Abstract
Scholars such as John Strong and James Robson have laid firm foundations for the study of the development of Buddhist sacred geography, highlighting the role of relics, stupas and the importance of pre-Buddhist sites of religious significance. Their work has inspired this paper which examines extracts from three texts produced by the monk Shi Daoxuan between 650 and 667 ce: the Shijia fangzhi 釋迦方志 (A Geography of the Śākyas, 650 ce), the Ji Shenzhou Sanbao gantong lu 集神州三寶感通錄 (Collected Records of Stimulus and Responses to the Triple Gem in the Divine Continent, 664) and the Lüxiang gantong zhuan 律相感通傳 (Account of the Stimuli and Responses Related to the Vinaya, 667). Concentrating on two places, the Zhongnan Mountains and Mount Wutai, these materials provide a rare opportunity to examine the role one man played in the promotion of these sites over few decades. This paper argues that Daoxuan was among the first to promote the idea of Mañjuśrī being present in China, initially in the Zhongnan, and only latterly on Wutai, and that Daoxuan was influenced by the picture of Indian Buddhist sacred geography provided by the accounts of Xuanzang’s travels in his consolidation and development of a similar geography for China. Daoxuan utilised Buddhist and non-Buddhist writings, and eyewitness testimony from the human realm and beyond, in his efforts to promote these two places. A close reading of these extracts can provide insight into the factors which stimulate the creation of sacred sites, and the methods and processes through which they develop and evolve.
1 Introduction
The production and organisation of geographical knowledge, in China as elsewhere, was never merely the neutral presentation of topographical information. Natural phenomena are given meaning by human activity, and such activity leaves traces on the landscape both tangible (archaeological remains, for example), and intangible (such as the lore associated with a particular locale). Geographical treatises do not simply record the physical world; imperially sponsored geographies, for example, constructed political space, and geographical works by Buddhists sought to advance Buddhist arguments.
Following the death of the Buddha a network of sacred sites grew up in central northern India.1 According to the Mahāparinibbānasutta, the Buddha himself recommended visiting the places of his birth, enlightenment, first sermon and death and these places became ones of pilgrimage.2 Great distances posed problems for Buddhists outside the heartlands who wanted to pay their respects and, to alleviate this problem in regions unable to lay claim to association with any well-known event in the Buddha’s life, such as Gandhāra (now in north eastern Pakistan/Afghanistan) and Laṅkā (Sri Lanka), stories emerged about the Buddha having visited the locale during his lifetime (sometimes by miraculous means) and numerous sites, invariably marked with stupas, became associated with events which took place in his previous lives.3 The emergence of Buddhist sites in China did not conform with these patterns observable in other Buddhist cultures. By the time Buddhists arrived in the first century ce, an extensive textual heritage meant the elite had a clear idea of their own history – one in which this foreign religion played no part. By the mid-seventh century, Buddhist apologists had long argued that Buddhist activity in China stretched deep into antiquity; in particular, the idea that China had once been part of King Aśoka’s Buddhist empire, following his supposed unification of the continent of Jambudvīpa, proved compelling. Much evidence of this emerged in China in the form of stupas that supposedly contained the Buddha’s relics, some of the 84,000 that were distributed throughout Aśoka’s domain.4
But China’s well-recorded history was perhaps an obstacle to the creation of sites connected with China’s Buddhist past, as this would necessarily involve some literal re-writing of history,5 impeding the emergence of sites so common elsewhere in the Buddhist world associated with visits of the Buddha during his lifetime and those connected with the Buddha’s past lives.6 However, this corpus also provided non-Buddhist material for Buddhist apologists to reinterpret, and their work provides insights into how sites of religious meaning took shape as monks such as Shi Daoxuan 釋道宣 (c. 596–667) exploit these rich records to Buddhist ends.
Daoxuan was a great systematiser, and was responsible for, or at least involved in, the great Buddhist compilations of the early Tang dynasty (618–907): the vast hagiography Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 (Continued Lives of Eminent Monks, earliest version 645); a compilation of miraculous occurrences, the Ji Shenzhou Sanbao gantong lu 集神州三寶感通錄 (Collected Records of Stimulus and Responses to the Triple Gem in the Divine Continent);7 a Buddhist catalogue, the Da Tang Neidian lu 大唐内典錄 (Records of the Inner Canon of the Great Tang, 664); a collection of apologetic works, the Guang hongming ji 廣弘明集 (An Extended Collection of Materials Propagating and Clarifying [Buddhism], completed 664); and a Buddhist encyclopaedia, the Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林 (Forest of Pearls in the Garden of the Law, 668).8 Prior to the mid-640s, Daoxuan’s writings were in the main directly related to the Sifen lü 四分律, the vinaya of the Dharmaguptakas, and he is remembered primarily as a vinaya master. Then, in the first month of the nineteenth year of the Zhenguan 貞觀 era of the reign of Tang Taizong 唐太宗 (late February 645), Xuanzang 玄奘 (c. 602–664), who had been out of China for nearly two decades, arrived in Chang’an 長安. Emperor Taizong 太宗 (r. 626–649) had little personal interest in Buddhism at this stage,9 but in this, his most expansionist period, he was extremely interested in any geographical information that Xuanzang could provide.10 He greeted Xuanzang’s return with some enthusiasm and urged him to compile an account of his travels, the result being the Da Tang Xiyu ji 大唐西域記 (Records of the Western Regions [compiled during] the Great Tang: commonly the Xiyu ji).11 This contained detailed information on places along the routes Xuanzang had taken, including political, topographical, ethnographic and economic information which could prove useful in diplomatic or military endeavours. The record contained much Buddhist information which, although of little use to Taizong, was of intense interest to Chinese Buddhists. The Xiyu ji details numerous sites of Buddhist interest: stupas, images and body relics of Śākyamuni Buddha12 are documented along with associated miraculous activity. The life of the Buddha had left physical traces on the Indian landscape: footprints,13 patterns left on rocks where his robes were laid out to dry,14 and trees that had sprouted from his tooth cleaning sticks.15 Although Chinese audiences had previously encountered the travelogues of monastics who had made the journey, Faxian’s 法顯 (337–c. 422) much shorter Foguo ji 佛國記 for example, never had such a detailed picture of the sacred sites of India been placed before them; readers would have gained a keen appreciation of how Buddhism had marked the Indian landscape, and the effect would have been profound.16 Daoxuan was part of the team put together to assist Xuanzang in translating the many scriptures he brought back from his travels, and so had close contact with him during the time that the Xiyu ji was being compiled. He was evidently deeply affected by the picture of the Buddhist regions contained in Xuanzang’s account.17
For all Buddhas there are four places that are constantly fixed. The first is the place where they perfect the Way (that is, Bodhgaya); the second where they turn the wheel of the Law (in a Deer Park at Sarnath); the third, where they preach the Law, discuss what is right, and win over non-Buddhists;20 the fourth, the place where the Buddha descended having been to the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven to preach the Law (Sāṅkāśya).
凡諸佛有四處常定：一者成道處，二者轉法輪處，三者說法論議伏外道處，四者上忉利天為母說法來下處。21
In all, the Foguo ji only mentions seven places where all Four Buddhas were active, each within the Buddhist heartlands of the Ganges basin. In the Xiyu ji the activities of the Buddhas have a much wider geographical distribution; some forty locations are mentioned “where there are traces of the Four Buddhas of the Past sitting or walking [in meditation]” (過去四佛坐及經行遺跡之處), or where they preached the Dharma (shuofa 說法), and they are by no means confined to the Gangetic plain.22 Throughout South and Southeast Asia, traditions developed recording visits of the Four Buddhas; the Pali Dīpavaṃsa, for example, relates their visits to Laṅkā.23 An interesting question is why there are no sites in China renowned for the visits of previous Buddhas. Extract iii below will show it is arguable that Daoxuan attempted to create at least one.
Through a close reading of extracts from the Shijia fangzhi 釋迦方志 (A Geography of the Śākyas) (see Table 1), the Ji Shenzhou Sanbao gantong lu (see Appendix A) and the Lüxiang gantong zhuan (See Appendix B) this paper examines how Daoxuan promotes two sites in his efforts to bridge the physical and temporal divide between Buddhists in China and the historical Buddha: the Zhongnan Mountains (Zhongnanshan 終南山) and Mount Wutai (Wutaishan 五台山). The Zhongnan Mountains, running east-west some 50 kilometres to the south of Chang’an 長安 (modern Xi’an in Shaanxi 陝西 province), form part of the larger Qinling 秦嶺 range. They were the site of religious activity of all kinds, Buddhist, Daoist, and various other religious rites (such as rain-encouraging).24 It was the site of the Louguan 樓觀 (Tiered Observatory), a Daoist monastery particularly associated with Laozi 老子, who had appeared there to one of Daoxuan’s contemporaries, Yin Wencao 尹文操 (622–688) in 649.25 Mount Wutai, the Five Terrace Mountain, in northeast Shanxi 山西 province, is now famous as the earthly abode of Mañjuśrī, the so-called Bodhisattva of Wisdom and one of the most important Buddhist figures in East Asia.26 It is one of the Four Famous [Buddhist] Mountains (sida mingshan 四大名山) alongside Mount Putuo 普陀, Mount Emei 峨眉, and Mount Jiuhua 九華, where the Bodhisattvas Avalokiteśvara, Samantabhadra and Kṣitigarbha are said to reside respectively.27
2 Extract I: the Shijia fangzhi
In compiling the Shijia fangzhi, which aims to document the sacred geography of the Buddhist world, Daoxuan’s purpose was twofold: first, to show that China was part of this Buddhist world (in answer to doubts expressed to Xuanzang by his interlocutors in India), and second, that China was a Buddhist place in its own right, where Chinese Buddhists could access the Buddhist Dharma in the same way as their Indian counterparts.
According to the *Mañjuśrī nirvāṇa sūtra,28 four hundred and fifty years after the extinction of the Buddha, Mañjuśrī will arrive in the Snow Mountains and preach the Dharma for five hundred transcendents (xianren 仙人).29 Further, according to the Geographical Records and the Record of Western Regions, “The Snow Mountains are the Congling range.”30 At the foot of these mountains lie the thirty-six realms that were tributaries of the Han in former times. The Congling 蔥嶺 mountain range’s easternmost extent is the Zhongnan Mountains. This is the very place to which Mañjuśrī came to convert the transcendents.
