.420 The fourth category includes the daily living supplies, for example, clothes. Moreover, based on the Four-part Vinaya, Daoxuan also offers a detailed classification which includes thirteen sorts of property in medieval Buddhist society.421 The first category refers to the sangha’s monasteries (seng qielan), including small monasteries, houses, shops, and markets. In the case of houses, Daoxuan indicates that monks could receive the houses donated by lay people, but these houses should belong to the monastic community. However, Daoxuan did not indicate in this text if monks could live in these houses.422 The second category includes gardens, fields, fruit trees belonging to the monasteries, and involves seven categories. For example, it includes vegetables planted in the gardens and fields, five-fruit trees, agricultural tools (for example, a plough), granaries and storehouses, tools for making food (stone rollers, grindstone, dry terrain), five types of food to be eaten immediately, and four types of needed medicines. All of these items supported the survival of monks. The third category includes private houses. The fourth one includes all property belonging to the private houses (for example, windows, doors, walls, beds, curtains and so on). The fifth one includes copper vessels, 419 420 421 Ibid., T. no. 1895, 45: 848b. Ibid., T. no. 1895, 45: 849a The list in Caturvargika-vinaya is in the section of the Skanda of Robes (no. 3). See T. no. 1428, 22: 859b. Hao Chunwen suggests that many monks actually lived with their families in their own houses. See his Tang houqi wudai Songchu Dunhuang sengni de shehui shenghuo (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1997). 422 183 copper jars, choppers, and lamp platforms. The sixth one refers to all kinds of heavy property, including eight categories: for example, five sorts of tools for making clothes, all kinds of art crafting materials for decorating clothes, tools for healing illness, (such as needles and knives, medical books, four medicines), Buddhist and non-Buddhist books, musical instruments, miscellaneous decoration tools including tools for making paintings and tools for daily entertainment, all kinds of jewels and money, and other heavy property (including stone, crystal, shell, teeth, tile, horn, copper, colored earth). The seventh one includes rope beds, wood beds, sleeping and sitting mattresses; the eighth one includes the skins and hairs of the deer. 423 The ninth one includes laborers and animals in the monasteries, including six categories: laborers and supplied personals, slaves, and servants, offspring and property of these slaves and servants, domesticated animals, wild animals, and other animals prohibited by monastic code. The tenth one includes vehicles, including three categories: boats and bull and sheep vehicles, tools for funerals (coffins, funeral clothes, tombs, tomb bricks, pine trees, steles, epigraphy), and tools for offering sacrifice and making offerings. The eleventh one includes water vessels, bathing jars, tin sticks, and fans. The twelfth one includes all other tools made by five materials: iron, pottery, skin, bamboo, and wood. And the final category included Buddhist robes, bowls, sittings mats, needle containers, and boxes for storing clothes.424 In Four-part Vinaya, all these thirteen kinds of property should belong to the monastic community. Daoxuan inherited this tradition and agreed with it in most cases. They came from the Western Regions (xiyu) and India. There was no such thing in China. While Daoxuan indicated that they were curtains and scrolls for the walking path while the ceremony was held. See Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 844c. 424 423 Ibid., T. no. 1895, 45: 846b. 184 But he made some slight modifications. His modifications were either based on the size of the property, or based on his justification of various situations. For example, Daoxuan suggests that unprepared medicine (wei daozhi yao) should belong to the community, while the other medicine (shengyu yao) drunk by a monk could be owned by an individual monk.425 In the case of furniture and tools, he suggests that any utensil made of copper could be owned by individual monks if their size was limited to two pecks (dou).426 So there was an exception based on size. The high seats (gaozuo) were allowed to be owned by the Dharma masters, regardless of the size and height of these seats. The high seat was for the use of reciting scriptures and preaching Buddhist teaching. 427 Daoxuan also classified the property left by five dead assemblies. According to his classification, there are three categories for these properties. The first category is property which is allowed by Buddha’s regulations. It includes three Buddhist robes, bowls, and sitting mats. These properties are allowed to belong to an individual monk, but only in the case that the individual monk can hold them in his hand (suishen). The second category is property which is not allowed by regulations. This category includes five groups of property: fields, gardens, and plants within them;428 people and animals; musical and entertainment instruments; five kinds of weapons; and money, grain, and seven gems.429 Daoxuan seemed to be very familiar with the secular attitude toward the 425 426 427 428 Ibid., T. no. 1895, 45: 842a-b. Ibid., T. no. 1895, 45: 844b. Peck is an ancient Chinese measurement. Ibid., T. no. 1895, 45: 844c. Lambert Schmidthausen, Plants as Sentient Beings in Earliest Buddhism (The A. L. Basham Lecture for 1989, Canberra: Australia National University Press, 1991) 429 Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 849b-c. 185 fields and gardens. He indicates that even Confucian literati would not intend to own much by way of fields and gardens. He states that the entertainment instruments should be burnt and the weapons should be broken and burnt since they were the obstacles on the path toward enlightenment. The third category refers to those properties which are not strictly regulated by Buddha. It means that those properties may or may not be allowed to be held by an individual monk. Under this category, Daoxuan makes more complicated classifications. Besides following Buddhist intellectual tradition, Daoxuan also developed his own classification system based on his own interpretation. He uses three philosophical notions in his classification: the nature of materials (xing), matters (shi), and functions (yong).430 Thus in this classification, the properties within the monastery are classified as properties of three types of heavy properties and three types of light properties. The former includes properties made of heavy materials, the properties involved in heavy matters, and the properties used for heavy functions; while the latter includes the properties made of light materials, the properties that involve light matters, and the properties used for light functions. The properties made of heavy materials were made of metal, stone, earth, and wood. Daoxuan states that these materials should not be possessed by monks who pursue the Buddhist path. The properties involving heavy matters refer to the properties which are involved in non-Buddhist path secular business. The properties for heavy functions refer to the properties that are made of either heavy or In Chinese philosophy, yong (function) usually is listed with ti (substance) together. See Wingtsit Chan trans., A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964), p. 791. According to Chan, the term ti-yung originated from Wang Bi (226-249) in his commentary on Laotzu (chapter 38). In Wang’s interpretation, ti was provided with a metaphysical meaning. And later it became one of the most preeminent terms in Buddhism and Neo-Confucianism. For a recent examination of these two terms, see Antonio S. Cua, “On the Ethical Significance of Ti-Yong Distinction,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy No. 2 (2002), pp. 163-170. 430 186 light materials, but function as heavy properties. The heavy-material property had five divisions. The first division refers to the properties owned within house and room, including windows, doors, beds, mats, mattresses, lamps, stoves and so on. The second division means miscellaneous tools made of iron.431 The third division means containers that are allowed, including vessels, bathing tools, laundry tools, eating tools, and so on. Daoxuan says that all stuff made of stone, tile, and copper should be viewed as heavy property.432 The fourth division refers to other property for use on the body. Daoxuan said that if a monastic member is too old to walk, the use of a vehicle or carriage is allowed. If a monastic member walks on the path and worris about being bitten by small worms, he or she can use a tin stick (xizhang) to shake them away. The fifth division includes funeral and mortuary property, for example, tombs, pagodas, and offerings dedicated to pagodas and tombs. Daoxuan’s own classification also reflected some typical Chinese characteristics. Since Daoxuan wrote his regulations for the Chinese monastic community, in his list he mentions many kinds of property that reflect features of the Chinese monastic community. For instance, Daoxuan lists five grains, including grains served as the main staples of the Chinese, for example, millet, barley, wheat, and paddy, beans, and hemp. Daoxuan also listed many musical instruments that should not be owned by individual monks; rather, they should be sold. While classifying them, Daoxuan uses a term, the “music of eight sounds” (bayin zhi yue). This is a pre-Buddhist traditional term for Chinese music. Daoxuan also lists many game tools that should be sold, too. These tools include many Here Daoxuan cites a story about how the Buddha allowed a smith to make his bowl in iron while entering the order. Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 850c. 432 431 Ibid., T. no. 1895, 45: 850c. 187 Chinese traditional games or games imported to China from Western Regions. They were not from India.433 Laborers, Slaves and Servants In early medieval China, laborers and slaves as well as servants constituted the main labor force which kept the daily economic activity running in the monastic community. From Tsukamoto Zenryū, Jacque Gernet, He Ziquan, Jiang Boqin, and Hao Chunwen, modern scholarship has made great progress on the issue of the workforces used in the monastic society.434 Their studies have exhausted both Buddhist canonical and historical sources, plus numerous manuscripts from Dunhuang. Tsukamoto, Jiang, and Gernet consequently trace the development of the institutional history of the monastery households (sengqi hu, or sihu) and the Buddha households (fotu hu). 435 However, I would highlight some disagreements I have with them. One of the significant issues I must single out is that in Daoxuan’s concrete guidelines about how to deal with laborers, slaves, and servants in a monastery, he lists laborers, slaves, servants, and animals together.436 This is very unusual. Daoxuan claims that both slaves and animals Ibid., T. no. 1895, 45: 842c. For an explanation of these games, see Tiantai pusa jieshu, Zhiyi, Mingkuang edited, T. no. 1812, 40: 2. Tsukamoto Zenryū, Chūgoku bukkyōshi kenkyū (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1964); Chikusa Masaaki, Chūgoku bukkyō shakaishi kenkyū (Kyoto: Hōyū shoten, 2002, revised edition). He Ziquan ed. Wushi nian lai Han Tang fojiao siyuan jingji yanjiu (1934-1984) (Beijing: Beijing shifan daxue chubanshe, 1986). Jiang Boqin, Tang wudai Dunhuang sihu zhidu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1987). Tsukamoto Zenryū, Chūgoku bukkyōshi kenkyū (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1964), pp. 165-218. Jiang Boqin, Tang wudai Dunhuang sihu zhidu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1987), pp. 20-22. He cites Ritual of Measuring and Handling the Light and Heavy Property. But mostly he deals with Dunhuang local monasteries. Jacque Gernet, Buddhism in Chinese Society: An Economic History from the Fifth to the Tenth Centrueis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), pp. 98-112. Gernet categorizes the economic relationship between these households and monasteries as a part of Buddhist colonization. Gregory Schopen discusses slaves and servants in Indian Buddhist monasticism, see his article, “The Monastic Ownership of Servants or Slaves: Local and Legal Factors in the Redactional History of 436 435 434 433 188 are a source of income in the monastic communities. Many scholars deal with the issue of workforces in monastic communities, but fail to pay attention to the fact that Daoxuan lists these workforces with animals. Many contemporary scholars have dealt with the workforce by focusing on the relationship between households and the monasteries. Aiming at a complementary analysis, my reading of Daoxuan’s work Ritual of Measuring and Handling the Light and Heavy Property would categorize the slaves in a monastic community into three categories: monastic employees, shelter seekers, and donated slaves and servants. This categorization might help make better sense of Daoxuan’s idea about the workforces in the Buddhist monastery. From this perspective, I will deal with the relationship among four groups: monasteries, monks, workforces, and lay people. The first category, monastic employees, indicates laborers (shili) and supplied personnel (gongji) in Daoxuan’s writing.437 The employees do not have to sign a contract with the monasteries, but are hired by the monastic community for a fixed term. If the employment is terminated and the personnel decide not to stay longer, the monastic community should allow them to leave. These employees might also have come to the monastery as a form of offering from a lay person. If so, they should be sent back to the lay people once their employment is over. Some of the workforce were shelter seekers. They came to offer their labor in order to avoid the tax or military duties outside the monastic communities. In Daoxuan’s view, they legally become the property of the monastic community. If they come to the monastic community temporarily for special political, economic, and military Two Vinayas,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 17: 2 (1994), pp. 145-173. But he does not mention if these workforces were listed with animals together. Huiyuan (Jingying monastery)’s Daban niepan jing yiji (ch. 5) teaches that monks should not own slaves and servants, food utensils, and five types of vegetables. See T. no. 1764, 37: 730c. 437 189 reasons, they should be released if they requested; otherwise, they can stay as long as they wish. 438 There are also slaves (buqu) and male and female guests (kenü) in the monasteries.439 If the monastery community receives some slaves from lay donors, the monasteries should grant these slaves normal status, and bestow them formal titles as normal residents. But if they keep the status of slave to their original owners when they enter the monasteries, it is still possible for them to become the property of the permanent dwelling sangha (changzhu) once the original donors die. In other words, they could theoretically belong to the sangha, but might not concretely belong to certain monasteries. In the meantime, their clothes, personal properties, and everything in hand should belong to themselves. The monastic community should not seek ownership of this property from the workforce. The sons and daughters of these slaves will belong to the permanent dwelling sangha. If they die and no relatives survive from them, their property will remain in the permanent dwelling sangha. These slaves can be sold by their owners, but the monastic community should not and can not sell them. In any sense, the monastic community should not be involved in selling any human being at all. Some principles seem to be observed in the regulations formulated by Daoxuan. The sangha, or the monastic community, and not the monks, owned the workforce donated by lay people. And therefore the monastic communities rather than the concrete assemblies or monks were the employers. If this was a capitalist economic system, the 438 439 Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 845b. For discussion on these slaves (buqu) in ancient China, see Yang Zhongyi, “Buqu yange luekao,” Shihuo 1: 3 (1935). Zhou Yiliang, Wei Jing Nanbeichao shi zaji (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1985). Tang Zhangru, “Wei Jin Nanbeichao shiqi de ke he buqu,” Wei Jin Nanbeichao shi lun shiyi (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983). Li Bozhong, “Tangdai buqu nubi dengji de bianhua jiqi quanyin,” Xiamen daxue xuebao 1 (1985). Jiang Boqin, Tang Wudai Dunhuang sihu zhidu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1985). For other servants or slaves, see He Ziquan, “Zhonggu dazu siyuan linghu yanjiu,” Shihuo 3: 4 (1936). 190 communities rather than the monks were the capitalists. The monks did not legally hold the ownership of the lands, the gardens, the fields, and agricultural and industrial workshops and tools. Second, usually the workforce used by the monastic community belonged to the permanent dwelling sangha, rather than the present sangha. In other words, a certain monastery should not own the workforce. However, since theoretically and legally, the workforce belonged to the permanent sangha while being used by the present sangha, they were also consecutively passed over to the next present sangha when the monastic communities changed generation by generation. Furthermore, the monastic community could not break the affiliated relationship of the slaves to the lay donors in the non-Buddhist monastic social world. For instance, they could only accept the slaves after their original owners died. But the monastic community could grant the slaves normal status if they were completely donated by lay people to the monastic community. Finally, the monastic community seems to naturally have had the ownership of the offspring of the slaves and the property of these offspring. Whether the monastic community could sell or exchange this property remains unknown. Daoxuan kept silent on this issue.440 Animals Since the medieval Chinese monastic community was not isolated from the natural world, it was not to be designed as a separate space for human beings only. Animals always took part in the daily activities of Buddhist monastic members.441 Many Jacques Gernet, Buddhism in Chinese Society: An Economic History from the Fifth to the Tenth Centrueis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995). Hao Chunwen, Tang houqi wudai Song chu Dunhuang sengni de shehui shenghuo (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1997). 441 440 Animals, Skt. tiryaña, Pali. tiracchāna, Ch. chusheng, bangsheng, or hengsheng. 191 social historians have viewed this participation as merely an economic matter. However, in my opinion, this participation should be examined in a larger context. Therefore, scrutiny should be carried out in multiple dimensions, among which are religious ethic, economic, and even biological considerations. Apparently, in terms of religious ethics, dealing with animals remains a very significant subject.442 In early Buddhism, animals were viewed as inferior intellectually.443 In the theory of reincarnation, although animals were viewed the same as human beings and could be reborn based on their karmas, the path of animals was considered inferior to the path of human beings. In medieval Chinese Buddhism, Daoxuan also offered some regulations for dealing with animals. Some points from his text should be marked here. First, he lists slaves, servants, and animals together. Though it is not surprising to list animals and human beings together, since in Buddhist cosmology animals are also sentient beings, in the case of Daoxuan’s list it seems that economic status is the principle basis of classification. Daoxuan seems to view both animals and slaves as the same kind of income received from donors. Plants were also the income of the monastic community, Sakya Trizin, A Buddhist View on Befriending and Defending Animals (Portland: Orgyan Chogye Chonzo Ling, 1989); Christopher Chapple, Karma and Creativity; Nonviolence to Animals, Earth, and Self in Asian Traditions (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1993); Mary Evelyn Tucker and Duncan Williams eds., Buddhism and Ecology: The Interconnection of Dharma and Deeds (Harvard University Center for the Study of World Religions, 1997); Eric Reinders, “Animals, Attitude toward: Buddhist Perspective,” in William M. Johnston ed. Encyclopedia of Monasticism (Fitzroy Dearborn, 2000), pp. 30-31; Paul Waldau, The Specter of Specieism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals (Oxford University Press, 2001), chapters 6 and 7; and his article, “Buddhism and Animals Rights,” in Damien Keown ed., Contemporary Buddhist Ethics (The Curzon Critical Studies in Buddhism Series. Richmond, Surrey, England: Curzon Press, 2000), pp. 81-112; Paul J. Waldau and Kimberley Patton (eds.), A Communion of Subjects: Animals in Religion, Science and Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004). Lambert Schmithausen, “The Early Buddhist Tradition and Ethics: VI. The Status of Animals,” Journal of Buddhist Ethics (1997). James P. McDermott, “Animals and Humans in Early Buddhism,” IndoIranian Journal 32: 2 (1989), pp. 269-280. Bimal Churn Law, “Animals in Early Jain and Buddhist Literature,” Indian Culture 12: 1 (1945), pp. 1-13. 443 442 192 but they were “produced” from the lands and fields owned by the monastic community, rather then offered by donors. Daoxuan placed the animals which could be owned by the monastic community in three categories: domesticated animals, wild animals, and the animals which are rejected in monastic code.444 In observing the first two categories, it is clear that this classification is based on the relationship between animals and human society. 445 In particular, Daoxuan classifies animals based on whether they can be used for economic purposes. The third category reveals that this classification was particularly based on the regulations governing the Buddhist community which were shaped by the monastic ethics. We can tell from this list that this classification must have been justified by the traditional Buddhist view of animals and the contemporary situation in Daoxuan’s era. Brian. K. Smith examined the animals of ancient India, and suggested that they were classed as either domesticated (grāmya, “of the village”) or wild (āramya, “of the jungle”).446 Based on Baudhāyana-Śrauta-Sūtra (24: 5), “The seven village animals are the cow, horse, goat, sheep, man, ass, and camel as the seventh; some say that mule [is the seventh]. The seven jungle animals are [wild] cloven-hoofed animals, animals having feet like dogs, birds, crawling animals, elephants, monkeys, and river animals as the Current scholarship on animals in traditional China rarely touches on the issue of how Chinese religions classified animals. For a recent example, see Guo Fu, Li Yuese (Joseph Needham), and Cheng Qingtai, Zhongguo gudai dongwuxue shi (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1999); Gou Cuihua, “Zhongguo gudai de dongzhiwu fenlei,” Kejishi wenji 4 (1980), p. 43;Gou Cuihua et al., “Ye tan zhongguo gudai de shengwu fenleixue sixiang,” Ziran kexueshi yanjiu 1: 4 (1982), p. 167; Gou Cuihua et al., Zhongguo gudai shengwuxue shi (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1989). 445 444 George G. Simpson, Principles of Animal Taxonomy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962). Brian K. Smith, “Classifying Animals and Humans in Ancient India,” Man 26: 3 (1991), pp. 527-548; and his book Classifying the Universe: The Ancient Indian Varna System and the Origins of Caste (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 241. 446 193 seventh.”447 Roswith Conard examined archaeological evidence and listed the following domestic animals in ancient Indus civilization: cattle, sheep, goat, pig, horse, camel, dog, and fowl. He also listed animals such as the bull, buffalo, elephant, cat, dove, and peacock as possibly domesticated animals. The dove, peacock, tiger, and rhinoceros played an important role in the religious life of ancient India.448 From the lists above, we know that all five sorts of domestic animals in Daoxuan’s list were the same as the domestic animals classed in ancient India: camels, horses, asses, sheep and goats, and cows. In Daoxuan’s classification, domesticated animals included camels, horses, donkeys, bulls, and sheep, and so forth. All of these animals could legally belong to the permanent dwelling sangha. Their affiliated saddles, saddle blankets, ropes, railings, folds, mangers, and stables could belong to the monastic community, too. But if there were any whips and sticks, the monastic community could not own them. Instead, the monastic community was to burn these whips and sticks and destroy them, for they were used to torture the domestic animals. Some animals were domesticated in Daoxuan’s era, but were not used for economic purposes. Daoxuan classified them as wild animals. In Daoxuan’s list, wild animals included apes, monkeys, river deer, deer, bears, ringed pheasant, rabbits, mountain cocks, and wild geese. Among these, apes, bears, and geese are also listed as wild animals in ancient India. 