Journal of Chinese Religions, 41. 1, 25–58, May 2013 FOR A COMPASSIONATE KILLING: CHINESE BUDDHISM, SERICULTURE, AND THE SILKWORM GOD ASVAGHOS: A STUART H. YOUNG Bucknell University, USA For thousands of years in China, silk producers have developed ritual technologies and pantheons of deities intended to ensure healthy silkworms and abundant silk crops. Buddhist rites and deities have likewise long served the commercial interests of Chinese religionists, but so far we have little understanding of the relationships between the Buddhist institution and the ubiquitous sericulture industry. This essay represents the initial stages of a larger effort to investigate these relationships in premodern China. Here I examine a specific instance in which Buddhism was promoted as integral to silk production—as the true origin of the sericulture process, as the proper moral and soteriological framework within which to understand silkworm rearing (and killing), and as the ritual tradition most efficacious for sericulturists. These claims were advanced in medieval Chinese sources depicting the ancient Indian Buddhist patriarch Asvaghos:a as a local god of silk. Through this figure in particular, whose equine associations linked him with age-old Chinese silkworm myths, Buddhist authors aimed to transform sericulture into an ancient Indian innovation that was fully accordant with traditional Buddhist norms and thus best served by the Chinese Buddhist institution. K EYWORDS: Asvaghos:a, Maming 馬鳴, Baolin zhuan 寳林傳, Buddhism, sericulture, silk INTRODUCTION By the time Buddhism was transmitted to China, during the Eastern Han 東漢 dynasty (25–220 CE), silk had long been the lifeblood of the kingdom. Over the course of at least two millennia prior, silk production, use, and trade had spread to every corner of the Chinese imperium, and sericulture—the process of raising silkworms and producing silk from their cocoons—had grown into a truly ubiquitous commodity industry. During the medieval period, from roughly the third to eleventh centuries CE, Buddhism developed into perhaps the most influential and widely practiced religion in China, while the role of sericulture as keystone in Chinese society, economics, and material culture was further solidified. What do we know about the relationship between these two behemoths of # Society for the Study of Chinese Religions 2013 DOI: 10.1179/0737769X13Z.0000000002 26 STUART H. YOUNG traditional Chinese industry and religion? Almost nothing. Scholars have only begun to explore this vast arena of religious, cultural, political, and socioeconomic interaction. Chinese Buddhist attitudes toward sericulture, ritual and commercial uses of silk, and debates about materials for monastic attire have been summarized in a handful of studies.1 We know in broad outline that the Chinese monastic community produced, traded, stocked, and received in offering large quantities of silk; Buddhist clergy and laity alike were active players in this omnipresent industry, despite the conflicts that this involvement sometimes generated. But by and large, we have very little understanding of how the most significant religious institution in premodern China positioned itself in relation to this ubiquitous Chinese commodity culture. And although we do have a good deal of information about Chinese sericulture religion more broadly—pantheons of deities invoked and rituals performed to improve silk production—there is a significant lacuna in our understanding of the role played by Buddhist doctrines, rites, and divinities in this arena. The present article represents the initial stages of a larger effort to fill these gaps in our understanding of the relationship between premodern Chinese Buddhism and sericulture. Here I focus on a particular instance in which Buddhism was promoted as integral to silk production—as the true origin of the sericulture process, as the proper moral and soteriological framework within which to understand silkworm rearing (and killing), and as the ritual tradition most efficacious in ensuring healthy silkworms and abundant silk harvests. These claims were forwarded in medieval Chinese sources depicting the ancient Indian Buddhist patriarch Asvaghos: a2 as a local Chinese god of sericulture. Sometime during the Tang 唐 dynasty (618–907), this well-known Buddhist figure underwent a dramatic metamorphosis in China. He was transformed from an eminent exemplar of Buddhist revivalism, meditation practice, doctrinal acumen and literary output, into an immanent deity with a wide range of thaumaturgic and apotropaic powers often revolving around the processes of silk production. While prior scholarship has tended to view Asvaghos: a the Indian patriarch and Asvaghos: a the silkworm god as two distinct figures, the former being a revered forebear of the monastic institution and the latter a divine benefactor of the silk trade, evidence indicates 1 See, e.g., Kieschnick, The Eminent Monk, 32; Kieschnick, The Impact of Buddhism on Chinese Material Culture, 98–99; Liu, Silk and Religion; Sen, Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade, 182–186, and passim; Suwa, Chu goku chusei bukkyoshi kenkyu, 92–128; and Walsh, Sacred Economies, 63–64. 2 Asvaghos: a is viewed today as an historical personage who lived in northern India during the first or second centuries CE. He is best known in modern Indological scholarship as a preeminent poet and author of such classical Sanskrit epics as the Acts of the Buddha (Buddhacarita) and Nanda the Fair (Saundarananda). See, e.g., Johnson, The Buddhacarita; Khosla, Asvaghos: a; the series of articles by Sylvain Lévi; and, more recently, Yamabe, ‘‘On the School Affiliation of Asvaghos: a.’’ Scholars of East Asian religion know Asvaghos: a first and foremost as reputed author of the sixth-century Awakening of Faith in the Mah a yana (Dasheng qixin lun 大乘起信論, T nos. 1666, 1667), a compendium of Yog a c a ra philosophy that was highly influential in China, Korea, and Japan. See, e.g., Demiéville, ‘‘Sur l’authenticité’’; Girard, Traité; Hakeda, Awakening of Faith; Kashiwagi, Daijo kishinron no kenkyu; Lai, ‘‘The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana’’; Liebenthal, ‘‘New Light on the Mah a yana-sraddhotp a da s a stra’’; Suzuki, Açvaghosha’s Discourse; Tarocco, ‘‘Lost in translation?’’; and Young, ‘‘Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China,’’ 207–223. FOR A COMPASSIONATE KILLING 27 that in medieval China the same Asvaghos: a was capable of performing both roles at once (and many others besides). Silk producers themselves worshipped the ancient Indian Asvaghos: a as a local god of sericulture, and some of the same Buddhist authors who elaborated the imagery of the Indian patriarchate also promoted Asvaghos: a as an invaluable boon to the silk industry. In the following I examine Asvaghos: a’s silkworm metamorphosis in the context of Chinese religion and culture. I argue that Asvaghos: a’s unique combination of foreignness and familiarity in medieval China made him an ideal medium through which Buddhists could stake their claim on the religious dimensions of sericulture. On the one hand, Asvaghos: a’s Chinese hagiographies accounting for his unusual appellation—literally meaning ‘‘Horse-neigh’’ and translated into Chinese as such (‘‘Maming 馬鳴’’)—tied him into age-old Chinese currents of mythic, cosmological and astrological thought. On the other hand, these same hagiographies deliberately foregrounded Asvaghos: a’s foreignness, and his status as an ancient Indian Buddhist master of unparalleled spiritual accomplishment. Especially in the hagiographies that connected Asvaghos: a with sericulture, as I discuss below, his foreignness was crucial to his perceived role as patron saint of silk production. For Buddhists in particular sericulture was problematic because it involved the killing of countless silkworms. One solution to this problem was to radically reconfigure sericulture on Indian Buddhist moral, mythic, and soteriological grounds by claiming that it was in fact invented by Asvaghos: a in ancient India. In this way Chinese Buddhists redefined sericulture as a normative Indian Buddhist activity, making it fully consonant with traditional Mah a yana ideals of the bodhisattva path, merit production, and expedient means. As such, the crucial moral problem of silkworm murder could be ameliorated and sericulture could be reconceived as the true heritage of Chinese Buddhists alone. Asvaghos: a was a key figure in these efforts to reconcile Buddhism and sericulture, and in the following I investigate the underlying factors and important repercussions of his transformation from an ancient Indian patriarch into a local Chinese silkworm god. CHINESE SERICULTURE AND RELIGION, AN OVERVIEW Before examining this Chinese Buddhist reconfiguration of sericulture through the figure of Asvaghos: a, I first offer a rough sketch of the salient features of sericulture in China, focusing in particular on the deities and rituals that were seen as fundamental to the prosperity of the industry. Like most agrarians and tradespeople in premodern China, silk producers depended heavily on the unseen world and its inhabitants for the success of their work. Ritual interactions with various gods and goddesses accompanied every major stage of the sericulture process, from the hatching of silkworm eggs in early spring, through the molting stages of the silkworm caterpillars, to the reeling of silk from their cocoons. If crops were good and silk abundant in a given season, offerings of thanks were made to the appropriate gods or goddesses; if a season had gone awry for whatever reason, propitiatory sacrifices to various deities were the necessary next steps. Sericulture was simply unthinkable without the constant participation of otherworldly agents, both at the level of the imperial court and in rural households throughout the kingdom. As a result, there was always a strong demand for rituals and deities with efficacy in this arena. 