案《文殊泥洹經》，佛滅度後四百五十年，文殊至雪山為五百仙人說法。又案《地理誌》、《西域傳》云：雪山者，即蔥嶺也。其下三十六國先來奉漢。其蔥嶺亘，東至終南。文殊來化仙人，即斯地也。31
Thus, using the authority of a prophecy contained in what presented itself as an Indic text, the *Mañjuśrī parinirvāṇa sūtra (Foshuo Wenshushili bannie jing 佛說文殊師利般涅經),32 Daoxuan sites a major Buddhist figure in China. Like much of this section of the text, Daoxuan builds his argument using an extract from the Poxie lun 破邪論 (Treatise Destroying the Erroneous),33 a text composed by the monk Falin 法琳 (572–640) in 622 as his first response to a series of anti-Buddhist memorials submitted to the court by the Daoist Fu Yi 傅奕 (555–639).34 These laboured the foreignness of Buddhism and its unsuitability for the Chinese, and Fu Yi was given a sympathetic hearing by the already pro-Daoist Tang Emperor Gaozu 高組 (r. 618–626), whose family claimed descent from Laozi 老子 (the so-called founder of Daoism) and were inclined to favour the followers of their kinsman.35 Falin, in his turn, had used the *Mañjuśrī parinirvāṇa sūtra to develop his (somewhat different) argument. Examining the Shijia fangzhi side by side with the source text Daoxuan was using (the Poxie lun), and the ultimate scriptural source (the *Mañjuśrī parinirvāṇa sūtra), (see Table 1) reveals how Chinese Buddhists were using both Buddhist and non-Buddhist texts to construct their arguments.
The sutra predicts that four hundred and fifty years after the death of the Buddha, Mañjuśrī will go to the Snow Mountains (that is, the Himālayas) where he will preach and convert five hundred transcendents. Then, together with Mañjuśrī, they will assume the form of bhikṣus (monks) and fly through the air until they reach Mañjuśrī’s birthplace.36 Falin follows the sutra closely omitting the information about the conversion and progress of the audience (compare A1-5 and B1-5 in Table 1) and is ambiguous on whether the converted return with Mañjuśrī to the “original land” (bentu 本土) (Table 1, B7). Evidently Falin is not confident that his readership will be familiar with the Snow Mountains and explains that, according to geographical records, the Snow Mountains are the Congling range (that is, the Pamirs) (Table 1, B9-11).37 Falin explains why the Congling have this alternative name: snowfall there is heavy (Table 1, B12). He therefore locates Mañjuśrī in the Snow Mountains and makes a weak link with China through the suzerain states: Mañjuśrī “went” (wang 往) to the Snow Mountains during the early Han 漢 dynasty38 from his “original land” and returned there (perhaps without the new converts) (see Table 1, A6-7). It seems probable that in the anti-Daoist context in which this text was composed Falin hoped to suggest the presence of the Bodhisattva within China’s sphere of influence, illustrated by the conversion of the transcendents, whom he hoped to imply were Daoists converted to Buddhism.39
At first Daoxuan follows Falin very closely (compare B/C 0–6 in Table 1), but he omits Mañjuśrī’s return (compare B/C 7 in Table 1). Then, in place of the information about the name of the mountain range (Table 1, B12), Daoxuan states that the Congling range’s easternmost extent is the Zhongnan Mountains (Table 1, C12).40 Rather than the Congling being the place Mañjuśrī “went” (wang 往) to convert the transcendents/Daoists, Daoxuan implies that it is the Zhongnan to which Mañjuśrī “came” (lai 來) to do so. Daoxuan’s version implies that Mañjuśrī did not return, but stayed in China, which explains why he omits this detail (at Table 1, C7). Daoxuan’s concern is not with the past, like Falin, but with the present, and his aim is to place a major Buddhist figure in China. However, as is well known, Mañjuśrī is not associated with the Zhongnan Mountains where no trace of his cult can be found, but with Mount Wutai where it continues to thrive, and the next extract we will examine has a different tale to tell.
3 Extract ii: the Ji Shenzhou Sanbao gantong lu
In the jssgtl Daoxuan gathered together smaller collections of specific types of miracle stories, arranged as the title suggests with reference to the Three Treasures: the Buddha (relics and images), the teachings (scriptures) and the monastic community (monasteries and monks).41 Koichi Shinohara suggests that the impetus to produce a more systematic compilation may have been provided by Gaozong’s 662 order that ministers reconsider the question of whether monks and nuns should do obeisance to their parents and to the throne that clearly illustrated the hostile atmosphere Buddhists still faced. Shinohara argues that tales of the miraculous were apologia, “proving the efficacy of Buddhist teaching in a most unambiguous way.”42 The majority of these miracles are tied in some way to the Chinese land – long-hidden stupas and images emerge from beneath Chinese soil, and relics of the Buddha himself, which were interred in new stupas during the Renshou 仁壽 relic distribution, continue to produce miracles from their new homes.43
Extract ii is one of two accounts of the same events: the imperially mandated visits of the monk Huize 會賾 (dates unknown) to Mount Wutai during the Longshuo 龍朔 era of the reign of Tang Gaozong 唐高宗 (661–664). The first account (Account 1, see Appendix A) appears in a section devoted to miraculous images, and the second (Account 2 the relevant part of which appears below) is contained in a section on miraculous monasteries.44 The first thing to note is the significance of the dates of the visit; by the early 660s, the Emperor Gaozong’s health was in decline and Empress Wu (Wu Zhao 武曌 c. 628–705) was effectively in charge, and probably behind Huize’s visit to Wutai.45 The second is that the Empress was Daoxuan’s patron; by the early 660s he had been appointed abbot of the monastery consecrated in celebration of the birth of her son.46
Tradition has it that Mañjuśrī, together with five hundred transcendents, went to the Qingliang 清涼 Mountains to expound the teachings. Because these mountains are extremely cold, trees do not grow here, [only] pine trees cover the lower valleys. The southern part of the mountain is called Qingliang Peak. At the foot of that mountain there lies the district of Qingliang.48
傳云文殊師利與五百仙人往清涼山說法。故此山極寒，不生樹木，所有松林森於下谷，山南號清涼峰。山下有清涼府。
These mountains are extremely cold. The southern [peak] is called Mount Qingliang and there is also a Qingliang district. The scriptures are clear that Mañjuśrī led five hundred transcendents to clear and cool snowy mountains 清涼雪山. This is the very place.
其山極寒，南號清涼山，亦立清涼府。經中明文殊將五百仙人，往清涼雪山，即斯地也。
There can be little doubt that the *Mañjuśrī parinirvāṇa sūtra is Daoxuan’s source (see Table 1, A 2–3); that he uses the same sutra to justify the presence of Mañjuśrī on a different mountain some fourteen years apart is probably explained by the Empress’s eagerness to cultivate an association with the Bodhisattva on a mountain nearer both her hometown (her family were from Wenshui 文水 in Shanxi)49 and her powerbase (at Luoyang 洛陽). In Account 2 there is an interesting difference: here Daoxuan refers to Mañjuśrī’s destination as “clear and cool snowy mountains,”50 which could equally be read as the “clear and cool Snow Mountains,” which, of course, would no longer make sense as it is the Zhongnan Mountains which are the terminus of the Snow Mountains, not Wutai. But Daoxuan uses precisely the same language to identify it: This is the very place (即斯地也; see Table 1, C13).51 Extract iii will illustrate Daoxuan’s attempts to keep the Zhongnan Mountains on the Buddhist map.
The remains of the Meditation Masters Jietuo 解脫 (561–642) and Sengming 僧明 (dates unknown) sit in a cave, as if still alive.54 {Their flesh has not deteriorated in the ten years [since their death]. This is the power of meditation, and unless one is of sagely virtue one will not fathom it.}
解脫禪師、僧明禪師遺蹤坐窟，身相存焉。{身肉不壞已積十年。定力所持聖賢靡測。}55
During the Zhenguan 貞觀 era (627–649) Meditation Master Jietuo gathered followers and practised meditation. He said that to the north of the flower garden he saw Mañjuśrī on four occasions flying in the air, his retinue filling the sky, crowds of transcendents and unusual sages. Recently Meditation Master Sengming who had lived in the mountain for more than 30 years, and had also encountered transcendents and sages, flew up into the air and departed leaving behind only his old skin.56
貞觀中解脫禪師聚徒習定。自云於花園北，四度見文殊師利，翼從滿空，群仙異聖，不可勝紀。近有僧明禪師，居山三十餘載，亦遇仙聖，飛空而去，唯留故皮。
It is, of course, impossible to say whether Account 2 is merely a more detailed account of the lore known at the time, but it may also be, in the case of Jietuo’s visions, an embellishment which links the known history of the mountain and its inhabitants with the new desire to link Mañjuśrī with Wutai. As far as Sengming’s flying off and leaving his skin behind, while this may also reflect the already existing lore, his “death” (if I read correctly) is reminiscent of a Daoist transcendent.57
In the jssgtl we see different devices employed to establish the religious credentials of a locality. First, we have archaeological evidence: the remains of Buddhist establishments from previous dynasties, recognisable as Buddhist by their architectural form (stupas) and by the iconography contained within (of Mañjuśrī). Second, rather than scriptural authority, as in Extract I, we have the eye-witness testimony of Huize and his assistants who see, hear and smell unusual things.
In Extract ii we have seen a shift from the merely textual to the physical – real world evidence is brought to bear. These events occur in the present but, of course, build on the past. The very fabric of Wutai is sacred, as evidenced by the many miraculous events taking place there and, at least in Daoxuan’s telling, they are of Buddhist significance.
4 Extract iii: the Lüxiang gantong zhuan
The final extract, which concerns both Zhongnan and Wutai, is taken from the Lüxiang gantong zhuan.58 This contains a series of revelations that Daoxuan received a few months before his death and takes the form of questions (asked by Daoxuan) and answers (provided by a series of celestial visitors). James Benn perceptively argues that these revelations were an attempt to counter Daoist claims that the Zhongnan were the mountains of Laozi and Yin Xi 尹喜 (to whom Laozi entrusted the Daodejing 道德經 as he set off to the West), and that Daoxuan’s experiences were perhaps inspired by Yin Wencao’s visitations from Laozi.59 Robert Campany draws attention to two characteristics of this text: first, the resemblance in form to Daoist writings, and second, that a large proportion of its discussions relate to questions concerning Buddhist “marks” on the Chinese landscape, the origins of ancient monasteries, images and stupas.60 Extract iii illustrates the devices that Daoxuan uses – some new, some well-established – to exploit and create geographic knowledge.