449 These wild animals and their affiliated cages and Brian K. Smith, Classifying the Universe: The Ancient Indian Varna System and the Origins of Caste (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 248. Roswith Conard, “The Domestic Animals in the Cultures of India,” Journal of Indian History 52 (1974), pp. 76-78. 448 447 194 frameworks were not to be accepted by the monastic community even if donated. If the monastic community received these animals, they were to release them, because these animals were obstacles to the Buddhist path.450 At this point, Daoxuan does not claim the value of compassion; rather, he emphasizes the necessity of an austere life for monastic members. He prevented them from keeping these animals which required more than could be provided by the monastic community. Daoxuan also discusses hens, ducks, and pigs.451 He points out that these animals could bring pollution to pure Buddhist monastics. All cages and frameworks used to confine these wild animals should be destroyed by fire. The third category includes animals which are prohibited by the monastic code. These animals included cats, dogs, eagles, and mice. It seems that this category mainly refers to pets. Daoxuan also points out that the monastic community should destroy bows and arrows as well as other weapons, because these weapons could be used to hunt the animals. Interestingly, animals such as hens and pigs are classified as domestic in non-Buddhist society. So this category seems to be a Chinese Buddhist invention. Daoxuan states the Buddhist monastic code prohibits monks from owning these animals. In Daoxuan’s interpretation, the monastic community should not be involved in killing and trading animals. Otherwise, the bad deeds accumulated from killing and trading would bring terrible retribution to the monks. For Daoxuan, selling animals was even more evil than simply killing them. For the monastic community, the principle of Brian K. Smith, Classifying the Universe: The Ancient Indian Varna System and the Origins of Caste (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 248. 450 451 449 For more study on releasing creatures, see Chapter two. But Daoxuan does not mention how to deal with birds. Birds were important to medieval Chinese society, at least in Dunhuang. See Lewis Mayo, “The Order of Birds in Guiyi jun Dunhuang,” East Asian History 20 (2000), pp. 1-59. 195 compassion was to be strictly obeyed in dealing with animals. As Daoxuan said, the monastic community should erect its sacred house of compassion (cibei shengzhai).452 Unlike Confucianism, in medieval Chinese Buddhism, the animals were not to be used for sacrifice, not even to the Three Jewels: the Buddha, Dharma and sangha.453 Thus, the animals donated by lay people were not to be dedicated to the Buddha or the sangha. Rather, they were donated for the daily use of the monastic community. 454 Current scholarship on animals from the Confucian perspective has suggested that in ancient China, Confucians may have viewed animals in light of their values of benevolence and reciprocity.455 It seems that in Chinese Buddhist monasticism, Vinaya masters played a role in classifying animals. Daoxuan is such an example. He classified everything a monastic community might have owned. The classification of animals seems to be mainly based on the monastic code or Vinaya, which surely came from ancient Indian tradition. However, there were many Chinese translations of a variety of Vinaya traditions available. Therefore, Chinese Vinaya masters had to justify their classifications to accord with changing situations. In pre-Buddhist Chinese society, rulers or sage-kings had authority 452 453 Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 845c. In chapter two, we have seen that during the ceremony of venerating the Buddha’s relics, some Buddhists sacrificed their bodies. But the Buddhist never sacrificed the bodies of the animals to venerate the relics of the Buddha. In some Jataka stories, we can even find that the Prince of Bodhisattva even donated his body to feed the hungry tigeress. See “Vyaghri Jataka,” Jatakamala No.1. This story does not occur in the Pali Jataka. In South Asian tradition, some animals were also viewed as sacred. Trilok Chandra Majupuria, Sacred Animals of Nepal and India (Lashkar, 2000). Donald N. Blakeley, “Listening to the Animals: The Confucian View of Animal Welfare,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 30: 2 (2003), pp. 137-158. The main source Blakeley uses in his article is the works of Confucius, Mencius, Zhu Xi and Wang Yangming. He does not touch the sources from Han to Tang periods. 455 454 196 to classify the animals. 456 It is still debateable to what extent Chinese taxonomy of animals borrowed from the Indian tradition, and it is an issue that deserves a deeper exploration.457 Plants Although in medieval Chinese Buddhist monasteries most monks did not engage in farming activities, many plants were donated and cultivated. Buddhist masters faced the problem of dealing with these plants as monastic property. In order to determine the ownership of these plants, the masters first had to classify the plants and account for them. Unlike his economic classifications of laborers and animals, Daoxuan classified the plants in the Buddhist monastic communities mainly based on empirical principles. Daoxuan’s system covers five kinds of vegetables, five fruit trees, and five grains.458 It is worth noting that all these plants are considered economic plants today.459 Since they were economically valuable, their significance in the monastic community was no less than in a non-monastic community. In other words, they served the daily living needs of Roel Stercx, “Animal Classification in Ancient China,” East Asian Science, Technology and Medicine (2004), forthcoming; also see his book The Animal and Daemon in Early China (Albany: State University of New York, 2002), chapter three; and his article, “Transforming the Beasts: Animals and Music in Early China,” T’oung Pao 86: 1-3 (2000), pp. 1-46. Very few works have touched issue of the taxonomy of animals in medieval China. An early attempt has been done by Zhang Mengwen, see his Zhongguo shengwu fenleixue shi shulun (1940). Zou Shuwen, “Zhongguo gudai de dongwu fenleixue,” in: Li Guohao, Zhang Mengwen, Cao Tianqin ed. Zhongguo kejishi tantao (Hongkong: Zhonghua shuju xianggang fenju, 1986), pp. 511-524. For plants in ancient India, see Trilok Chandra Majupuria, Religious and Useful Plants of Nepal and India: Medicinal Plants and Flowers as Mentioned in Religious Myths and Legends of Hinduism and Buddhism (Lashkar, 1988; revised by D.P. Joshi, 1989); Lambert Schmithausen, The Problem of the Sentience of Plants in Earliest Buddhism (Studia Philologica Buddhica, Monograph Series 6, Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1990), and his Plants as Sentient Beings in Earliest Buddhism (Faculty of Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, 1991). For economic plants in China, see Hu Xiansu, Jingji zhiwuxue (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1953). For a study on the origin of cultivated plants, see N. I. Vavilov, The Phyto-geography Basis for Plant-breeding, Origin and Geography of Cultivated Plants (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). 459 458 457 456 197 monks. According to Daoxuan, the ownership of all plants belonged to the monastic community.460 Individual monks were not to own any plants. As I have noted previously, certainly Daoxuan’s classification was based on his learning of Four-part Vinaya, and his classification was justified by the context in which he was situated. For example, some geographical and historical elements might have had an impact on Daoxuan’s assessment of the monastic plants. More specifically, Daoxuan’s list illustrates that most plants, including both vegetables and grains as well as fruit trees, were plants mostly cultivated in North China and served as food staples for the Northerners. Therefore, it might be safe to say that Daoxuan’s list reflects the socialhistorical situation of the monastic community in North China, and seems have been aimed at the monastic community in the North, also. Why can we conclude that most plants were cultivated in North China? We can take a close look at what plants Daoxuan discusses. We will find that some plants were dominantly cultivated in the North and their names appear in Daoxuan’s list with the terms often used in North China. In Daoxuan’s classification, following a tradition of the Buddhist monastic codes, the five kinds of vegetables are ordered by five-birth types (wusheng zhong).461 They include the type of root (genzhong), the type of stalk or stem (jingzhong), the type of knot (jiezhong), the type of miscellania (zazhong), and the type of seed (zizhong). The five-fruit trees include the fruit of shell (keguo), the fruit of skin (fuguo), the fruit of core (heguo), the fruit of horn (jiaoguo), and the fruit of cart Xie Chongguang, “Jin Tang siyuan de yuanpu zhongzhiye,” Zhongguo she jingjishi yanjiu 3 (1990), pp. 1-7. 461 460 Li Hui-lin, “The Vegetables of Ancient China,” Economic Botany 23 (1969), pp. 253-260. 198 (yuguo).462 The five grains (wugu) include the grain of the house (fanggu), loose grain (sangu), the grain of horn (jiaogu), the grain of miscanthus sinensis (manggu), and the grain of cart (yugu).463 The names of the five grains certainly appear in Buddhist tradition, at least according to Chinese translations of Buddhist scriptures. Yet they also come from indigenous Chinese tradition, appearing as early as the Zhou Dynasty (5th century, B.C.). The specific names of five grains used together do not appear anywhere except in this text written by Daoxuan. In Huilin’s Pronounciation and Meaning of All Scriptures (Yiqiejing yinyi), citing from Yang Chengtian’s dictionary Assembly of Characters (Zitong), the names of five grains appear as suigu, sangu, jiaogu, qigu, and shugu.464 Futhermore, in Daoxuan’s ritual text, these five grains included many present grains: foxtail millet (su), sorghum (shu, or gaoliang), broomcorn millet (shu, or ji), paddy (dao), wheat (mai), perilla (ren),465 all kinds of beans (dou), even linseed (ma).466 Interestingly, in Daoxuan’s classification, both perilla and linseed are listed as grains. This certainly comes from indigenous Chinese tradition. Specifically, perilla was recorded in a The name of five fruits appears in Foshuo yulanpen jing, trans. By Zhu Fahu (3rd, century) see T. no. 685. vol. 16: 779b. While modern monk Cizhou comments on Foshuo yulanpen jing and identifies these five fruits as keguo, heguo, fuguo, huiguo and jiaoguo. For a discussion of this scripture, see Stephen F. Teiser, Ghost Festival in Medieval China (Princeton: Princeton Univeristy Press, 1988), pp. 48-56. In Tantric Buddhism, five grains included barley (Hordeum vulgare, Ch. damai, Skt. yava), wheat (Triticum aestivum, Ch. xiaomai, Skt. godhūma, paddy (Oryza, Ch. daogu, Skt. sāli), small bean (Ch. xiaodou, Skt. masūra), and oriental sesame (Sesamum indicum, Ch. huma, Skt. atasī). See Foguang dacidian (Taipei), pp. Yiqiejing yinyi (ch. 16), Huilin, T. no. 2128, 54: 403b. Modern scholarship rarely touches this issue. For example, Liang Jiamian traces the tradition of Chinese botanical taxonomy back to am ancient dictionary Erya. Liang Jiamian, “Zhongguo gudai zhiwu xintaixue fenleixue de fazhan,” in Ni Gengjin ed. Liang Jiamian nongshi wenji (Beijing: Zhongguo nongye chubanshe, 2002), pp. 413-423. 465 466 464 463 462 Nowadays it is well known as an oil plant. In Yuan Dynasty, planting beans and sesame together was recorded in a work titled Zhongyi biyong by Wu Yi, supplemented by Zhang Fu, edited and annotated by Hu Daojing (Beijing: Nongye chubanshe, 1962), p. 15. 199 botanical work titled Illustration Scripture of Botany (Tujing bencao) by Su Song in the Song Dynasty. Perilla, according to this work, was called “su” in South China; while it was called “ren” in North China. It seems that Daoxuan used its name often in North China. Sesame was a popular food in early medieval China.467 The grain of horn indicates all kinds of beans (zhudou) and linseed (jusheng).468 Though Daoxuan does not mention what sources he used for classifying these plants, it seems that his classifications benefitted from various Vinaya traditions. Given that he was ordained in the Four-part Vinaya tradition, it is natural to conclude that his classification of economic plants was based on the Four-part Vinaya tradition. Yet some his names for plants are different from Four-part Vinaya, which he might have done for the sake of his Chinese readers. For example, in Four-part Vinaya, type of stalk (jingzhong) appears as type of branch (zhizhong),469 while in Great Assembly Vinaya (Mahāsanghika-vinaya) it is exactly as Daoxuan termed it.470 Daoxuan’s classification is different from traditional botanical taxonomy in China. In the Tang Dynasty, some works about Chinese medicinal plants also offered 467 468 Jia Yingxie, Qimin yaoshu, “huma,” 13 ch. 2 Linseed (modern botanical name: Linum usitatissimum) was called “jusheng” in Daoxuan’s list. This Chinese name also appeared in an ancient Chinese botanical work titled Scripture of Medical Plants (bencaojing). While in this work, linseed or “jusheng “was viewed as the same plant with oriental sesame or huma which was believed to be imported by Han general Zhang Qian, which has been recorded in the section about Western regions (Xiyu zhuan) of History of Han (Hanshu). However, later on many scholars made distinctions between “jusheng” and “huma.” For instance, Tao Hongjing (456-536) says that the square-stalk one is “jusheng”; while the round-stalk one is “huma.” See his commentary on Shennong bencaojing. Ge Hong suggests that “jusheng” is one kind of “huma,” because it has two pods on one horn. Li Shizhen, Bencao gangmu. 469 470 Sifen lü, T. no. 1428, 22: 641c. Mahāsanghika-vinaya mentions five types of plants, with slight differences. For example, there is no zazhong; instead, it uses a name of “type of heart” (“xinzhong”). See Mahāsanghika-vinaya (Mohe senqi lü), T. no. 1425, 22: 339a-b. 200 classifications. Tao Hongjing’s work Variorum of Herbological Scripture (Bencao jing jizhu) classifies plants into five categories: grasses, trees, fruits, grains, and vegetables, based on the principles of the forms and uses of the plants. Each category includes three classes (sanpin): high, medium, and low classes. In early Tang period, the Tang government sponsored a project to compile a work titled Newly Edited Herbology (Xinxiu bencao), which also followed this system.471 Daoxuan’s classification focuses on the main economic plants used in monastic communities, which include vegetables, grains and fruits. He did classify some trees, but his classification seems to limit trees to the category of “trees bearing fruit”. Still being confined as a Buddhist master, Daoxuan did not follow traditional taxonomy and list grasses and trees in separate categories. He does not even mention the medicinal herbs that played a significant role in traditional botanical learning in medieval China. Daoxuan does not intend to work on plant taxonomy; his classification only serves to deal with plants of economic value to the Buddhist monastic communities. Books As a textual community, the Buddhist monastic community played a crucial role in storing, producing, and reproducing books. However, the storage, possession, and production of books in the Buddhist monastic community were regulated by monastic codes. Daoxuan, in his Ritual of Measuring and Handling the Light and Heavy Property, wrote some regulations about the classification of books and the possession of these books. These regulations illustrate the Buddhist view on books and their use in Buddhist Zhongguo zhiwu xuehui ed., Zhongguo zhiwu xue shi (Beijing: Kexue chubanshen, 1994), p. 41. Modern phytotaxonomy was only introduced to China in mid-nineteenth century (p. 145). Here we can only discuss traditional Chinese botanical taxonomy because in premodern China, scholars did attempt to classify the plants and animals. 471 201 monasticism. By examining these regulations, we can make a better sense of the use of texts and the ethical value of possessing books in monastic learning. Daoxuan taught how to deal with Buddhist and non-Buddhist books and related tools.472 In order to determine the ownership of the books and related tools, Daoxuan classifies all books as Buddhist books and non-Buddhist books. In Daoxuan’s list, there are five categories of monastic property which could be possessed by individual monks for the benefit of their spiritual cultivation. The first category refers to the Buddhist scriptures. These scriptures include so-called “Indian scriptures”, or in other words, Chinese translations of Indian scriptures. 473 However, Daoxuan listed the apocryphal texts in this category. As I have shown previously, Daoxuan might still have respected the authority of some apocryphal texts for their popularity among lay followers.474 The second category indicates Chinese works, referring to the books written by both monks and lay scholars. Unlike the first category, which only includes three genres (scripture, monastic codes, and treatises, as “three baskets”), this category covers various genres: treatises, essays, eulogies, and biographies. For example, Daoxuan gives an example of some essays composed by Kumarajīva and Sengyou, and some collections written by Xiao Ziliang and the Liang Emperor Jianwen, and so on. The third category indicates miscellaneous Indian and Chinese works. Daoxuan describes these as both the interpretations of the scriptures and commentaries on scriptures, or the records of the Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 842a. Cao Shibang, “Zhongguo fojiao shizhuan yu mulu yuanchu lüxue shamen zhi tantao” (part 1), Xinya xuebao 6: 1 (1960), pp. 415-486; part 2, Xinya xuebao 7: 1 (1961), pp. 305-361; part 3, Xinya xuebao 7: 2 (1962), pp. 79-158. Cao Shibang, Zhongguo fojiao shixueshi – Dong Jin zhi Wudai (Taipei: Fagu wenhua chuban gongsi, 1999). Daoxuan lists several kinds of these scriptures: single translation, repeated translation, the translation of selections, apocryphal texts, and even forgeries. 474 473 472 I will dicsuss Scripture on Trapusha and Bhallika (Tiwei boli jing) further in a separate paper. 202 lives and works of both Indian and Chinese eminent monks, and sacred places for pilgrimages.475 This is a vague category. It seems that Faxian’s Record of the Buddhist Kingdom (Foguoji), Xuanzang’s Record of the Western Regions in the Great Tang (Da Teng xiyu ji) could belong to this category. What makes the difference between the second category and the third category is unclear, in Daoxuan’s writing. However, the third category seems to include more historical records left by monks and lay people; while the second category refers to the works of apologetics. The fourth and fifth categories Daoxuan takes into account included the tools for writing and copying books and tools for storing books. The former includes paper, brush pen, desk, scroll, and tools for decoration, as well as some others; the latter includes drawers, boxes, containers, and shelves. These five sorts of books and tools made it possible for the monastic community to be a textual community. Although there are few exceptions, this classification of Buddhist works is very similar to Daoxuan’s classification in his Catalogue of the Buddhist Canon in the Great Tang (Da Tang neidian lu) in many ways. In his Catalogue of the Buddhist Canon in the Great Tang, Daoxuan also lists Chinese translations of Indian Buddhist works first. These translations include both complete works and selections. In his catalogue, Daoxuan records Mahāyāna texts first and then Hinayāna texts. This order does not appear in his Ritual of Measuring and Handling the Light and Heavy Property where he only loosely categorizes them as works composed in India (Indu zhuanshu). Daoxuan in his catalogue also discusses the issues surrounding translations, in classifying them as single translations, repetitive translations, translations without translators’ names, and so forth. 475 Chen Yuan, Zhongguo fojiao shiji gailun (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1962). 203 Following the Indian works, Daoxuan lists the commentaries and treatises written by monks and lay people, such as the works of Sengyou, Zhi Daolin, Huiyuan, and others.476 The differences are that Daoxuan’s catalogue did not give a list of genres (translations, commentaries, eulogies, and biographies) under the category of Indian works, since Daoxuan’s catalogue to a great extent follows the cataloguing tradition of previous dynasties. Daoxuan’s catalogue arranges the topics chronically, which is not same in his ritual text. Besides the Buddhist books, Daoxuan also lists some secular books which were to be used by the monastic community, and restricted to individual monks.477 In Daoxuan’s classification, these books are mainly biographies of emperors and officials. 478 These books taught how people should venerate the heavenly and earthly deities and serve the government, how people should fulfill their obligations of filial piety to their parents, and how people should survive in secular world. According to Daoxuan, first, this secular collection can include books about Daoism, Confucianism, logic, legislation, Mohism, political affairs, Ying-yang, agriculture, and other miscellaneous topics. In addition, secular histories, philosophies, and literary works should be possessed by the monastic community, and not by individual monks. In the case of Dunhuang, if the cave for storing manuscripts was a library of the Sanjie Monastery,479 then it is not surprising that this 476 477 Da Tang neidian lu, Daoxuan, T. no. 2149, 55: 326b ff. Cao Shibang, Zhongguo shamen waixue de yanjiu – Han mo zhi Wudai (Taipei: Dongchu chubanshe, 1994). On the history of Chinese catalogues, see Yao Mingda, Zhongguo muluxue shi (Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1936; Taipei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1981, reprinted) Rong Xinjiang, “Dunhuang cangjingdong de xingzhi ji qi fengbi de yuanyin,” Dunhuang tulufan yanjiu 2 (1996), pp. 23-48. For English translation, see “The Nature of the Dunhuang Library Cave 479 478 204 monastic library stored all kinds of books, including Buddhist books, Daoist books, even Manichean scriptures and Nestorian scriptures. As reflected in the case of Daoxuan himself, usually monks read secular books, as well. Lingyu is a good example. After the political persecution, Buddhism declined in the Northern Qi Dynasty. Lingyu and his fellow monks collected in the village to read secular books.480 This collection also includes calligraphies and paintings. Monks were not to possess these art collections; he could be punished for his wrong conduct in holding these properties. For instance, a Tang monk Mingjie died of a serious illness for his indulgence in non-Buddhist books.481 Third, containers for these secular books were also to belong to the monastic community.482 Compared to the rich collection a monastic community could hold, only certain Buddhist books could be distributed to individual monks. Some books were to be possessed by the monastic community only and could not be possessed by individual monks. In medieval China, numerous books stored in the monasteries served both the monastic community and local community. Essentially, these collections played a very important role in the literacy and education of young monks.483 Most monasteries had their own libraries, which were called “Treasury of Scriptures” (jingzang). Later on this and the Reasons for Its Sealing,” translated by Valerie Hansen, in: Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 11 (1999-2000), pp. 247-275. 480 481 Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 496a. See “Tang jingshi Puguangsi mingjie badao shensi tuomeng qiufu shi,” in Shimen zijing lu, T. no. 2083, 51: 810a-b. 482 483 Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 842c. John Kieschnick, The Impact of Buddhism on Chinese Material Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), pp. 164-184. 205 name changed to the Hall of Conserving Scriptures (Cangjing ge).484 Young monks could read and learn basic Buddhist scriptures and other liturgical books. 485 As Marcia L. Colish noted, according to the Benedictine Code, medieval Christian monks and nuns were required to be literate in order to read service books, liturgical texts and spiritual texts. In achieving this literacy, the monastic community established schools to train their monks and nuns and nearby monkhood candidates, as well as local people who needed education. 