28 STUART H. YOUNG Throughout Chinese history, this demand spread to all corners of the kingdom—through the four major silk-producing regions of Sichuan 四川, Shandong 山東, the Jiangnan 江南 area, and Guangdong 廣東 delta—and across all social strata, from rural peasant households and large elite manors to urban workshops, state-run manufactures, and even the imperial family. The latter institutions often focused on producing fine silk brocades for official use, utilizing raw materials obtained from households across the land in the form of taxes. From Zhou 周 times (c. 1045–256 BCE) through the Ming 明 dynasty (1368–1644), Chinese central governments taxed their citizenry in various agricultural and textile goods, usually including sizeable quantities of silk cloth and yarn. The high point of silk taxation occurred in the Tianbao 天寶 period (742–756) of the Tang dynasty, when, per annum, the state levied 7.4 million bolts of plain silk cloth (a bolt was roughly ten meters long and 50 centimeters wide) and 11.1 million ounces of silk floss from almost four million households.3 Further, from the fifth century through the early Tang, an ‘‘equal field’’ (juntian 均田) land allocation system was instituted to provide every eligible household with a standard-sized plot for farming. Some of these plots were called ‘‘mulberry fields’’ (sangtian 桑田) and designated for planting mulberry trees, which supplied food for the vast numbers of silkworms being raised across the land.4 In addition to such government policies mandating widespread sericulture, silk was also a standard medium of exchange through much of Chinese history—legal tender circulated as much as or more than strictly monetary currency. In fact, Tang emperor Xuanzong 玄宗 (r. 712–756) once issued an edict threatening to punish anyone who refused to accept silk as payment for goods or services.5 Overall, silk was required in huge quantities by the state, to clothe court officials according to rank, to pay members of vast bureaucracies and standing armies, and as diplomatic offering and medium of exchange when negotiating or trading with neighboring kingdoms. Silk was in enormous demand as well across all other social strata, whether for clothing, as medium for writing and painting, trade, or to pay taxes, and as a result sericulture was nearly everywhere in premodern China. For many people, particularly rural peasant farmers or urban workshop employees, the ability to make a living often hinged on the success of a given season’s silkworm crop. And, since silk was a major form of currency and taxation, the state depended on its abundant production for financial solvency. But the process of sericulture was a capricious one, dependent upon numerous factors such as weather and silkworm health that were beyond people’s control. These factors were seen to fall under the purview of the sericulture pantheon, those gods and goddesses who for various reasons had some stake in silkworm raising and silk production. Given the importance of sericulture for so many people, it was crucial that these deities be constantly involved, through offerings and prayers made in ceremonial settings. Rites to entreat these deities for blessings were performed at the imperial court and in peasant households across the land, though of course in varying degrees of formality and expense. 3 4 5 Bray, Technology and Gender, 193n26. Kuhn, Science and Civilisation, 386; Twitchett, Financial Administration, 1–4. Liu, Silk and Religion, 58. FOR A COMPASSIONATE KILLING 29 The earliest written evidence of sericulture in China includes invocations of a certain ‘‘silkworm deity’’ (canshen 蠶神), as seen in oracle bone records dating to the Shang 商 period (c. 1600–1100 BCE).6 Over the centuries this canshen would be associated with various semi-mythic figures, patron saints of sorts, who were seen to have played important roles in the development of sericulture. During the Han dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) the ‘‘silkworm deity’’ was identified with a legendary ‘‘first sericulturist’’ (xiancan 先蠶), also known as either Lady Yuanyu 菀窳 or Princess Yu 寓, and imperial sacrifices were made in her honor before the first ceremonial feeding of the imperial silkworms.7 Such ceremonies followed stipulations found in the Record of Rites (Liji 禮記) and Rites of Zhou (Zhouli 周 禮), according to which the empress and emperor’s consorts should inaugurate the sericulture season with rituals to ensure plentiful harvests.8 These ceremonies were performed from Han to Song 宋 (960–1279) times, paralleling the emperors’ annual agriculture rites. From the third century CE we have clear evidence that imperial altars for the ‘‘first sericulturist’’ were established and ‘‘silkworm palaces’’ (cangong 蠶宮) were built for raising imperial silkworms. Six ‘‘silkworm mothers’’ (canmu 蠶母) or ‘‘silkworm maidens’’ (canniang 蠶娘) were selected to feed and clean the silkworms, under the supervision of the emperor’s chief consort, as the imperial household modeled the sericulture process that it mandated throughout the kingdom.9 From Han times through the late imperial period, successive Chinese dynasties both engaged in sericulture and conducted state rituals intended to ensure the prosperity of silk production across the land. Since ancient times rank-and-file silk producers have also performed rituals to elicit blessings from a variety of silkworm deities. By the Han at the latest sericulturists made sacrifices to the so-called ‘‘first sericulturist’’ and other silkworm deities. From the fifth century on, we have evidence that local temples dedicated to silkworm deities were built to provide a place where sericulturists could make prayers and sacrifices.10 People would offer fish, pork, fowl, or wine to the gods when silkworm eggs were ready for hatching, or place cocoons made of rice or newly hatched silkworms on altars in front of deity images.11 Offering sacrifices, burning incense, kowtowing, and praying were the most common ways to show respect to the silkworm deities and ask them to bless one’s silkworms.12 Since sericulture was a seasonal endeavor, timed according to the life cycle of the silkworms, silk producers often performed such rites on a fixed schedule. People in medieval times prayed for healthy silkworms on the fifteenth day of the first lunar month, when the season was approaching; they asked for skill in weaving on the 6 Kuhn, Science and Civilisation, 250–252. Ibid., 253; Sterckx, The Animal and the Daemon, 62. 8 Kuhn, Science and Civilisation, 247, 252–253. The Liji that has come down to us today perhaps dates to the early second century CE, while the Zhouli may be a genuine pre-Han text; see Loewe, Early Chinese Texts, 25–29, 293–295. 9 Kuhn, Science and Civilisation, 254, 264. 10 Broadwin, ‘‘Intertwining Threads,’’ 26; Kuhn, Science and Civilisation, 248, 265. 11 Ibid., 268–269. 12 Broadwin, ‘‘Intertwining Threads,’’ 112. 7 30 STUART H. YOUNG seventh day of the seventh month; and they performed rites of thanks (sixie 祀謝) to the silkworm deities during the tenth month.13 A variety of gods and goddesses were the recipients of this obeisance offered by silk producers. In addition to the abovementioned Lady Yuanyu and Princess Yu, the deity Tiansi 天駟, named after an astral constellation, the legendary first emperor Huangdi 黃帝 (trad. 2698–2598 BCE) and his principal wife Lady Xiling 西陵 were all at some point worshipped as the ‘‘first sericulturist’’ or as more generic ‘‘silkworm deities.’’14 But one of the most popular silkworm deities throughout premodern China was a figure known as the Horse-head maiden (Matou niang 馬頭娘). First evidenced in Han era stone-wall carvings discovered in the area of modern Sichuan,15 this Horse-head maiden has long been situated at the forefront of the sericulture pantheon. Her story is told in an oft-repeated myth called the ‘‘Record of the Silkworm-horse from High Antiquity’’ (‘‘Taigu canma ji’’ 太古蠶馬記), which may have originated in Sichuan and is preserved in the fourthcentury Record of the Search for the Supernormal (Soushen ji 搜神記).16 This story tells of a young girl who promised to marry a horse if it could bring back her long-lost father. The horse did as asked, but when it returned for its reward the girl reneged on her promise. Eventually the father learned of the arrangement and slew the horse, skinning it and hanging its hide in the courtyard to dry. Later when the father went off on another journey, his daughter went out to play with the hide. She kicked it and mocked it, saying what a fool the horse was to think that it could actually marry a human. As she spoke, the horsehide rose up, wrapped itself around the young girl and took her into the limbs of a nearby tree. After several days of searching, the local villagers finally found her and the horsehide together in the tree, where they had transformed into a silkworm spinning a giant cocoon. ‘‘Therefore, people named this tree sang 桑 (‘mulberry’), since sang is [a homophone of] sang 喪 (‘lost’). Because of this everyone rushed to plant from it, and this is [the mulberry tree that sericulturists] cultivate today. It is said that [today’s] mulberry silkworms are descended from that ancient silkworm.’’ 因名其樹曰桑. 桑者喪也. 由斯百姓競種之, 今世所養是也. 言 桑蠶者, 是古蠶之餘類也.17 One of numerous sericulture etiologies in premodern China, this tale is important for our present purposes because it inscribes in mythic format the ageold Chinese association between horses and silkworms. The compiler of the Record of the Search for the Supernormal attempts to explain this association through a number of astro-, cosmo-, and ontological links between the silkworm and horse, offering rather opaquely that ‘‘chen is the horse star’’ 辰為馬星 constellation and that when the moon is in ‘‘great fire’’ 大火 silkworms must be culled and graded.18 As it turns out, ‘‘great fire’’ was one of the twelve sections of 13 Como, Weaving and Binding, 138. Kuhn, ‘‘Tracing a Chinese Legend.’’ 15 Niu, ‘‘Hanjin huaxiang shi.’’ 16 Kuhn, Science and Civilisation, 264; Sterckx, The Animal and the Daemon, 304n89. For a useful analysis of the mythic tropes of this tale from structuralist perspective, see Miller, ‘‘The Woman Who Married a Horse.’’ 