The scene is set by an exchange with one of Daoxuan’s celestial visitors: an image had been excavated during the Jin 晉 dynasty (265–420), which had an inscription in clerical script (lishu 隸書) that Daoxuan’s visitor dated to the time of the Buddha Kāśyapa. Daoxuan queried how this was possible, clerical script having been invented (he believed) by Li Si 李斯 (c. 280–208 bce) during the time of the first Qin 秦 emperor, Shihuangdi 始皇帝 (r. 221–210 bce). The celestial explains that Chinese script had a much longer history, stretching back into previous eons. In the present, all the countries in the southern part of the continent of Jambudvīpa (that is, the Buddhist part) use phonetic scripts, but China being so isolated had retained its ancient way of writing.61 Daoxuan appears puzzled by this claim and points to the Gaosi Terrace (Gaosi tai 高四臺) to the west of Chang’an, popularly said to be the place where Cang Jie 倉頡 invented writing.62 How could one claim that the Chinese script existed before its very invention?63 The celestial informs Daoxuan that while it was here that Cang Jie had observed the bird tracks (said to be the inspiration for Chinese characters), discussion of this matter was of no value. At that moment another celestial appears, Lu Xuanchang 陸玄暢, bringing more information about the Gaosi Terrace (see Appendix B).
In the first exchange (Appendix B1) Lu Xuanchang explains that his celestial career began during the time of the Buddha Kāśyapa, and that his powers enabled him to manifest in China during the Zhou 周 dynasty in the reign of King Mu 穆 (tenth century bce).64 He is able to provide first-hand accounts of these two crucial times and tells Daoxuan that the Buddha Kāśyapa held his third assembly at the Gaosi Terrace, preaching and converting the locals. This places Buddhist activity in the Zhongnan Mountains in a previous era and serves a dual purpose. First, sectarian forces are at work here: Buddhists responded to the Daoist theory that Laozi had gone to India, become the Buddha and converted the barbarians (huahu 化胡), by arguing for a birth date for the Buddha which preceded that of Laozi.65 Having a Buddha preaching in China in a previous era trumped any previous efforts to establish Daoist precedence. Second, this also suggests, in line with the Buddha biography “blueprint” discussed above, that where Kāśyapa goes Śākyamuni may follow.
Evidence for Buddha Kāśyapa’s third assembly being held in the Zhongnan Mountains is further provided by none other than the Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī, accompanied by one Maudgalyāyana,66 who came as missionaries to China during the time of King Mu, whom they successfully converted. Lu Xuanchang explains that Mañjuśrī and Maudgalyāyana were the “men of transformations” (huaren 化人) who appear in the “Zhou King Mu” (Zhou Mu wang 周穆王) chapter of the Liezi 列子 and that these missionaries revealed to King Mu (tenth century bce) that the Gaosi Terrace was the place of Kāśyapa’s third assembly, prompting the king to build the Third Assembly Practice Ground (sanhui daochang 三會道場).67 Corroborating archaeological evidence for Buddhism in the time of King Mu is provided by an anecdote from the time of Duke Mu of Qin (Qin Mu gong 秦穆公, d. 621 bce) who, having found a stone Buddha, fails to appreciate what it is and places it in the stables, where it is defiled. The deities protecting the image inflict some disease on the Duke by way of punishment and the Duke seeks counsel from his advisors. In a dream he receives admonishment from the High Lord (Shangdi 上帝) who is clearly displeased with his actions. One advisor, You Yu 由余,68 suggests that his illness might be the result of offense caused to the Buddha. You Yu knew of the men of transformations’ conversion of King Mu and the latter’s building of a commemorative tower69 for them on top of what had been Cang Jie’s terrace, and a temple (shenmiao 神廟), called the Third Assembly Practice Ground. You Yu is able to confirm that the stone statue is indeed a Buddha image and to advise how it should be treated. Duke Mu is eager to commission another bronze image and finds artisans who had been involved in the temple’s construction where they gained the relevant expertise.
In this first exchange we have a Buddha of a previous era preaching in China,70 more specifically as we will see below, in the Zhongnan Mountains. An existing site, the Gaosi Terrace, said to be where the culture hero Cang Jie invented writing, is retrospectively provided with a Buddhist back-story: it is the place where the Buddha Kāśyapa held his third assembly and where King Mu erected a monastery in recognition of this event. Corroborating evidence comes from secular texts and historical records (via the information provided by You Yu) and archaeological evidence (Duke Mu’s statue). Even the name of the Gaosi Terrace is explained with reference to a story of Buddhist significance.
In the second exchange (Appendix B2) Lu Xuanchang informs Daoxuan that Mañjuśrī came to China a second time (disguised as a foreign monk). This time he had two purposes in mind: first, to pay his respects at the place of Buddha Kāśyapa’s third assembly, and second, to visit his own earthly dwelling on Mount Wutai. Unable to find anyone to show him how to get to these places, he had to explain where he wanted to go to a young monk – the terrace where Cang Jie invented writing which he knows to be the place where “the Buddha(s) of ancient times preached the Dharma.”71 The Chinese could be read in the singular or the plural, so it is not clear whether one or more ancient Buddhas preached in Zhongnan Mountains, but in accordance with the Buddha biography “blueprint” it would be entirely unsurprising if the plural was intended. This would suggest, as intimated above, that Śākyamuni might be expected to have made an appearance here also, and this is exactly what happens: Daoxuan is informed that sometime during a period of twelve years following Śākyamuni Buddha’s conversion of his celebrated disciple (Mahā)Kāśyapa, Śākyamuni came to this mound and saw the śarīra (relics) of the Buddha Kāśyapa beneath, and later when King Mu travelled to India, was told by Śākyamuni that his own land had an ancient Buddha stupa near Chang’an to which he should return and make obeisance.72
Finally, in this exchange evidence is adduced that in India (Tianzhu) there was a tradition regarding Mañjuśrī on Qingliang/Wutai and that a “years-prolonging monk from the Kingdom of Lions” (Laṅkā) had travelled as a pilgrim to Wutai. Elsewhere Daoxuan names this monk as Śākyamitra,73 and some historians have suggested this monk was one of the first pilgrims from India.74 Antonino Forte has shown this to be untenable, there being “no evidence that Śākyamitra’s purposes in going to China was to make that pilgrimage.”75 Forte finds evidence that Śākyamitra was in Chang’an for more than a year prior to his trip to Wutai,76 and argued the main purpose of the holy man’s visit was to assist in ministering to the ailing Emperor and to translate (probably medical) Sanskrit texts. This does illustrate, however, that it was still important to Chinese Buddhists to gain legitimacy from India (or the appearance of such).
This marks a shift from concerns with Zhongnan to Wutai. In the third exchange (Appendix B3) Daoxuan mentions the now familiar tradition passed down from “ancient times” that Mañjuśrī led five hundred transcendents and preached the Dharma to them in the Qingliang Mountains. Lu Xuanchang is reluctant to delve into the question why Mañjuśrī chose this place, but makes it clear he knows of many sagely beings on Wutai.
In the final exchange (Appendix B4) Lu Xuanchang resolves the seemingly controversial issue of when the Dafu Lingqiu Monastery was constructed – both Emperor Ming of the Han and Emperor Xiaowen of the Wei had had a hand in it.77 Lu Xuancheng explains that the Zhou King Mu was the first to build a monastery here and that King Aśoka, having united Jambudvīpa under his Buddhist rule and redistributed the Buddha’s relics throughout his domain, later built a stupa there. This was forgotten until Kāśyapa Mātaṅga, traditionally regarded as one of the first missionaries to China,78 discerned it with his divine eye and requested Emperor Ming to build a monastery there.79
5 Conclusion
As Buddhism became acclimatized to its new Chinese environment, stories about the discovery of “new” relics on or underneath the Chinese soil – what Hubert Durt has referred to as a form of “archaeologia sacra” – began to proliferate. The discovery of relics, as well as sacred images and other traces in China dating back to the Zhou dynasty (ca. 1000–256 bc) helped to demonstrate [the early existence of Buddhism on Chinese soil].82
In his article “On the Very Idea of Religions,” Robert Campany cautions against treating religions as entities: Buddhism does not develop, it is people who develop it.83 Buddhism did not spread, it was spread, and it was spread by Buddhists who incrementally adapted it (consciously or unconsciously), with motives complex and multifaceted, to meet their religious needs. This applies equally to the production of Buddhist geographical knowledge as Buddhism “acclimatises” to a new environment, and the examination of these three extracts provides an insight into the role Daoxuan played in the synthesis and production of such knowledge. The Shijia fangzhi, at least in part, sought to consolidate the Buddhist geographical knowledge gleaned from Daoxuan’s wide-ranging researches both in earlier Buddhist and secular writings and through his extensive travels within China. But Daoxuan was not merely transmitting: these three extracts suggest that he, and the people close to him, were actively engaged in the promotion of certain sites in China as Buddhist.
The cult of previous Buddhas, in fact would seem to have been an ideal way of incorporating non-Buddhist, pre-Buddhist or Brahmanical elements into the Buddhist fold. By identifying indigenous divinities and local sacred places with past Buddhas, Buddhists could effectively “convert” them to Buddhism while still maintaining them at a distance.85
While a figure such as Cang Jie was not amenable to conversion, the place he reputedly invented writing is over-laid (and, in fact, under-laid) with Buddhist meaning.
In the long and intricate process of transmitting Buddhism to China it appears that the tendency to locate Buddhist sites on top of sites already marked as important for another religious tradition, or isolated religious cult, [as it had done in the Indian sphere] did not change.86
Extracts ii and iii illustrate very clearly how this layering of sacred place upon sacred place can happen, the latter (Appendix B4) with the unusual twist that a Chinese Buddhist site is (re)imagined to pre-date an Aśokan stupa. Also evident is what Robson has called “colonizing the past”; this involved the “conversion” of time (through the adaption of the historical record) and of space (by the creation of new sites of Buddhist significance, or the repurposing of older non-Buddhist sites). These, he argues, were of equal importance to the success of Buddhist endeavours as the conversion of the hearts and minds of the people.87 Extract iii shows the direct influence of Indian sacred geography as the Buddha biography “blueprint”, which no doubt impressed readers of the Xiyu ji, is tentatively employed in China.