486 The books in Buddhist monasteries also served the local community, especially local Confucian students where the Confucian schools were demolished. This became very common in the late Tang period.487 Thus, we can see the difference between the books owned by a monastic community and books owned by a monk in medieval Chinese Buddhist monasticism. A monastic community should be the owner of all books, including both Buddhist works and secular books. However, non-Buddhist books should not be owned by individual monks. Jewels and Money As many monastic codes indicate, Buddhist monks pursued an austere lifestyle and required that the monks did not possess and circulate valuable jewels and money. For a discussion on the catalogue of Buddhist library, see Tejima Isshin. “A Study on a Catalogue of Buddhist Library in Tang’s China,” in: Shōgo hakushi koki kinen ronshū: Higashi ajia bukkyō no sho mondai (Tokyo: Sankibo busshorin, 2001), pp. 179-193. For Buddhist education in Tang China, see Erik Zürcher, “Buddhism and Education in T'ang Times,” in: Neo-Confucianism and Education: the Formative Stage (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), pp. 19-56. In medieval Europe, Christian monasteries also had books for monks to read and circulate. Marcia L. Colish, Medieval Foundations of the Western Intellectual Tradition 400-1400 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997, 1998, reprinted), pp. 54-55. Yan Gengwang, "Tang ren dushu shanlin siyuan zhifeng," in: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan (Bulletin of Institute of History and Philology) 30: 2 (Taipei: 1959), pp. 689-728. 487 486 485 484 206 However, the monastic community often used abundant jewels and money to decorate their monastic buildings and sculptures. From my reading, I would suggest that at the communal level, the Chinese Buddhist monastery attempted to obtain and possess jewels and money while the individual monk was required to live an extremely austere life. This is especially illustrated in Daoxuan’s Ritual of Measuring and Handling the Light and Heavy Property. Daoxuan offers instructions for dealing with jewels and metals. Generally, Daoxuan views everything that was called “jewel” (bao) as heavy property. Jewels were considered the origin of greed, which was one of three poisons to bring suffering to sentient beings.488 According to Daoxuan, preventing monks from holding jewels was a necessary feature of the Buddhist monastic community. Daoxuan argues that all Buddhist monks are different from other practitioners because Buddhist monks do not hold any jewels and money. So the prohibition of money and jewels helps Buddhist monks to preserve their religious identity. Daoxuan particularly targets the social value of pursuing money and jewels, teaching monks to keep a distance from jewels and money. 489 In Daoxuan’s opinion, once the monastic community and monks receive jewels and money, all should be given into the monastic community. He states that many Vinayas prohibited individual monks from owning any of the seven jewels. However, Daoxuan also indicates that if small pieces of any of the seven jewels were inserted into utensils for daily life, 488 489 Daoxuan specially cites Mahāparinirvana-sūtra that teaches eight impure goods in ten ways. Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 843b. In this case, Daoxuan expresses his opinion of non-Buddhists’ refusal of money. For instance, he cites Guan Ning as an extreme example. Guan Ning was a moral hero in Chinese traditional society. His story is in Liu Yiqing’s Shishuo xinyu (ch. 1: 11). See Shih-shuo hsin-yu: A New Account of Tales of the World, with commentary by Liu Chun, translated with introduction and notes by Richard B. Mather (Center for Chinese Studies, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002), p. 5. Guan Ning’s fame also made him appear in Buddhist works Gaosen zhuan, see T. no. 2059, 50: 386a. 207 they were allowed to be owned by individual monks, being a part of those utensils. Concerning metals, Daoxuan taught that gold and silver should not be distributed or owned by individual monks. Some light metals, like tin, were allowed to be owned by individual monks, because tin could be used for repairing bowls.490 Dealing with money is another issue that Daoxuan discusses. Daoxuan first classifies four kinds of money: heavy jewels, light jewels, money jewels, and the other. Daoxuan calls gold, silver, pearl, mani, and so on “the seven jewels”.491 These could only be owned by the monastic community. These jewels were very precious, and only used to decorate the sculptures and monasteries.492 Light jewels (qingbao) refer to those metals and stones other than the seven jewels. These included bronze, iron, and non-pearl stones. Third, coins, no matter what material they were made of, should belong to the monastic community.493 It meant that money should belong to the sangha and could be used by every monk in the community.494 Some miraculous stories might reflect the historical context in which money was restricted to Chinese monks. From these stories, we can say that in Chinese Buddhism, a monk should not accept and possess money. Even if a monk collected a lot of money, he 490 491 Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 843a-b. Skt. saptaratnāni, Ch. qibao. Seven jewels include gold, silver, lapis lazuli, crystal, mother-ofpearl, red pearls and carnelian. See Kumarajīva trans., The Scripture of Amitabha (Amitabha-sūtra), T. no. 364, 12: 331c. 492 In Lotus Sutra, it says that seven jewels were used to decorate the stupas. See T. no. 263, 9: Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 843a. 102b. 493 For money in ancient China, see Yang Lien-sheng, Money and Credit: A Short History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952); “Buddhist Monasteries and Four Money-Raising Institutions in Chinese History,” Studies in Chinese Institutional History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961). For money in medieval Europe, see Peter Spufford, Money and its Use in Medieval Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). 494 208 would lose it. There is a miraculous story about how a monk lost the money he collected. In the Northern Qi Dynasty, a monk Daohui collected about 2500 guan Chinese coins. In his dream, a Buddhist master told him that he should donate this money to a lay person, Li Desheng, for his merits. When Daohui awakened, he found that his money was gone. Later, he found the money and transported it to Li. Though Li returned 1000 guan back to Daohui, Daohui would not possess the money any more.495 In sum, we may conclude that in medieval Chinese Buddhism, austerity was required for individual monks; they were not allowed to possess any jewels and money. These so-called jewels not only included pearls and other jewels, but also precious metals and stones. This austerity in renouncing jewels and money derived from early Buddhism. The regulation preventing monks from possessing money is the same as what the Pali monastic code suggests. According to one of the Pali rules for monks, a monk could accept material things offered by lay people, but he could not accept any money.496 In chapter two, we have seen that during the ceremony of venerating Buddha’s relics, lay people donated a lot of money to the monasteries. They also donated gold, silver and other metals to monastic communities. This gold, silver, and other metal would be used to decorate Buddha’s images and sculptures. The case was certainly the same for both Theravada Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism. Medicines and Medical Works 495 496 “Qi Qizhou Daohui qian ye yizou shi,” in Shimen zijing lu, T. no. 2083, 51: 808b-c. Mohan Wijayaratna, Buddhist Monastic Life: According to the Texts of the Theravada Tradition, translated by Claude Grangier and Steven Collins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 77-78. This rule used by Wijayaratna is Nissaggiya Paacittya 10, Vinaya III 219-223. 209 Dealing with medicine and medical tools was one of four matters a Buddhist monk should take care of. Generally speaking, Daoxuan’s discussion focuses on three categories of medical matters: medicines, medical books, and medical tools. I would discuss medicines and medical tools first, and then focus on medical books. Medicines were very important for the monks in Buddhist tradition. According to the Pali canon, in early Buddhism, the Buddha allowed monks and nuns to consume medicinal foods for their own sake. 497 For Daoxuan, the Chinese Buddhist community needed to make a distinction between communal and individual medicines. In his opinion, there are four kinds of medicines: daily medicine (shiyao), including rice, wheat, sauce, and vegetable; non-daily medicine (feishiyao), including fruits and juices; seven-day medicine (qiriyao), including butter, honey, oil, and fat; lifetime medicine (jinxingyao), including salt, vinegar, pepper, ginger, and so forth. All of these medicines should be kept as communal property. Daoxuan stated that these medicines should not be distributed to individual monks (xianqianseng) or be kept by them. Rather, they should belong to the sangha, to all monks (changzhuseng). The first category in this list, the daily medicine, should belong to the community. The reason is the indispensability of these medicines in the daily life of all monks. The other three categories, as Daoxuan says, could inspire a drive for worldly benefit by possessing them.498 Daoxuan also lists books and tools for medical aid as communal property. These properties include medical tools, medical books, and lifetime medicines. For Daoxuan, medical property is only necessary in the case of saving Jean Filliozat, La doctrine classique de la médecine Indienne: ses origines et ses parallèles grecs (Paris: École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1975); Mohan Wijayaratna, Buddhist Monastic Life: According to the Texts of the Theravada Tradition, translated by Claude Grangier and Steven Collins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1996), pp. 74-75; Kenneth G. Zysk, Asceticism and Healing in Ancient India. Medicine in the Buddhist Monastery (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1998). 498 497 Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 841b. 210 lives. Of the lifetime medicines, those medicinal materials should be possessed by the monastic community, but the treatments can be possessed by individuals. Monks also can possess lifetime medicines if they can not stop taking these medicines while ill. Daoxuan explains that the medicinal materials were so precious as to inspire greed in the monks. This was the doctrinal foundation for preventing monks from possessing medicinal materials.499 Therefore, though these properties benefited the human body, they were not to be possessed by individual monks on a permanent basis. Daoxuan pays special attention to the medical texts. He suggests that the medical books should be communal property. Individual monks should not own the medical books. He gives a list of the medical works which include prescriptions or recipes (yifang), herbology (bencao), Acupuncture (mingtang), the book of circulating (liuzhu), the classic of channels (maijing), and medical secrets (yijue). 500 He says that these medical books belong to secular learning, and should be held by the monastic community. This opinion seems to be based on Four-part Vinaya; because Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya has a different opinion on this issue. Many monks were medical experts, or were familiar medical literature. For example, Lingyu wrote a commentary on the medical secrets (yijue).501 Given the list Daoxuan offers, he might have been very familiar with secular medical books. Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 842a-b. More discussion on medicines, see Sifenlü shanfan buque xingshi chao, Daoxuan, T. no. 1804, 40: 117c-124c. Li Liangsong, Fojiao yiji zongmu tiyao (Xiamen: Lujiang chubanshe, 1997); for Bencao jing, see Shang Zhijun, Shennong bencaojing jiaodian (Beijing: Huaxia chubanshe, 1994); Ma Jixing, Shennong bencaojing jizhu (Beijing: Renmin weisheng chubanshe, 1995); Wang Jiakui and Zhang Ruixian, Shennong bencaojing jianjiu (Beijing: Beijing keji chubanshe, 2001). 501 500 499 Xu gaosen zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 497c. 211 Although he must have gained his medical knowledge from Buddhist Vinaya literature, his list mentions a lot of indigenous commentaries of Chinese medical works, rather than Indian medical works. Since most books Daoxuan mentions are traditional Chinese medical works, it seems that he was concerned with preventing Chinese monks from holding Chinese medical books. He does not specify if Chinese monks could possess Indian Buddhist medical books, or the Chinese translations of Indian medical books. However, he does attribute these works to secular learning, meaning that these books did not aid the Buddhist spiritual progress of monks. Clearly, the intellectual foundation of Daoxuan’s statement comes from his own knowledge and understanding of Chinese medical books. Interestingly, among all the genres of medical books Daoxuan lists, “bencao” (herbology) as a term indicates medical work, and first appeared in Buddhist scriptures in the Eastern Han Dynasty. 502 In the Liang Dynasty, Tao Hongjing (452-536) wrote a comprehensive commentary titled Variorum of Herbological Scripture (Bencaojing jizhu) or Herbology. This commentary then became the most influential work in the Southern and Northern Dynasties. Tao’s intellectual background mixed both Daoist and Confucian thoughts. Herbology as a medical work also reflected many Confucian values, such as loyalty to rulers and Confucian righteousness.503 Moreover, in the third year of the Xianqing period of the Tang Dynasty (658), Su Jing and other officials reedited the Herbology and formulated a new work titled Newly Edited Herbology (Xinxiu bencao). Many high ranking officials such as Li Ji, Xu Jingzong, and Li Chunfeng were involved in this project. Thus, the new version of Herbology became a Wang Jiakui and Zhang Ruixian, Shennong bencaojing yanjiu (Beijing: Beijing kexue jishu chubanshe, 2001), pp. 18-22. 503 502 Ibid., pp. 42-46. 212 sort of official work sponsored by the Tang government. Being in conflict with Daoxuan’s Buddhist ideal, Herbology was set aside by Daoxuan and could not be accepted as the personal property of individual monks. It is also worth noting that Daoxuan’s Chinese medical knowledge might have benefited from his friend Sun Simiao, a famous hermit. In Daoxuan’s biography composed by Zanning, he was said to be a friend of Sun Simiao.504 Sun was an expert in Daoism and Chinese traditional medical knowledge. For instance, Sun Simiao wrote a thirty-volume Recipes of Thousand Gold (qianjin fang).505 Furthermore, Daoxuan’s idea about medical works seems to have come from a Southern tradition of Chinese medicine. He lists mingtang and liuzhu together. According to the catalogue of medical works in the Sui History (Suishu) compiled by a Tang historian, only in the Liang Dynasty was there a work titled Mingtang Liuzhu. This work was later lost, and Sui scholars did not have a chance to look at it.506 Modern scholarship has suggested that Mingtang liuzhu is another title for Mingtang, and it might not have been compiled until the late Han Dynasty, not becoming well known among Chinese scholars until the government sponsored a revision in the Tang Dynasty. It was also brought to Korea and Japan.507 However, it seems that Mingtang was a general term for a group of medical works about 504 505 “Daoxuan,” Song gaoseng zhuan, Zanning, T. no. 2061, 50: 790c. Xin Tang shu, 59: 49: 3, “yiwenzhi;” Jiu Tang Shu, 171: 121, p. 4450. His biography is in Jiu Tang shu, 191: 141, pp. 5094-5095. He was also very familiar Daoist and Buddhist scriptures. Sui shu, 34: 29: 3, “jingjizhi,” Liu Xu et al. (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975), p. 1040. Earlier, in the fourth century, a famous Daoist master Ge Hong (283?-363) mentioned in his work Baopuzi (ch. 15: zaying) that there was a work titled Mingtang liuzhu yanze tu. See Wang Ming edited and annotated, Baopuzi neipian jiaoshi (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1985), p. 272. But it does not appear anywhere else. Huangdi mingtang jing jijiao, edited and annotated by Huang Longxiang (Beijing: Zhongguo yiyao keji chubanshe), pp. 239-266. 507 506 213 acupuncture technology in the middle period.508 Both Daoxuan and Sun Simiao seem to have known these works well. Sun mentioned them in his preface to the Recipes of Thousand Gold (Qianjin fang). Furthermore, according to a Daoist work titled Seven Slips of a Cloudy Satchel (Yunji qiqian), Sun Simiao also composed a medical work titled Scripture of Channels (Maijing).509 This work was disseminated across the country in the Sui Dynasty, so that the Sui Emperor Wen invited Sun to be the official of the national academy. But Sun denied this invitation. Interestingly, his work Scripture of Channels also appeared in Daoxuan’s list of medical works. Hence, it is likely that Daoxuan profited in his medical knowledge from Sun.510 To sum up the discussion above, Daoxuan’s knowledge of medical works mainly came from his learning in the traditions of monastic codes. Among these traditions, the Four-part Vinaya certainly played an important role. Furthermore, Daoxuan’s knowledge of medical works was influenced by indigenous Chinese medical traditions and Daoist medical traditions, especially by people like Sun Simiao. For Daoxuan, individual monks could possess some medicine for daily health care, but they should not possess medical works which might inspire them to pursue non-Buddhist goals. For Daoxuan, the prevention of owning medical works would help monks stay free of greed and keep austere lives. A manuscript titled Mingtang wuzang lun is found in Dunhuang. This text recorded the similar idea about five essential organs to that in Sun Simiao’s works. See Ma Jixing ed. Dunhuang gu yiji kaoshi (Nanchang: Jiangxi kexue jishu chubanshe, 1988), pp. 10-16. “Sun Simiao,” Yunji qiqian (ch. 113), Zhang Junfang (11th century), “Jizhuanbu (Section of Biographies),” see Yunji qiqian (Beijing: Shumu wenxian chubanshe, 1992), p. 820. It seemed to be a reciprocal process between Chinese traditional medicine and Buddhist medicine. Sun Simiao also profited in his medical knowledge from Buddhism. For a discussion on the Buddhist impact on Sun, see Zhu Jianping, “Sun Simiao qianjin fang zhong de fojiao yingxiang,” Zhongguo yixueshi yanjiu (Beijing: Zhongyi guji chubanshe, 2003), pp. 302-308. 510 509 508 214 Clothing Robes played a very significant role in shaping monastic order. Robes became one of the key elements of Buddhist identity.511 Renouncing secular clothing was the starting point for Buddhist monks. During the initiation, changing robes was a very important step, which symbolized the separation between the old life style and the new life style. Robes became a boundary between the two worlds, symbolizing membership in the Buddhist world. Since Buddhism viewed robes as one of the most important elements of Buddhist identity, dealing with clothing became a very important issue in Buddhist monasticism. 512 Daoxuan taught that wearing Buddhist robes would earn a monk five virtues.513 For instance, if someone entered into the Buddhist order with severe sins, he could remove these sins by wearing robes and confessing with a single mind. Heavens, dragons (nagas), human beings, and deities, would not fall into the three bad paths by wearing Buddhist robes. Human beings could also receive sufficient food and drink by wearing robes. Sentient beings could evoke in their minds compassion by wearing Buddhist robes. Sentient beings could be protected from weapons and war while wearing robes. If a person dealt wrongly while wearing a Buddhist robe, he or she would be punished. There is a miracle story about how a woman received retribution for her wrong dealings with dharma robes. This story occurred in the fifth year of the Zhenguan period For Daoxuan’s interpretation, see A Ritual Manual dealing with Buddhist Robes (Shimen zhangfu yi), T. no. 1894, 45. . John Kieshnick discusses Buddhist robes, but he does not touch the issue of how a monastic community dealt with clothing in general. See The Impact of Buddhism on Chinese Material Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), pp. 86-115. Koichi Shinohara discusses Daoxuan’s idea about five virtues of wearing robes. See his article “The Kasaya Robe of the Past Buddha Kasyapa in the Miraculous Instruction Given to the Vinaya Master Daoxuan (596~667),” Chung-Haw Buddhist Journal, No.13.2 (May 2000), pp. 315-316. 513 512 511 215 (631). 514 In brief, for Daoxuan, wearing robes could aid spiritual progress toward enlightenment. Daoxuan offers a meticulous classification of the type of clothing that a monastic community and its members can receive from outside. He also offers regulations about how to deal with these clothes. His regulations largely come from early Buddhist traditions based on monastic codes. In early Buddhism, the idea about Buddhist cloth was that the original value of the cloth should be minimized, because this cloth was meant to help the wearer keep the spirit of renunciation.515 This original value, as I understand it, meant both commercial and aesthetic value. Commercial value would inspire greed, one of the three poisons which bring about suffering. Aesthetic value would also bring invite greed through sensual pleasure. Keeping away from greed was the goal of a monastic member. In Chinese Buddhist monasticism, as Daoxuan shows, the cloth should lose its commercial and aesthetic value. In his discussion on clothing in the monastic community, Daoxuan’s classification first makes the distinction between clothes for renunciants and clothes for nonrenunciants. He uses two phrases: what a person who renounces her or his family wears (chujia suofu) and what a person who does not renounce her or his family wears (fei chujia suofu). Under the category of clothes for renunciants, there are four categories classifying clothes and affiliated things. For Daoxuan, Buddhist clothing includes three robes, clothes for covering sores (fuchuangyi), a rain coat, a water bag, and two kinds of belts. All these can be distributed to individual monks and be owned by individual monks. 514 515 Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 694a. Mohan Wijayaratna, Buddhist Monastic Life: According to the Texts of the Theravāda Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 36. 216 It seemed relatively common for monks to distribute Buddhist robes. For example, Lingyu, a famous master in Northern Qi Dynasty, received three hundred robes from the court for his service of lecturing Buddhist scriptures. He distributed these robes to his fellow monks. 516 The second category indicates those things affiliated with Buddhist clothes, for example, hook and ribbon, a clothes bag, and a clothes case. They might be made of copper, iron, bamboo, wood, or tin. These items could be distributed along with the three robes to individual monks. Small bags distributed to individual monks were to be as short as half the human body. The bags and cases should not be decorated to look like secular ones; otherwise, they should not be distributed to individual monks. The third category refers to the materials used to make clothes. All plain-color cloth could be distributed to individual monks. Silk cloth should be charged into monastic community. The greed of the individual monk toward the clothes would bring trouble to him; in Northern Qi Dynasty, a monk Daoxie possessed and stored all kinds of cloth, and died for his greed.517 The fourth category refers to all kinds of thread. According to Daoxuan, all needles and thread could be distributed. However, silkworm cocoons should be charged as communal property. Non-Buddhist clothes were called the clothing of the “external way” (waidao, refers to other religious practitioners) and “white clothes” (baiyi). Daoxuan did not invent these words himself. The Chinese word “waidao” was used to refer to other religions in early Buddhist translations in China. Although in ancient India Buddhist literature named about ninety-six other religions, in medieval Chinese Buddhist literature, it particularly 516 517 See Xu gaosen zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 496a. See “Qi Qingzhou Daoxie kencai pinde zhongbing shi,” in Shimen zijing lu, Huaixin, T. no. 2083, 51: 808a-b. 217 indicated Daoism. Since Daoist clothes were not discussed in Buddhist Vinayas, Daoxuan suggested that they should be charged as communal property and should not be distributed to individual monks. On the other hand, he suggests that if the color (se) and form (xiang) of these clothes were changed, it was possible for individual monks to keep them. Moreover, in Northern and Southern Dynasties, “white clothes” became a common word to address non-Buddhists; while “black clothes” (heiyi or ziyi) as a Chinese term referred to monks. Thus, Daoxuan uses the phrase “what the white clothes wear” to indicate non-Buddhist clothing. Under this category, there are five sub-categories. 