17 Soushen ji, 104. Cf. trans. Birrell, Chinese Mythology, 200; Como, Weaving and Binding, 186–187; and DeWoskin and Crump, In Search of the Supernatural, 166. 18 Soushen ji, 104. Trans. DeWoskin and Crump, In Search of the Supernatural, 166. 14 FOR A COMPASSIONATE KILLING 31 the celestial equator, which included the chen (otherwise known as ‘‘heart’’ [xin 心]) constellation as well as the ‘‘chamber’’ (fang 房) and ‘‘tail’’ (wei 尾) constellations of the so-called Azure Dragon (canglong 蒼龍) in the eastern sky. This ‘‘chamber’’ constellation was also known as the ‘‘heavenly team of four horses’’ (tiansi 天駟), which was frequently depicted hovering above the pantheon of sericulture deities in block-print illustrations dating to the late-imperial period.19 This constellation consisted of the stars b (beta), d (delta), p (pi), and n (nu) of Scorpius, and ‘‘according to legend, could also have been the spirit of the First Sericulturalist.’’20 Because the chen/‘‘heart’’ and ‘‘chamber’’/‘‘four-horse’’ constellations were adjacent to one another within ‘‘great fire,’’ chen was also called the ‘‘horse star’’ constellation or ‘‘heavenly team of four horses.’’ The moon was in ‘‘great fire’’ when these constellations were at their zenith in the night sky, which occurred during the second month of the agrarian calendar or the spring equinox. This was when the sericulture season usually began, with the culling and grading of newly hatched silkworm larvae. Through this complex web of astronomical and seasonal associations ‘‘the interpretation may have sprung up that the ‘[heavenly] team of four horses’ represented the animal spirit of the silkworm (canjing 蠶精),’’ and Chinese commentators since ancient times would assert that horses and silkworms shared the same qi 氣.21 Further, the thirteenth-century literatus Dai Zhi 戴埴 (fl. 1241) includes in his collection of extraordinary tales titled Fresh Rat (Shu pu 鼠璞) a brief chapter called ‘‘Silkworms and Horses Have the Same Source’’ (‘‘Can ma tong ben’’ 蠶馬 同本), in which he summarizes the ‘‘Record of the Silkworm-horse’’ in order to explain the inception of the Horse-head maiden. Dai notes that the people of Shu 蜀 (Sichuan) would often pray to this goddess for the wellbeing of their silkworms, and that she was represented with a statue of a woman wearing a horsehide.22 Indeed, the Horse-head maiden was often considered the divine form of the young girl in the silkworm-horse myth, who was cocooned inside a horsehide to become the progenitor of silkworms, and she is worshipped to the present day in silkproducing regions across China.23 As noted, this Horse-head maiden was seen as relevant to the sericulture industry in large part because of ancient Chinese cosmological connections between horses and silkworms. And in the same way, it was Asvaghos: a’s close association with horses, stemming from a number of hagiographic traditions as well as his peculiar name—literally meaning ‘‘Horse- 19 Kuhn, ‘‘Tracing a Chinese Legend,’’ 228–231; Kuhn, Science and Civilisation, 260–263. Ibid., 260–261. 21 Ibid., 261. Huang, Soushen ji, 393n7, provides a detailed explanation of these astrological observations, which I mostly follow here. Cf. Como, Weaving and Binding, 142, and van Gulik, Hayagrıva, 41. Further, the ancient Chinese philosopher Xunzi 荀子 (340–245 BCE) wrote that the silkworm’s head resembles that of a horse (Knoblock, Xunzi, 3: 200), and it was commonly believed that silkworms nodded their heads in the same way as horses (Broadwin, ‘‘Intertwining Threads,’’ 25; Kuhn, Science and Civilisation, 265). 22 Lidai biji xiaoshuo jicheng, 23:80: 蜀中寺觀, 多塑女人披馬皮, 謂馬頭娘, 以祈蠶. 23 On the silkworm-horse story as origin of the Horse-head maiden, see, e.g., Bodde, Festivals in Classical China, 271; Broadwin, ‘‘Intertwining Threads,’’ 22–25; Iyanaga, Kannon henyo tan, 518; Kuhn, ‘‘Tracing a Chinese Legend,’’ 232–233; Kuhn, Science and Civilisation, 265; Shimizu, ‘‘Sanshin Memyo bosatsu,’’ 84–85; and Xiao, Daojiao shuyi yu mijiao dianji, 201– 205. 20 32 STUART H. YOUNG neigh’’—that made him a most suitable figure through whom Chinese Buddhists could assert the utility of their religion to the sericulture industry.24 ASVAGHOS: A AS CHINESE SILKWORM GOD Appearing near the end of a small prayer booklet discovered in the library cave at Dunhuang 敦煌 (Gansu) is a brief formulary bearing the title ‘‘Silkworm Feast Prayer Text’’ (‘‘Canyan yuanwen’’ 蠶筵願文).25 Like many such prayer texts found at Dunhuang, this formulary or ‘‘model text’’ (fanben 範本) was apparently intended as a guide for liturgical recitation at a communal fete sponsored for a specific purpose26—in this case, the advancement of a patron’s sericulture business. This document is of interest here because it includes Asvaghos: a among an eclectic host of deities whose services were sought for the benefit of silk producers: Submit your heart to the Ox King sraman: a27 and prostrate yourself before Asvaghos: a Bodhisattva, and all that you hope for in sericulture and agriculture will measure up to your wishes. The silk cocoons will fulfill your desires, you will reap double the amount of silk fabrics and pongees for many years, and your silk [production] will completely surpass that of previous years [.. . . ] [The sound of] silkworms eating will be like the wind and rain, and the cocoons will pile up like marchmounts and mountains. In one harvest [you will obtain] ten-thousand-fold floss silks, and your silk [will produce] a thousand boxes of fine, patterned silks.28 傾心於牛王沙門, 啟 (稽) 首向馬鳴菩薩, 所希蠶農稱意. 絲繭遂心, 縿紬倍 穫於常年, 絹白 (帛) 全勝往歲. . . . 蠶食如風如雨, 成繭乃如岳如山; 一收萬 倍之絲綿, 絹白 (帛) 千箱之羅綺.29 24 This point is also made by Iyanaga, Kannon henyo tan, 523; Strickmann, Chinese Magical Medicine, 302n31 (actually Cedzich, who wrote the footnotes for this chapter); and Xiao, Daojiao shuyi yu mijiao dianji, 201. Further, by late imperial times Asvaghos: a was sometimes conflated with the Horse-head maiden. See Broadwin, ‘‘Intertwining Threads,’’ 25; Pan, ed., Zhongguo minjian meishu quanji, 110; and van Gulik, Hayagrıva, 46. 25 Yinyuan lun 因緣論 [Treatise on causes and conditions] is the title on the cover of this booklet (Stein 5639), which is followed by Giles, Descriptive Catalogue, 184. Dunhuang yanjiu yuan, Dunhuang yishu zongmu suoyin xinbian, 175, calls it a Shimen yingyong wenfan 釋門應用 文範 [Buddhist usage formulary], while the Dunhuang baozang 44:96 calls it a Shimen yingyong wen [Buddhist usage text] or Qingdiao wen 慶弔文 [Congratulations and condolences text]. I follow Huang and Wu, Dunhuang yuanwen ji, 208, in reading yan 筵 rather than yan 延in the title of the silkworm prayer text. The original manuscript has the latter character. 26 For a useful discussion in English on the genre of yuanwen, see Teiser, ‘‘Prayers for the Dead.’’ 27 On the Ox King (aka Ox god, niushen 牛神) as divine protector of draft animals in China, see Werner, A Dictionary of Chinese Mythology, 331–332, and Yin and Yin, Zhongguo minjian sushen, 224–229. This could also be a reference to the Buddha’s disciple Gavan: pati, whose name was sometimes glossed as Niu wang 牛王; see Bukkyo daijiten, 1: 618b–c, and Foguang dacidian, 7: 6063a–b. 28 Cf. Japanese trans.: Iyanaga, Kannon henyo tan, 525. 29 Dunhuang baozang 44:96; online at the International Dunhuang Project website (last accessed November 12, 2010), ,http://idp.bl.uk.. Transcription, punctuation, and character amendments following Huang and Wu, Dunhuang yuanwen ji, 208. FOR A COMPASSIONATE KILLING 33 Probably dating to the tenth century,30 this brief liturgy is one of the earliest explicit examples of Asvaghos: a being elicited in rituals directed toward the betterment of the sericulture industry. Over the following centuries we see sporadic accounts of people believing Asvaghos: a to have had some stake in the fate of silkworms and their fine fare. The Buddhist layman Wang Rixiu 王日休 (d. 1173), for example, likewise invokes Asvaghos: a as he provides a sobering contrast to this formulary’s exuberance with a stern admonition for the reapers of silkworms: Exhortation to Sericulturists: Those who raise silkworms should think to themselves: silkworms make silk so that people will have clothing—this is surely an abiding worldly truth—but it also involves killing living beings. Common people base [their sericulture practice] on Asvaghos: a Bodhisattva. But having examined the scriptures, [I found that] they in fact lack this saying. They only say that the Buddha admonished his disciples to not take clothes of silk or use leather for footwear because living beings are killed in their production. How can people who raise silkworms for a living not be ashamed? They should often repent, invoke the Buddha Amit a bha and make a great vow, saying, ‘‘I vow that after I see the Buddha and achieve the Way I will completely liberate all of the silkworms that I have killed since becoming a sericulturist.’’ 勸養蠶者: 養蠶者當自念云: 蠶為絲以為人衣 – 此固世間常理 – 然亦是殺害物命. 世 人以為馬鳴菩薩. 考於藏經, 本無此說. 唯說佛訓弟子, 不得衣綿絹, 及用皮 為鞋履, 為殺物命而得. 人既以養蠶為業, 豈可不知慚愧? 當常懺悔, 念阿彌 陀佛, 發大願云, ‘‘願我見佛, 得道之後, 盡度養蠶以來所殺一切蠶命.’’31 Further, in Dai Zhi’s Fresh Rat chapter on silkworms and horses, he notes how ‘‘commoners say that Asvaghos: a Bodhisattva is a silkworm god’’ 俗謂蠶神為馬明 菩薩,32 and the widely circulating ‘‘morality book’’ (shanshu 善書), Treatise on the Retribution of the Most High (Taishang ganying pian 太上感應篇), likewise elicits Asvaghos: a in its admonition against wasting silk cloth.33 Of course, neither these brief statements nor Wang’s exhortation provide more than the barest indication of what common people of the time believed about Asvaghos: a’s link to the fortunes of sericulture. And throughout the following analysis of earlier documents that appear to have provided the foundation for Asvaghos: a’s identification as a silkworm deity, we will indeed have little more to say about 30 According to Giles, Descriptive Catalogue, 184, and Huang and Wu, Dunhuang yuanwen ji, 221–222. The latter base their dating on semantic and stylistic similarities between this and other, more confidently dated formularies, as well as specific terminology in the present text. 31 Longshu zengguang jingtu wen, 47.271c. This text was completed in either 1161–1162 or 1173; see Hirosato, ‘‘The Compilers of Ching-t’u pao-chu chi,’’ 70–71. Longshu is present-day Shucheng 舒城 city, Anhui 安徽 province. 