Susan Andrews has examined the history of the creation of sacred geographical knowledge at Wutai slightly later in the seventh century and poses this question: how do religious communities create sacred territory in new geographical and temporal contexts? One method, she contends, “is through the writing and rewriting history.”88 In the extracts translated here we can observe this process in its embryonic stages. The crucial act is the recording, “the writing and re-writing,” and Daoxuan does this using varied resources: scripture, secular historical and other writings, eye-witness accounts, archaeological evidence, and corroboration and explanation from beyond the human realm. In all three extracts it is impossible to say whether Daoxuan was recording (or repurposing) an already existing tradition or attempting to start one. Once in written form, information takes on a different quality. Sacred sites are, in the words of James Benn, “written into being,”89 as local lore is interpreted as Buddhist in the hands of powerful monks such as Daoxuan. The act of recording and anthologising crystallises events and existing lore, creating reference markers for later generations.
There is no evidence outside the sources examined here that Zhongnan was regarded as the Chinese residence of Mañjuśrī either during Daoxuan’s lifetime or subsequently. The shift in Daoxuan’s writings from the Zhongnan Mountains to Mount Wutai can in all likelihood be explained by the Buddhist desire to cultivate the patronage of Empress Wu. As mentioned above, Daoxuan clearly had the support of Empress Wu during the 660s having been appointed abbot of the Ximing 西明 Monastery, which brings us to our final point: while the Zhongnan Mountains continued to have many important religious sites, in this period of vigorous religious competition, imperial support was key to the success of the enterprise endeavouring to locate a major Buddhist figure in China, the very beginnings of which are to be found in these extracts.90 As T. H. Barrett observed, “the spectacular long-term success of imperially sponsored information campaigns [to locate Mañjuśrī in China] is attested by the fact that the Wutai mountains […] remain an important place of Buddhist pilgrimage (including international pilgrimage) to this day.”91 We can learn just as much, however, from the failed attempts to establish sacred sites as we can from those which were ultimately successful; these extracts provide us with a unique insight into the processes at work in the creation of sacred Buddhist sites in China.
About the author
Janine Nicol was awarded her doctorate at soas, University of London in 2017 (“Daoxuan (c. 596–667) and the Creation of a Buddhist Sacred Geography of China: An examination of the Shijia fangzhi 釋迦方志”) and is currently a Research Associate in the soas Centre for Buddhist Studies. She is working on a translation of the early Chinese collection of jātaka stories, the Liudu ji jing (T152) for which she was the recipient of a 2022 Translations Grant from The Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation Program in Buddhist Studies.
References
References Listed by Title
Abbreviations
| dlgl | Daoxuan lüshi gantong lu | 道宣律師感通錄 |
| fyzl | Fayuan zhulin | 法苑珠林 |
| jssgtl | Ji Shenzhou Sanbao gantong lu | 集神州三寶感通錄 |
| lgz | Lüxiang gantong zhuan | 律相感通傳 |
| sjfz | Shijia fangzhi | 釋迦方志 |
| xgsz | Xu gaoseng zhuan | 續高僧傳 |
| xyj | Da Tang xiyu ji | 大唐西域記 |
Buddhist sources
All the following are from the Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新修大藏經 (collected and edited under the direction of Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaikyoku 渡邊海旭, Vols. 1–85, Issaikyō kankōkai 一切經刊行會, Tokyo, 1924–1932) and take the following form: T [volume number] No. [text number].
Chang ahan jing 長阿含經 (Dīrgha āgama or Long Discourses), reputedly translated by Buddhayaśas 佛陀耶舍 (c. 340–d. after 413) and Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 (fl. 379–413), 22 juan (T1 No.1).
Da banniepan jing 大般涅槃經 (Mahāparinibbānasutta), translated by Faxian 法顯 (337–c. 422) in 418, 3 juan (T1 No.7).
Da Tang gu sanzang Xuanzang fashi xingzhuan 大唐故三藏玄奘法師行狀 (Brief Obituary of Tripitaka Master Xuanzang of the Great Tang), attributed to Mingxiang 冥祥, completed c. 664, 1 fasc. (T50 No. 2052).
Da Tang xiyu ji 大唐西域記 (Records of the Western Regions), compiled by Xuanzang 玄奘 and Bianji 辯機 in 646, 12 juan (T51 No. 2087).
Daoxuan lüshi gantong lu 道宣律師感通錄 (Vinaya Master Daoxuan’s Record of Spiritual Responses), compiled by Daoxuan in 667, 1 juan (T52 No. 2107).
Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林, compiled by Daoshi 道世, completed 668, 100 juan (T53 No. 2122).
Foguo ji 佛國記 see Gaoseng Faxian zhuan.
Foshuo Wenshushili bannie jing 佛說文殊師利般涅經 (Mañjuśrī Parinirvāṇa Sūtra), translation attributed to Nie Daozhen 聶道眞, but uncertain, 1 juan (T14 No. 463).
Gaoseng Faxian zhuan 高僧法顯傳 (Biography of the Eminent Monk Faxian), author unknown, early fifth century ce, 1 juan (T51 No.2085).
Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳 (Biographies of Eminent Monks), compiled by Huijiao 慧皎 (497–554), completed 519, 14 juan (T50 No. 2059).
Guang hongming ji 廣弘明集 (An Extended Collection of Materials Propagating and Clarifying [Buddhism]), compiled by Daoxuan, completed 664, 30 juan (T52 No. 2103).
Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing 關中創立戒壇圖經 (Illustrated Scripture of the Ordination Platform within the Passes), compiled by Daoxuan in 667, 1 juan (T45 No. 1892).
Huayan jing zhuan ji 華嚴經傳記 (Chronicles of the Flower Adornment Sutra), compiled by Fazang 法藏 c. 690, 5 juan (T51 No. 2073).
Ji Shenzhou Sanbao gantong lu 集神州三寶感通錄 (Collected Records of Stimulus and Responses to the Triple Gem in the Divine Continent), compiled by Daoxuan, dated 664, 3 juan (T52 No. 2106).
Lüxiang gantong zhuan 律相感通傳 (Account of the Stimuli and Responses Related to the Vinaya), compiled by Daoxuan in 667, 1 juan (T45 No. 1898).
Poxie lun 破邪論 (Treatise Destroying the Erroneous), composed by Falin 法琳 in 622, 2 juan (T52 No. 2109).
Shijia fangzhi 釋迦方志 (A Geography of the Śākyas), composed by Daoxuan in 650, 2 juan (T51 No. 2088).
Sifen lü 四分律 (Vinaya of the Four Parts), translated between 410–412 by Buddhayaśas 佛陀耶舍 and Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 (fl. 379–413), 60 juan (T22 No. 1428).
Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 (Further Lives of Eminent Monks), compiled by Daoxuan 道宣 in 645, but updated by Daoxuan until his death in 667, and then by others unknown, 30 juan (T50 No. 2060).
Non-Buddhist Sources
Han shu 漢書 (History of the Han), compiled Ban Gu 班固 (32–92); edition Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. 1962, available at http://hanchi.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/ihp/hanji.htm.
Kuodi zhi 括地志 (A Comprehensive Treatise on Geography), compiled by Li Tai 李泰 (618–652); critical reprint in Jia Cijun 賀次君 (ed.), Kuodi zhi jijiao 括地志輯校, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1980.
Liezi 列子 (Liezi); critical reprint in Yang Bojun 楊伯峻, Liezi jishi 列子集釋, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. 1979.
Shiji 史記 (Records of the Historian), compiled by Sima Qian 司馬遷 (?145–?86 bce); edition Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1959.
References Listed by Author
Andrews, Susan, 2016, “The Temple of the Prince Who Torched His Body and the Making of Mount Wutai,” Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies 29: 91–127.
Barrett, T. H., 1990, “Exploratory Observations on Some Weeping Pilgrims,” in Tadeuz Skorupski (ed.), The Buddhist Studies Forum, Vol. I: Seminar Papers 1987–1988, London: SOAS, University of London, pp. 99–110.
Barrett, T. H., 2001, “Stūpa, Sūtra, and Śarīra in China, c. 656–706 ce,” Buddhist Studies Review 18.1: 1–64.
Barrett, T. H., 2008, The Woman Who Discovered Printing, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Barrett, T. H., 2012a, From Religious Ideology to Political Expediency in Early Printing: An Aspect of Buddho-Daoist Rivalry, London: Minnow Press.
Barrett, T. H., 2012b, “On the Road to China: The Continental Relocation of Sacred Space and Its Consequences for Mountains, Minds and Texts,” in James Benn, Jinhua Chen, and James Robson (eds.), Images, Relics and Legends: The Formation and Transformation of Buddhist Sacred Sites. Essays in Honour of Professor Koichi Shinohara, Oakville: Mosaic Press, pp. 46–67.
Benn, James, 2012, “One Mountain, Two Traditions: Buddhist and Taoist Claims on Zhongnan Shan in Medieval Times,” in James Benn, Jinhua Chen, and James Robson (eds.), Images, Relics and Legends: The Formation and Transformation of Buddhist Sacred Sites. Essays in Honour of Professor Koichi Shinohara, Oakville: Mosaic Press, pp. 69–90.
Birnbaum, Raoul, 1986, “The Manifestation of a Monastery: Shen-Ying’s Experiences on Mount Wu-t’ai in T’ang Context,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 106.1: 119–137.
Campany, Robert Ford, 1993, “Buddhist Revelation and Taoist Translation in Early Medieval China,” Taoist Resources 4.1: 1–29.
Campany, Robert Ford, 2003. “On the Very Idea of Religions (In the Modern West and in Early Medieval China),” History of Religions 42.4: 287–319.
Campany, Robert Ford, 2009, Making Transcendents: Ascetics and Social Memory in Early Medieval China, Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Chen Jinhua, 2002, “Śarīra and Scepter: Empress Wu’s Political Use of Buddhist Relics,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 25.1–2: 33–151.
Chen Jinhua, 2007, Philosopher, Practitioner, Politician: The Many Lives of Fazang (643–712), Leiden: Brill.
Deeg, Max, 2016, Miscellanae Nepalicae: Early Chinese Reports on Nepal: The Foundation Legend of Nepal in Its Trans-Himalayan Context, Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute.
de la Vaissière, Étienne, 2010, “Note sur la Chronologie du Voyage de Xuanzang,” Journal Asiatique 298.1: 157–168.