518 Buddhist Vinaya did not discuss these clothes either. Daoxuan makes his own judgment based on his wisdom and his understanding of Buddhist teaching. The first sub-category refers to general robes, shirts, hats, skirts, scarves, and shoes. Daoxuan suggests that, if a monk receives general robes, he can keep them to make Buddhist robes. If the color and form of these clothes are not changed, they should be charged as communal property, along with other shirts, hats, skirts, scarves and so on. Actually, in the medieval period, at least in the Northern Qi Dynasty, monks might have also worn some secular clothing. For example, Lingyu wore a skirt (his skirt was short enough to have four fingers away from his ankle) and a shirt (it was also very short, just reaching his elbow).519 If a monk wears any of these, he could not be identified as a Buddhist monk by his clothing. The second sub-category refers to summer rain coats. They can be brown cloth (heyi), sheep cloth (yangzhuang), palm-bark rain cape (suoyao), umbrella cover (sangai), and so on. These clothes could not be distributed to individual monks. The third sub-category refers to 518 519 Shen Congwen, Zhongguo gudai fushi yanjiu (Shanghai: Shanghai shudian chubanshe, 2002). See Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 497c. 218 clothes resistant to the cold (yuhan zhi fu). Most of these clothes are made of fur or leather. They should be owned by individual monks. The fourth one refers to decorative clothes. Since Buddhist Vinayas prohibited secular entertainment and sensual pleasure, these clothes absolutely belonged to the monastic community, rather than to individual monks. The fifth one refers to secular official uniforms and sacrificial robes. According to Daoxuan, small robes could be owned by monks for making Buddhist robes; however, other official uniforms and sacrificial robes should be charged as communal property. From the above discussion, for the Buddhist monasticism Daoxuan advocates, a detailed classification of Buddhist clothing was very essential for the monastic community and for monks. The Buddhist monastic community could accept and possess both Buddhist robes and secular clothing, but individual monks should not possess nonBuddhist clothing. Otherwise, the spiritual progress of individual monks would be damaged. Wearing robes was also a crucial part of the austere life of individual monks. Concluding Remarks: Differentiating Individuals and Community Daoxuan’s idea about the distribution and the possession of monastic property undoubtedly illustrates the poverty of the individual monk in Buddhist monastic asceticism. At the communal level, it seems that the Buddhist community did not refuse the possession of any properties. As we have seen from the discussion above, in medieval Chinese Buddhist monasticism, there was light property and heavy property in the monastic community. The former referred to the property which could be distributed to individual monks and be possessed by individual monks. The latter, however, referred to the communal property exclusively belonging to the monastic community. In order to determine the ownership of monastic property, Daoxuan classified these properties in 219 many ways. The classifications minimized individual monks’ possession of property. Individual monks only could possess several goods for minimum life needs. Poverty as it was manifested in medieval Christian monasticism was also required of medieval Chinese monks. Medieval Chinese monks were to pursue austere lives, although their monasteries might be very wealthy. At this point, I cannot agree with Jacques Gernet. Gernet remarks, The Vinaya did not prohibit monks and communities from owning worldly goods. They forbade them the contact with and the management and direct use of such goods. There was much subtlety in this rule, and of kind that was lost on the Chinese. Without this defense against worldly temptation, the Chinese monks strove with little success for austerity.520 My discussion has shown that Daoxuan’s new rule did prohibit individual monks from possessing most monastic properties for their worldly nature. Gernet does not make a distinction about the ownership of monastic properties between individual monks and communities. This is a typical problem in the contemporary scholarship of social history, which ignores the internal complexity pf monastic communities. In medieval Chinese monastic communities, according to Daoxuan, theoretically and legally, the individual monks and communities differed in terms of ownership. Communities could claim the ownership of all heavy goods and claim their right to manage and trade all heavy goods. Individual monks only could possess and manage an amount of private goods for minimum needs. It is true indeed that “the vow of personal poverty automatically converted all wealth into organizational possessions, to be plowed back into communal property.”521 Although some monks might not have observed the precepts strictly and Jacques Gernet, Buddhism in Chinese Society: An Economic History from the Fifth to the Tenth Centuries (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), pp. 78-79. 520 220 illegally owned some heavy properties, they would be punished according to Daoxuan’s rules. Daoxuan, at least in terms of the ideal of monastic life, attempted to establish the rules to prevent individual monks from contact with heavy goods. Indeed, the monastic community enjoyed prosperous wealth, while the monks still were required to exhibit austerity. This austere life model for individual monks was designed by Daoxuan, not the historical Buddha. Daoxuan inherited some Indian traditions based on his reading of the monastic codes. However, the new life model was largely amended by Daoxuan with many historical and local elements. For example, Daoxuan introduced the concept of five grains in Chinese indigenous tradition into Buddhist monasticism. His concept of five grains seemed to come from his knowledge about the economic plants in North China. However, his intellectual background seemed to be mainly based on Southern scholarship with regard to plants. From both intellectual and historical considerations, Daoxuan developed a new model of dealing with monastic properties in Chinese Buddhist monastic society by reinterpreting some monastic codes and initiating some new regulations. The monastic regulations regulated the daily economic activities of the monastic community and its members. These monastic regulations were advocated by Daoxuan for the sake of aiding the pursuit of enlightenment of individual monks, not for the community. Therefore, these regulations entered Daoxuan’s newly compiled Buddhist canon. Their entering the canon indicates their authority in monastic learning. So Daoxuan established his authority in dealing with property. He was not the only master See Randall Collins, Weberian Sociological Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 68. 521 221 who wrote such rules for monastic community; many masters made a similar attempt. Thus the masters applied guidelines to regulate the community and individual monks in receiving and dealing with enormous lands, houses, gardens, slaves, attendants, animals, plants, money, secular books, and clothing. In the case of Daoxuan, his authority seemed to contradict his intention. He accused some administrative monks of wrongly judging some properties as properties belonging to the monastic community. However, he also claimed most properties to be communal properties. He claimed that he made such a judgement for the sake of the standardization of the monastic regulations; but he actually created the regulations for judging the ownership of the monastic properties for the sake of the enlightenment of individual monks. Daoxuan’s principles of dealing with monastic property clearly aimed to promote Buddhist values of poverty and solitude among individual monks. These values advocated spiritual progress through poverty. A monastic community should be able to offer an environment of solitude in order to foster survival of individual poverty and spiritual progress. Commercial and sensual goods should be kept from individual monks. For Daoxuan, the principles of poverty and solitude aimed to guard against the allure of worldly pleasure and profit. Daoxuan’s principles also included reasonable compassion on the part of the monastic community toward sentient beings. Showing compassion toward sentient beings was very important for the monastic community. Daoxuan taught that the monastic community should release slaves, wild animals, and they should destroy the tools used to imprison or torture animals. From Daoxuan’s regulations about books, we can see that the Buddhist community was a textual community. On a communal level, the medieval Chinese 222 Buddhists could accept and possess any books, including both Buddhist books and nonBuddhist books. It was possible for many monasteries to develop their own libraries and to keep their own collections covering all religious and non-religious traditions. These monastic libraries and collections served both monastic members and local people. Moreover, although monks could not own books on an individual basis, they could read non-Buddhist books and extend their learning in non-Buddhist dimensions. In medieval Chinese Buddhism, from the viewpoint of Daoxuan, even owning secular books could inspire the greed of monks as book holders. However, studying Buddhist books seems to be substantial for both new monks and common monks for their religious pursuits. Buddhist scriptures could be used on a daily basis to foster the progress of each monk. In the monasteries of the medieval period, literacy was a basic requirement for a monk, which marked a monastery as a textual community. Literacy allowed a monk to read Buddhist scriptures, to understand the daily recitations, and to write ritual texts for lay people in order to earn merits. Many manuscripts written as exercises have been discovered in Dunhuang. These manuscripts reveal that the pupils studied how to write characters in the monastery, and young monks had to practice copying scriptures.522 Erik Zürcher, “Buddhism and Education in Tang Times,” in Wm. Theodore de Bary and John W. Chaffee eds. Neo-Confucian Education: The Formative Stage (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989); pp. 522 223 Conclusions: The Formation of Chinese Buddhist Monasticism After his death, Daoxuan’s legacy became the most influential monastic tradition in the history of Chinese Buddhism. Since the Late Tang period, through the ages, Daoxuan was granted many titles by the governments to acknowledge his contributions to monastic rules and regulations. Daoxuan’s contributions to monasticism have shaped Chinese monastic community to be a ritual community and a textual community.523 From Margin to Center Compared to the popularity of Daoxuan’s legacy after his death, while he was alive it was largely marginized in the Chinese monastic community. He became the leader of the Ximing Monastery only when he was nearly seventy years old. Thus, Daoxuan seems to experience a long journey to receive the recognition in Chinese Buddhist society. Daoxuan received ordination from Zhishou, but he did not distinguish himself as a famous disciple of Zhishou until his late age. Early in his monastic career, Daoxuan spent more listening to other maters. In Zhenguan period (627-649), he traveled around central China to collect materials and consult other masters. Moreover, Daoxuan only spent the beginning and end of his monastic career in Chang’an. In his early monastic career, he apparently stayed in the newly established Riyan Monastery and Chongyi Monastery, which were not the focus of the highest levels of the Sui central government. Although the Riyan monastery was donated by the Crown Prince, Yang Guang, it was full of monks newly emigrated from south China, and it was not fully supported by the For a discussion of ritual communities, see Georges B. J. Dreyfus, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist Monk (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), pp. 44-47. 523 224 Sui Emperor Wen. After Yang Guang came into power, he did not pay much attention to the Riyan Monastery. In 624, the Riyan monastery was abolished and Daoxuan moved to the Chongyi Monastery, which had been erected by the Tang princess. Chongyi Monastery was a small monastery that had no importance in early Tang political-religious interaction. Thus, both of the monasteries where Daoxuan spent his early career were not among the most influential monasteries in Chang’an. In late Sui and Early Tang period, it seems that Daoxuan mainly lived with monks from the south and his Buddhist education was essentially shaped by the southern tradition of Chinese Buddhism. In Chang’an, southern monks did not dominate the scholastic and monastic communities. Except for Sui emperor Yang, most emperors were not interested in the southern tradition of Chinese Buddhism. Instead, they focused more on the projects of translating scriptures and commenting on them, rather than sponsoring debates on the philosophical meaning of those scriptures. In Daoxuan’s time, monks who specialized in Vinaya were not influential. Most scholar-monks were engaged in translating scriptures or writing commentaries. So it is not surprising that Daoxuan’s scholarship in Vinaya learning was considered marginal to the main academic tradition of the period.524 In his Ritual of Measuring and Handling Light and Heavy Property (Liangchu qingzhong yi), Daoxuan admitted that Fali was a famous master, but criticized Fali for his ignorance in dealing with monastic property. At least, he found that the teaching of Vinaya Master Fali was well-known and wellaccepted in the circle of Vinaya learning in Central Plain, especially in Shanxi.525 By contrast, there were many strong vinaya traditions in India at the time. See Lü Cheng, “Zhujia jieben tonglun,” Lü Cheng foxue lunzhu xuanji, vol. 1(Jinan: Qilu shushe, 1988), pp. 89-141. 525 524 Liangchu qingzhong yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1895, 45: 839c. 225 Judging from his criticism of other masters, I would hypothesize that Daoxuan struggled to gain recognition for his teachings. Only late in his life was he asked to join the translation team led by Xuanzang.526 But even then he was listed only as a common team member and his status and knowledge of Buddhism seem not to have been recognized. His reputation could not compete with Xuanzang at that time, because unlike Xuanzang he never received the donation from the emperor. Although Daoxuan was erudite in both Buddhist and non-Buddhist learning, he claimed to concentrate more on practice of observing precepts, rather than bookish learning. He was critical of the fashion of the time, and pointed out that indulgence in learning texts does not help spiritual progress.527 He believed his contemporaries were largely interested in gaining fame through scholarly argument. In Daoxuan’s eyes, however, such study does not contribute to spiritual progress and salvation. Daoxuan suggests that new monks should concentrate on the practice of morality and concentration, rather than speedily reading texts.528 He even criticized a monk who wrote a ten-volume commentary for one chapter of the Flower Adornment Sūtra (Huayan jing). 529 These criticisms, and perhaps the lack of recognition, demonstrate Daoxuan’s distance from the center of monastic life in Chang’an. He even dared not to reveal his ideas about daily discipline taught in Methods of Teaching Contemplation for Purifying Mind (Jingxin jieguan fa) to others. He warned his disciples that this method was restricted. This secret transmission reflects his marginal position in the monastic network. 526 527 528 529 Da Tang neidian lu, Daoxuan, T. no. 2149, 50. Jingxin jieguan fa, Daoxuan, T. no. 1893, 45: 833c. Ibid., T. no. 1893, 45: 833c. Skt. Avatamsaka-sūtra. See Jingxin jieguan fa, Daoxuan, T. no. 1893, 45: 821b. 226 Daoxuan emphasizes the importance of studying the monastic code and applying it daily in practice. His two manuals, Regulations and Rituals for Teaching and Regulating New Monks’ Travel and Protection (Jiaojie xinxue biqiu xinghu lüyi) and Methods of Teaching Contemplation for Purifying the Mind (Jingxin jieguan fa), reflected his basic principles. Daoxuan notes that the vinaya requires monks to depend on their teachers for five years. This period of dependence is devoted largely to study of the monastic code. In both manuals, Daoxuan disregards the differences between Mahāyāna and Hinayana practices. In Regulations and Rituals for Teaching and Regulating New Monks’ Travel and Protection, Daoxuan criticizes people who mistakenly view monastic codes as the methods of Hīnayāna. Daoxuan says that this attitude deviates from the mind-state of the bodhisattva internally and lacks the behaviors of the sound-hearers. In other words, a monk should view himself as a Bodhisattva in the mind and act as a follower of the Buddha. He notes again that people study doctrine too much and follow practice too little, lacking dedication to monastic codes and rituals. From this perspective, we see that, for Daoxuan, practicing monastic discipline should not be limited to Hīnayāna Buddhists; rather, Mahāyānists should also pay attention to monastic codes and rituals. Daoxuan wrote many pieces to advocate his ideas about the practice above. However, only after Daoxuan became the leader of the Ximing Monastery, he incorporated his writings into his catalogue of Buddhist canon. This canonization of his writings becomes the landmark of the acceptance of his ideas about Buddhist learning. From above discussion, some conclusions could be found here. First, Daoxuan’s efforts to formulate new monasticism based on southern tradition seem to deviate from what was then considered mainstream of his contemporary Buddhist learning. Second, in 227 his late period, his learning and his practice seems to be accepted by more and more masters and Buddhists. For instance, the monks who celebrated the construction of the ordination platform came from a variety of monasteries across the country. Third, he himself finally became the leader of one of the top monasteries in Chang’an. Discipline and Liberation For Daoxuan, the Chinese Buddhist monastic community was a disciplined community in which monks exercised minimal freedom in their daily behaviour in order to gain maximal spiritual liberation. When an ordinand became a monk and entered the monastic order, he would go through an ordination ritual. Afterwards, every step in his daily routine would be ritualized toward spiritual progress. For Daoxuan, this was the basis for the revival of the monastic community. Although in recent scholarship treats the southern tradition of Chinese Buddhism as one focused on metaphysics, I have demonstrated that for Daoxuan, the southern tradition of Chinese Buddhism was quite different. In his opinion, the southern tradition emphasizes rituals, especially the ordination ritual and relic-veneration. Having been educated in his early twenties in a community composted mostly of southern monks, Daoxuan later earned a reputation for strictly observing discipline, and founding a new ordination ritual by designing the ordination platform. Daoxuan advocated extreme asceticism as the ideal way of training new monks. He urged that monks should renounce secular attachments, including wealth, women, and any social relationships. He focused on poverty, chastity, and other renunciations. He also advocated that monks minimize their goods in order to prevent secular pollution. 228 Specifically, in his Methods of Teaching Contemplation for Purifying Mind (Jingxin jieguan fa), Daoxuan teaches that a monk should never think about secular pleasures, such like fame, sexual pleasure, and earning a lot of money. This claim might have been a response to challenges from secular authorities. The Tang emperor Taizong issued an edict criticizing monks for engaging in secular affairs and ingoring their religious practice.530 Daoxuan believe that many of his conyemporaries pursued fame and profit while wearing Buddhist robes and performing Buddhist rituals. In his view, they mimich serious deportment (weiyi), invited and sought distinction by lecturing, performaing grand rites, and engaging in secular affairs.531 In the history of Chinese Buddhism, many monks were involved in politics. For example, in the Yuanjia period (424-453) of the Song Dynasty, the monk Huilin often talked about political affairs with officials and was called as the “Black-Robe Prime Minister” (heiyi zaixiang).532 According to Daoxuan, such examples damaged Buddhist ideals. As a Buddhist leader, Daoxuan saw the danger in this involvement. He rejected bowing to the ruler. This point of ritual performance had broader implications, teaching all that monks should cultivate indifference to worldly authority and cautioning rules not to intervene in Buddhist affairs. In terms of ritual community, Daoxuan’s formulation of monastic rules indeed had an impact on daily life in Chinese Buddhist monasteries.533 Although many scholars 530 See Stanley Weinstein, Buddhism under the T’ang (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), Jingxin jieguan fa, Daoxuan, T. no. 1893, 45: 823a. pp. 15-16. 531 532 Fozu tongji, Zhipan (1220-1275), T. no. 2035, 49: 344b. It says that the Song emperor Wen often talked to Huilin about political affairs. Kong Yi called Huilin“black-robe prime minister.” 229 have traced the lifestyle of the Chinese monastic order of later periods back to the Chan (Zen) tradition, Daoxuan’s contribution should not be ignored. For example, he emphasized the significance of meditation practice for new monks and wrote a manual to teach new monks how to practice concentration. Second, he taught new monks how to behave in daily life. He reformulated the relationship between monks and lay people, as well as relationship between new monks and masters. He also taught that monks should not indulge in textual learning; rather, they should focus more on practice. Textual Community and Scholasticism Daoxuan was raised in a traditional literati family and worked with an erudite Buddhist master Huijun, so his background was very strong in both traditional Confucian education and Buddhist leraning. Daoxuan’s ideas about Buddhist monasticism derived from his encyclopedic knowledge of the Buddhist scholarly tradition. He was familiar with Buddhist history and non-Buddhist history, Indian and central Asian Buddhist traditions. Daoxuan never had a chance to visit India and Central Asia. However, his knowledge about them equipped him to be able to establish the authority in creating a new form of ordination platform. This is the natural consequence of his familiarity with texts. Never having visited south China, his image of the southern tradition of Chinese Buddhism was derived from the texts he read and the monks he regarded highly. Through texts, he discovered the old practice of purifying mind, written by Xiao Ziliang. Based on Xiao’s text, he wrote his own piece on the method of purifying the mind. Daoxuan emphasizes the importance of daily practice, rather than textual learning. But he also insisted that a new monk should depend on a vinaya teacher and, during his The study of monastic daily practice is beyond the scope of this study, and will be dealt with in my future research. 533 230 first five years, master the monastic code as well as scriptures. Therefore, he did not ignore textual learning Daoxuan pointed out that monks should keep Buddhist scriptures for daily study, and he suggested that temples should collect books from all sources. He introduced the recitation of the Scripture of Bequeathed Teaching into the ordination ritual. From a variety of angles, then, Daoxuan’s ideal Buddhist monastic community was a textual community. Its members were supposed to study deeply among a wide range of literary traditions, and they were taught to make books a significant part of their daily lives. People from outside the monastic community could gain access to the monastic library. In this literary way, the monastic community became a textual community serving both inside and outside readers. The Buddhist monastic emphasis on literacy is similar to that of medieval Christian monasticism. Modern scholarship has recognized the importance of learning as one of three main tasks of monks and nuns in medieval Christian monasticism. In Christianity, this learning was called lectio, referring to the study of texts and private meditation. The monasteries were the centers of scholarship and literary production from the eighth century until the eleventh century.534 In medieval China, Buddhist monasteries also developed many literary and cultural productions. For example, in Buddhist library, there were many letter models, which helped local people to write letters. In sum, Daoxuan viewed himself as a traditional Vinaya master, advocating the integration of textual learning into a broader and more fundamental program of monastic practice. Thus his legacy later became the dominant tradition in Chinese Buddhist Lutz, Kaelber, Schools of Asceticism: Ideology and Organization in Medieval Religious Communities (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998), p. 64. 