32 Lidai biji xiaoshuo jicheng, 23:80. The names Maming 馬鳴 and Maming 馬明 seem to have been used interchangeably. See below. 33 Taishang ganying pian, fasc. 836, 5a–6b. This text is attributed to Li Changling 李昌齡 (937–1008). See Ren, Daozang tiyao, 923–924, and Schipper and Verellen, The Taoist Canon, 2:740–742. 34 STUART H. YOUNG what sericulturists themselves actually did or thought. Nevertheless, together with the above Dunhuang formulary in which silk producers are directed to personally entreat Asvaghos: a to fatten their silkworms, these statements lend credence to the impression given by the prescriptive ritual manuals discussed below that Asvaghos: a had indeed become an immanent agent in the lives of medieval Chinese devotees, offering blessings in exchange for personal obeisance. These glimpses of non-monastic worship of the silkworm god Asvaghos: a have contributed to the modern scholarly assumption that there were two distinct Asvaghos: as in premodern China, one venerated as a deity by sericulturists themselves and another honored as patriarch by the Buddhist clergy. Perhaps the earliest example of this bifurcation is Mochizuki Shinko ’s 望月信亨 (1869–1948) pioneering Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Bukkyo daijiten 佛教大辭典), published from 1932 to 1964. Mochizuki’s conviction that we should posit a clean break between Buddhist patriarch and silkworm god is clearly illustrated in the structure of his encyclopedia entries: one entry for Asvaghos: a (Maming), the Indian historical personage, contemporary of King Kanis: ka (c. 128–151 CE) and author of the Buddhacarita, and a separate entry for Asvaghos: a Bodhisattva (Maming pusa 菩薩), also known as ‘‘Horse-luminescence Bodhisattva’’ (Maming 馬明 pusa), who was worshipped as a ‘‘folk’’ (zoku 俗) deity of silk production.34 This arrangement was copied in the Encyclopedia of the Buddhas’ Light (Foguang dacidian 佛光大辭典),35 which is largely based on Mochizuki’s work, and its assumption of disjuncture between Buddhist historical personage and mythic invention of popular religion has informed almost all subsequent Chinese and Japanese scholarship concerning Asvaghos: a’s apotheosis.36 However, while it may seem perfectly reasonable to assert that an ancient Indian personage and a medieval Chinese deity are not the same thing, there is no clear indication that Chinese devotees themselves saw Asvaghos: a the Buddhist patriarch and Asvaghos: a the silkworm god as two distinct characters.37 Mochizuki attempts to distinguish the two by labeling only the latter a bodhisattva, but this is completely at odds with the sources he cites, which frequently describe the ancient Indian Asvaghos: a as a great bodhisattva as well. Neither do we see any apparent correlation between the names ‘‘Horse-neigh’’ and ‘‘Horse-luminescence’’ and the patriarch and silkworm god, as Michizuki implies,38 since ming 明 was confused with the homophonous 34 ‘‘Maming’’ at Bukkyo daijiten, 5:4862a–4893a; ‘‘Maming pusa’’ at Bukkyo daijiten, 5:4863a–c. 35 Foguang dacidian, 5:4350a–c, 4350c–4351b. 36 See Iyanaga, Kannon henyo tan, 523; Mikkyo daijiten, 3:2153b; Mikkyo jiten, 670; Shimizu, ‘‘Sanshin Memyo bosatsu,’’ 74, 81; and Xiao, Daojiao shuyi yu mijiao dianji, 201. 37 There are discussions in medieval Chinese texts of multiple individuals named Asvaghos: a, but none of these has anything to do with silkworm deities. See the Chu sanzang jiji, 88c–89c; Qixin lun shu bixue ji, 314b–c; and Shi moheyan lun, 594b–c (which may actually be a Korean text [Buswell, The Formation of Ch’an Ideology in China and Korea, 98]; Suzuki, Açvaghosha’s Discourse, 7–9n1, has translated this section into English). For a brief discussion of multiple Asvaghos: as in Chinese Buddhist texts, see Hou, Maming dashi zhuan, 247–248. 38 Bukkyo daijiten, 5:4863c: ‘‘Perhaps due to the similarity in pronunctation between 馬明 and 馬鳴, some dilettante falsely associated this [silkworm god] with the treatise-master Asvaghos: a’’ 恐らく馬明馬鳴音相通ずるに依り、好事者之を彼の馬鳴論師に附託し僞作せしも のならん. FOR A COMPASSIONATE KILLING 35 ming 鳴 in a variety of sources. For example, in Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Five Sciences (Longshu wuming lun 龍樹五明論) the names 馬鳴 and 馬明 both appear on the same page to refer to the same bodhisattva, and the Comprehensive History of the Buddhas and Patriarchs (Fozu tongji 佛祖統紀) inadvertently substitutes 明 for 鳴 in the name of the immortal Ma Mingsheng 馬鳴生.39 Examples of this sort— including such character substitutions in different editions of the same text—are readily multiplied. Perhaps individual authors had their own ideas about the difference between 馬鳴 and 馬明, but nowhere in the extant literature is this discussed, and there certainly seems to be no consistency in the application of these names across texts—both 明 and 鳴 are used for Asvaghos: a’s name in sources discussing sericulture ritual and in those concerning the Indian patriarchate.40 Indeed, a straightforward demarcation between Asvaghos: a the Buddhist patriarch and Asvaghos: a the silkworm god is found only in modern scholarship, and is nowhere supported in premodern Chinese sources. In fact, as I show below, Chinese sources exhibit a clear continuity between these two facets of Asvaghos: a’s character. They are essentially two overlapping stages of his bodhisattva career. Asvaghos: a was worshipped in China as a sericulture deity, if we accept the accounts of Wang Rixiu, Dai Zhi, and the above Dunhuang formulary, in part because he was seen to have demonstrated a particular aptitude and affinity for sericulture through past-life triumphs as an ancient Indian master along the bodhisattva path. These triumphs were illustrated in hagiographic traditions promoted by some of the same Chinese Buddhist clergy that developed the imagery of the Indian patriarchate. Viewed in the round, Buddhist sources demonstrate a progressive development in the association between Asvaghos: a and sericulture— due primarily to his horse connections—from hagiographies touting his sericulture prowess to ritual manuals intended to ensure the same silken benefits for local supplicants that he once provided in ancient India. The most important Buddhist source to draw these connections between Asvaghos: a and sericulture is the ninth-century Tradition of the Baolin [Temple] (Baolin zhuan 寶林傳; hereinafter Baolin Tradition). This text is best known as the lineage history of the Hongzhou 洪州 school of Chan 禪 Buddhism, which standardized the list of twenty-eight Indian and six Chinese patriarchs culminating in the shadowy figure of Huineng 慧能 (638–713). Apparently compiled around 801 by the monk Zhiju 智炬 (n.d.) of the Baolin Temple 寶林寺 at Mt. Caoxi 曹溪 山 (Guangdong), this new Chan history ‘‘virtually swept away the laboriously compiled [lineage] works of the eighth century’’41 and subsequently served as the 39 Or Maming sheng, as Robert Campany has it (To Live As Long As Heaven and Earth, 595)? See Longshu wuming lun, 967b, and Fozu tongji, 459b. 40 There may also have been some convergence between Asvaghos: a and the Vidyaraja (Brilliant King [of Wisdom], Mingwang 明王) Hayagrıva, whose name was often translated as Matou 馬頭 (Horse-head). Introduced into China during the seventh century, this figure played a prominent role in a number of Tang Buddhist ritual texts, in which he is often called Matou mingwang. In late imperial sources we find deities called Maming wang, Maming da 大 wang, or Maming wang pusa 菩薩, including both 明 and 鳴, who may represent some amalgamation of Asvaghos: a and Hayagrıva. See Howard, ‘‘The Eight Brilliant Kings’’; Iyanaga, Kannon henyo tan, 497–503; Pan, Zhongguo minjian meishu quanji, 110; van Gulik, Hayagrıva, 46–75; and Yin and Yin, Zhongguo minjian sushen, 220–223, 240–245. 41 Yampolsky, The Platform Sutra, 52. 36 STUART H. YOUNG basis for the most important Chan genealogies of the Song, such as Daoyuan’s 道 原 (fl. 1004) Jingde [Era] Record of the Transmission of the Lamp (Jingde chuandeng lu 景德傳燈錄) and Qisong’s 契嵩 (1007–1072) Record of the True Lineage of Dharma Transmission (Chuanfa zhengzong ji 傳法正宗記).42 The Baolin Tradition thus stands in a long line of Chinese historiographies of the Buddhist religion in which hagiographies of the greatest Indian (and later Chinese) masters were strung together to establish discrete lineages of Dharma transmission extending back to the Buddha himself. It is important to emphasize that in this context, Asvaghos: a, like the rest of the Indian and Chinese masters depicted in this text, remains just as much a ‘‘patriarch’’ as in any other lineage history: he is explicitly labeled zu 祖 (ancestor) and he stands amidst a procession of singularly talented Buddhist saints who worked to transmit the Dharma to its latter-day champions. This is noteworthy because the Baolin Tradition provides the earliest extant indication of Asvaghos: a’s association with sericulture, and thus militates strongly against the perception instilled by Mochizuki and others that Asvaghos: a’s silkworm connections were somehow confined to the religion of sericulturists and distinct from his role as revered Buddhist patriarch. Instead, according to Zhiju and later Daoyuan, Qisong, and others,43 Asvaghos: a the ancient Indian patriarch once transformed his body into a silkworm and spun silk so that the destitute masses might have sufficient clothing—a formulation that clearly prefigures the ritual manuals discussed below in which Asvaghos: a is invoked as a local sericulture deity. Zhiju’s account of Asvaghos: a extends over chapters fifteen and sixteen of the Baolin Tradition: ‘‘The Chapter on the Eleventh Patriarch Pun: yayasas: Examining Asvaghos: a’’ (‘‘Di shiyi zu Funayeshe zhang cha Maming’’ 第十一祖 富那夜奢章: 察馬鳴) and ‘‘The Chapter on the Twelfth [Patriarch] Asvaghos: a: Manifesting a Sun Disk’’ (‘‘Di shi’er Maming pusa zhang xian rilun’’ 第十二馬鳴 菩薩章: 現日輪). The first of these chapters describes Asvaghos: a’s reception of the Dharma handed down from his Buddhist master Pun: yayasas, and consists largely of a tale of Asvaghos: a’s former life. Set in Varan: ası (Boluonai 波羅奈), the central Indian site of  S a kyamuni’s first sermon, this chapter introduces Asvaghos: a as a brilliant elder who practiced Buddhism and was thus able to overcome the false views of essentialism. Pun: yayasas had just arrived in Varan: ası from Pat: aliputra in the east, and as he encountered Asvaghos: a he related a tale according to which Asvaghos: a once transformed himself into a silkworm to produce clothing for the poor ‘‘horse people’’ of Vais a li (Pi[she]li 毗[舍]離): 42 On the structure, content, and textual history of the Baolin zhuan, see Foulk, ‘‘Sung Controversies Concerning the ‘Separate Transmission’ of Ch’an,’’ 222–233; the series of articles by Shiina Ko yu; Tokiwa, Ho rinden no kenkyu; and Yampolsky, The Platform Sutra, 47–57. For a recent assessment of its authorship, see Jia, The Hongzhou School of Chan Buddhism, 84–86. Scrolls one to six and eight (of ten), which were rediscovered in the early 1930s, are reproduced in Yanagida, So zo ichin. They have recently been translated into Japanese by Tanaka, Ho rinden yakuchu . Scrolls seven, nine, and ten are still missing. 