Durt, Hubert, 1987, “The Meaning of Archaeology in Ancient Buddhism: Notes on the Stupas of Asoka and the Worship of the ‘Buddhas of the Past’ According to Three Stories in the Samguk Yusa,” in Buddhism and Science: Commemorative Volume for the 80th Anniversary of the Founding of Tongguk University, Seoul: Tongguk (Dongguk) University, pp. 1224–1241.
Eckel, Malcolm David, 1992, To See the Buddha: A Philosopher’s Quest for the Meaning of Emptiness, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
Forte, Antonino, 2002, “Fazang and Sakyamitra, a Seventh-Century Singhalese Alchemist at the Chinese Court,” in Xing Yitian 郉義田 (ed.), Zhong shiji yiqian de diyu wenhua, zongjiao yu yishu 中世紀以前的地域文化、宗教與藝術 (Regional Culture, Religion, and Arts before the Seventh Century), Zhongyang yanjiuyuan disanjie guoji Hanxue huiyi lunwen ji lishizu 中央研究院第三屆國際漢學會議論文集歷史組 (Papers from the Third International Conference on Sinology, History Section), Taipei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan, lishi yuyan yanjiu suo, pp. 369–419.
Graham, A. C., 1990, The Book of Lieh-Tzu: A Classic of the Tao, New York: Columbia University Press.
Hsu, Alexander, 2018, “Practices of Scriptural Economy: Compiling and Copying a Seventh-Century Chinese Buddhist Anthology,” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, Chicago.
Jülch, Thomas, 2010, “The Buddhist Re-Interpretation of the Legends Surrounding King Mu of Zhou,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 130.4: 625–627.
Jülch, Thomas, 2011, Die apologetischen Schriften des buddhistischen Tang-Mönchs Falin with an English Summary, München: Herbert Utz Verlag.
Kreger, Wayne, 2016, “Echo of The Master, Shadow of The Buddha: The Liezi 列子 as a Medieval Masters Text,” Ph.D. diss., University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Lamotte, Étienne, 1960, “Mañjuśrī,” T’oung Pao 48.1–3: 1–96.
Lin, Wei-Cheng, 2014, Building a Sacred Mountain: The Buddhist architecture of China’s Mount Wutai, Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.
Liu Yuan-ju 劉苑如, 2014, “Shenyu: Lun ‘Lüxiang Gantong Zhuan’ Zhong Qianshi Jinsheng de Kuajie Shuxie” 神遇: 論《律相感通傳》中前世今生的跨界書寫 (Encounters with Numinous: On the Crossing Incarnations in Lüxiang Gantong Zhuan), Qinghua Xuebao 清華學報 43.1: 127–170.
Nicol, Janine, 2017, “Daoxuan (c. 596–667) and the Creation of a Buddhist Sacred Geography of China: An Examination of the Shijia fangzhi 釋迦方志,” Ph.D. diss., SOAS University of London, London.
Ohnuma, Reiko, 2007, Head, Eyes, Flesh, and Blood: Giving Away the Body in Indian Buddhist Literature, New York: Columbia University Press.
Oldenberg, Hermann, 1879, The Dīpavaṃsa: An Ancient Buddhist Historical Record, London: Williams and Norgate.
Quinter, David, 2010, “Visualizing the ‘Mañjuśrī Parinirvāṇa Sutra’ as a Contemplation Sutra,” Asia Major 23.2: 97–128.
Robson, James, 2009, Power of Place: The Religious Landscape of the Southern Sacred Peak (Nanyue) in Medieval China, Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center.
Robson, James, 2010, “Buddhist Sacred Geography,” in John Lagerwey and Pengzhi Lü (eds.), Early Chinese Religion, Part II: The Period of Division (220–589 AD), Leiden: Brill, pp. 1352–1398.
Sadakata, Akira, 1999, Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins, Tokyo: Kōsei.
Schipper, Kristofer, 1994, “Purity and Strangers Shifting Boundaries in Medieval Taoism,” T’oung Pao 80.1: 61–81.
Sen, Tansen, 2003, Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade: The Realignment of Sino-Indian Relations, 600–1400, Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Sharf, Robert H, 1992, “The Idolization of Enlightenment: On the Mummification of Ch’an Masters in Medieval China,” History of Religions 32.1: 1–31.
Shinohara Koichi, 1991, “Ji Shenzhou Sanbao Gantong Lu: Some Exploratory Notes,” in Kalyana-Mitta: Professor Hajime Nakamura Felicitation Volume, Delhi: Indian Book Centre, pp. 203–224.
Shinohara Koichi, 2003, “The Story of the Buddha’s Begging Bowl: Imagining a Biography and Sacred Places,” in Phyllis Granoff and Koichi Shinohara (eds.), Pilgrims, Patrons and Place: Localizing Sanctity in Asian Religions, Vancouver: UBC Press, pp. 68–107.
Shinohara Koichi (trans.), 2019–2020, A Forest of Pearls from the Dharma Garden, Volumes1–3, Moraga: BDK America Inc.
Strong, John, 2004, Relics of the Buddha, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Strong, John, 2014, “The Beginnings of Buddhist Pilgrimage: The Four Famous Sites in India,” in Christoph Cueppers and Max Deeg (eds.), Searching for the Dharma, Finding Salvation: Buddhist Pilgrimage in Time and Space: Proceedings of the Workshop “Buddhist Pilgrimage in History and Present Times”, Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, pp. 49–63.
Tournier, Vincent, and John Strong, “Śākyamuni: South Asia,” in Jonathan A. Silk, Oskar von Hinüber, and Vincent Eltschinger (eds.), Encyclopedia of Buddhism Online, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2467-9666_enbo_COM_2007, accessed in 2019.
Twitchett, Denis Crispin, Michael Loewe, and John K. Fairbank, 1979, The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 3, Sui and T’ang China, 589–906, Part 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang Jing 王靜, 2003, “Zhongnanshan yu Tangdai Chang’an shehui” 终南山与唐代长安社会 (The Relationship between the Zhongnan Mountains and Tang Chang’an Society), Tang Yanjiu 《唐研究》 Tang Researches 9: 129–68.
Wang Xiang, 2012, “Reconstructing Ximing Monastery: History, Imagination and Scholarship in Medieval Chinese Buddhism,” Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, Stanford.
Weinstein, Stanley, 1987, Buddhism under the T’ang, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkinson, Endymion, 2018, Chinese History: A New Manual, 5th edition, Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center.
Wong, C. J. 王志恆, 2016, “A Study of the Life and Thought of Falin: a Great Buddhist Defender in China,” Ph.D. diss., University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Zürcher, E., 2007, The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhist in Early Medieval China, third edition, Leiden: Brill.
Appendices
A The Ji Shenzhou Sanbao gantong lu
Account 192
During the first year of the Longshuo 龍朔 era of the Tang (661), an edict was issued charging the monk Huize 會賾 of the Huichang 會昌 Monastery [with the task of] going to Wutai to repair and put in order its monasteries and stupas. This mountain is situated in Daizhou 岱州, in Wutai 五臺 county. It has five terraces of which the Central Terrace is the highest. From there one can see for 1000 li,93 mountains and rivers arrayed [below] as if on the palm of your hand. There are several thousand stone stupas made of bricks and stone. These were all erected by the Wei Emperor Gaozu 高祖, the Xiaowen 孝文 emperor (r. 471–499). To the north of the [central] terrace, on a rock, there are the footprints of a man, a horse and a dog, the pattern of their tread as if newly made. On the summit there is a great pool called the Taihua 太華 (Ultimate Floriate) Spring and an unbroken chain of smaller springs. There are two stupas, one on each side of the springs. Within each there is a statue of Mañjuśrī. Tradition has it that Mañjuśrī, together with five hundred transcendents, went to the Qingliang 清涼 (Clear-and-Cool) Mountains to expound the teachings.94 Because these mountains are extremely cold, and trees do not grow here, [only] pine trees cover the lower valleys. The southern part of the mountain is called Qingliang Peak. At the foot of that mountain there lies the district of Qingliang. Ruins, ancient and more recent, can still be seen, not having been destroyed. Descending from the eastern face of the terrace for about 30 li there lies the ancient Dafu Lingjiu 大孚靈鷲 Monastery. Both to the east and west can be seen practice areas (daochang 道場) for Buddhist ceremonies. According to ancient traditions these were built by Emperor Ming 明 of the Han 漢. To the south there is a flower garden of around three qing.95 Unusual flowers blooming there dazzle the eye. Truly this is the residence of divine transcendents. There are many occasions when monks appear suddenly, then equally suddenly are difficult to find. Sagely traces and divine monasteries often appear and disappear. In the second year of the Longshuo era (662), there was a further imperial decree ordering Huize to go to Bing[zhou] 并州 to procure manpower and funds, and to effect repair of the ancient monasteries. Huize and officials from Wutai county led [a party] of more than 20 people [to Wutai]. They went directly to the Central Terrace where they saw a stone statue near to a cliff moving its body and waving its hands. When they reached it, it was just a square stone. The party was saddened and very affected. They felt full of disappointment and regret for some considerable time. They ordered the workmen to repair the two stupas and the Mañjuśrī statues. [While Huize] paced back and forth next to the stupas, suddenly from within the stupas there came the sound of bells being tolled continuously and the smell of unusual incense wafting through the air repeatedly. Clerics and laymen alike gasped at these unprecedented occurrences. Then they went to the Western Terrace and, in the distance, they saw a monk riding a horse coming up from the east, approaching extremely quickly. Huize and his party stopped and waited for him to arrive. A long while passed and he did not arrive, so they went to welcome him and suddenly he changed into a tree stump. [Once again] they felt bitter disappointment. Thus, the images communicate and respond, sometimes hidden, sometimes manifesting themselves.96 The sound of the bell and the fragrance in the air happen again and again and are constantly experienced. The 300 li area [of Wutai] to the southeast reaches Heng 恒 Peak;97 to the northwest it reaches the Heavenly Pool. Among [the peaks of Wutai] there lie six ancient monasteries, the Mount Foguan 佛光, Mount Xianhua 仙花, and the Wangzi 王子 stupa [among them].98 The remains of the Meditation Masters Jietuo 解脫 and Sengming 僧明 sit in a cave, as if still alive. {Their flesh has not deteriorated in the 10 years [since their death]. This is the power of meditation, and unless one is of sagely virtue one will not fathom it.}99 These matters are widely recorded elsewhere.