534 231 monasticism, the focus of Chinese monks in textual leraning also to decline. The scholasticism which had been fourishing since the six dynasties gradually declined too. Ironically, although Daoxuan criticized other masters for their indulgence in meticulous commentaries on Buddhist texts, he himself wrote extensively about Vinayas. This textual tradition reflected in Daoxuan’s learning was inherited from his masters, especially Zhishou. Daoxuan surely was an encyclopedic scholar-monk. In his commentaries on Vinaya and his other ritual works, his citations come from hundreds of texts in the Buddhist canon. He was deeply learned in all three collections: sūtras, vinayas, and śāstras. He was also no amateur to non-Buddhist texts. Monastic and Secular Spheres Daoxuan was very much concerned with boundaries between the monastic sphere and the secular sphere. The Buddha’s presence defined the monastic sphere. The Buddha was present in his relics, which were venerated in Chinese monasteries. The historical Buddha thus oversaw the daily activity of Chinese monks and nuns. In being venerated on the ordination platform, the historical Buddha also witnessed the admission of new monks to the monastic order. The historical Buddha also attracted lay people when ceremonies were held to celebrate to venerate his relics. Furthermore, in venerating the historical Buddha, the monks and nuns were not allowed to venerate the contemporary secular rulers. That is why Daoxuan insisted on demonstration against bowing the emperor. The interaction between monastic and secular spheres is manifested from both spiritual and socio-economic dimensions. Modern scholarship of social history has 232 demonstrated how the monasteries interacted with social spheres outside in many ways. However, the spiritual interaction also should be taken into account more profoundly, especially in the context of medieval Chinese Buddhism. In the spiritual dimension, the monks, according to Daoxuan, had obligations to awaken other people’s bodhi mind and to enlighten their Buddha nature. Moreover, monks had authority and duty to help lay people to testify the relics they discovered. Only monks could verify the authenticity of the Buddha’s relics. Furthermore, though the monastic carried out the ordination ritual, lay society offered the feast for all monks as the concluding step for the ritual. Through performing ordination ritual, monks manifest the Buddhist teaching to lay people. Reciprocally, lay people earn merits in observing the ritual and offering the feast. Thus ordination ritual offers an opportunity for the interaction between monastic and lay communities. Although Buddhism seriously suffered from the political persecution in the Northern Zhou Dynasty, specicially during the regime of the Emperor Wu (r. 561-578), it seems that Buddhism experienced a revival in the early Tang period. As a self-conscious leader of Buddhist community, Daoxuan documented this revival, and more importantly, contributed to this revial. 233 Appendix: The Procedure of Ordination Ritual in Chinese Buddhism Daoxuan wrote intensively to formulate a new ordination ritual for Chinese Buddhism. His commentary on the Four-part Vinaya (Caturvargika-Vinaya, Sifenlü) and Illustrated Scripture on the Ordination Platform (Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing) offers a detailed description of the procedure of ordination ritual. Giving a sketch of the ordination ritual will help us better understand how the ritual was actually carried out in the medieval period. 1. Defining Boundaries According to Daoxuan, the first step in carrying out ordination ritual was to define the boundaries (jiejie 結界). The action of defining boundaries draws a line between secular and Buddhist realms. Daoxuan explains his ideas on the order of defining larger and smaller boundaries and establishing the platform by clarifying concepts like boundaries (jie), marks (xiang), ground (chang 場) and platform (tan 壇). In early Indian Buddhism, a Buddhist monastic community was organized in a specific place whose boundaries had been defined by a series of rituals.535 Each Buddhist tradition has its own regulations on performing rituals in order to define these boundaries. Daoxuan argues that the ordination platform should be created within a larger boundary (dajie). According to Daoxuan, the “ordination ground” should be defined first and the “large place” (dajie) surrounding the ordination ground should be defined Hirakawa Akira discusses various types of gathering for monks in the primitive sangha described in the early Vinaya pitaka of the Theravāda school. He suggests that there are five types of gatherings for monks: Four-monk sangha: catuvaggo bhikhusangha; Five-monk sangha: pañcaggo bhikhusangha; Ten-monk sangha: dasavaggo bhikhusangha; Twenty-monk sangha: vīsativaggo bhikhusangha; and more than twenty-monk sangha: atirekavīsativaggo bhikhusangha. See Hirakawa Akira, Genshi bukkyō kyōtan soshiki II, (Tokyo: Shunjusha, 2000). 535 234 second.536 Based on the Great Assembly Vinaya (Mahāsangha-Vinaya, Mohe sengqi lü) and the Four-part Vinaya (Caturvargika-Vinaya, Sifenlü), Daoxuan explicitly points out that the platform for the ordination place (jiechang 戒場) is within a large place.537 Thus two spaces, including an inner space for ritual (with ritualized boundaries, zuofajie) and an outer space for general gathering (with natural boundaries, ziran jie) were created. The ordination platform was erected on the ritualized space. In Daoxuan’s writings we see a growing concern with defining the place of ordination properly. General terms for the broader space seem to have included tanchang (literally “ground for the platform”), as in a Dunhuang manuscript, 538 and jiechang (literally “ground for precepts”). Within this area the ordination platform (jietan) itself should be built. In his preface to a eulogy dedicated to the establishment of the ordination platform in Jingye monastery, Daoxuan says that he set up the ordination place within the monastery first, and he erected a platform and stūpa (tan 壇 and ta 塔 ) within the ordination place. The platform and stupa on the platform square attracted the respect from the commoners and sages.539 The ordination platform is established for the ten masters to carry out the ordination ritual. The smaller space around it separates the place for the ordination ritual from the other parts of the monastic compound. The larger space separates the monastic compound and non-Buddhist space. 536 537 538 Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing, Daoxuan, T. no. 1892, 45: 817b. Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing, Daoxuan, T. no. 1892, 45: 814b. “The Sila text selected from Daśabhānavāravinaya” (Skt. Daśabhānavāravinaya, Ch. Shisong lü biqiu jieben 十誦律比丘戒本). See Inokuchi Taijun, Chuo ajia bukkyō no gengo to bukkyō (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1995), p. 437. 539 Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing, Daoxuan, T. no. 1892, 45: 818a. 235 2. Chanting marks “Chanting the marks” (Ch. changxiang 唱相), or announcing the boundaries of the ordination platform, is one of the key rituals in the procedure of defining boundaries.540In his Illustrated Scripture on the Ordination Platform, Daoxuan says that the boundaries can only be defined through chanting the marks. He criticizes his contemporaries for their empty practice of performing this chanting while outside the ordination platform. In his view, ordination carried out on an improperly defined ordination platform would not bring the Buddhist Dharma to the ordination candidates. Daoxuan describes how to chant the marks in his commentary on Four-part Vinaya. First, Daoxuan teaches that after all the monks have gathered in a natural space, one monk should carry himself properly and chant the marks of small ritual space. The monk should finish a round of chanting. Then the marks of the small spaces are chanted. 541 After this step, the karma master (karmadana, jiemoshi) and other monks come to participate in the ritual of creating a ritual ground within the smaller boundaries. Once all monks have gathered, the monk announces that now the assembly has created the ordination ground within the smaller boundaries.542 The details about chanting marks also appear in Sifenlü shanfan buque xingshi chao, Daoxuan, T. no. 1804, 40: 16a-c. He chants, “From here, inside of the mark in the southeastern corner, go along the rope west to the mark in the southwestern corner; from here, go along the rope north to the mark in the northwestern corner; then, go along the small wall east to the inner corner in the northeast; from here, go along inside of the small wall south to the mark in the southeastern corner.” See Sifenlü shanfan buque xingshi chao, Daoxuan, T. no. 1804, 40: 16c. He chants, “Listen, oh Monk of Great Virtue! We monks call this place the small ritual space of the four directions. Now the monks create the ordination space in the small ritual space of the four directions. Listen, all you senior monks! Now the monks create the ordination space in the small ritual space of the four directions. All monks should keep silent. If someone cannot endure the silence, rebuke him.” Sifenlü shanfan buque xingshi chao, Daoxuan, T. no. 1804, 40: 16c. 542 541 540 236 Daoxuan explains that four kinds of monks are involved in the procedure of chanting marks for defining the “ordination ground.” The first one is the monk chanting the marks and giving the instruction. This monk might be the instructor of rituals. The second group is composed of monks of Great Virtue (Skt. bhadanta, Ch. dade 大德 ) following the instruction to deal with the marks in order to define the space. The third group is the Karmakāraka (jiemo seng 羯磨僧), who asks questions of the instructor. The fourth group is composed of other monks in silence during the conduct of this ritual. 3. Building the Ordination Platform After defining the boundaries of the large place and the ordination ground, the next step is to build the ordination platform. The decoration of the ordination platform and its symbolic meaning are very important to our understanding of the ordination ritual. 543 I would argue that the ordination platform draws a line between the senior ordained monks and common Buddhist monks who stepped in different places in the ordination ritual. According to Daoxuan, the ordination platform should be built on a basis of square, with three levels. Each level is five Buddha’s elbows high. The relics of the Buddha are set up on the top level. On the second level, one high seat for the instructor is set up at the southern side. At the same side, three empty seats are set up for the worship of three bodhisattvas. At the western side, the image of the Buddha is set up.544 Each side has two walkways. In addition, each level is decorated with various gods and deities for the protection of the ordination ritual. 4. Receiving Ordination 543 544 For information, see chapter three. Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing, Daoxuan, T. no. 1892, 45: 816a. 237 Daoxuan prescribes the process of ordination in the ninth section of his Illustrated Scripture on the Ordination Platform named “The Ritual of Receiving Ordination.” I divide this procedure into several steps as follows, using some of Daoxuan’s terms for the different steps. a. Dengtan 登壇: Ten masters ascend the platform. The instructor (Skt. raho’nuśāsaka, Ch. jiaoshoushi 教 授 師 ), 545 carrying the incense stove leads the group to ascend to the second level from the eastern ladder in the south. They walk one circle around the platform from the east to west, and stop in front of the sculpture of Buddha to whom they bow three times. Ten masters speculatively inquire about the coming of all Buddhas, great Bodhisattvas, and all Śrāvakas to the platform, as if recalling the ritual in the time of Buddha. Then the instructor leads them all toward the west, and asks them to stop at the south. The instructor carrying the incense stove leads ten masters to the west, and they ascend to the third level from the western ladder in the south. On the top level of the platform, ten masters follow the instructor and walk east in a circle around the platform, coming back to the south. There they bow to the three empty seats, symbolizing three bodhisattvas 546 who asked Buddha to set up the ordination platform in the early period. 547 After having worshipped three empty, the For different names given to the instruction, see Paul Lévy, Buddhism: A Mysterious Religion? (London: The University of London, the Athelone Press, 1957), p. 40; and Hirakawa Akira, Genshi bukkyō kyotan soshiki II (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 2000), pp. 198, 212. According to Mahāyāna Buddhism, there are three worlds, including the past world, this world, and the future world, and there are one thousand Buddhas in each world. Rudita is the last Buddha in this world. See Guan yaowang yaoshang er pusa jing, T. no. 1161, 20; Sanqian foming jing (The Sūtra of the Names of Three Thousands Buddhas). The idea of Buddhas in three World (Skt. tryādhva-vyavasthitāh sarva-buddhāh, Ch. sanshi zhufo) also appears in many Mahāyāna texts, such as Jingang boruo poluomiduo xin jing (Heart Sūtra), T. no. 251, 8: 848c; Miaofa lianhua jing (Lotus Sūtra), T. no. 262, 9: 10a. These three bodhisattvas deserve more study, since as so far there is no specific article offering a clear picture about them. 547 546 545 238 group sits down in order. A monk sitting in the highest position next recites the Scripture of Bequeathed Teaching (Yijiao jing). 548 While reciting this sutra, a bell is ringing, incense is burnig, and the assembly sings eulogies dedicating merit to the Buddha. The monks receiving ordination sit silently in their places and listen to the recitation. b. Shexi 設席: Setting up the mat for bestowing the robes. After all the participants settle down in their positions, the instructor leads the ordinands to the east ladder in the south and stands to the west. At this time, the ritual instructor comes down the east ladder in the south and leads the applicants to the west ladder in the south to ascend the platform. After ascending to the first level of the platform, the instructor leads the applicants along the east. They come back to the south and worship the sculpture of Buddha549 three times. The applicants then kneel and listen to the recitation of the Scripture of the Bequeathed Teachings (Yijiao jing). The instructor leads the applicants to the east ladder in the south and descends to the ground. Then the applicants are led out of the ritual boundary.550 When the masters finished questioning the applicants about monastic discipline, the instructor leads the applicants to the ritual space. Just before the east ladder in the south of the ritual space, a mat is set up for masters to ask the applicants questions about 548 549 I discuss this sutra in detail in chapter three. There is an image of Buddha, though the original Chinese text says that the object of worship is Buddha. But according to the context, as Daoxuan mentioned before, a sculpture of Buddha is viewed as equivalent to a Buddha. In the meantime, there is the relic of Buddha just in the center of the ordination platform. About the functional equivalence of the relic and the living Buddha, see Gregory Schopen, Bones, Stones and Buddhist Monks (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997), pp. 131ff. It seems likely to be the small space, rather than the large space, because the applicant will come back very soon under the guidance of the instructor. The latter might not be able to go too far away from the platform and his duty. But it is worth studying in detail. 550 239 discipline. The applicants come close to the mat and carry their robes and bowls toward the north.551 The instructor comes down from the east ladder in the south and sits in the seat on the mat for screening orders. c. Shouyi 授衣: The instructor bestows the robes to the applicants. Once the instructor sits down on the mat, he picks up the robes from the hands of the applicant on whom they are to be bestowed. Then the instructor asks the applicant to take off his shoes and sit on the mat. First, he bestows the mat (Skt. nisīdana, Ch. nishitan 尼師壇) to the applicant, and asks the applicant to sit on it. Second, he bestows the waist coat (Skt. antarvāsak, Ch. anduohui 安多會) on the applicant and asks the applicant to wear it. Third, he bestows the outer garment (Skt. uttarāsangha, Ch. yuduoluoseng 鬱多羅 僧) on the applicant placing it over his shoulder. Fourth, he bestows the patch-robe or great robe (Skt. sanghātī, Ch. sengjiali 僧 伽 黎 ) on the applicant. The three robes (including waist coat, outer garment, and great robe) were only used by Buddhist monks. The mat symbolizes the foundation of the stupa. Once the applicant accepts these robes, according to Daoxuan, he has obtained the foundation for the five attributes of the dharmakāya. Along with bestowing the robes, the instructor also teaches the meaning of the robes. d. Wennan 問難 : The instructor (duweina 都維那﹐ weina 維那 ) screens the ordination applicants for full orders. It is not clear in this section of the ordination platform text who prepares the robes and bowl for the applicant. But we could find the answer in Daoxuan’s other texts, especially his text Ritual on Buddhist Ceremonial Dress, Shimen zhangfu yi, Daoxuan, T. no. 1894. 551 240 After having bestowed the robes on the applicants, the instructor ascends on the platform from the east ladder again. He walks toward the west and ascends on the second level in the south from the west ladder. Then he walked toward the east, stops before the relic of the Buddha and worships the image of the Buddha three times. He keeps walking toward the east and comes back from the north. Then he stands just in front of the karmakāraka and asks for discipline. After having asked, he goes to the west ladder in the south. The applicants are directed to ascend the platform and bow the three empty seats. In addition, they worship the ten masters. The ritual master asks them to kneel in front of the karma master to ask for ordination. After sitting back down, the karma master alone screens the applicants for full orders. Then the karma master ordains the applicant. Then the karma master asks the applicant to kneel and bow ten masters. After finishing, the ordinand bows the image of the Buddha while facing the north. He kneels to listen to the recitation of the Scripture of the Bequeathed Teaching and then stands up. e. Xiatan 下壇: Descending the platform. After everything is done, the instructor carrying the incense stove walks to the north ladder in the west of the platform and leads ten masters in descending from the platform. They walk toward the east and stop in the south to worship the sculpture of Buddha three times. In the meantime, the deacon leads the newly ordained monk to the east and they descend from the platform along the south ladder in the east. They walk one circle around the platform from the north to the south, and stop at the west ladder in the south. They walk to the east and bow the image of the Buddha while facing north. When other masters see that the newly ordained monks have arrived, they descend to the ground 241 from the east ladder in the south, and walk “like a flock of hawks (Skt. hamsa) to the forest of flowers.” The ordinands follow these masters to the “forest of flowers”. Once entering the forest, the ordinands go before the masters. Then the instructor leads the ten masters out of the ordination place and enters into the large space. The whole process is thus ended. 5. Feasting Buddhist Assembly The last stage of the ordination ritual is the feast offered by the local lay community to the Buddhist assembly once the ordination ritual has ended. According to Daoxuan, after the receiving ordination, the instructor guides all monks to the dining hall and to have a vegetarian feast. Other lay men and lay women also come to the monastery and fill the whole monastic compound. They all close their palms and praise virtues of the Buddha. In his text on the ordination platform, Daoxuan only mentions lay people in the portion dealing with the celebratory feast. In his view, the whole ordination ritual occurs largely within the sangha and has nothing to do with lay people. Daoxuan does not say whether lay people witness the ordination ritual within the monastic compound. But it seems that lay people were not in the monastic compound because in calling the assembly of monks means, only novices and monks are mentioned, not laymen. But after the ordination ritual, the feast held in the monastery could be sponsored by lay supporters. Daoxuan does not offer a clear explanation of how the feast was made possible or explain the relationship between monks and lay people. The ordination ritual thus ends with the appearance of lay people. This suggests a close relationship between the monastic sangha and the lay community. 242 Historical Postscript Interestingly, Daoxuan lists in his Illustrated Scripture on the Ordination Platform a lot of masters who attended the fantastic ceremony to establish a gorgeous platform in Qingguan County, Shanxi. Grouping these monks will be helpful to our understanding of the witnesses of this ordination ritual as designed by Daoxuan in his new interpretation of the ordination ritual. What were the geographical and professional backgrounds of these masters? The thirty-nine masters came from fifteen prefectures throughout the empire including eleven prefectures in the North, and four prefectures in the South. They represent all three practices of Vinaya (20), meditation (13), and dharma (5).552 Many masters were from the monasteries located on Mount Zhongnan. It seems that masters from both urban areas and rural areas took part in this ordination ritual.553 Daoxuan’s brief note is the earliest surviving evidence for the actual implementation of his ritual prescription. 552 553 Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing, Daoxuan, T. no. 1892, 45: 816c. At least three masters whose names appear in Daoxuan’s Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks belong to the Four-part Vinaya tradition. Vinaya master Zhenyi was from Ximing Monastery of Chang’an. Vinaya master Daocheng was from Yaotai Monastery of Zhaoling, and Vinaya master Huaisu was from Hongji Monastery of Chang’an. Zhenyi was one of the four distinguished disciples of vinaya master Huijin who followed the famous vinaya master Zhishou with whom Daoxuan also worked on vinaya texts. Daochang was master Daozhe’s disciple. His name appears in the biography of Daozhe, see Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, vol. 50: 589a. For Huijin’s biography, see Xu gaoseng zhuan, Daoxuan, T. no. 2060, 50: 615a. 243 Bibliography Primary Sources 1. Works by Daoxuan Da Tang neidian lu (Catalogue of Buddhist Canon of the Great Tang) 10 chs. 664 AD. T. no. 2149. Daoxuan lushi gantong lu (Records of Miraculous Responses of the Vinaya Master Daoxuan) 1 ch. 667 AD (?). T. no. 2107. Famen wenji (Collection of Buddhist Essays). Xianqing period (656-660 AD). Not extant. Fohua dongjian to zan (Illustrated Eulogy of the Spread of Buddhism to the East). 1 ch. 660 AD. Not extant. Guano hongming ji (Extended Collection Propagating and Illuminating Buddhism). 30 chs. 664 AD. T. no. 2103. Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing bingxu (Illustrated Scripture with Preface on the Establishment of Ordination Platform in Central China). 1 ch. 667 AD. T. no. 1892. Hu sanbao wu yi (Ritual of Protecting Buddhist Property). 1 ch. 659 AD. Not extant. Hu seng wu yi (Ritual on Protection of Monks).1 ch. 659 AD. Not extant. Ji gujin fodao lunheng (Collection of Debates between Buddhism and Daoism). 4 chs. 661-664 AD. T. no. 2104. Ji shenzhou sanbao gantong lu (Record of the Miraculous Responses of the Three Treasures in China). 3 chs. 664 AD. T. no. 2106. Jiaoiie xinxue biqiu xinghu luyi (Discipline and Ritual on Teaching New Monks Travel and Protection). 1 ch. 634 AD, revised in 648 AD. T. no. 1897. Jiaosu shishe zhaiyi (Feast Rituals for Lay People and Buddhist Gentry). 1 ch. 659 AD. Not extant. Jingxin jieguan fa (Method of Instructing and Contemplating the Purification of the Mind). 1 ch. 659 AD. T. no. 1893. Liangchu qingzhongyi (Ritual on Measuring and Handling Heavy and Light Property). 1 ch. 637 AD. T. no. 1895. Luchao liaojian (Simplified Selections from Vinaya Texts). 1 ch. 627 AD. Not extant. 244 Luxiang gantong zhuan (Records of the Miraculous Responses to the Manifestations of the Vinaya). 1 ch. 667 AD. T. no. 1898. Shijia fangzhi (Śākyamuni Gazetteer). 2 chs. 651. T. no. 2088. Shijia shipu (The Genealogy of the Śākya Clan). 1 ch. 665 AD. T. no. 2041. Shimen guijing yi (Buddhist Rites on Obeisance and Veneration). l ch. 661 AD. T. no. 1896. Shimen ji sengguidu tujing (The Collected Buddhist Illustrated Texts on Regulations of Monks). 1 ch. 624 AD. Not extant. Shimen zhangfu yi (Ritual on Buddhist Ceremonial Dress). 1 ch. 659 AD. T. no. 1894. Sifenlü biqiuni jieben (Selection on Bhikhsuni Precepts of the Curturvagika-Vinaya). 1 ch. 635 AD. Not extant. Sifenlü shanfan buque xingshi chao (Commentary on the Curturvagika-Vinaya with Annotations and Additions). 12 chs. 626 AD. T. no. 1804. Sifenlü shanbu suiji jiemo (Occasional Karma with Deletions and Additions of the Curturvagika-Vinaya). 4 chs. 635 AD, revised in 647. T. no. 1808. Sifenlü shi bini chao (Selection from Ten Vinayas of the Curturvagika-Vinaya). 6 chs. 627 AD. Z. la, 71:2. Xu da Tang neidian lu (Continued Catalogue of Buddhist Canon of the Great Tang). 