43 See Daoyuan’s Jingde chuandeng lu (209b) of 1004 and Qisong’s Chuanfa zhengzong ji (725c–726a) of 1061. The tenth-century Taishang ganying pian (fasc. 836, 5a) also reemphasizes Asvaghos: a’s position in the Indian patriarchate while at the same time associating him with sericulture through a retelling of his Baolin zhuan hagiography. FOR A COMPASSIONATE KILLING 37 Among your former lives you were once born in Brahma heaven, but because of your attachments you were reborn in the kingdom of Vais a li. The people there had no clothing, and the hair growing on their bodies resembled that of horses. Although they had mouths they could not understand speech. You gave rise to compassion and so transformed yourself into a small insect and multiplied yourself a million-fold. Atop the trees there you ate leaves, and in less than ten days [you produced] cocoons. There were three classes of people in that kingdom. The highest issued forth bright light from their bodies and they could speak. Whatever clothing they thought of could be provided spontaneously. The middle class of people had no bright light issuing forth from their bodies, and they had to seek clothing themselves. The bodies of the lowest [class] had the form of horses and they were called ‘‘horse people.’’ They gathered the cocoons from atop the trees and used them to produce clothing. They called these cocoons ‘‘godling clothes.’’44 In this land [of contemporary Varan: ası, such cocoons] are [spun by] silkworm larvae. Because the horse people of the whole kingdom [were able to] produce clothing and you enabled them to obtain this benefit, you were reborn in the Middle Kingdom (Madhyadesa). When you previously left the kingdom [of Vais a li] the horse people were overcome with emotion, so they all cried out [in grief]. Your heart was moved so you spoke these verses: I was once born in Brahma Heaven, but because of my petty attachments I descended to the kingdom of Vais a li to share your gloom and suffering with you. I saw that you had no clothing, so in my heart arose the good (karmic) reward of protection and I manifested my transformations in cocoons so that all might attain liberation. After you recited these verses you were born in Varan: ası. You were destined to turn the Dharma wheel, becoming the twelfth [patriarch] in succession. Because of this emotional response [by the horse people], you were called ‘‘Horse-neigh’’ (Asvaghos: a).45 汝先世中, 曾生梵天, 而為愛故, 生毗離國中. 人無衣服, 身生其毛, 猶似其 馬. 雖有其口, 不解言說. 汝興慈故, 而化小蟲, 分身萬億, 於彼樹上, 而食其 葉. 不經旬日, 而有窠圍. 彼國人眾, 而有三等. 最上之者, 身有光明, 而能言 說. 所念衣服, 而能自資. 中等人者, 身無光明, 自求衣服. 最下之者, 身形如 馬, 號為馬人. 於此樹上, 拾其窠圍, 將充衣服. 此窠圍者, 彼號天子衣. 即此 土, 蠶子是也. 因此一國馬人, 而充衣服, 為獲此利, 而生中國. 昔離彼國, 馬 人感故, 而共鳴喚. 汝心感故, 而說偈曰: 我昔生梵天 為有小愛故 而墯毗離國 44 Probably because the cocoons were the transformed body of Asvaghos: a, who, having descended from Brahma heaven, was considered a ‘‘godling’’ (tianzi 天子, devaputra). 45 Cf. Japanese trans. Tanaka, Ho rinden yakuchu , 127–128. 38 STUART H. YOUNG 與汝同憂苦 我見汝無衣 心生善報護 示化於窠圍 當得諸濟度 說誦此偈已, 便生波羅奈. 汝合轉法輪, 次第當十二. 因此所感, 故號於馬 鳴.46 Zhiju then describes the handing down of the Dharma from Pun: yayasas to Asvaghos: a, complete with a ‘‘transmission verse,’’ a genre for which the Baolin Tradition and later Chan lineage histories have become so well known. Asvaghos: a reverently received the Dharma transmission and Pun: yayasas passed into nirvan:a. This is said to have happened in the fourteenth year of King An 安 of the Ji Zhou 姬周 dynasty, or 388 BCE.47 THE BUDDHIST ETHIC OF SILKWORM MURDER Numerous aspects of this brief past-life story are worthy of comment, not least of which is its spirited, eclectic blend of traditional Chinese and Buddhist mythic tropes and conventions of genre. Zhiju here follows a long line of Chinese hagiographies of Asvaghos: a and explanations of his strange name, but breaks entirely new ground in this narrative direction. No extant hagiography prior to the Baolin Tradition presents Asvaghos: a in a similar manner.48 At the same time, this tale both continues and recasts an age-old Chinese tradition of mythic sericulture etiology, asserting that silk production in fact began in ancient India out of the compassion of this great bodhisattva. In this regard, also noteworthy is the obvious resonance between Zhiju’s image of cocoon-harvesting horses and the abovementioned ‘‘Record of the Silkworm-horse from High Antiquity.’’ Both tales account for the origins of silk production through strikingly peculiar equine associations and dramatic metamorphoses that recall the uncanny life-cycle of the silkworm-moth itself. Further, Zhiju insinuates Asvaghos: a into this ancient Chinese matrix of silkworm-horse connections in a manner quite reminiscent of ancient Indian j a takas, or past-life tales of the Buddha S a kyamuni. By selflessly donating his own body and relinquishing his life in order to ease the suffering of sentient beings—in this case the naked horse-people of Vais a li who harvest silk from his presumably ravaged silkworm bodies—Asvaghos: a manifests the 46 Chinese text reproduced from Yanagida, So zo ichin, 40d–41b. Ibid., 41c–d. Zhiju writes that this was a wuxu 戊戌 year, but the fourteenth year of Zhou King An was a guiyi 癸已 year. The nearest wuxu year was the nineteenth year of King An, or 383 BCE. 48 For discussion and translation of Asvaghos: a’s Chinese hagiographies, see Li, ‘‘The Life of Asvaghos: a Bodhisattva’’; Li, ‘‘Maming pusa zhuan’’; the series of articles by Ochiai Toshinori; and Young, ‘‘Biography of the Bodhisattva Asvaghos: a’’ and ‘‘Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China.’’ 47 FOR A COMPASSIONATE KILLING 39 unparalleled generosity of a Buddha-to-be.49 In this way Zhiju likens Asvaghos: a to the historical Buddha as exemplar of the bodhisattva path, while at the same time radically reconceiving the plight of silkworms on traditional Buddhist mythic, moral, and soteriological grounds. This last point in particular represents a major shift in Chinese Buddhist attitudes toward sericulture, justifying on Buddhist grounds what had largely been depicted as a grossly immoral, soteriologically defeating means of making a living. I have already mentioned the ‘‘exhortation to sericulturists’’ written by Buddhist layman Wang Rixiu, who sternly admonishes silk producers to quickly repent their murderous ways, as well as the Treatise on the Retribution of the Most High, which stresses the great debt owed to the thousands of silkworms who lose their lives for but a single article of silken clothing.50 While both of these sources were compiled sometime after the Baolin Tradition—indicating the continued conflict over the propriety of sericulture in religious circles, despite Zhiju’s apparent attempt to justify it—numerous Buddhist sources expressing similar sentiments that preceded this Asvaghos: a hagiography are readily available. The best known example is that of the great Vinaya master Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667), who argues forcefully against the use of silk for monastic robes, largely because of the countless silkworms that are killed in the sericulture proccess.51 Commentaries on the Scripture of Benevolent Kings (Renwang bore jing 仁王般若經) by Guanding 灌頂 (561–632) and Jizang 吉藏 (549–623) include sericulture in a list of twenty-eight offenses against the Buddhadharma—a list which also includes such transgressions as drinking alcohol, neglecting one’s parents, teachers or elders, and intentionally giving rotten food to mendicants.52 Further, the fifth-century Scripture on Up a saka Precepts warns that sericulture is a sin for Buddhist laypersons,53 and in his well-known Buddhist encyclopedia Grove of Pearls in a Dharma Garden, Daoshi 道世 (ca. 596–683) admonishes against even associating with silk producers.54 Finally, the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, translated into 49 On the general theme of self-sacrifice in Buddhist literature, see especially Benn, Burning for the Buddha, and Ohnuma, Head, Eyes, Flesh, and Blood. By Zhiju’s time numerous similar Sa kyamuni once lived as an animal j a taka tales had been rendered into Chinese—tales in which  who gave up his body to help others. According to Xuanzang’s 玄奘 (602–664) Da Tang xiyu ji 大唐西域記,  Sa kyamuni was once a rabbit who offered to jump into a fire so his cooked body could feed an old man (Da Tang xiyu ji, 907b; trans. Beal, Si-yu-ki, 2:59–60 and Li, The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions, 205–206), and he formerly lived as a deer king who offered to take the place of a pregnant doe in line for sacrifice (Da Tang xiyu ji, 906a–b; trans. Beal, Si-yu-ki, 2:50–51 and Li, The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions, 199–200). Another j a taka translated in the third century, included in the Liudu jijing 六度集經, describes how  Sakyamuni once voluntarily transformed himself into a fish so that other fish could eat his body and avoid starvation (Liudu jijing, 1c–2a; trans. Chavannes, Cinq cents contes et apologues, 1: 11–12). Such examples that pre-date Zhiju’s Asvaghos: a hagiography abound in the Chinese Buddhist canon. 