唐龍朔元年，下敕令會昌寺僧會賾往五臺山修理寺塔。其山屬岱州五臺縣。備有五臺，中臺最高。目極千里，山川如掌上。有石塔數千，塼100石壘之。斯並魏高祖孝文帝所立。臺北石上人馬犬跡，蹈101文如新。頂有大池，名太華泉。又有小泉，迭相延屬。夾泉有二浮圖，中有文殊師利像。傳云文殊師利與五百仙人往清涼山說法。故此山極寒，不生樹木，所有松林森於下谷，山南號清涼峰。山下有清涼府。古今遺基，見在不滅。從臺東面而下三十里許有古大孚靈鷲寺。見有東西二道場佛事備焉。古老傳云漢明帝所造。南有花園三頃許，異花間發，昱焰人目。寔神仙之宅也。屢有僧現，欻忽難尋。聖跡神寺，往往出沒。今上龍朔二年又令賾往并[州取]102吏力財帛使103修理故寺。賾與五臺縣丞104并將從二十餘人。直詣中臺，見石像臨崖，搖動身手。及至像所，乃是方石。悽然多感，悵恨久之。令作工修理二塔并文殊像。徙倚塔邊，忽聞塔間，鍾聲振發，連椎不已。又聞異香氛氳屢至。道俗咸感，歎未曾有。又往西臺遙見一僧乘馬東上奔來極急。賾與諸人立待其至，久而不到，就往參迎，乃變為櫱，悵恨無已。然則像相通感，有時隱顯，鍾聲香氣，相續恒聞。其上方三百里東南腳即恒岳也；西北腳即天池105也。中有佛光山、仙花山、王子塔，古寺六所。解脫禪師、僧明禪師遺蹤坐窟，身相存焉。{身肉不壞已積十年。定力所持聖賢靡測。}106廣如別記。
B Lüxiang gantong zhuan
B1107
[He said,] “During the time of the Zhou 周 King Mu 穆 (tenth century bce), your student was born in the First Heaven.108 Originally, I was a celestial during the time of Kāśyapa Buddha 迦葉佛. Because of my thorough powers of transformation, I was able to manifest briefly [in China] during the Zhou dynasty. The Gaosi 高四 Terrace which you were asking about was originally where the Buddha Kāśyapa held his third assembly, preaching the Dharma and converting people. During the time of King Mu, Mañjuśrī 文殊 and Maudgalyāyana 目連 came to transform [the Chinese through conversion]. King Mu became their adherent, and it is to them the Liezi refers when it talks of ‘men of transformations’. These men of transformations revealed to King Mu that the Gaosi Terrace was the place where the Buddha Kāśyapa had preached the Law, and for this reason he had built the Third Assembly Practice Ground. During the reign of Duke Mu 穆 of Qin 秦 (d. 621 bce), a stone Buddha was found in Fufeng 扶風109. Duke Mu did not realise what it was and left it in the stables where filth defiled this image. The deity protecting the image became enraged and caused the Duke to catch a disease. The Duke also dreamed he travelled to the High Lord, from whom he received a severe reproof. When he awoke, he asked his courtier You Yu 由余 [about it]. [You Yu] replied, ‘I have read in ancient texts that during the reign of the Zhou King Mu there were men of transformations who came to this land and spoke of the deity Buddha. King Mu had faith in [the Buddha] and in the Zhongnan Mountains built the Tower in the Middle of the Sky,110 more than 1000 chi tall.111 Its foundations still remain. In addition, on Cang Jie’s Terrace he built a temple called the Third Assembly Practice Ground. The illness now afflicting Your Grace, might it not be the Buddha causing it?’
On hearing this the Duke was very frightened, and said to You Yu, ‘Recently I obtained a stone man. His dress was not of a contemporary style, and I left it in the stables. Might it not be the Buddha?’
You Yu went to inspect it. He replied, ‘This is indeed the deity Buddha.’
The Duke took the image and bathed it and placed it in a purified place and then the image emitted rays of light. The Duke was frightened once again, assuming that the deity was wrathful. He had the three sacrificial animals slaughtered as a sacrifice [to the Buddha]. All the protective spirits lifted up [the image] and took it to a distant place. The Duke was once again greatly afraid and asked You Yu about these events. You Yu replied, ‘I have heard that the Buddha is pure, and does not take wine or meat, as he cherishes the life of all [types of living] things as if protecting a son. One must only reverence with incense and offer things like cakes and fruits.’
The Duke was once again greatly pleased and [wanted to] commission a Buddha image, but there were no artisans left [able to create one]. Once again, he asked You Yu who replied, ‘In the past near the monastery constructed by King Mu, there would have been artisans.’
It turned out that in the village to the south of the Gaosi Terrace they found an old man, named Wang An 王安 who was 180 years old. He volunteered, ‘In the past I witnessed those constructing the Third Assembly Practice Ground. I am now old in years, I have not the strength to do it, but in the village to the north there are four brothers who once worked for the craftsmen at Practice Ground. Let us find out if they would help make it.’
[The brothers] agreed and relying on their instruction a bronze image was made complete with all the excellent marks [of a Buddha]. The Duke was pleased and rewarded them handsomely. Those men became wealthy and at the same time built up merit. On the earth platform [they] built a multi-storey tower, 300 chi tall. Their contemporaries called it the Gaosi Terrace. Some say it was called Gaosi Tower because their surname was Gao and the eldest was called Four. Some say it was so called as the four brothers erected it together. Some [say] it was [named after] Gao Si (Four) and that is the reason the tower was so named. The name Gaosi remains to this day.”
弟子周穆王時，生在初天。本是迦葉佛時。天112為通化故，周時暫現。所問高四臺者，其本迦葉佛於此第三會說法度人。至周穆王時，文殊、目連來化。穆王從之，即《列子》所謂化人是也。化人示穆王高四臺是迦葉佛說法處，因造三會道場。至秦穆公時，扶風獲一石佛。穆公不識，棄馬坊中，穢污此像。護像神瞋，令公染疾。公又夢遊上帝，極被責教。覺問侍臣由余。答云：臣讀古書，周穆王時，有化人來此土，云是佛神。穆王信之，於終南山造中天臺，高千餘尺，基址見存。又於蒼頡臺造神廟，名三會道場。公今所患，殆非佛神為之耶。公聞大怖，語由余曰：吾近獲一石人，衣冠非今所製，棄之馬坊。將非是佛神耶。由余聞往視之，對曰：此真佛神也。公取像澡浴，安清淨處，像遂放光。公又怖，謂神瞋也。宰三牲以祭之。諸善神擎棄遠處。公又大怖，以問由余。答曰：臣聞佛神清潔，不進酒肉，愛重物命，如護一子。所有供養燒香而已。所可祭祀，餅果之屬。公又大悅，欲造佛像，絕於工人。又問由余。答曰：昔穆王造寺之側，應有工匠遂於高四臺南村內，得一老人，姓王名安，年百八十。自云：曾於三會道場，見人造之。臣今年老，無力能作，所住村北有兄弟四人，曾於道場為諸匠。執作請追共造。依言作之，成一銅像相好圓備。公悅大賞賚之。彼人得財，並造功德。於土臺上造重閣，高三百尺。時人號為高四臺也。或曰：高四樓，其人姓高，大者名四。或曰：兄弟四人同立故也。或取大兄之名以目之，故高四之名，至今稱也。
B2113
[I, Daoxuan] also asked, “Maudgalyāyana died while the Buddha was still alive, how could he reappear?”
[Lu Xuanchang] replied, “There are six people of that name. This [one] is called Lesser Maudgalyāyana. It is not Mahāmaudgalyāyana. During the Yuwen Zhou 宇文周 dynasty (557–581) Mañjuśrī transformed himself into an Indian monk and came to this land (China) saying he wanted to pay his respects at the place where the Buddha Kāśyapa had preached the Law and the dwelling place of Mañjuśrī in a place called the Qingliang Mountains 清涼山. Asking around, neither cleric nor layman could tell him where these places were. At that time [the future] Master of the Law Zhimeng 智猛114 was just 18 [years old] and he asked this Indian monk, ‘How do you know of these two sagely traces?’
He replied, ‘Twenty li south of the Qin capital there lies the terrace upon which Cang Jie invented writing.’
He continued, ‘This place is 50 li to the south of the Sand River 沙河 and 40 li north of the Blue Mountain 青山.’
[Zhimeng] asked, ‘What are you talking about when you say the Sand River and the Blue Mountain?’
He replied, ‘This is the Wei 渭 River and the Zhongnan Mountains 終南山.’
This monk then followed the Wei River due south and left, following it as far as the Gaosi Terrace. Then he said, ‘This is the place where the Buddhas of ancient times preached the Law.’
At that time Zhimeng accompanied [the foreign monk] to pay respects, but after a while he lost track of the foreign monk. When Zhimeng became an adult, he explained what had happened to the Official for Ritual, Wei Liao 韋卿, and requested that a monastery be constructed on this terrace on the site of the original [place where the Dharma had been preached] and immediately Wei Liao petitioned the Zhou Emperor. It was called the Third Assembly Monastery. During the Daye 大業 era of the Sui dynasty (605–618), devastation reached this great monastery and it was laid waste, [its contents]115 went to the Bodhi Monastery. Today the Buddha head in the West Hall of the Bodhi Monastery is that of the Third Assembly Monastery. During the 12 years after Śākyamuni Buddha converted Kāśyapa 迦葉, he came to this mound and beneath he saw the śarīra (relics) of the Buddha Kāśyapa. When the Zhou King Mu travelled to Daxia 大夏 (India)116 the Buddha told him that in that land (China) there was an ancient stupa and he should return and make obeisance there. The King asked where this place was and the Buddha replied, ‘To the south east of the capital Hao 鄗.’117
In the West, in India, there is an alternative tradition concerning this. Last year a years-prolonging monk from the Kingdom of Lions (Laṅkā), who was aged ninety-nine, and who had reached the third fruit,118 having heard of these superior traces travelled here barefoot in search of Mount Qingliang. The government supplied him with expenses for his journey and this summer he fulfilled his wish to visit there.”