1 ch. 665 AD. T. no. 2149. Xu gaoseng zhuan (Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks). 30 chs. 645 AD. T. no. 2060. Zhongtianzhuguo zhiyuansi tujing (Illustrated Scripture on Jetavana Monastery in Central Indian). 2 chs. 667 AD. T. no. 1899. 2. Works in Collections Dai Nihon bukkyō zensho. 100 vols. Tokyo: Kankō Suzuiki Gakujutsu Zaidan: Hatsubai Kōdansha (1970-1973). Jiu Tang shu. 200 vols. Liu Xu et al. Beijing : Zhonghua shuju, 1975. Liang shu. 56 vols. Yao Cha et al. Beijing : Zhonghua shuju, 1975. 245 Quan Tang shi. 12 vols. Peng Dingqiu (1645-1719) et al. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1960. Quan shanggu sandai Qin Han Sanguo Liuchao wen. 746 vols. Yan Kejun ed. Taipei: Shijie shuju, 1961. Quan Tang wen. 10 vols. Dong Hao (1740-1818) et al. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1996. Quan Tang wen bubian. 7 vols. Chen, Shangjun et al. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1999-2000. Quan Tang wen xinbian. 22 vols. Changchun: Jilin wenshi chubanshe, 2000. Sui shu. 85 vols. Fang Xuanling et al. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975. Taiping guangji. 500 vols. Li Fang (925-996) et al. Beijing: Renmin wenxue chubanshe, 1959. Taishō shinshu daizōkyō. 85 vols. Takakusu Junjiro et al. Tokyo: Taishō shinshu daizōkyō kankokai, 1924-1934. Xin Tang shu. 225 vols. Ouyang Xiu et al. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975. Yanshi jiaxun. 7 vols. Yan Zhitui (531-591). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1993). Yuanhe junxian tuzhi. 40 vols. Li Jifu (758-814). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983. Secondary Sources 1. Sources in Western Langauges Abé, Ryūichi. The Weaving of Mantra: Kūkai and the Construction of Esoteric Buddhist Discourse (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999). Almond, Philip C. Mystical Experience and Religious Doctrine: An Investigation of the Study of Mysticism in World Religions (Berlin, New York and Amsterdam: Mouton Publishers, 1982). -------. The British Discovery of Buddhism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Althoff, Gerd, Johannes Fried, and Patrick Geary. Medieval Concept of the Past: Ritual, Memory, Historiography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Assandri, Friederike. “Die Debatten zwischen Daoisten und Buddhisten in der Früher Tang-Zeit und die Changxuan-Lehre des Daoismus” (“The Debates between Daoists and Buddhists in the early Tang and the Chongxuan Teaching of Daoism. A 246 Study of Daoxuan’s Ji gujin fodao lunheng, T. 2104”), Heidelberg University, Germany, 2002. Bailey, Harold W. “The Tumshug Karmavācanā,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies XIII (1949-1950), pp. 649-670. Bareau, André. Recherches sur la biographie du Buddha dans les Sūtrapitaka et les Vinayapitaka anciens. Vol. II. Les derniers mois, le parinirvāna et les funérailles (Paris: École Franşaise d’Extrême Orient, 1970). Barnhart, Bruno and Joseph Wong ed. Purity of Heart and Contemplation: A Monastic Dialogue between Christianity and Asian Traditions (New York and London: Continuum, 2001). Baumgarten, Albert I. with J. Assmann, G.G. Stroumsa ed. Self, Soul, and Body in Religious Experience (Brill: E J. Brill, 1998). Bell, Catherine. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). Benn, Charles D. The Cavern-Mystery Transmission: A Taoist Ordination Rite of A. D. 711 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1991). Benn, James. “Where Text Meets Flesh: Burning the Body as an Apocryphal Practice in Chinese Buddhism,” History of Religions 37: 4 (1998), pp. 295-322. -------. “Burning for the Buddha: Self-Immolation in Chinese Buddhism,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angels, 2001. Bentor, Yael. “On the Indian Origins of the Tibetan Practice of Depositing Relics and Dhāraņīs in Stūpas and Images,” Journal of American Oriental Society 115: 1 (1999), pp. 1-27. Berkowitz, Alan J. Patterns of Disengagement: The Practice and Portrayal of Reclusion in Early Medieval China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000). Biderman, Shlomo. Scripture and Knowledge: An Essay on Religious Epistemology (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995). Birnbaum, Raoil. “Master Hongyi Looks Back: A Modern Man Became a Mon in Twentieth-Century China,” in: Steven Heine and Charles S. Prebish ed. Buddhism in the Modern World: Adaptation of an Ancient Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 75-124. Blackburn, Anne M. Buddhist Learning and Textual Practice in Eighteenth-Century Lankan Monastic Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001). 247 Blakeley, Donald N. “Listening to the Animals: The Confucian View of Animal Welfare,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 30: 2 (2003), pp. 137-158. Bleeker, C. J. Initiation: Contributions to the Theme of the Study – Conference of the International Association for the History of Religions held at Strasburg, September 17th to 22nd 1964 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965). Bloch, Maurice. Ritual, History and Power: Selected Papers in Anthropology (London: Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Athlone Press, 1989). Bongard-Levin, Gregory, Daniel J. Boucher, Takamichi Fukita, and Klaus Wille, “The Ngaropamasūtra: An Apotropaic Text from the Samyuktāgama. A Translation, Reconstruction, and Translation of the Central Asian Sanskrit Manuscripts,” in: Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texts aus den Turfan-Funden. Beiheft 6. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996). Boucher, Daniel. “The Pratītyasamutpādagātha and Its Role in the Medieval Cult of the Relics.” Journal of International Association of Buddhist Studies 14: 1 (1991), pp. 1-27. Bourdieu, Pierre. Language and the Symbolic Power (Cambridge: Polity in association with Basil Blackwell, 1991). Brassard, Francis. The Concept of Bodhicitta in Śāntideva’s Bodhicaryāvatāra (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000). Bregman, Lucy. “Baptism as Death and Birth: A Psychological Interpretation of its Imagery.” Journal of Ritual Studies 1: 2 (1987), pp. 27-41. Brooke, Christopher. The Age of the Cloister: The Story of Monastic Life in the Middle Ages (HiddenSpring, 2003). Brown, Brian Edward. The Buddha Nature: A Study of the Tathaagatagarbha and Alayavijnaana (Alex Wayman, ed., Buddhist Tradition Series, volume 11, Motial Banarsidass Publishers, 1991). Buddhist Text Translation Society, The Sūtra in Forty-two Sections Spoken by the Buddha (Based on the Translation into Chinese by the Venerable Kashyapamatanga and Venerable Gobharana: A Simple explanation by the Venerable Master Hsuan Hua) (Burlingame, CA: Buddhist Text Translation Society, Dharma Realm Buddhist University, Dharma Realm Buddhist Association, 1994) Bunnag, Jane. Buddhist Monk, Buddhist Layman: A Study of Urban Monastic organization in Central Thailand (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973). Burke, Peter. History and Social Theory (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992). 248 Burton, Janet. Medieval Monasticism (Headstart Historical Papers. Plantagene Press, 1993). Buswell, Robert . ed., Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990). Butler, Thomas. (ed.), Memory: History, Culture, and the Mind (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989). Calkins, Robert G. Monuments of Medieval Art (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1985). Campbell, Joseph. The Hero with A Thousand Faces (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973. Cassian, The Conferences, translated by Boniface Ramsey (New York: Paulist, 1997). Chan, Wing-tsit trans. A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964). Chapple, Christopher. Karma and Creativity; Nonviolence to Animals, Earth, and Self in Asian Traditions (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1993). Charleux, Isabelle and Vincent Goossaert, “The Physical Buddhist Monastery in China,” in: P. Pichard and F. Lagirarde ed. The Buddhist Monastery: A Cross-cultural Survey (Paris: EFEO, 2003), pp.305-350. Chen, Jinhua. Monks and Monarchs, Kinship and Kingship: Tanqian in Sui Buddhism and Politics. (Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies, 2002). ------. Buddhist Monasticism: Asian Perspectives (Boston: Wisdom Publications), forthicoimg. Ch’en, Kenneth. Buddhism in China (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973). Cheng, Peilieu. “A Background Perspective: Some Notes on the Characterization and Distribution of Domestic Animals in China,” Hoefer, Jacob A. and Patricia Jones Tsuchitani, eds. Animal Agriculture in China: A Report of the Visit of the CSCPRC Animal Sciences Delegation (Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press, 1980), pp. 5-15. Cho, Eunsu. “Manifestation of the Buddha's Land in the Here and Now: Relic Installation and Territorial Transformation in Medieval Korea,” paper presented at the conference on “Formation and Transformation of Buddhist Sacred Site,” September 2004, at the University of Britisch Columbia, Canada. 249 Cohen, Anthony. P. The Symbolic Construction of Community (London: Tavistock/Ellis Horwood, 1985). Cohen, Richard C. “Discontented Categories: Hinayana and Mahayana in Indian History,” Journal of American Academy of Religion 63: 1 (1995), pp. 1-25. Cole, Alan. Mothers and Sons in Chinese Buddhism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998). Colish, Marcia L. Medieval Foundations of the Western Intellectual Tradition 400-1400 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997). Collins, Randall. Weberian Sociological Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). Collins, Steven. “Monasticism, Utopias and Comparative Social Theory,” Religion 18 (1988), pp. 101-135. Conard, Roswith. “The Domestic Animals in the Cultures of India,” Journal of Indian History 52 (1974), pp. 76-78. Connerton, Paul. How Societies Remember (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). Cua, Antonio S. “On the Ethical Significance of Ti-Yong Distinction,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy No. 2 (2002), pp. 163-70. Dale, Thomas E. A. Relics, Prayer, and Politics in Medieval Venetia: Romanesque Painting in the Crypt of Aquileia Cathedral (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997). Davis, Richard H. ed. Images, Miracles, and Authority in Asian Religious Traditions (Boulder, CO.: Westview Press, 1998). Dayal, H. The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhist Sanskrit Literature (London, 1932). Deleanu, Florin. “A Preliminary Study on Meditation and the Beginnings of Mahāyāna Buddhism,” Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University for the Academic Year 1999 11 (2000), 65-113. Demiéville, Paul. “Sur la mémoire des sxistences antérieures,” Bulletin de I’École Française d”Extrême-Orient 27 (1927), pp. 283-298. -------. Paul Demiéville, “La Yocācārabhūmi de Sangharaksa,” Bulletin de I’École Française d”Extrême-Orient 64: 2 (1954), pp. 250 Donner, Neal and Daniel B. Stevenson, The Great Calming and Contemplation: A Study and Annotated Translation of the First Chapter of Chih-I’s Mo-ho chih-kuan (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1993). Dreyfrus, Georges B. J. The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist Monk (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003). Duby, Georges. Art and Society in the Middle Ages (translated by Jean Birrell) (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000). Dudbridge, Glen. Religious Experience and Lay Society in T'ang China: A Reading of Tai Fu's 'Kuang-i chi' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Dunn, Marilyn J. The Emergence of Monaticism: From the Desert Fathers to the Early Middle Ages (London: Blackwell Publishers, 2002). Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (New York: Free Press, 1995). Durt, Herbert. “Two Interpretations of Human-flesh Offering Misdeed or Supreme Sacrifice,” Kokusai bukkyogaku daigakuin daigaku kiyo 1 (1998), pp. 236-253. ------. “The Offering of the Children of Prince Viśvantara / Sudāna in the Chinese Traiditon,” Kokusai bukkyo daigakuin daigaku kiyo 2 (1999), pp. 266-309. Dutt, Nalinaksha. Early Monastic Buddhism (Calcutta: Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay, 1971). Dutt, Sukumar. Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of India: Their History and Their Contribution to Indian Culture (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. 1962, reprinted in Delhi: Motial Banarsidass, 2000). Ebrey, Patricia B. and Peter N. Gregory eds. Religion and Society in T’ang and Sung China (Honolulu: Hawaii University Press, 1993) Eliade, Mircea. Rites and Symbols of Initiation: the Mysteries of Birth and Rebirth (Dallas: Spring Publications, 1958). -------. Yoga: Immortality and Freedom tr. By Willard R. Trask, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969). Emmerick, Ronald E. The Tumshuqese Karmavācanā Text (Adademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz: Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang, Nr. 2, Stuttgart: Steiner-VerlagWiesbaden-GmbH, 1985). --------. “Buddhism in Central Asia,” Encyclopedia of Religion (ed. Mirceau Eliade), vol. 2 (New York: Macmillan, 1987), pp. 400-404. --------. A Guide of Khotanese Buddhist Literature (Tokyo: Reiyukai, 1995). 251 Engel, Susan. Context is Everything: The Nature of Memory (Princeton University Press, 1999). Enomoto, Fumio. “A Note on Kashmir as referred to in Chinese Literature: Ji-bin,” A Study of the Nīlamata. Aspects of Hinduism in Ancient Kashmir (ed. Ikari Yasuke; Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 1994), pp. 357-365. Faure, Bernard. “Relics and Flesh Bodies: The Creation of Ch’an Pilgrimage Site,.” in: Susan Naquin and Chün-fang Yü eds. Pilgrims and Sacred Sites in China. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), pp. 150-189. ------. Visions of Power: Imagining Medieval Japanese Buddhism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996). -------. The Will to Orthodoxy: A Critical Gealogy of Northern Chan Buddhism (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1997). -------. The Red Thread: Buddhist Approaches to Sexuality (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998). -------. The Power of Denial: Buddhism, Purity, and Gender (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2003). Filliozat, Jean. “La mort volontaire par le feu et la tradition bouddhique indienne,” Journal Asiatique 1(1963). -------. La doctrine classique de la médecine Indienne: ses origines et ses parallèles grecs (Paris: École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1975). Findly, Ellison Banks. Dana: Giving and Getting in Pali Buddhism (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2003). Forte, Antonio. “Daji.” Hobogirin vol. vi (Kyoto: École française d'Extrême-Orient, 1983), pp. 682-704. Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Vintage Books, 1995). -------. Power, edited by James D. Faubion; translated by Robert Hurley and others (New York, New Press: Distributed by W.W. Norton, 2000). Foulk, Griffith T. “Myth,” in Patricia B. Ebrey and Peter N. Gregory eds., Religion and Society in T’ang and Sung China (Honolulu: Hawaii University Press, 1993), pp. 147-208. Frauwallner, Ernst. The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature (Serie Orientale Roma viii, Roma: Is. M. E. O., 1956). Friedrich-Silber, Ilana. Virtuosity, Charisma, and Social Order: A Comparative Sociological Study of Monasticism in Theravada Buddhism and Medieval Catholicism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 252 Frye, Richard N. Bukhara: The Medieval Achievement (University of Oklahoma Press, 1965). Fu, Charles Wei-Hsun and Sandra A. Wawrytko ed., Buddhist Behavioral Codes and the Modern World: An International Symposium (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994). Geary, Patrick J. Furta Sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages (Princeton,: Princeton University Press, 1990). ------. Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994). Gedi, Noa and Yigal Elam, “Collective Memory,” History and Memory 8: 1 (1996). Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973). van Gennep, Arnold. The Rites of Passage (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960). Germano, David and Kevin Trainor. Embodying the Dharma: Buddhist Relic Veneration in Asia (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004). Gernet, Jacques. Les suicides par le feu chez led bouddhistes chiois du Ve au Xe siècle (Mélanges publiés par l’Institut des hautes etudes chinoises 2, 1960). ------. Buddhism in Chinese Society: An Economic History from Fifth to the Tenth Centuries (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995). Le Goff, Jacque. History and Memory (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992). Gombrich, Richard F. “Temporary Ordination in Sri Lanka.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 7: 2 (1984), pp. 41-65. -------. Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo (London and New York: Routledge, 1988). -------. “How the Mahāyāna Began,” Journal of Pali and Buddhist Studies 1 (1988), pp. 29-46. Reprinted in: T. Sporupski ed., The Buddhist Forum vol. 1 (London, 1990), pp. 21-30. ---------. “Organized bodhisattvas: a blind alley in Buddhist historiography,” in: SËryacandråya: Essays in Honour of Akira Yuyama, eds. Paul Harrison and Gregory Schopen (Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica, 1998), pp. 43–56. Reprinted in Studies in Hindu and Buddhist Art, ed. P. K. Mishra (New Delhi, Abhinav Publications, 1999). Granoff, Phyllis and Koichi Shinohara, eds., Monks and Magicians: Religious Biographies in Asia (Oakville: Mosaic Press, 1988). Gregory, Peter. Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism (The Kuroda Institute Series. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1986). 253 Groner, Paul. “The Fan-wang ching and Monastic Discipline in Japanese Tendai: A Study of Annen's `Futsu jubosatsukai koshaku,’” in: Robert Buswell, ed., Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990), pp. 251-290. Groogers, André. “The Power Dimensions of the Christian Community: An Anthropological Model,” Religion 33 (2993), pp. 263-280. de Groot, J. M. Le code du Mahāyāna en chine: Son influence sur la vie monacale et sur le monde laïque (Amsterdam, reprinted Wiesbaden: Johannes Müller, 1976). Gunawardana, R. A. L. H. Robe and Plough: Monasticism and Economic Interest in Early Medieval Sri Lanka (The Association for Asian Studies, Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press, 1979). Handurukande, Ratna. Three Sanskrit Texts on Caitya Worship: In Relation to the Ahoratravrata (Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 2000). Harrison, Paul. “Is the Dharma-kāya the Real Phantom Body of the Buddha?” Journal of the International Association for Buddhist Studies 15 (1992), pp. 45-95. --------. “Searching for the Origins of Mahāyāna: What are We Looking for?,” The Eastern Buddhism 28: 1 (1995), pp. 48-69. Härtel, Herbert. Karmavācanā – Formulare für den Gebrauch im buddhistischen Gemeindeleben aus ostturkistanischen Sanskrit-Handschriften (Berlin, 1956). Harvey, Barbara. Living and Dying in England, 1100-1540: The Monastic Experience (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). Harvey, Peter. An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics; Foundations, Values and Issues. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Heesterman, J. C. “Self-Sacrifice in Vedic Ritual,” in: S. Sharked, D. Shulman and G. G. Strouma ed. Gilgul: Essays on Transformation, Revolution and Performance in the History of Religions – Dedicated to R. J. Zwi Werblowsky (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987), pp. 91-106. Heine, Steven and Charles S. Prebish ed. Buddhism in the Modern World: Adaptations of an Ancient Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University press, 2003). Heirman, Ann. “Some Remarks on the Definition of a Monk and a Nun as Members of a Community and the Definition of 'Not to Live in Community',” Indian Journal of Buddhist Studies 7: 1-2 (1995), pp. 1-22. -------. “Some Remarks on the Rise of the Bhiksunisamgha and on the Ordination Ceremony for Bhiksunis according to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 20: 2 (1997), pp. 33-85. 254 -------. “Can we trace the early Dharmaguptakas?” T’oung Pao 88: 4-5 (2002), pp. 396429. -------. The Discipline in Four Parts, Rules for Nuns according to the Dharmaguptakavinaya (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2002), 3 vols. von Hinüber, Oskar "Khandhakavatta. Loss of Text in the Pali Vinaya," Journal of the Pali Text Society 15 (1990), pp. 127-138. Hirakawa, Akira. “The Rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relationship to the Worship of Stupas,” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 22 (1963), pp. -------. A History of Indian Buddhism: From Śākyamuni to Early Mahāyāna (translated by Paul Groner) (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990). Hōbōgirin: dictionnaire encyclopédique du bouddhisme d’après les sources chinoises et japonaises. 8 vols. Edited by Paul Demiéville and Jacques May. Tokyo: Maison Franco-Japonaise, 1929-. Holt, John. Discipline: The Canonical Buddhism of the Vinayapitaka (Columbia, MI: South Asia Books, 1983). Horner, I. B. trans. The Book of Discipline. 6 vols. (London: Pali Text Society, 1970-86). Huang, Chi-chiang. “Consecrating the Buddha: Legend, Lore, and History of the Imperial Relic-Veneration Ritual in the T’ang Dynasty,” Chung-hwa Journal of Buddhist Studies 11 (1998), pp. 483-533. Humphries, Jeff. Reading Emptiness: Buddhism and Literature (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999). Hurvitz, Leon. “Wei Shou: Treatise on Buddhism and Taoism, an English Translation of the Original Chinese Text of Wei-shu CXIV and the Japanese Annotation of Tsukamoto Zenryū.” In: Yün-kang: The Buddhist Cave-Temples of the Fifth Century A.D. in North China, vol. 16, supplement (Kyoto: Jimbunkagaku kenkyusho, Kyoto University, 1956). -------. Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976. Hutton, Patrick H. History as an Art of Memory (University Press of New England, 1993). Jan, Yün-hua, “Buddhist Self-immolation in Medieval China,” History of Religions 4: 2 (1965), pp. 243-268. -------. “Seng-ch’ou’s Method of dhyāna,” in: Whalen Lai and Lewis R. Lancaster ed. Early Ch’an in China and Tibet (Berkeley: Asian Humanties Press, 1983), pp. 51-63. 255 Janousch, Andreas. “The Emperor as Bodhisattva: The Bodisattva and Ritual Aseemblies of Emperor Wu of the Liang Dynasty,” in Joseph P. McDermott ed. State and Court Ritual in China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 112-149. Jonker, Gerdien. The Topography of Remembrance: The Dead, Tradition and Collective Memory in Mesopotamia (Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1995). Kaelber, Lutz, Schools of Asceticism: Ideology and Organization in Medieval Religious Communities (University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1998). Kaiser, Susan B., The Social Psychology of Clothing and Personal Adornment (New York: Macmillan, 1985). Kieschnick, John. The Eminent Monk: Buddhist Ideas in Medieval Chinese Hagiography (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997). -------. The Buddhist Impact on Chinese Material Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003). -------. “The History of the Bathhouse in Chinese Buddhist Monasteries,” paper presented in a Conference on Monasticism in East Asia, Cambridge University, July 1-4, 2004. Klein, Kerwin Lee. “On the Emergence of Memory in Historical Discourse,” Representations 69 (2000), pp. 127-150. Kloppenborg, Ria and Wouter J. Hanegraaff ed. Female Stereotypes in Religious Traditions (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995). Kohn, Livia. Monastic Life in Medieval Daoism: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003). Kuberski, Philip. The Persistence of Memory: Organism, Myth, Text (University of California Press, 1992). Kuo, Li-ying. Confession et contrition dans le bouddhisme chinois du V au Xe siècle (Paris: École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1994). Kuwayama Shoshin. "Historical Notes on Kâpišî and Kabul in the Sixth-Eight Centuries," in Zinbun 34: 1 (1999), pp. 25-77. Lacapra, Dominick. Writing History, Writing Trauma (Parallax: Re-Visions of Culture and Society). Lai, Whalen and Lewis R. Lancaster ed. Early Ch’an in China and Tibet (Berkeley: Asian Humanties Press, 1983), pp. 51-63. Lamotte, Étienne. Le Traité de la grande vertu de sagesse (Louvain, 1944). 256 -------. History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Śaka Era. Translated by Sara Webb-Boin, under the supervision of Jean Dantinne (Université Catholique Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1988). Law, Bimal Churn. “Animals in Early Jain and Buddhist Literature,” Indian Culture 12: 1 (1945), pp. 1-13. Law, Jane Marie. ed., Religious Reflections on the Human Body (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1995). Lawrence, C. H. Medieval Monasticism (London: Longman, 1987). Legge, James. trans. Fa-Hsien, A Record of the Buddhistic Kingdoms (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886), repr. in Mark A. Kishlansky, ed., Sources of World History, Volume I, (New York: HarperCollins CollegePublishers, 1995). Lévy, Paul. Buddhism and “Mystery Religions.” (London: The Athlone Press, University of London, 1957). Levi, Sylvain. “Le sutra du sage et du fou dans la litterature de l'Asie centrale,” Journal Asiatique (1925), pp. 304-332. Little, Lester K. Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy in Medieval Europe (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978). Liu, Ming-Wood. Mādhyamaka Thought in China (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994). Liu, Xinru. The Silk Road. Overland Trade and Cultural Interactions in Eurasia (Washington D.C., American Historical Association, 1998). Livshits, V. A. The Hsitory of Buddhism in Central Asia (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, 1998). Lopez, Donald ed. Buddhism in Practice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995). Lowenthal, David. The Past is a Foreign Country (Cambridge University Press, 1985). Magnin, Paul. “Pratique religieuse et manuscripts datés,” Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 3 (1987), pp. 131-41. Mair, Victor. “The Linguistic and Textual Antecedents of The Sutra of the Wise and the Foolish,” Sino-Platonic Papers 38 (1993), pp. 1-95. ------. “The Khotanese antecedents of The Sutra of the Wise and the Foolish (Xianyu jing),” in: Erik Zürcher et al. Collection of Essays 1993: Buddhism Across Boundaries-Chinese Buddhism and the Western Regions (1999), pp. 361-420. 257 Majupuria, Trilok Chandra. Religious and Useful Plants of Nepal and India: Medicinal Plants and Flowers as Mentioned in Religious Myths and Legends of Hinduism and Buddhism (Lashkar, 1988; revised by D.P. Joshi, 1989). -------. Sacred Animals of Nepal and India (Lashkar, 2000). Malinowski, Bronislaw. Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1954. Matsuda, Shinya. “On ānapnasati in the Hsiu-hsing-tao-ti ching,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 74 (1989), 18-23. Mayo, Lewis. “The Order of Birds in Guiyi jun Dunhuang,” East Asian History 20 (2000), pp. 1-59. McDermott, James P. “Animals and Humans in Early Buddhism,” Indo-Iranian Journal 32: 2 (1989), pp. 269-280. McDermott, Joseph P. ed. State and Court Ritual in China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). McRae, John. “Chinese Religions -- The State of the Field: Buddhism,” Journal of Asian Studies 54: 2 (1995), pp. 354-371. -------. And Jan Nattier eds. Collection of Essays 1993: Buddhism across Boundaries Chinese Buddhism and the Western Regions (Sanchung, Taipei: Fo Guang Shan Foundation, 1999). Miller, Patricia Cox. Dreams in Late Antiquity: Studies in the Imagination of a Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994). Mills, Martin A. Identity, Ritual and State in Tibetan Buddhism: The Foundations of Authority in Gelukpa Monasticism (London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003). Mizruchi, Susan L. “The Place of Ritual in Our Time,” in Susan L. Mizruchi ed. Religion and Cultural Studies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), pp. 56-79. Mukherjee, Biswadeb. “On the Relationship between the Sarvastivada Vinaya and the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya,” Journal of Indian Asian Studies 2: 1 (1984), pp. 139-l65. Nagao, Gadjin. Mādhyamika and Yogacāra: A Study of Mahāyāna Philosophies (trans. By Leslie S. Kwamura) (New York: State University of New York press, 1991). Naquin, Susan and Chün-fang Yü eds. Pilgrims and Sacred Sites in China (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992). Nattier, Jan. Once upon a Future Time. Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline. (Berkeley, CA: Asia Humanities Press, 1990). 258 -------. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugrapariprccha) (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003). Ng, Yung-kwang. T’ien-t’ai Buddhism and Early Madhyamika (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1993). Ohnuma, Reiko. “The Gift of Body and the Gift of Dharma,” History of Religions 37: 4 (1998), pp. 323-359. -------. Head, Eyes, Flesh, and Blood: Giving Away the Body in Indian Buddhist Literature. Forthcoming. Olick, Jeffrey K. and Joyce Robbins, “Social Memory Studies: From ‘Collective Memory’ to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices,” Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998), pp. 105-140. Pak, Youngsook. “Excavations of Buddhist Temple Sites in Korea since 1960,” in: The Buddhist Heritage: Papers delivered at the Symposium of the same name convened at the School of Oriental and African Studies University of London, November 1985. Edited by Tadeusz Skorupski (Tring: The Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1989), pp. 157-178. Rahula, Walpola. “A comparative study of dhyanas according to Theravada, Sarvastivada and Mahayana,” MB 70 (1962), pp. 190-199. Ratnapala, Nandasena. Crime and Punishment in the Buddhist Tradition (New Delhi: Mittal Publications, 1993). Rawlinson, Andrew. “The Ambiguity of the Buddha-Nature concept in India and China,” in: Whalen Lai and Lewis R. Lancaster eds. Early Ch’an in China and Tibet (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1983), pp. 259-279. Ray, Reginald A. Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994). Reinders, Eric. “Buddhist Rituals of Obeisance and the Contestation of the Monk’s Body in Medieval China,” PhD. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1997. -------. “Animals, Attitude toward: Buddhist Perspective,” in William M. Johnston ed. Encyclopedia of Monasticism (Fitzroy Dearborn, 2000), pp. 30-31. Reischauer, Edwin O. trans. Ennin's Diary: The Record of a Pilgrimage to China (New York: Ronald Press), 1955. -------. Ennin’s Travels in T’ang China (New York: Ronald Press, 1955). 259 Rhie, Marylin Martin. Early Buddhist Art of China and Central Asia, vol. 1: Later Han, Three Kingdoms and Western Chin in China and Bactria to Shan-shan in Central Asia (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999). Rhys Davids, T. W. “Aśoka and the Buddha-Relics,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1901), pp. 397-410. Rhys Davids, T. W. and C. A. F. Rhys Davids. Dialogues of The Buddha (Translated from Pali of the Dīgha Nikaya) (London: Luzac & Company Ltd., 1959. Fourth edition). Robinson, Richard H. Early Mādhyamika in India and China (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967). Ruppert, Brian D. Jewel in the Ashes: Buddha Relics and Power in Early Medieval Japan (Harvard University Asia Center, 2000). Sasaki Shizuka, “A Study on the Origin of Mahāyāna Buddhism,” The Eastern Buddhism 30 (1997), pp. 79-113. Sato, Mitsuo. “The Ceremony of the Ordination and Its Understanding in Chinese Texts of Vinaya,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 22 (1963), pp. 1-8. Scherrer-Shaub, Christina Anna. 1994. “Some Dhāraņī Written on Paper Functioning As Dharmakāya Relics: A Tentative Approach to PT 350." In: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Fagernes, 1992 (Oslo: The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, 1994), pp. 711-727. Schmidt-Glintzer, Helwig. Die Identität der Buddhistischen Scholen und die Kompilation Buddhistischer Universalgeschichten in China (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1982). Schmithausen, Lambert. The Problem of the Sentience of Plants in Earliest Buddhism (Studia Philologica Buddhica, Monograph Series 6, Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1990). -------. Plants as Sentient Beings in Earliest Buddhism (Faculty of Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, 1991). -------. “The Early Buddhist Tradition and Ethics: VI. The Status of Animals,” Journal of Buddhist Ethics (1997). Schopen, Gregory. “Mahāyāna in Indian Inscriptions,” Indo-Iranian Journal 21 (1979), pp. 1-19. -------. “The Monastic Ownership of Servants or Slaves: Local and Legal Factors in the Redactional History of Two Vinayas,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 17: 2 (1994), pp. 145-173. 260 -------. “Deaths, Funerals, and the Division of Property in a Monastic Code,” in: Donald Lopez ed. Buddhism in Practice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), pp. 473-502. -------. Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1997). -------. “Relic,” in: Critical Terms for Religious Studies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), pp. 259-260. -------. “The Mahāyāna and the Middle Period in Indian Buddhism: Through a Chinese Looking-glass,” The Eastern Buddhism 32: 2 (2000), pp. 1-25. -------. Buddhist Monks and Business Matters: Still More Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2004). Schroeder, John W. Skillful Means: The Heart of Buddhist Compassion (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2001). Seiwert, Hubert. “End of Time and New Time in Medieval Chinese Buddhism,” in: Albert I. Baumgarten ed. Apocalyptic Time (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000), pp. 1-14. Seneviratne, H. L. “L’ ordination bouddhique à Ceylon.” Social Compass 20 (1973), pp. 251-256. Sharked, S., D. Shulman and G. G. Strouma ed. Gilgul: Essays on Transformation, Revolution and Performance in the History of Religions – Dedicated to R. J. Zwi Werblowsky (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987). Shils, Edward. Center and Periphery: Essays in Microsociology (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1975). Shulman, David and Guy G. Stroumsa ed. Self and Self-Transformation in the History of Religions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). Sharf, Robert. “On the Allure of Buddhist Relics,” Representations 66 (1999), pp. 75-99. -------. Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism: A Reading of the Treasure Store Treatuse (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002). Shen, Hsueh-Man. “Buddhist Relic Deposits from Tang (618-907) to Northern Song (960-1127) and Liao (907-1125),” D. Phil. Thesis, University of Oxford. ------. “Realizing the Buddha’s Dharma Body during the Mofa Period: A Study of Liao Buddhist Relic Deposits,” Artibus Asiae 61: 2 (2001), pp. 263-303. Shinohara, Koichi. “Two Sources of Chinese Buddhist Biographies: Stupa Inscriptions and Miracle Stories,” in Phyllis Granoff and Koichi Shinohara, eds., Monks and Magicians: Religious Biographies in Asia (Oakville: Mosaic Press, 1988), pp. 212214. 261 -------. “Buddhist Precepts in Mdeieval Chinese Biographies of Monks,” in Charles Fu et al., Buddhist Behavioral Codes and the Modern World (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994), pp. 75-94. ------. “Changing Roles for Miraculous Images in Medieval Chinese Buddhism: A Study of the Miracle Image Section in Daoxuan’s ‘collected Records,’” in: Richard H. Davis ed., Images, Miracles, and Authority in Asian Religious Traditions (Boulder, CO.: Westview Press, 1998), pp. 141-188. --------. “Dynastic Politics and Miraculous Images: The Example of Zhuli of the Changlesi Temple in Yangzhou,” in: Richard H. Davis ed. Images, Miracles, and Authority in Asian Religious Traditions (Boulder, CO.: Westview Press, 1998), pp. 199-201. -------. “The Kaśaya Robe of the Past Buddha Kasyapa in the Miraculous Instruction Given to the Vinaya Master Daoxuan (596-667),” Chung-Haw Buddhist Journal 13: 2 (2000), pp. 299-367. Silk, Jonathan. “What, If Anything, is Mahāyāna Buddhism? Problems of Definitions and Classifications,” Numen 49 (2002), pp. 355-405. Simpson, George G. Principles of Animal Taxonomy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962). Smith, Brian K. “Classifying Animals and Humans in Ancient India,” Man 26: 3 (1991), pp. 527-548. -------. Classifying the Universe: The Ancient Indian Varna System and the Origins of Caste (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). Smith, Joanna F. Handlin, “Liberating Animals in Ming-Qing China,” Journal of Asian Studies 58: 1 (1999), pp. 51-84. Snellgrove, David L. “Sakyamuni’s Final ‘nirvana’,” Bulletin of the School of Orient and African Studies 36: 2 (1973), pp. 399-411. Spufford, Peter. Money and its Use in Medieval Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Srivastava, K. M. Buddha’s Relics from Kapilavastu (Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan, 1986). Stalley, Roger. Early Medieval Architecture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). Stercx, Roel. The Animal and Daemon in Early China (Albany: State University of New York, 2002). -------. “Animal Classification in Ancient China,” East Asian Science, Technology and Medicine (2004), forthcoming. Stewart, Columba. Cassian the Monk (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). 262 Stock, Brian. Listening for the Text: On the Uses of the Past (Baltimore: the Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990). Stone, Jacqueline I. “‘By Imperial Edict and Shogunal Decree’: Politics and the Issue of the Ordination Platform in Modern lay Nichiren Buddhism,” in Stven Heine and Charles S. Prebish ed. Buddhism in the Modern World: Adaptations of an Ancient Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University press, 2003), pp. 193-219. Strickmann, Michel. “The Consecration Sūtra: A Buddhist Book of Spells,” in: Robert Buswell, Jr. ed. Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990), pp. Strong, John. The Legend of King Aśoka: A Study and Translation of the Aśokāvadāna (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983). -------. The Legend and Cult of Upagupta: Sanskrit Buddhism in North India and Southeast Asia (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). --------. Relics of the Buddha (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). Swanson, Paul. Foundations of T’ien-t’ai Philosophy: The Flowering of the Two Truths Theory in Chinese Buddhism (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1989). -------. “Apocryphal Texts in Chinese Buddhism: T’ien-t’ai Chih-I’s Use of Apocryphal Scriptures,” in A. van der Kooij and K. van der Toorn ed. Canonization and Decanonization (Papers presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions, held at Leiden 9-10 January 1997) (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998), pp. 245-255. Swearer, Donald K. Becoming the Buddha: The Ritual of Image Consecration in Thailand (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). Takahashi, Moritaka. Hdsaris Blun or the Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish (Osaka: Kansei daigaku, The Institute of Oriental and Occidental Studies, 1969). Takasaki, Jikido. “The Tathāgatagarbha theory in the Mahāparinirvāna-sūtra,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 38 (19-2) (1971), pp. 1-10. Tan, Zhihui. “Daoxuan’s Vision of Jetavana: Imagining a Utopian Monastery in Early Tang.” Ph.D. thesis, The University of Arizona, 2002. Teiser, Stephen F. Ghost Festival in Medieval China (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988). -------. The Scripture on the Ten Kings and the Making of Purgatory in Medieval Chinese Buddhism (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1996). Tejima, Isshin. “A Study on a Catalogue of Buddhist Library in Tang’s China,” in: Shōgo hakushi koki kinen ronshū: Higashi ajia bukkyō no sho mondai (Tokyo: Sankido busshorin, 2001), pp. 179-193. 263 Trainor, Kevin. Relics, Ritual, and Representation in Buddhism: Rematerializing the Sri Lankan Theravāda Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Trizin, Sakya. A Buddhist View on Befriending and Defending Animals (Portland: Orgyan Chogye Chonzo Ling, 1989). Tso, Sze-bong. “The Transformation of Buddhist Vinaya in China.” PhD. Dissertation. Caberra: Australia National University, 1982. Tucci, Giuseppe. Stupa: Art, Architectonics and Symbolism: Indo-Tibetica I. Edited by Lokesh Chandra (New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 1988, reprint). Tucker, Mary Evelyn and Duncan Williams eds. Buddhism and Ecology: The Interconnection of Dharma and Deeds (Harvard University Center for the Study of World Religions, 1997). Turner, Victor. “Social Dramas and Stories about Them,” Critical Inquiry 7: 1(1980), pp. 141-168. -------. On the Edge of the Bush: Anthropology as Experience (Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press, (1985). -------. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1985). Twitchett, Denis C. “The Monasteries and China’s Economy in Medieval Times,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 19 (1959), pp. 526-549. de La Vallée Poussin, Louis. “Nouveaux fragments de la collection Stein,” Journal of Royal Asiatic Society (1913), pp. 843-847. -------. With C. M. Ridding. “A Fragment of the Sanskrit Vinaya, Bhiksunīkarmavācanā,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (1919), pp. 123-143. -------. “Le Bouddha et les Abhijnās,” Le Muséon XLIV (1931), pp. 335-342. -------. Opinions sur les relations des deux Véhicules au point de vue du Vinaya (Académie Royale de Belgique, Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences morales et politiques, 5me série, T. XVI (1930). Vavilov, N. I. The Phyto-geography Basis for Plant-breeding, Origin and Geography of Cultivated Plants (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Vetter, Tilmann. The Ideas and Meditative Practices of Early Buddhism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988). Wagner, Robin Beth. “Buddhism, Biography and Power: A Study of Daoxuan's Continued Lives of Eminent Monks.” Ph D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1995. 264 Waldau, Paul. “Buddhism and Animals Rights,” in: Damien Keown ed., Contemporary Buddhist Ethics (The Curzon Critical Studies in Buddhism Series. Richmond, Surrey, England: Curzon Press, 2000), pp. 81-112. ------. The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals (Oxford University Press, 2001). ------. And Kimberley Patton (eds.), A Communion of Subjects: Animals in Religion, Science and Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004). Waldschmidt, Ernst. Das Mahāparinirvānasūtra (Berlin: 1950). ------. “Zum ersten buddhistischen Konzil in Rājagrha, Sanskrit-Bruchstücke aus kanonischen Bericht der Sarvāstivādins,” Asiatica, Festschrift Friedrich Weller, (Leipzig, 1954), pp. 817-828. -------. “Ein Fragment des Samyuktagama aus den ‘Turfan-Funden’ (M 476),” in: Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. I. Philol.-hist. Kl. 3 (Göttingen, 1956), pp. 45-53. ------. “Das Upasenasutra, ein Zauber gegen Schlangenbiss aus dem Samyuktagama,” in: Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. I. Philol.-hist. Kl. 2 (Göttingen, 1957), pp.27-44. Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (New York: Bedminster Press, 1968). -------. The Sociology of Religion (English translation by Ephraim Fischoff) (Boston: Beacon Press, 1993). Weinstein, Stanley. Buddhism under the T’ang (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). Whitfield, Roderick. “Buddhist Monuments in China: Some Recent Finds of Śarīra Deposits,” in: Tadeusz Skorupski ed. The Buddhist Heritage: Papers delivered at the Symposium of the same name convened at the School of Oriental and African Studies University of London, November 1985. (Tring: The Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1989), pp. 129-141. Wijayaratna, Mohan. Buddhist Monastic Life: According to the Texts of the Theravada Tradition, translated by claude Grangier and Steven Collins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Willemen, Charles. And Bart Dessein and Collett Cox, Sarvāstivāda Buddhist Scholasticism (Handbuch der Orientalistik: Indien. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998). -------. “Sarvastivada dhyana and Mahayana prajna: Observations about Their Development in India and China,” Asiatische Studien 55 (2001), pp. 529-534. Williams, Duncan. “Animal Liberation, Death, and the State: Rites to Release Animals in Medieval Japan,” in: Mary Evelyn Tucker and Duncan Williams eds. Buddhism and Ecology: The Interconnection of Dharma and Deed (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), pp. 149-164. 265 Williams, Paul. Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations (Routledge: London and New York, 1989). Wright, Arthur F. “T'ang T'ai-tsung and Buddhism,” in Arthur F. Wright and Denis Twichett, eds. Perspectives on the T'ang (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), pp. 239-263. ------.The Sui Dynasty: The Unification of China, A.D. 581-617 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978). Wright, Dale S. Philosophical Meditations on Zen Buddhism (Cambridge University Press, 1998). Wu, Hung. “Rethinking Liu Sahe: The Creation of a Buddhist Saint and the Invention of a ‘Miraculous Image,’” Orientations 2 (1996), pp.32-43. Xiong, Victor Cun-rui. Sui-Tang Chang’an – A Study in the Urban History of Medieval China (Center for Chinese Studies, Ann Arbor: the University of Michigan, 2000). Yampolsky, Philip B. The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, by Huineng, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978). Yang, Lien-sheng. “Buddhist Monasteries and Four Money-Raising Institutions in Chinese History,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 13: 1-2 (1950), pp. 174-191. -------. Money and Credit: A Short History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952). -------. Studies in Chinese Institutional History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961). Yifa, The Origins of Buddhist Monastic Codes in China: An Annotated Translation & Study of the Chanyuan Qinggui (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002). Yu, Chün-fang. Renewal of Buddhism in China: Chu-Hung and the Late Ming Synthesis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981). Zito, Angela. “Ritualizing li: Implications for Studying Power and Gender,” Position 1: 2 (1993), pp. 321-348. Zürcher, Erik. Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China 2 vols. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959). -------. “Eschatology and Messianism in Early Chinese Buddhism,” in Wilt L. Idema ed., Leyden Studies in Sinology (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981), pp. 34-56; ibid., ------ . “Prince Moonlight, Messianism and Eschatology in Early Medieval Chinese Budddhism,” T’oung Pao 68 (1982), pp. 1-75. -------. “Buddhism and Education in Tang Times,” in: Wm. Theodore de Bary and John W. Chaffee eds. Neo-Confucian Education: The Formative Stage (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989), pp. 19-56. 266 Zysk, Kenneth G. Asceticism and Healing in Ancient India. Medicine in the Buddhist Monastery (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1998). 2. Sources in Chinese and Japanese Languages Akanuma, Chizen. Indo bukkyō koyū meishi jiten. 1931; reprinted., Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1967. Akeyama, Yasuo, “Sanjujōkai no kenkyū,” Mizutani Koshō sensei koki kinen: Bukkyō kyōke kenkyū (1998), pp. 289-306. An, Chung-ch'ol. “Ŭichŏn no kyokan soshūkan no keisei haikei no ittan,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 99(50-1) (2001) , pp. 163-165. ------. “To Dosen to Ŭich'ǒn no shūkan,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 102(51-2) (2003), pp. 84-88. Andō, Kosei. Ganjin daiwajōden no kenkyū (Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1960). -------. Ganjin Wajō (Nihon Rekishi Gakkai henshū. Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1967). Asada, Mamoru. “Zuidai bukkyō seisaku ni kann suru kenkyū,” Ryūkoku daigaku daigakuin kiyō 9 (1988), pp. 142-143. Bussho kaisetsu dai jiten. 13 vols. Edited by Ono Gemmyō. Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 1933-1936. Cao, Shibang. “Zhongguo fojiao shizhuan yu mulu yuanchu lüxue shamen zhi tantao” (part 1), Xinya xuebao 6: 1 (1960), pp. 415-486; part 2, Xinya xuebao 7: 1 (1961), pp. 305-361; part 3, Xinya xuebao 7: 2 (1962), pp. 79-158. -------. Zhongguo shamen waixue de yanjiu – Han mo zhi Wudai (Taipei: Dongchu chubanshe, 1994). -------. Zhongguo fojiao shixueshi – Dong Jing zhi Wudai (Taipei: Fagu wenhua shiye youxian gongsi, 1999). Chen, Yinke. Sui Tang zhengzhi zhidu yuanyuan luelun gao (Taipei: Liren shuju, 1994). Chen, Yingshan, “Cong shuxiguan lun zhongguo fojiao zaoqi chanfa,” Zhonghua foxue xuebao 13 (2000), pp. 323-348. Chen, Yuan. Zhongguo fojiao shiji gailun (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1962). -------. Chen Yuan shixue lunzhu xuan (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1981). -------. “Foya gushi,” Chen Yuan’an xiansheng quanji (Taipei: Xinwenfeng chuban gongsi, 1993), pp. 305-314. Chen, Yuzhen. “Fayuan zhulin suoyin waidian zhi yanjiu,” Zhonghua foxue xuebao 6 (1993), pp. 303-328. 