50 Taishang ganying pian, fasc. 836, 5a: 大抵片衣蠶千命, 按如佛說, 身服絲帛, 尚當還債. 51 Kieschnick, The Impact of Buddhism on Chinese Material Culture, 98–99; Suwa, Chu goku chusei bukkyoshi kenkyu, 99–182. 52 Renwang huguo bore jingshu, 282c; Renwang bore jingshu, 349b. 53 Youposai jie jing (Upasakasıla su tra), 1050b. Trans. Shih, The Sutra on Upasaka Precepts, 83. 54 Fayuan zhulin, 915a. 40 STUART H. YOUNG Chinese in the early-fifth century, includes a story of monks who go begging for silk floss so that they can make new silk beds. They arrive at the home of a sericulturist, who tells them to wait while he boils the cocoons to collect their silk. The monks stand by and watch while the cocoons burst open and the silkworm pupae let out tiny yelps of agony in their death throes. Buddhist laypersons who observe this scene revile the monks as shameless murderers, and the Buddha rebukes them for failing to uphold the Dharma.55 While this story as a whole may be more about proper monastic deportment than the propriety of sericulture, its emphasis on the horrible suffering of silkworms in the process accurately reflects the general Buddhist disapprobation—at least on a rhetorical level—of the silk industry’s wanton disregard for the fates of its most valuable resources. But in Zhiju’s hagiography of Asvaghos: a in the Baolin Tradition, silkworms are a different class of beings altogether, and the sericulture process thus entails completely different moral connotations. As in other, perhaps more mercantile understandings of sericulture, Zhiju’s silkworms live only to die for silk, but here they are no mere commodities. Rather than being hapless victims of the slaughter, silkworms are self-aware agents of compassion, leaping into the fire with eyes wide open. They are the bodies of bodhisattvas transformed, the manifestation of unparalleled generosity unleashed upon the evils of worldly suffering. Silkworms voluntarily and gladly give up their bodies, their lives, in a glorious act of self-sacrifice that is essential to ease the terrible pains of destitution. Silkworms represent the path of the Buddha, and the seeds of their virtuous deaths will beget the greatest holy beings of Buddhism. In this way, the process of sericulture and especially the killing of silkworms is depicted as a noble sacrifice, enabling the fulfillment of bodhisattva vows and promoting the greater Buddhist goods of perfected compassion, generosity, and the ultimate end of suffering. Silk production is therefore just as ethically and soteriologically as it is economically uplifting, so long as it is understood in the way Zhiju intimates in Asvaghos: a’s Baolin Tradition hagiography. Another strategy that Zhiju simultaneously employs to justify silk production, as indicated above, is his Indianizing etiology of the sericulture process. Set in the distant Indian past, the Baolin Tradition describes a time when this technology was unknown to human kind, and shows how a great Buddhist saint of Vais a li introduced silkworms, cocoons and the production of silken clothing for the first time in human history. To see in clear relief the repercussions of this exoticizing strategy it is instructive to compare it with a brief text from the Daoist canon, which likewise lays claim to the origins of sericulture but instead insists that the responsible party was a certain Daoist Perfected (zhenren 真人): At one time the Heavenly Worthy of Numinous Treasure was on Horse-trail Mountain in the Land of Pure Luminosity with an assembly of hundreds of millions of Transcendents and Perfected. They followed him to the Palace of Red Luminosity [where they convened] a great assembly. As he was expounding the Law, one Perfected from among the assembly, named Lunar Purity, arose from his seat, approached solemnly and addressed the Heavenly Worthy saying, ‘‘Today I see that the suffering and happiness of the people of the world are unequal, and some cannot obtain clothing. How shall we save them?’’ FOR A COMPASSIONATE KILLING 41 The Heavenly Worthy felt sympathy at this request, and dispatched the Perfected of the Mysterious Name to transform his body into a silkworm moth. It produced its silk and enabled the people to harvest abundantly. He taught them weaving and tailoring to make clothing. Moreover, he supplied a divine talisman to expurgate evil demons. The Perfected further addressed the Heavenly Worthy saying, ‘‘What will I gain in return for [teaching] sericulture to these worldlings?’’ The Heavenly Worthy replied, ‘‘Several years after you have transformed this body you will return to your original body and fly around at will, coming and going through space.’’ Thereupon the Perfected of the Mysterious Name addressed the various worldlings, ‘‘This silkworm moth is my body transformed. I looked with pity upon the masses suffering in cold and hunger, so I came to save them. You should devoutly honor [this silkworm body] and not irreverently discard me. If you give rise to irreverence you will return to suffering. If you increase [your] reverence you will obtain great wealth and honor. The more [silkworms] you rear the more you will get. [Even with] little rearing you will reap a bountiful harvest.’’ The faithful and reverent who were pure of heart all rejoiced. After this scripture was spoken, the Perfected, Immortals and rest of the assembly bowed their heads before the Heavenly Worthy and respectfully withdrew. 爾時, 靈寶天尊, 在淨明國土, 馬跡山中, 與諸仙眾, 及諸真人, 百千萬眾. 隨 從到赤明宮中大會. 說法是時, 眾中有一真人, 名曰月淨, 從座而起, 端簡前 進, 上白天尊曰, ‘‘今見世間人民, 苦樂不均, 衣無所得. 將何救濟?’’ 天尊憫其所請, 乃遣玄名真人, 化身為蠶蛾. 口吐其絲, 與人收甚. 教其經 絡機織, 裁製為衣. 復以神符鎮貼, 以斷邪魔. 真人重告天尊曰, ‘‘世人所養蠶 蛾, 為復有何報對?’’ 天尊答曰, ‘‘此身變化之後, 經餘年歲, 復歸本身, 飛行自在, 來往虛空.’’ 於是玄名真人, 告諸世人, ‘‘其蠶蛾是我之身變化, 憫見眾生, 饑寒困苦, 故 來救濟. 汝可精心虔敬, 不得輕慢, 將我拋棄. 若生輕慢, 當復困苦. 若加敬 重, 得獲大富貴, 多養多得, 少養廣收.’’ 精心信敬, 咸皆歡喜. 說是經畢, 真仙等眾, 稽首天尊, 奉辭而退.56 This Daoist canonical text, which is followed by a diagram of the abovementioned talisman to protect silkworms, is titled Wondrous Scripture Spoken by the Most High [Lord Lao] for the Multiplication of the Silkworm King (Taishang shuo liyi canwang miaojing 太上說利益蠶王妙經) and is of unknown provenance.57 It is structured more like a Mah a yana su tra than a j a taka tale, with the Heavenly Worthy of Numinous Treasure (in place of the Buddha) surrounded by a vast assembly of the most spiritually advanced adepts, one of 56 Taishang shuo liyi canwang miaojing, fasc. 180. Both Ren, Daozang tiyao, 274, and Lagerwey (in Schipper and Verellen, The Taoist Canon, 2:960) provide brief content summaries of this text, but neither offers any insight into when or where it may have been composed. I follow Lagerwey for the English translation of its title. 57 42 STUART H. YOUNG whom he dispatches to another world to provide blessings for the beings there. Nevertheless, this text clearly bears a strong resemblance to the past-life tale of Asvaghos: a in the Baolin Tradition. Both stories depict great saints who looked down upon the suffering masses, felt compassion for their plight and transformed themselves into silkworms so that the impoverished could produce silken clothing to cover their nakedness. Both stories therefore offer justification for sericulture by identifying the death of silkworms with the compassionate vows of sacred beings. In the Daoist version, however, rather than a great bodhisattva in a prior incarnation introducing sericulture to the world, the Perfected of the Mysterious Name is given the honor of first offering this great blessing to humanity. In this way the Wondrous Scripture for the Multiplication of the Silkworm King supplants (or was supplanted by?) the similar Buddhist etiological myth in the Baolin Tradition, both of which were perhaps composed in order to bolster their respective religions by crediting them with the founding of one of China’s most important commercial industries. But while this Daoist origin myth and moral justification for sericulture remains firmly rooted in Chinese soil, Asvaghos: a’s hagiography in the Baolin Tradition completely resituates the silk industry in ancient Indian history. According to Zhiju, at its foundation sericulture is not a Chinese enterprise at all, and is thus not subject to traditional Chinese cultural mores or ethical standards. It cannot be judged as immoral or murderous according to common Chinese conceptions of life and death, right and wrong. Rather, sericulture is most fundamentally an Indian Buddhist enterprise, gifted to the world by a great Buddhist master on the hallowed ground where  Sa kyamuni first turned the Dharma-wheel, so its ethical framework can only be delimited by the expedient means and meritorious intentions of the most holy Buddhist beings. As such, in this tale Zhiju skillfully foregrounds the foreignness of Buddhism in general and Asvaghos: a in particular to radically reinvent sericulture historically, ethically, and soteriologically. Zhiju reshapes sericulture as a most virtuous enterprise but only within this ancient Indian ethical framework, thus making it the exclusive heritage of the Buddhist institution and its representative branches in medieval China. While the Baolin Tradition is typically understood as the foundational lineage history of Hongzhou Chan, serving primarily to establish the orthodoxy of this school over its competitors, here we see that it entailed other agendas as well. One of these was to lay claim to the sericulture industry as a fundamentally Buddhist enterprise. This text offered the requisite moral justification, divine agency, and ideological foundation for the development of advanced Buddhist ritual