又問:目連佛在日已終，如何重現。答曰：同名六人，此曰小目連，非大目連也。至宇文周時，文殊師利化為梵僧，來遊此土云欲禮拜迦葉佛說法處，并往文殊所住之處，名清涼山。遍問道俗，無有知者。時有智猛法師，年始十八，返問梵僧：何因知有二聖餘跡。答云：在秦都城南二十里，有蒼頡造書臺，即其地也。又云：在沙河南五十里，青山北四十里。又問：沙河青山是何語。答云：渭水終南山也。此僧便從渭水直南而涉，遂到高四臺。便云：此是古佛說法處也。于時智猛法師隨往禮拜，不久失梵僧所在。智猛長大，具為太常韋卿說之，請其臺處依本置寺，遂奏周王，名三會寺。至隋大業中，廢入大寺，因被廢毀，配入菩提寺。今菩提寺西堂佛首即三會寺佛也。釋迦如來度迦葉後十二年中，來至此臺，其中見有迦葉佛舍利。周穆王身遊大夏，佛告：彼土有古塔，可返禮事。王問：何方？佛答：在鄗京之東南也。西天竺國具有別傳去歲長年師子國僧，九十九夏，三果人也。聞斯聖跡，跣行至此，尋清涼山。國家供送，今夏在彼，所願應遂也。
B3119
I asked, “Since ancient times the tradition has been passed down that Mañjuśrī, in the Qingliang Mountains, lead 500 transcendents and preached the Law [to them]. The sūtras are clear. [But] Mañjuśrī has long been a Bodhisattva of the Sahā world, Sahā being the name for the Great Thousand (trichiliocosm).120 Why would he favour this land?”
[Lu Xuanchang] replied, “Mañjuśrī is the original teacher of the Buddhas, and will manifest to provide benefit in accordance with the circumstances, and in adapting to these circumstances he will not always be the same. It is the business of a Great Being and not within the bounds of men, and I will speculate no further.121 Beings of sagely wisdom122 abound on Qingliang in the Wutai [range] and now on Mount Xianhua 仙華 in Qingliang district in Wutai County, frequently people see them – one must believe.”
余問曰：自昔相傳，文殊在清涼山，領五百仙人說法經中明。文殊是久住娑婆世界菩薩，娑婆則大千總號。如何偏在此方？答曰：文殊諸佛仙之元師也。隨緣利見應變不同。大士之功非人境界，不勞評泊。[聖智]但知多在清涼123五臺之中，今彼見有五臺縣清涼府仙華山，往往有人見之，不得不信。
B4124
I also asked, “Today on Wutai Mountain, 40 li to the south-east of the terrace one sees there is the Dafu Lingjiu 大孚靈鷲 Monastery. Two halls remain, separated by a gully. To the south there is a flower garden, of around two qing in area, brightly coloured during all seasons. People have never got to the bottom of it: some say Emperor Ming of the Han established it and others say it was Emperor Xiaowen of the Tuoba Wei. These traditions are mutually exclusive. What do you say about it?”
He replied, “It was built by both of those emperors. In the past, during the time of King Mu of the Zhou, Buddhism was already present [in China]. This mountain was numinous to an extraordinary degree and was the place where Mañjuśrī lived. King Mu of the Zhou built this monastery and made offerings here, and Aśoka also placed a stupa here because of this. At the beginning of [the reign of Emperor] Ming of the Han, Kāśyapa Mātaṅga 摩騰 discerned this stupa with his divine eye and requested that the Emperor build a monastery here. The mountain is shaped just like Gṛdhrakūṭa (Lingjiu 靈鷲).125 Its name is Dafu, and fu means faith. The Emperor had faith in the Buddhist order of things and established this temple to convert others. The Northern Terrace as not far [from the capital of]126 Emperor Xiaowen 孝文 of the Northern Wei and he frequently came to perform rituals and pay homage. [The Emperor left] clear footprints of man and horse imprinted on a stone, this is well known. How could it only be on Wutai that such things happen? Today the Zhongnan Mountains, Mount Taibai 太白,127 Mount Hua 華 and the [other] Five Marchmounts (wu yue 五岳) all have sages living on them to uphold the Buddha’s Law. Each place has them.”
又問：今五臺山中，臺之東南四十里，見有大孚靈鷲寺。兩堂隔㵎猶存。南有華園，可二頃許，四時發彩，人莫究之。或云漢明所立。或云魏孝文帝作。互說不同如何？答云：俱是二帝所作。昔周穆之時，已有佛法。此山靈異，文殊所居。周穆於中造寺供養及阿育王亦依置塔。漢明之初，摩騰天眼亦見有塔，請帝立寺。山形像靈鷲。名曰大孚。孚者信也。帝信佛理，立寺度人。元魏孝文，北臺不遠，常來禮謁，見有人馬行跡石上分明，其事可知。豈惟五臺？今終南、太白、太華、五岳名山，皆有聖人為住佛法。處處有之。128
The date of the Buddha’s death is widely contested, ranging from between the sixth century and the fourth bce. For an introduction to the issues see Tournier and Strong 2019, pp. 18–19.
See Da banniepan jing 大般涅槃經 (T.7, 2: 199b2–c9). This sutra is from the non-Mahāyāna tradition, as denoted by the use of Pali in the transliteration of its title. See Strong 2014, p. 57.
See Ohnuma 2007, pp. 1–2; Strong 2004, pp. 52–55.
See Robson 2010, pp. 1352–1398; Strong 2004, pp. 136–144.
Buddhists did produce some spurious texts to further their arguments: see Zürcher 2007, pp. 286–287.
In China, while the Buddha is said to have left footprints here and there, sites connected with past lives are entirely absent. On the Buddha’s footprints in China, see Barrett 1990, p. 102; Robson 2010, pp. 1365–1366.
Shenzhou 神州 is a Buddhist name for China: see Nicol 2017, p. 177.
Daoxuan is regarded as the author of these works, with the exception of the Fayuan zhulin, which is attributed to Daoshi 道世 (c. 596–683), a collaborator of Daoxuan’s at the Ximing monastery in Chang’an. However, Koichi Shinohara suggests that the jssgtl may have been the outcome of a project centred at the Ximing, compiled at the same time as Daoshi was working on the fyzl, with extensive overlap between the two texts: see Shinohara 1991, p. 204. As Alexander Hsu states in his recent study of the fyzl, “Daoxuan’s bibliographic project overlapped with and made possible Daoshi’s Grove of Pearls.” (2018, p. 314). Hsu examines the relationship between Daoshi and Daoxuan in this study: see in particular Chapter 3, pp. 130–146. Shinohara has recently completed the third volume of his translation of the fyzl (2019–2020).
On Taizong’s complex and contradictory attitudes to Buddhism during this period see Weinstein 1987, pp. 11–27.
This was an era of intense interest in geography: the 640s had seen the compilation of the massive Kuodi zhi 括地志 (A Comprehensive Treatise on Geography) under the auspices of Taizong’s son Li Tai 李泰 (618–652). All that remains is 4 reconstituted fascicles out of an original 550. On the dating of Xuanzang’s travels see de la Vaissière 2010.
Xuanzang delegated the production of his memoir to Bianji 辯機 (c. 620–c. 649) and the text was submitted to the throne in the seventh month of the twentieth year of the Zhenguan era of the reign of Tang Taizong (late August 646): xyj T.2053, 6: 254b5–6; cf. Da Tang gu sanzang Xuanzang fashi xingzhuan 大唐故三藏玄奘法師行狀 T.2052, 1: 218a7–9.
For examples in the sjfz précis of the xyj see: milk teeth (T.2088, 1: 954a25), teeth (ibid.: 954b21), skull (ibid.: 954a26; 954c3).
See ibid.: 954b28; 955b8; 957c8; 961b1–3; 964a15; 965b12.
See ibid.: 954c1; 955b9; 960b14; 964a15.
See ibid.: 959a2–3; 964c18–19.
See Barrett 1990 for the effect their travels had on these monks, and also Eckel 1992, pp. 51–48, for an analysis of the effect on Xuanzang himself.
There is little doubt it inspired the sjfz. For a detailed analysis see Nicol 2017.
Strong 2004, pp. 25–36.
The Chinese names are from the Daben jing 大本經 (Sutra on the Great Origin) (in the Chang ahan jing 長阿含經) T.1, 1: 1c19–2a3.
This probably refers to the Jetavana Monastery in Śrāvastī.
T.2085, 1: 861b10–15.
For a list see Nicol 2017, pp. 169–171.
See Oldenberg 1879, pp. 196–203; Deeg 2016, 3.3.1.
See Wang 2003, pp. 145–148.
For details see Benn 2012, pp. 69–90, in particular pp. 71–74 for the Louguan and Yin Wencao. See also Robson 2010, p. 1390.
The contents of this paper implicitly challenge the widely accepted dating for the beginnings of the cult of Mañjuśrī on Wutai which many scholars have accepted as being well established by the time Daoxuan composed the sjfz: see Lamotte 1960, 54; Birnbaum 1986, pp. 123 et seq. More recent scholarship has not been so certain and, as this paper will show, for good reasons: see Barrett 2001, p. 17 n. 37, Forte 2002, pp. 402–405 and Lin 2014, pp. 98–99. See Nicol 2017, pp. 264–269; 293–298 for a detailed discussion.
See Robson 2009, pp. 52–56.
The * symbol indicates a reconstruction of the presumed Sanskrit where no Sanskrit version is extant.
Quinter translates xianren 仙人 as “sages” to maintain a certain ambiguity (2010, p. 108 n. 37). See Campany 2009, pp. 33–36, on the difficulties of translating xianren 仙人. I have opted for “transcendent” to translate xianren as I suspect Falin and Daoxuan were hoping to imply that these five hundred xian were Daoists persuaded of the supremacy of Buddhist teachings.
That is, the Pamirs, mostly in modern Tajikistan.
See Table 1, Text A. David Quinter (2010, p. 115) has discussed the difficulties surrounding the origins and classification of this sutra, but notes it was “certainly recognised as authentic” by Chinese cataloguers.
For recent scholarship on Falin see Jülch 2011 and Wong 2016.
Weinstein 1987, pp. 5–11.
Presumably in Kośala: see Quinter 2010, p. 108.
The records referred to in B/C 9 are very general titles and I have been unable to locate the information given in B/C 10 in any text of this title (or at all), but the opening sentence of the Xiyu zhuan 西域傳 of the Han shu 漢書 (juan 96, p. 3871) does describe the western terminus of the thirty-six Han tributary states as being the Congling range.