267 Cheng, A-tsai. “Dunhuang lingying xiaoshuo de fojiao shixue jiazhi,” Tang yanjiu 4 (1998), pp. 31-46. Chiba, Shokan. “Chūgoku niokeru hōjō shiso no tenkai: seshoku shiso no kannen o chūshin ni,” Tendai gakuho 36 (1993), pp. 89-95. Chikusa, Masaaki. Chūgoku bukkyō shakaishi kenkyū (Kyoto: Dōhōsha, 1982). Demieville, Paul. Hayashi Nobuaki trans. "Essay on the Image of `Darmatra'," Zen bunka kenkyūjo kiyo 12 (1980), pp. 27-50. Ding, Min. Fojiao biyu wenxue yanjiu (Taipei: Dongchu chubanshe, 1996). Feng, Huanzhen. “Jingyingsi Huiyuan de xingchi, zhushu jiqi xianshizong,” Zhonghua foxue xuebao 15 (2002), pp. 177-218. Fujihira, Kanden. “Tendai chikan no okeru gomonzen,” Tendai gakuhō 28 (1986), pp. 183-186. Fujii, Kyoko. “Tendai Chigi to bonmōkyō,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 90 (1997), pp. 241-247. Fujii, Teruyuki. “Karinen to bukkyō,”Bukkyō daigaku bukkyō bunka kenkyūjo johō 2 (1985), pp. 15-17. Fujio, Kazuyo. “Ryōdai kara Zuidai no nitaisetsu no kenkyū,” Otani daigaku daigakuin kenkyū kiyo 15 (1998), pp. 55-69. Fujita, Masahiro. “Buha no shinsei honjō seitsu nitsuite,” Zengaku kenkyū 65 (1986), pp. 149-174. Fujiyoshi, Masumi. Dōsen ten no kenkyū (Kyoto: Kyoto daigaku shuppankai, 2002). Fukuhara, Ryogon. “Chūgoku yōbu kei ritsushi to ritsuhon ritsu sho,” Bukkyōgaku (Ryūkoku Daigaku bukkyōkai) 25/26 (1968), pp. 69-92. Fukushima, Kosai. “Kaizenji Chizō no nitai shiso,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 21 (11-1) (1963), pp. 150-151. Funayama, Toru. “Rikuchō jidai ni okeru bosatsukai no juyō katei: Ryū Sō Nan Sei ki o chūshin ni,” Tōho gakuho 67 (1995), pp. 1-135. -------. “‘Mokunen mon kairitsu chū gohiaku kyōjūji no genke to hensen,” Tōhō gakuho 70 (1998), pp. 203-290. -------. “Shashin no shiso – Rokuchō bukkyōshi no yichi tanmei,” Tōhō gakuhō 74 (74), pp. 54-56. 268 Gou, Cuihua. “Zhongguo gudai de dongzhiwu fenlei,” Kejishi wenji 4 (1980), p. 43. --------. et al., “Ye tan zhongguo gudai de shengwu fenleixue sixiang,” Ziran kexueshi yanjiu 1: 4 (1982), p. 167. --------. et al., Zhongguo gudai shengwuxue shi (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1989). Guo, Fu, Li Yuese (Joseph Needham), and Cheng Qingtai, Zhongguo gudai dongwuxue shi (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1999). Guo, Huizhen. Hanzu fojiao sengqie fuzhuang zhi yanjiu (Taipei: Fagu wenhua shiye gufen youxian gongsi, 2001). Hakamaya, Horiki. Bukkyō kyōdan shiron (Tokyo: Daizō shuppan, 2002). Hao, Chunwen. Tang houqi Wudai Song chu Dunhuang sengni shehui shenghuo (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1997). Hara, Minoru, “Kodai indo no joseikan (1),” Kokusai bukkyō daigakuin daigaku kenkyū kiyo 5 (2002), pp. 1-42. -------. “Kodai indo no joseikan (2),” Kokusai bukkyō daigakuin daigaku kenkyū kiyo 6 (2003), pp. 1-40. Harada, Tetsuryo. “Chūgoku bukkyō niokeru mabbō shiso no seigaku nitsuite no ichikosatsu,” Shūkyō kenkyū 331 (2002), pp. 209-210. Harumoto, Hideo. “Daiiharikyo to Chūka shiso,” Shūkyo kenkyū 283(63-4) (1990), pp. 126-128. -------. “Gikyō to shini shiso – tokuni Daiiharikyo nitsuite,” Shioiri Ryōdō sensei tsuito ronbunjū kankokai ed. Shioiri Ryōdō sensei tsuito ronbunjū: Tendai shiso to To-ajia bunka no kenkyū (Tokyo: Sankido busshorin , 1991), pp. 423-434. Hayashiya, Tomojirō. Iyaku kyōrui no kenkyū (Tokyo: Tōyō bunko, 1945). He, Ziquan. “Zhonggu dazu siyuan linghu yanjiu,“ Shihuo 3: 4 (1936). -------. “Fojiao jinglü guanyu siyuan caichan de guiding,” Zhongguo shi yanjiu 1 (1982), pp. 68-78. -------. ed. Wushi nian lai Han Tang fojiao siyuan jingji yanjiu (1934-1984) (Beijing: Beijing shifan daxue chubanshe, 1986). Hida, Romi. “Ryōshū bankaken zuizō no setsuwa to zōkei,” Bukkyō gejiutsu 217 (1994), pp. 33-54. Hirakawa, Akira, “Jūjūbibasharon no choja nitsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 10 (1957), pp. 176-181. -------. “Daijōkai to juzendō,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 16 (1960), pp. 280-287. -------. Genshi bukkyō no kenkyu (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1964). 269 -------. Shoki daijō bukkyō kenkyū (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1968). -------. Ritsuzo no kenkyū (Tokyo: Sankido busshorin, 1970). -------. “Chigi inokeru shōmonkai to bosatsukai,” Tendai daishi senyohyaku nen goonki kenen: Tendai daishi kenkyū (1997), pp. 1-26. Hirano, Yoshiyuki. “‘Shōdaijōron’ niokeru daijō busetsu ron,” Otani daigaku daigakuin kenkyu kiyo 16 (1999), pp. 1-19. Hojo, Kenzo. “Jūzengo no genryū to sono tenkai,” Katsumata Jukyō hakushi koki kinen ronjō: Daijō bukkyō kara mikkyō e (Tokyo: Shunjusha, 1981), pp. 67-84. Hou, Xudong. Wuliu shiji beifang minzhong fojiao xinyang: yi zaoxiangji wei zhongxin de kaocha (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1998). Hu, Baoguo. Han Tang jian shixue de fazhan (Beijing: Shangwu yinshu guan, 2003). Hu, Xiansu. Jingji zhiwuxue (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1953). Huang, I-mei. “Kaisatu Hōjō to Jin no shiso,” Oryō shigaku 13 (1987), pp. 29-55. Inokuchi, Taijun. Chūo ajia bukkyōshi no kenkyū (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1990). Ishida, Chiko, “Bodhicaryāvatāra niokeru haradaimokusha to sangehō: kaihen to kaiyaku no shōki,” Bukkyō shigaku kenkyū 36-2 (1993), pp. 1-27. Ishida, Mizumaro, “Sanjujōkai nitsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 2 (1953), pp. 134-135. -------. Ganjin: sono kairitsu shiso (Tokyo: Daizō shuppansha, 1973). Ishii, Kosei. “Zenshū no senku -- Gunabatsuma sanzō no denki to yuike,” Zengaku kenkyū no shosō: Tanaka Ryōshō hakase koki kinen ronshū (Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 2003), pp. 63-84. Jan, Yun-hua. “Zhongguo zaoqi chanfa de liuchan he tedian,” Huagang foxue xuebao, vol. 7 (1984), p. 78. -------. “Xuanzang dashi yu Tang Taizong jiqi zhengzhi lixiang tanwei,” Huagang foxue xuebao 8 (1985), pp. 135-157. Jao, Tsung-i. “Liu Sahe shiji yu ruixiang tu,” Dunhuang shiku yanjiu guoji taolunhui wenji: Shiku kaogu, 1987 (Shenyang: Liaoning meishu chubanshe, 1990), pp. 336349. Jiang, Boqin. Tang wudai Dunhuang sihu zhidu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1987). Jiang, Qingyi. Wang Zi’an ji zhu (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1995). 270 Jinxin, “1950-1975nian jielüxue yanjiu gaikuang,” Diguan 44 (1986), pp. 1-16. Jin, Sanlin and Zhang Heyun, “Shentongsi shiji chubu diaocha jilue,” Wenwu cankao ziliao 10 (1956), pp. 28-36. Jiqun, “Jielüzhong dui bing yu si de guiding,” Huiju 347 (1993), pp. 48-52. Kajihama, Ryoshun. “Basharon niokeru yume no kenkyū,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 79 (1991), pp. 21-27. Kamata, Shigeo. “Busshoron no sanshosetsu nitsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 4(2-2) (1954), pp. 171-172. ------. “Jōyoji Eon no ho kannen,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 28 (14-2) (1966), pp. 98-103. ------.“Mōjin kangenkan no shisoshi teki ichi,” Nanto bukkyō 20 (1967), pp. 1-16. Kanno, Hiroshi. “Hōon Hokkegiki ni okeru ichiō shiso no kaishaku nitsuite,” Sokka daigaku jinbun ronshū 4 (1992), pp. 3-20. Katano, Michio. “Shōdaijōron niokeru ichijō shiso,” Bukkyōgaku semenai 72 (2000), pp. 1-14. Karakura hakushi koki kinen kankokai. Karakura hakushi koki kinen: Indogaku bukkyōgaku ronjū (Kyoto: Heirakuji shoten, 1966). Kasuga, Reichi. “Sandō reigenji ko,” Shina bukkyō shigaku 4-1(1940), pp. 58-68. Katayama, Ryosen. “Buddhabadara no nyushin nitsuite,” Jōdōgaku 5 (1933), pp. Kegasawa, Yasunori. “Zui niju gennen (601) no gakko shakukan to shari kyoyo,” Sundai shigaku 111 (Tokyo: Meiji Daigaku daigakuin, 2001), pp. 17-36. Kinji Nihon Tetsudo, ed. Tōdaiji (Osaka, 1963). Kitamura, Kosa. “Bukkyō kyōten nimiru gokai to gogyō no sōkan no rekishi teki ichi kosa – Daiiharikyo, Gogyotaigi o chūshin toshite,” Chūo gakujutsu kenkyūjo kiyo 10 (1981), pp. 34-55. Kodama, Daien. “Shigo seiki no kashumeiru ryugakusō – Rajū, Buddhabadara, domushin,”in: Nichino Akira hakushi kanreki kinen ronbunshū: Rekishi to tenshō (Kyoto: Nagata bunshōdō, 1988), pp. 603-628. Kojaku, Akiba. “Hōon, Chigi, Kichizō no ingankan,” Tendai gakuho 45 (2003), pp. 133139. 271 Kosugi, Kazuo. “Rikuchojidai no buttō niokeru bushari no anchi nitsuite,” Toyo gakuho 21: 3 (1934), pp. 111-161. Kuwatani, Yuken. “Hōjō shiso ni okeru kyōsei” Nihon bukkyō gakai nenho 64 (1999), pp. 213-227. Lai, Pengju. “Guanhe de chanfa – Zhongguo dacheng chanfa de zhaoshi,” Dongfang zongjiao yanjiu 5 (1996), pp. 95-112. Lai, Yonghai. Zhongguo foxing lun (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1988). Li, Bozhong. “Tangdai buqu nubi dengji de bianhua jiqi quanyin,” Xiamen daxue xuebao 1 (1985). Li, Guohao, Zhang Mengwen, Cao Tianqin ed. Zhongguo kejishi tantao (Hongkong: Zhonghua shuju xianggang fenju, 1986). Li, Hui-lin. “The Vegetables of Ancient China,” Economic Botany 23 (1969), pp. 253260. Li, Liangsong. Fojiao yiji zongmu tiyao (Xiamen: Lujiang chubanshe, 1997). Li, Yumin. “Dunhuang mogaoku erwujiu ku zhi yanjiu,” Guoli Taiwan daxue meishushi yanjiu jikan 2 (1995), pp. 1-26. Liang, Liling. Xianyu jing yanjiu (Taipei: Dongchu chubanshe, 1999). Liao, Minghuo (Liu Ming-Wood). “Jingyingsi Huiyuan de panjiao xueshuo,” Zhonghua foxue xuebao 6 (1993), pp. 219-235. Liu, Shiheng. Nanchao si kao (Taipei: Xinwenfeng chuban gongsi, 1987). Lu, Shengjiang. Wenjing mifu lun huijiao huikao (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2004). Lü, Cheng. “Zhujia jieben tonglun,” Lü Cheng foxue lunzhu xuanji vol. 1(Jinan: Qilu shushe, 1991), pp. 89-141. Ma, Jixing. Shennong bencaojing jizhu (Beijing: Renmin weisheng chubanshe, 1995). Makita, Tairyo. Gikyō no kenkyū (Kyoto: Sekai Seiten Kankō Kyōkai, 1957). -------. “Hokugi no shomin kyōten,” Hokugi bukkyō no kenkyū (1970), pp. 375-406. -------. Chūgoku bukkyōshi kenkyū. (Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 1980). Masuda, Yoshio. “Shoki yōbu abidatsuma bukkyō no jōkyo (vol. 1),” Bukkyō Daigaku bukkyō bunka kenkyūjo joho (1985), pp. 3-6. 272 Masunaga, Reiho. “Sanso Sōsan to sono shiso,” Nikka bukkyō kenkyūkai nenho 2 (1937), pp. 36-63. Matsuda, Bunyu. “Shijinmei nitsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 28 (14-2) (1966), pp. 253-256. Matsuda, Kazunobu. “Shyaributsu abidonron ni kannen suru santsu no banbun dampen – Suyuien korekushōn no abidaruma shyahon shotan,” Sakurabe Hajimei hakushi kiju kinen ronjū : Shoki bukkyō kara abidaru mae (2002). Matsuda, Shinya. “Shugyō dochikyō no toku anpannen nitsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 74 (1989), pp. 18-23. Matsuura, Toshiaki. “Dōsen no ritsugaku no kenkyū,” in: Watanabe Takao kyōju kanreki kinen ronbunshū: Bukkyō shiso bunkashi ronsō (Kyoto: Nagata bunshodo, 1997), pp. 239-256. Mibu Taishun haishi shōju kinen ronbunshūkankokai, Mibu Taishun haishi shōju kinen: Bukkyō no rekishi to shiso (Tokyo: Daizō shuppansha, 1985). Michihata, Ryoshu, “Daijō bodatsukai tozaike bukkyō – zaike bosatsu to shuke bosatsu,” Hokugi bukkyō no kenkyū (1970), pp. 315-336. -------. “Sōdai no daijō kaidan,” Indokagu bukkyōgaku kenkyū 41 (1972), pp. 50-55. -------. Chūgoku bukkyō shisoshi no kenkyū (Kyoto: Heirakuji shoden, 1979). -------. “Daijō kaidan to bosatsusō,” Tenkyō daishi kenkyū (1980), pp. 1405-1422. Mitamura, Toji. “Buddha no fujinkan ni taisuru ichi kōsatsu,” Ōsaki gakuhō 78 (1930), pp. 254-265. Mitamura, Toji. “Butsuda no funinkan nitaisuru ichi kosatsu,” Ōsaki gakuho 78 (1930), pp. 254-265. Miura, Yuri. “Shoki bukkyō seiten niokeru joseikan,” Bukkyōgakuho ho (Koyasan Daigaku Bukkyōgakuho) 16 (1991), pp. 1-11. Miwa, Haruo. “Tō gohō shamon Hōrin nitsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 44 (22-2) (1974), pp. 290-295. Miyabayashi, Akihiko. “Dōsen no sangaku kan,” Bukkyō no jissen genri (1977), 189-200. Miyamoto, Shoson. ed. Daijō bukkyō no seiritsu no kenkyū (Tokyo, 1954) Mizuno, Kogen. “Shyaributsu abidonron nitsuite,” Karakura hakushi koki kinen: Indogaku bukkyōgaku ronjū (1966), pp. 109-134. Mizuno, Yahoko. “‘Hikekyō’ to Dōgen zenshi no o kesa,” Dōgen shisotaikei 9 (1995). 273 Mizutani Kosho, “Jishōshōjōshin, hotsubodaishin, doshujōshin, hotsuganshin: Nyoraizō to shinshōron mebutte,” Bukkyō shiso 9 (1984), pp. 253-276. Mochizuki, Shinkō. Bukkyō dai jiten. Third ed. 10 vols. Kyoto: Sekai seiten kankō kyōkai, 1954-1971. Monteiro, Joaquim. “Kōtakuji Hōon ni okeru ‘nitai’ to ‘inga’ nitsuite -- ‘Hokkegiki’ o chushin ni,” Komazawa tanki daigaku bukkyō ronshū 9 (2003), pp. 139-174. Mori, Mikisaburō. Rikuchō shitaifu no seishin (Kyoto: Dōhōsha, 1986). Mori, Shoji. “Busatsukai to daijō bukkyo kodan,” Kanaoka Shūyū hakasei kanreki kinen ronbunshū: Daijō bosatsu no seikai (1987), pp. 25-46. Myojin, Hiroshi. “Zenkan kyōten no okeru nenbutsukan – sono imi to kigen nitsuite,” Bukkyōgaku 35 (1993), pp. 59-79. Nabata, Ojun. “Shina chūsei onikeru shashin nitsuite,” Ōtani gakuho 12: 2 (1931), pp. 143. Nagashima, Shodo. “Hikekyō niokeru edo nitsuite,” Mibu Tiashun hakushi jōju kinen: Bukkyō no rekishi to shiso (1985), pp. 221-230. Nakagawa, Taka. “Sōsan daishi no nendai to shiso,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 11 (6-1) (1958), pp. 229-232. Nakajima, Ryuzo. “Kichizō kyōgaku niokeru ‘kanshin’ nitsuite,” Hiraishūnei hakase koki kinen ronshū: Sanron kyōgaku to bukkyo sho shiso (Tokyo: Shunjusha, 2000), pp. 193-210. Nakamura, Hajime. “Jūzen no seiritsu,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 19: 2 (1971), pp.9-15. Natimatsu, Yoshiko. “Hikekyō shosetsu no shōinkan nitsuite – muryōjukyō to no taishō o chūshin ni,” Hashimoto hakushi taikan kinen: Bukkyō kenkyū ronju (1975), pp. 261-272. Ni, Gengjin. Liang Jiamian nongshi wenji (Beijing: Zhongguo nongye chubanshe, 2002). Nishi, Giyu. “Shyaributsu abidonron no buha bukkyō niokeru shiryōron teki chii –tokuni shinsei honjō setsu denji o kanden toshite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku ronjū: Miyamoto Shōsōn kyōjū hanri kinen ronbunshū (1954), pp. 215-228. Nishio, Kyoyu. “Hikekyō no seiritsubi sono busshinkan,” Ōtani gakuhō 42 (1931), pp. 44-62. 274 Nishiyama, Fukiko. “Hōrin ‘hajaron’ nitsuite,” Suzuki gakujūtsu zaidan nenhō 9 (1973), pp. 69-86. Nitta, Masaaki. “Chigi niokeru bodaishin no seiritsukonkyo nitsuite: Jōyoji Eon to no higaku nioite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 32 (16-2) (1968), pp. 271-277. Nomura, Yosho. “Ichibutsu no shisō,” Kōzo: Daijō bukkyō 4 (1983). Namura, Takatsuna. “Chija daishi no hōjōchi nitsuite,” Shūgakuin ronjū 22 (1976), pp. 72-85. Obata, Hironobu. “Chibetto den bodaidarumataru zenshi kō,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 47 (1975), 229-232. Ōcho, Enichi. “Kaidan ni tsuite,” Shina bukkyō shigaku (1946). -------. “Eon to Kichizō,” Yūki kyōju shōju kinen: Bukkyō shisōshi ronjū (1964), pp. 433450. Oda, Yoshihisa. “Saiiki niokeru soso yōshiki nitsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 22 (1963), pp. 182-183. -------. “Tōsho no jūdaitoku nitsuite,” Oryo shigaku 5 (1979) , pp. 51-64. -------. “Saiiki jutsudo no shakyō danben nitsuite -- Ōtani bunko shūsei (part three)’ō chūshin ni,” Ryūkoku daigaku bykkyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 41 (2002), pp. 1-41. Odani, Nobuchiyo. “Goteishinkan no keiritsu katei – Shakuson no Hōshiso no shin’I omomete,” Ōtani daigaku nenhō 46 (1995), pp. 47-100. -------. “Zenkyō niokeru yuga gyōja – daijō ni kagyō surumono,” Bukkyogaku semeinai 63 (1996), pp. 22-34. Ogasawara, Senshu. “Tō no haibutsuronja fueki nitsuite,” Shina bukkyō shigaku 1: 3 (1937), pp. 84-93. -------. “Nansei bukkyō to Shō Shiryō,” Shina bukkyō shigaku 3-2 (1939), pp. 63-76. Okamoto Ippei, “Budhabadara no tenki kenkyū – Keigōngyō honyaku o chunshin ni,” Bukkyōgaoku 43 (2001), pp. 51-73. Okimoto, Katsumi. “Daijōkai,” in: Daijō bukkyō towa nannika, ed. By Akira Hirakawa, Kajiyama Yuichi and Takasaki Jikidō (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1981), pp. 184-221. Okuno, Mitsuyoshi. “Kichiō kōgaku to ‘kegokyō’ omekutte,” Kegogaku ronshū (1997), pp. 177-190. Ominami, Ryusho. “Goteishinkan to gomonzen,” in: Sekiguchi Shindai ed., Bukkyō no jitsusen genri (Tokyo: Sankibo busshorin, 1971), pp. 71-90. 275 Ōno, Hodo﹐Daijō kaikyō no kenkyū (Tokyo: Sankidō busshōron, 1963). Oya, Tokujo. “Daijō kaidan no mondai,” Shina bukkyō shigaka 5: 2 (1941), pp. 1-7. Rao, Zongyi. Zhongguoshi shang zhi zhengtong lun (Shanghai: Shanghai yuandong chubanshe, 1995). Rong, Xinjiang. “Dunhuang cangjingdong de xingzhi jiqi guanbi de yuanyin,” Dunhuang tulufan yanjiu 2 (2000), pp. 23-48. -------. “The Nature of the Dunhuang Library Cave and the Reasons for Its Sealing,” translated by Valerie Hansen, in: Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 11 (1999-2000), pp. 247275. Ryushu, Kanno. “Kamarajū yaku zenkyō rei nitsuite,” Sasaki Kōken hakushi koki kinen bukkyōgaku bukkyōshi ronshū (Tokyo: Sankibo busshorin, 2002). Sakurabe Hajimei hakushi kiju kinen ronjū kankeikai: Sakurabe Hajimei hakushi kiju kinen ronjū : Shoki bukkyō kara abidaru mae(Kyoto: Heirakuji shoten, 2002). Sanada, Ariyoshi. “Hikekyō nitsuite,” Nihon bukkyō gakkai nenhō 21 (1956), pp. 1-14. Sasaki, Kyogo. “Kairitsugaku kenkyū josetsu – jūzen gōdō o chunshin inshite,” Ōtani Daigaku kenkyū nenhō 30 (1977), pp. 3-48. -------. “Kaigaku kenkyū josetsu – jūzengodō o chūshin nishite,” Ōtani Daigaku kenkyū nenho 30 (1978), pp. 1-48. Sasaki, Shizuka. “Indo bukkyō niokeru girei to shūzoku,” Bukkyō no rekishi teki chii teki tankai: Bukkyōshi gakkai goju shūnen kinen ronshū (2003), pp. 163-182. Sato, Seijun. “Jōjitsuronji no shiso ni kan suruichi kosatsu,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 23 (12-1) (1964), pp. 202-205. -------. Chūgoku bukkyō shisōshi no kenkyū (Tokyo: Sankidō bushorin, 1985). Sato, Tatsugen. “Chūgoku niokeru daijōkai no tankai -- Sanjujōkai nitsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 36 (1970). -------. Chūgoku bukkyō ni okeru kairitsu no kenkyū (Tokyo: Mokujisha, 1986). -------. “Dōsen no zenkan shiso,” in Nomura Yoshō hakushi koki kinen ronshū kankōkai ed. Nomura Yoshō hakushi koki kinen ronshū: Bukkyōshi bukkyōgaku ronshū (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1987), pp. 53-72. -------. “Sui Tang gaosen de jielüguan,” trans. By Guan Shiqian, Miaolin zazhi 10: 6 (1998), pp. 18-35. Shang, Zhijun. Shennong bencaojing jiaodian (Beijing: Huaxia chubanshe, 1994). Shengyan , “Shishanyedao shi pusajie de gongguilun,” Chung-hua Journal of Buddhist Studies 8 (1995), pp. 17-40. 276 Shiga, Takayoshi. “Buddhabadara den kō,” Otani daigaku kenkyū nenho 36 (1984), pp. 72-97. Shigenoi, Shizuka. “Tō jōkan chū no yuigyōkyō shikō nitsuite,” Indogaku bukkyogaku kenkyū 51 (1977), pp. 280-283. Shi, Guodeng. Tang Daoxuan xugaosengzhuan pipan sixiang chutan (Taipei: Dongchu chubanshe, 1992). Shi, Hengching. “Daboruojing de foxing lun (Buddha Nature in Mahaparinirvana-sutra),” Foxueyanjiu zhongxin xuebao (National Taiwan University, 1996), pp. 31-88. ------. Foxing sixiang (Taipei: Dongda tushu gongsi, 1997). Shi, Huimin. Jielü yu chanfa (Taipei: Fagu wenhua shiye gufen youxian gongsi, 1999). Shioda Gison, “Busshoron to daipan nibbana kyō,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 5(3-1) (1954), pp. 249-251. Shioiri Ryōdō sensei tsuito ronbunshū kankokai. Shioiri Ryōdō sensei tsuito ronbunshū: Tendai shiso to To-ajia bunka no kenkyū (Tokyo: Sankido busshorin, 1991). Sueki, Fumihiko. “Busshosetsu no engen,” Toyo bunka (Chūgoku ni okeru bukkyō no jūyō to ekyō) (1990), pp. 9-37. Suwa, Gijun. Chūgoku Nanchō bukkyōshi kenkyū (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1997). Takasaki, Jikido. “Kogen shisō no tenkai,” in Hirakawa Akira, Kajiyama Yuichi, and Takasaki Jikido, eds. Kegon shisō (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1983), pp. 24-25. Takeda Choten, “Chūgoku bukkyō to bosatsukai,” Chūgoku no shūkyō shiso to kagaku: Makio Ryōkai hakushi shōju kinen ronshū (Tokyo: Kokusho kaikokai, 1984), pp. 273-290. Takeuchi, Hajime. “Hōrin niokeru ‘jia’ to ‘shō’ no ishiki: ‘hajaron’ to ‘benshōron’ o chūshin toshite ,” Nihon bukkyō gakkai nenhō 48 (1983), pp. 193-208. Takubo, Shuyo. “Shoki kujiakukyōrui to sono daijō no tankai,” Buzan kyōgaku taikai kiyo 6 (1978), pp. 1-31. Tamaki, Koshiro. “ Chūgoku bukkyō niokeru shutai no hottan,” Hikata hakushi koki kinen ronbunshū (1964), pp. 389-402. Tamura, Koyu. “Daijō kaidan dokuritsu ni tsuite,” Kairitsu no seikai (1993), pp. 695-702. 277 Tamura, Yoshiro. “Hōon no hokkegiki no kenkyū,” Hokkekyō no chūgoku no tankai: Hokkekyō kenkyū 4 (1972), pp. Tanaka, Keishin. “Dōsen no shinikan – Ninju zōtō yori,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 41(21-1) (1972), pp. 142-143. Tanaka, Kyosho. “Shyaributsuabidonron no zenjōron,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 79 (1991), pp. 431-428 (L). Tang, Yongtong. Wei Jin nanbeichao fojiao shi (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1982). ------. Sui Tang fojiao shigao (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1982). ------. Tang Yongtong xuanji (Tianjin: Tianjin renmin chubanshe, 1995). Tang, Zhangru. “Wei Jin Nanbeichao shiqi de ke he buqu,” Wei Jin Nanbeichao shi lun shiyi (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983). -------. Wei Jin nanbeichao Sui Tang shi sanlun (Wuhan: Wuhandaxue chubanshe, 1993). Tokiya, Koki. “Jūjūbibasharon ni okeru hotsubodaishin bon to chōbuku bon ni tsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 28 (1966), pp. 161-165. Tokushi, Yusho. “Koji bukkyō nitsuite,” Nikka bukkyō kenkyūkai nenho 1 (1936), pp. 16-21. Toshitaka, Morie. “Ryō sandai hoshi no kannō shiso,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 43 (22-1) (1973), pp. 142-143. Tsuchihasi, Shuko. “Kairitsu no zaizokusei – Chūgoku no bosatsu kaihon yori,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 46 (1975), pp. 31-36. -------. Kairitsu no kenkyū 2 vols. (Kyoto: Nagata bunshodo, 1980-1982). Tsukamoto, Zenryu. “Hokugikenkoku jidai no bukkyō seisaku to kahoku no bukkyō,” Tōhō gakuho 11 (1939), pp. 49-85. -------. Chūgoku bukkyōshi kenkyū (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1964). Tu, Yanqiu. “Cong chanshu dao xingkong: Lun Dao’an dui An Shigao chanshu sixiang de jicheng yu chaoyue,” Hanxue yanjiu 21: 2 (2003), pp. 77-109. Ujitani, Yuken. “Hikekyō no Jōdo,” Nihon bukkyō gakkai nenhō 42 (1977), pp. 101-120. Uno, Sadatoshi. “Jōyoji Eon Kanmuryōjukyōsho no sanjōkan ,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 61 (31-1) (1982), pp. 140-141. Usuzumi, Kensho. “Chūgoku Tendai ni okeru busshoron no tenkai,” Ryūkoku Daigaku daigakuin kiyo 2 (1980), pp. 69-73. Wang, Bangwei. Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan jiaozhu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1988). 278 Wang, Jiakui and Zhang Ruixian. Shennong bencaojing jianjiu (Beijing: Beijing keji chubanshe, 2001). Wang Liqi, Yanshi jiaxun jijie (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1993). Wang, Yarong. “Riyansi kao – Jianlun Suidai nanfang yixue de beichuan,” Zhonghua foxue xuebao 12 (1991), pp. 191-203. Watanabe Takao kyōju kanreki kinen ronshū kankokai, Watanabe Takao kyōju kanreki kinen ronbunshū: Bukkyō shiso bunkashi ronsō (Kyoto: Nagata bunshodo, 1997). Won,Yong-sang. “Nanbokujidai no gigikyō niokeru mabō shiso no keisei,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 101(51-1), (2002), pp. 197-199. Wu, Yi. Zhongyi biyong, supplemented by Zhang Fu, edited and annotated by Hu Daojing (Beijing: Nongye chubanshe, 1962). Xie, Chongguang. “Jin Tang siyuan de yuanpu zhongzhiye,” Zhongguo she jingjishi yanjiu 3 (1990), pp. 1-7. Yamabe, Nobuyoshi. “Shiiryaku yōhō to gomonzenkyō yōyōhō,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 98 (2001), pp. 169-175. Yamada, Ryujō. Daijō bukkyō seiritsurun josetsu (Kyoto: Heirakuji shōten, 1959). Yamano, Toshiro. “Tendai chigi no budaishingi – kanno hotsushinsetsu o chushin,” Bukkyōgaku seimeinai 53 (1991), pp. 13-29. Yamauchi, Shunyu. “Tendai chija daishi to yōtei to no kankei nitsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 9 (1957), pp. 136-137. Yamazaki, Hiroshi. Shina chūsei bukkyō no tenkai (Tokyo: Shimizu shoten, 1942). -------. “Yōdai no shidōjō,” Tōyō gakuhō 34 (1952), pp. 22-35. -------. “Tō no Dōsen no kanto nitsuite,” Tsukamoto hakushi shōju kinenkai ed. Tsukamoto hakushi shōju kinen: Bukkyōshigaku ronjū (1961), pp. 895-906. -------. Zui-Tō bukkyō shi no kenkyū (Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 1980). Yan, Gengwang. "Tang ren dushu shanlin siyuan zhifeng," in: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan (Bulletin of Institute of History and Philology) 30: 2 (Taipei: 1959), pp. 689-728. Yanagida, Seizan. “Goroku no rekishi,” Tōhō gakuhō 57 (1985), pp. 211-663. Yang, Zengwen. “Fojiao jielü he tangdai de lüzong,” Zhongguo wenhua 3 (1990), pp. 517. 279 Yinshun, Chunqi Dasheng fojiao zhi qiyuan yu zhankai (Taipei: Zhengwen chubanshe, 1994). Yoshikawa Tadao, “Rikuchōmatsuzuitsho no jurin to bukkyō,” in: Amaraki Noritoshi ed. Hokuchōzuitō Chūgoku bukkyō shisoshi (2000), pp. 427-455. Yoshioka Yoshitoyo, “Shotō niokeru butsudōronsō no ichishiryo: dōkyō gisū no seiritsu nitsuite,” Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 7 (4-1) (1956), pp. 58-66. Yuki, Reimon. “Shotō bukkyō no shiso teki mujun to kokka kenryoku tono kōsatsu,” Tōyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 25 (1961), pp. 1-28. Zhang, Houyong. “Cong Famensi yi tong beishi kan woguo gudai fosi de xiyu weisheng,” in Wang Jun, Ning Runsheng ed. Zhongguo chuantong yixue yu wenhua (Xi’an: Shanxi kexue jishu chubanshe, 1993), pp. 230-236. Zhang, Mengwen. Zhongguo shengwu fenleixue shi shulun (1940). Zhongguo zhiwu xuehui ed. Zhongguo zhiwu xue shi (Beijing: Kexue chubanshen, 1994). Zhou, Yiliang. Wei Jing Nanbeichao shi zaji (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1985). Zou, Shuwen. “Zhongguo gudai de dongwu fenleixue,” in: Li Guohao, Zhang Mengwen, Cao Tianqin ed. Zhongguo kejishi tantao (Hongkong: Zhonghua shuju xianggang fenju, 1986), pp. 511-524. 280