technologies that could ensure healthy silkworms and abundant silk crops. Indeed, as we will see, new sericulture rituals were devised on the basis of Asvaghos: a’s hagiography in this seminal Chan lineage history. However, the affiliation that Zhiju presents between Asvaghos: a and silk production clearly derives from ancient currents of Chinese astro-agricultural thought, as well as ageold tales about the Horse-head maiden as transformed silkworm, that are rooted beyond the confines of the Chinese Buddhist institution or preoccupation with Indian patriarchy. At the same time, the fact that Asvaghos: a’s role as compassionate silkworm is so prominently displayed in this foundational text for the Chan patriarchate clearly indicates that his sericulture associations had penetrated deep into discourse of the Buddhist clergy. Asvaghos: a’s silkworm FOR A COMPASSIONATE KILLING 43 connections were not confined to local sericulture cults—even if there is evidence that silk producers themselves worshipped him for the betterment of their trade— and his status as revered Indian patriarch was directly connected to his past life as cocoon-spinning larvae. And in a similar fashion, the specific blessings that Asvaghos: a offered the ancient horse people in his Baolin Tradition hagiography were promised to local sericulturists by Buddhist authors through ritual manuals touting Asvaghos: a’s immanent presence. THE RITUAL MANUALS OF ASVAGHOS: A BODHISATTVA Extant within the modern edition of the Chinese Buddhist canon are two texts that enthusiastically celebrate Asvaghos: a’s talents as a powerful deity, proffering spells, mudras, icons, and ritual procedures that could be wielded in order to ward off baleful influences, greatly increase one’s silkworm harvest, and obtain vast riches including a wide variety of fine silks. Presented as Chinese translations by Vajrabodhi (Jin’gangzhi 金剛智, 671?–741) and Amoghavajra (Bukong 不空, 705–774), respectively, these texts are titled Ritual Instructions for the Recitation of the Incomparably Efficacious Method of the Divine Power of Asvaghos: a Bodhisattva 馬鳴菩薩大神力無比驗法念誦儀軌58 (hereinafter Ritual Instructions) and The Perfect Siddhı Recitation of Asvaghos: a Bodhisattva 馬鳴菩薩成就悉地念 誦59 (hereinafter Siddhı Recitation).60 Both of these texts share many defining characteristics of medieval Chinese Buddhist and Daoist ritual manuals, and they appear to continue an effort observable within both traditions of proclaiming their importance to the well-being of the sericulture industry. These texts extended the development of advanced Buddhist ritual technologies into the arena of silk production, offering new and improved Esoteric rites to supersede traditional procedures for entreating silkworm deities. Further, the Ritual Instructions in particular draws upon Asvaghos: a’s hagiographic tradition exemplified in the Baolin Tradition, illustrating how Asvaghos: a could provide for contemporary adepts the same benefits that he once offered the destitute masses of ancient India. The Siddhı Recitation continues the theme of silken riches offered by Asvaghos: a Bodhisattva, while at the same time extending his efficacy through a broader range of apotropaic services. Together with the abovementioned sources attesting 58 See Maming pusa dashenli wubi yanfa niansong yigui. Trans. Young, ‘‘Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China,’’ 306–310. The Taisho text is based upon a Japanese print dating to the Kyoho 享保 reign period (1716–1736) and preserved in the library of Buzan University 豐山大學 (Maming pusa dashenli, 674n7), which was established in 1908 by a sublineage of the Shingon 真言 school. This university merged with Taisho University in the 1920s. 59 See Maming pusa chengjiu xidi niansong. Trans. Young, ‘‘Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China,’’ 311–317. As indicated in its colophon, the Zoku zo kyo text is based on a  高山寺 Japanese print dating to 1804 that was copied from an earlier manuscript in the Kozanji canon (Kyoto). The author of the colophon, a monk named Jijun 慈順 (1735–1816), writes that the Ko zanji text bore Japanese reign titles which pushed its date back as far as 1099. A note appended to the title of the text says that it was brought to Japan by the famous N a ra court minister Kibi no Makibi 吉備真備 (695–775), who traveled through China from 717 to 734. 60 Siddhı, transliterated as xidi 悉地, means ‘‘attainment,’’ ‘‘consummation,’’ or ‘‘perfection.’’ It is essentially synonymous and frequently paired with chengjiu 成就, as in the title of this text, and indicates the attainment of some good through ritual practice. See Bukkyo daijiten, 2:1951c– 1952c, and Foguang dacidian, 5:4562a–c. 44 STUART H. YOUNG Asvaghos: a’s role as a patron saint of the silk industry, these ritual manuals support the foregoing interpretation of Zhiju’s Baolin Tradition hagiography as serving to justify the sericulture process. Asvaghos: a was indeed seen to wholeheartedly endorse silk production as a morally and soteriologically upright enterprise, as Buddhist ritual specialists presented him as the otherworldly agent most capable of providing divine support to those who counted their blessings in silken currency. Unfortunately, however, the provenance of these ritual manuals remains a mystery. Scholars have long been in agreement that the traditional attribution of Asvaghos: a’s Ritual Instructions to Vajrabodhi is spurious,61 but it remains unclear when or where this text originated. The Siddhı Recitation is even more of a puzzle, as outlined below. While we cannot be sure whether these texts were compiled in medieval China or Japan—since they are preserved only in Japanese library collections—they nevertheless carry forth themes that are clearly evident in the Chinese sources discussed above, and several others besides. Indeed, the Ritual Instructions in particular draws directly from Asvaghos: a’s hagiography in the Baolin Tradition, and at least one scholar has suggested that this ritual manual may have been compiled shortly after Zhiju’s work and ascribed to Vajrabodhi for purposes of legitimacy.62 And assuming that the Baolin Tradition presents its Buddhist sericulture etiology in part because Zhiju lived in one of the most important centers of sericulture in China, it is logical to surmise that the Ritual Instructions likewise originated in a silk producing region like southern Guangdong. In any event, given that the extant evidence precludes any conclusive argument for the Chinese or Japanese provenance of these texts, we will treat them here as representing a Buddhist tradition of ritual worship of the silkworm god Asvaghos: a that began in medieval China and has continued into modern times across East Asia. Based on internal evidence, it is clear that Asvaghos: a’s Ritual Instructions emerged in a time and place at which ritual manuals of the sort that modern scholars commonly describe as ‘‘Tantric’’ or ‘‘Esoteric’’ had long been an important part of the Buddhist canonical repertoire. The highly cursory and patchwork nature of this text suggest that it arose in a context where ritual practitioners were already quite familiar with the sorts of technologies described therein—only a few brief cues were necessary to fit Asvaghos: a’s specific prescriptions within well-established structures of ritual practice. Like most Mah a yana su tras and their sub-genre of dh a ran:ı texts, the Ritual Instructions opens by populating one of the stock Buddhist stages—in this case under the Bodhi tree in Bodhgaya—with the standard Buddhist players: the Buddha Sa kyamuni and a vast assembly of the most spiritually advanced beings. Next the story’s protagonist-bodhisattva, whose name adorns the title of the text, approaches the Buddha to offer the great spells that he has acquired through countless eons of bodhisattva practice.  S a kyamuni responds with excited praise of the bodhisattva’s 61 See Bukkyo daijiten, 5:4863c; Endo, ‘‘Memyo mandara seiritsu no haikei,’’ 201; Iyanaga, Kannon henyo tan, 523–524; Mikkyo daijiten, 3:2154a; and Shimizu, ‘‘Sanshin Memyo bosatsu,’’ 86. These authors doubt the authenticity of this text because it is not mentioned in any Buddhist catalogue by medieval Chinese authors or Japanese pilgrims in China, and its style does not match that of other works more confidently ascribed to Vajrabodhi. 62 Iyanaga, Kannon henyo tan, 528. FOR A COMPASSIONATE KILLING 45 efforts and the unsurpassed power of the spells that he wields, and entreats the bodhisattva to share with the world his efficacious incantations. The bodhisattva then bows in honor and joyously annunciates his wondrous dh a ran:ı, often to the accompaniment of brilliant lights, raining flowers, and auspicious earthquakes. Such is the standard opening of a medieval Chinese dh a ran:ı text, which the Ritual Instructions reproduces faithfully if somewhat hurriedly. The Ritual Instructions here differs from other dh a ran:ı texts, however, in Asvaghos: a’s declaration that by deploying his powerful spell ‘‘the masses of the low and destitute and the myriad sentient beings who are naked will be clothed’’ 貧窮下賤, 裸形眾生有情, 衣服.63 This interest in clothing the impoverished masses clearly recalls Asvaghos: a’s past life as compassionate silkworm described in the Baolin Tradition, in which he sacrificed himself to produce clothing for the naked horse-people of Vais a li. The Ritual Instructions later goes on to describe the various fine silks procured through the recitation of Asvaghos: a’s dh a ran:ı, in combination with other ritual procedures. We can presume that these silken goods were intended to fulfill the bodhisattva’s promise to provide clothing for the poor during difficult times. After Asvaghos: a intones his spell the narrative of the Ritual Instructions jumps to another venue. Up until the presentation of the spell, the text is set in ancient India—during the time of the Buddha—and the speaker would appear to be  Ananda or a member of  S a kyamuni’s great assembly, even if the standard opening of ‘‘Thus have I heard’’ (rushi wo