Falin mentions elsewhere that in the fifth year of the Wude 武德 era (622), 1,221 years have passed since the parinirvāṇa of the Buddha (T.2109, 2: 484 b28–c1). According to the prophecy these conversions took place 450 years after the parinirvāṇa, some 771 years prior, c. 150 bce.
See discussion Quinter 2010, pp. 125–126.
Daoxuan was living in the Zhongnan Mountains at the Fengde 豐德 Monastery when he composed the sjfz.
See Shinohara 1991, p. 204.
Ibid, p. 213.
Emperor Wen of the Sui undertook an Aśokan-style relic distribution in the Renshou 仁壽 era (in 601, 602 and 604): see Chen 2002, p. 119 and Robson 2010, pp. 1364–1365.
Account 2 (T.2106, 3: 424c22–425a15) covers the same ground as the first, albeit in a slightly different order. My translation has been informed by Raoul Birnbaum’s (1986, pp. 120–121).
On the timing of the rise of the Empress, see Twitchett, Loewe, and Fairbank 1979, p. 255. On the Empress being behind Huize’s trips see Barrett 2001, pp. 17–20, and 2012b, p. 49.
See Wang 2012, p. 39.
xiuli sita 修理寺塔. A second visit took place in 663 according to Account 2.
Qingliang shan 清涼山 here could be singular or plural. I have chosen to translate as plural to mirror the sutra (see Table 1, A/B/C2).
See Chen 2002, pp. 109–110 and 2007, p. 330. It should be noted that local lore made Wutai a good fit for the destination of the 500 transcendents: see Robson 2010, p. 1392.
qingliang xueshan 清涼雪山.
Qingliang is the name of Mañjuśrī’s residence according to the Huayan jing 華嚴經 (Avataṃsaka sūtra). The relevant section was shown by Etienne Lamotte to be an interpolation, probably by Śikṣananda 實叉難陀 (652–710) who retranslated the text between 695 and 699 during the reign of the Empress Wu (1960, pp. 81–83).
Who was responsible for building this monastery was obviously controversial: see Extract iii in Appendix B4.
For pre-Buddhist religious activity on Wutai, see Robson 2010, p. 1392.
Although biographies of these monks do appear in the xgsz (Jietuo T.2060, 20: 603b11–c4, and see also Huayan jing zhuan ji 華嚴經傳記 T.2073, 4: 169a12–c10, and Sengming T.2060, 25: 664c26–665a10) they do not appear in the earliest strata of the text and so must be treated with some caution. This text has a complex textual history; for a summary of the issues involved see Nicol 2017, p. 109 n. 39.
fyzl inserts the section between braces T.2122, 14: 393b16–17.
Translation tentative. Cf. Birnbaum 1986, p. 121. (the last four characters are omitted).
On the mummification of corpses in medieval China see Sharf 1992, Part ii generally, and on Daoists sloughing off their skin cicada-like and flying to the immortal realm, see ibid, pp. 7–8.
T.1898, 1: 875b–876b. This passage appears in the almost identical Daoxuan lüshi gantong lu 道宣律師感通錄 (Vinaya Master Daoxuan’s Records of Stimuli and Responses) (T.2107) at 1: 436b–437b. The exchanges also appear in substantially the same form in the fyzl (T.2122, 14: 394a–395b) with some interesting additions in the sections on Mañjuśrī. The authenticity of these texts has been questioned: see Campany 1993, pp. 15–16 n. 46 and Liu 2014. If the author was not Daoxuan, it must have been someone very close to him, probably from the Ximing Monastery and for the purposes of this paper I assume Daoxuan was the author.
See Benn 2012, p. 75.
Campany 1993, pp. 18–19.
See Shinohara 2003, p. 95.
Cang Jie is a mythical figure, an official of the equally mythical Yellow Emperor, who is credited with the invention of writing having observed the tracks of animals and birds and realised they all had their own distinguishing characteristics. For possible explanations for the name of this terrace see fyzl T.2122, 14: 394c15–18 and Shinohara 2020, vol. 3, pp. 72–73.
T.1898, 1: 874b14–15; T.2107, 1: 436b17–8.
On the Buddhist use of King Mu see Jülch 2010, pp. 625–627.
For an outline of the huahu narrative see Schipper 1994, p. 65. For more detail see Zürcher 2007, Chapter 6.
The celestial explains to Daoxuan that this Maudgalyālyana is not the arhat of the same name who was one of the Buddha’s most celebrated disciples: see Appendix B2.
See Liezi jishi pp. 90–91. Daoxuan and his contemporaries would have regarded the Liezi as a pre-Han work, but the dating of this text is a complex matter, as is the question of Buddhist influence: for a recent review of the scholarship, see Kreger 2016, esp. chapter 2. The translation of the term daochang 道場 can be problematic. It is the translation of the Sanskrit term bodhimaṇḍa which initially referred to the place of a buddha’s awakening, but in Chinese the term is used for a wide range of Buddhist spaces and structures.
You Yu was a Rong envoy sent to the court of Qin: see Shiji, Qin benji (Annals of Qin) juan 5, pp. 192–194. See also Zürcher 2007, p. 266 n. 76. He is a figure used by Daoxuan elsewhere as an example of how a foreigner can be useful to the Chinese: see Nicol, 2017, p. 334 n. 30.
See Graham 1990, p. 62: It was seven thousand feet high, overlooked the tops of the Zhongnan Mountains and was called “The Tower in the Middle of the Sky” (zhongtian zhi tai 中天之臺).
The text documents several events which took place at the time of Kāśyapa Buddha: T.1898, 1: 875b3 and 875b20–876c6–7.
ci shi gufo shuofa chu ye 此是古佛說法處也。 T.1898, 1: 876a25.
This text contains another instance of previous Buddha’s visiting the same spot in China. There is a footprint which is said to mark the place where “three previous Buddha’s have trod.” 云是前三佛所蹈處也。 T.1898, 1: 878c20–21.
See Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing T.1892, 1: 808c26–809a2.
Forte 2002, p. 406.
Ibid., p. 410. On Śākyamitra see Chen 2007, pp. 377–383 and Appendix D.
Several issues are “resolved” by Daoxuan’s celestial visitors in these exchanges: see Barrett 2012a, p. 18.
See Gaoseng zhuan T.2059, 1: 322c.
Perhaps one reason for the supernatural qualities of this mountain is the characteristics shared with Gṛdhrakūṭa, the Numinous Vulture Peak near Rājagṛha where the Buddha preached the Lotus Sutra. This is not uncommon: see Robson 2010, p. 1370.
Strong 2004, pp. 229, 231.
Robson 2010, p. 1359.
See generally Campany 2003, pp. 287–319.
See Robson 2010, p. 1362. on how this “move to the cosmic level is important since it resonates well with the fundamental doctrinal shifts represented in Mahāyāna texts.”
Strong 2004, p. 41.
Robson 2010, p. 1383.
Ibid., p. 1360.
Andrews 2016, p. 93.
Benn 2012, p. 71.
Forte (2002, p. 405) recognised Daoxuan’s role in the early phase of the promotion of Wutai as the dwelling place of Mañjuśrī but did not consider the evidence from the Shijia fangzhi.
Barrett 2008, p. 78.
T.2106, 2: 422c9–423a7. I note where I prefer an alternative reading from the fyzl T.2122, 14: 393a10–b16. This passage is translated by Shinohara (2020, pp. 65–66).
In the Tang dynasty a li 里 was just over a third of a mile or half a kilometre: see Wilkinson Table 103 and paragraph 42.4.
The fyzl (ibid., 14: 393a16–17) inserts the following: 故華嚴經亦云: 文殊在清涼山說法。 Thus the Huayan jing also states, “Mañjuśrī expounded the teachings on the Qingliang Mountains.”
Approximately 16 hectares: see Wilkinson Table 104 and paragraph 14.11.
Tentative interpretation.
I cannot explain why it reads southeast, Hengshan being to the northeast of Wutai. This may be an effort to connect the Buddhist mountain with one of the Five Marchmounts.
On this stupa, see Andrews 2016.
See note 12 below.
Preferring fyzl 塼 to jssgtl 薄.
Preferring fyzl 蹈 to jssgtl 陷.
Following fyzl.
Preferring fyzl 使 to jssgtl 往.
Preferring the fyzl 丞 to jssgtl 承.
The Taishō version of the jssgtl has 恒天, but the Song, Ming and Yuan versions all read 恒天池. The fyzl has 天池, which is the best reading, although it is not clear what it refers to. I have amended accordingly.
fyzl inserts the section between braces T.2122, 14: 393b16–17.
lgz T.1898, 1: 875c14–876a15. See also dlgl T.2107, 1: 436b23–c23.
That is, the Heaven of the Four Great Kings: see for example Fig 17 in Sadakata 1999, p. 58.
Modern Linyou 麟游 county in Baoji 寶雞 prefecture in Shaanxi province.
Following Graham 1990, p. 62.
Approximately 300 metres: see Wilkinson Table 103 and paragraph 42.4.
lgz T.1898, 1: 875c15 inserts 人 here, but fyzl does not, so I follow the dlgl, T.2107, 1: 436b24.
lgz T.1898, 1: 876a5–b6. See also dlgl T.2107, 1: 436c24–437a14.
There are monks of this name recorded, but their dates do not tally.
Tentative interpretation.
See discussion Nicol 2017, 4.8.2.
Hao was the capital city of King Wu 武 of Zhou 周 located to the south-west of modern Xi’an.
That is, the stage of the non-regression (butuizhuan 不退轉; Skt. avaivartika).
lgz T.1898, 1: 876b7–b13. See also dlgl T.2107, 1: 437a14–a20.
That is, the world system in which we reside and this action takes place.
Translation tentative.
See next footnote.
Preferring the reading at dlgl T.2107, 1: 437a18–9 聖智多在清涼 to lgz 但知多在清涼, but the text may be corrupt here, cf. fyzl T.2122 14: 395b3–4.
lgz T.1898, 1: 876b14–b25. See also dlgl T.2107, 1: 437a21–b3.
That is, the Numinous Vulture Peak near Rājagṛha where the Buddha is said to have preached, among other things, the Lotus Sutra.
Tentative translation.
Mount Taibai is in the western part of the Zhongnan Mountains so the text might read “Mount Taibai in the Zhongnan Mountains.”
In the translation of this section I have been guided by Birnbaum 1986, pp. 124–125.