wen 如是我聞) is not there to signal the auditor’s voice. After the spell, the text leaps forward to its reader’s present time, and the narrator becomes an anonymous contemporary with specialized knowledge of Asvaghos: a’s rites. First, this narrator explains, one must follow a master who can transmit the spell just presented and a mudra described below. Here the text apparently aims to secure for the Buddhist institution the patronage of silk producers, and because it directs its reader to seek out a master of Asvaghos: a’s methods, it is probably not intended as a ritual manual for the professional officiant. Rather, it is a guide for the uninitiated layman, although we have little evidence to tell what kind of audience this text may in fact have reached. As such, the Ritual Instructions encourages silk producers to visit their local Buddhist temples and ritual specialists when sericulture rites are needed, so that they can personally entreat Asvaghos: a for the hoards of luxurious silks and other riches that he has to offer. In order to obtain these blessings the text further prescribes the proper iconography for Asvaghos: a and directs the practitioner to paint his visage. Asvaghos: a is said to have white skin, he sits upon a white lotus flower on a white horse and, as in some of his earlier hagiographies, he is clad completely in white.64 63 Maming pusa dashenli, 674c. See the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan, 315a; discussed in Young, ‘‘Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China,’’ 116–120. Also, in Tanyan’s 曇延 (516–588) seventh-century Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 biography (Xu gaoseng zhuan, 488a–b), Asvaghos: a is described as wearing white clothes and riding a white horse. This is repeated in the Fayuan zhulin, 467c. Medieval Chinese sources provide scant evidence for Asvaghos: a’s iconography; for Japanese examples see especially Endo, ‘‘Memyo mandara seiritsu no haikei’’ and Iyanaga, Kannon henyo tan, 528–532. 64 46 STUART H. YOUNG He wears a floral crown, he sits with one leg pendant and his palms are pressed together. With the proper iconography thus described, the text then instructs the practitioner to set up an altar and begin ritual obeisance from the third day of the third month—a time that overlapped with the sericulture season. One must set up the image facing west and make all sorts of offerings to it for a period of twentyeight days. Finally, up until the one-hundredth day the practitioner must cleanse and purify himself or herself. At this point the text again switches gears, as Asvaghos: a appears personally to take over narration. He first explains the benefits accrued by properly performing the rites just described, and then goes on to add a few more ritual procedures and admonitions to the mix. The narrative remains in the present time of the reader, thus quite literally bringing Asvaghos: a home to his medieval audience. If the practitioner recites his mantra and worships his image, Asvaghos: a promises, in the first person, ‘‘I will always shine great rays of light upon [his or her] household and kingdom’’ 我常檀那 家及國土放大光明, and ‘‘s/he will obtain all kinds of rich brocades, patterned silks, stiff silks for writing and fine woven silks. Treasures of gold will pile up like a mountain for the entire world to enjoy!’’ 成就錦繡羅綿財絹縺緻之類. 金寶積如山 岳, 世間受用咨(矣)! This is in keeping with Asvaghos: a’s ‘‘original vow’’ (benyuan 本 願), so he says, made when he first set forth upon the bodhisattva path eons ago, to ensure that ‘‘all will be adorned with riches’’ 皆悉為莊嚴財寶.65 Asvaghos: a then provides the standard admonition to maintain unwavering faith in his original vow, cautioning the reader that any doubts will lessen the efficacy of the methods prescribed. Practicing Asvaghos: a’s rites with the proper resolve and respect, however, the supplicant is assured of the bodhisattva’s personal protection, and of course all the riches that s/he could desire. But that is not all. So as to include all ‘‘three mysteries’’ (sanmi 三密, trın:i guhyani) of the standard esoteric ritual process—the mysteries of mind, speech, and body engaged through visualization of an icon, recitation of dh a ran:ı, and formation of mudras, respectively—Asvaghos: a also describes his own mudra to be placed before the practitioner’s heart as s/he faces the painted image and incants the above mantra.66 With this, Asvaghos: a’s ritual repertoire is complete, and the practitioner is empowered to accrue all of the material, salvific, and apotropaic benefits that this bodhisattva promises. Finally, lest the emphasis on silk and sericulture be forgotten, the text concludes with the alternate title, ‘‘Instructions for the Rites for Perfect Silkworm Cultivation’’ (Chengjiu canyang yigui 成就蠶養儀軌). On the whole, as indicated above, the Ritual Instructions is a montage of elements commonly associated with Esoteric Buddhist practice—mantras, mudras and image iconography—pieced together to form a semi-coherent formula for invoking the bodhisattva Asvaghos: a and attaining the wondrous boons that he 65 Maming pusa dashenli, 674c–675a. I have found no evidence to indicate whether these rituals were intended to be performed by men, women, or both. However, as sericulture has always been a highly gendered enterprise throughout East Asia, there is a distinct possibility that women were involved in these rites. As Como, Weaving and Binding, 184, notes, ‘‘Throughout the premodern period women at virtually every level of Chinese society participated in sericulture rites.’’ On the topic of sericulture and gender, see especially Bray, Technology and Gender, 183–272, and Como, Weaving and Binding, 109–192. 66 FOR A COMPASSIONATE KILLING 47 provides, some of which are related to sericulture. I have suggested that Asvaghos: a’s ritual efficacy here derives from the Baolin Tradition, supporting the supposition that through this hagiography Asvaghos: a was understood as endorsing sericulture on specifically Buddhist grounds. As the text of the Ritual Instructions currently stands, however, its connection to Asvaghos: a’s past-life tale as compassionate silkworm remains somewhat tenuous, and its utility for medieval sericulturists is admittedly less than obvious. The text does declare that Asvaghos: a can clothe the naked masses during dark times, it lists prominently all of the fine silks accrued through Asvaghos: a’s rites, and it carries the alternate title ‘‘Instructions for the Rites for Cultivating Perfect Silkworms.’’ But the text also strays considerably from such sericulture-related aims, promising most frequently that the faithful will be adorned with great riches of a more general sort. On the other hand, there is evidence that the Ritual Instructions once carried more of the emphasis on sericulture that its current version only partially suggests. The fourteenth-century Japanese iconographic compendium Pure Treasures Recorded from Oral Tradition (Byakuho kusho 白寶口抄), for example, quotes extensively from the Ritual Instructions and includes passages not found in its extant editions. These passages further assert the text’s efficacy in improving the practitioner’s silkworm crop, and they include another vow made by Asvaghos: a: ‘‘I vow that for those impoverished and unclothed persons in this evil age I will make silken thread to adorn their bodies and [in this way] adorn the Buddha’s work’’ 我有誓願, 惡世 為貧窮裸形眾生, 作絲線莊嚴其身, 及莊嚴佛事.67 Here we see a somewhat clearer connection to Asvaghos: a’s past-life tale in the Baolin Tradition, as he renews his ancient vow to clothe the impoverished with silk—this time in the first-person for his medieval audience—and demonstrates a familiar economy of compassion according to which the plight of unclothed humans eclipses that of boiling silkworms. Further, with this vow and the assurance from the Ritual Instructions (via the Byakuhokusho) that the supplicant’s ‘‘silkworm cultivation will be as s/he wishes’’ 蠶養如意,68 we can see more clearly how this text was intended for use by sericulturists to enhance their trade. The Ritual Instructions thus continues a drive apparent in other Buddhist and Daoist canonical sources of asserting the importance of their respective ritual traditions to the prosperity of the sericulture industry. We saw above how the Wondrous Scripture for the Multiplication of the Silkworm King was perhaps composed as a Daoist sericulture etiology in competition with the Baolin Tradition, and we likewise find a handful of medieval Daoist Celestial Master (Tianshi 天師) ritual manuals that prescribe rites for improving silkworm crops.69 Similarly, the Scripture Spoken by the Buddha on Prolonging Life [by Worshiping] the Seven Stars of the Northern Dipper 佛說北斗七星延命經 promises that by revering the text itself one can ensure the fecundity of his or her silkworms,70 and the Ritual Instructions of the Earth Goddess 67 Byakuhokusho , 256b; trans. Birnbaum, Studies on the Mysteries of Mañjusrı, 114 (modified). Context indicates that this is Asvaghos: a’s vow, not the practitioner’s as Birnbaum asserts. 68 Byakuhokusho , 256b. 69 Verellen, ‘‘The Heavenly Master Liturgical Agenda,’’ 310–311. 70 Foshuo beidou qixing yanming jing, 426b; trans. Orzech and Sanford, ‘‘Worship of the Ladies of the Dipper,’’ 391. 48 STUART H. YOUNG Pr:thivı 堅牢地天儀軌 prescribes a certain homa (immolation) rite by which the practitioner can successfully cultivate silkworms by the ton.71 Apparently preserving ritual and textual traditions that date to the Tang,72 these sources perhaps worked in tandem with Asvaghos: a’s ritual manuals and in competition with their Daoist counterparts for a share in the medieval Chinese market of supernormal technology designed for the promotion of sericulture. The second ritual manual ascribed to Asvaghos: a, the Siddhı Recitation, also offers rituals for improving silk production while expanding in various directions Asvaghos: a’s magical repertoire. The Siddhı Recitation further asserts the utility of Buddhist rites to the prosperity of the sericulture industry, as it simultaneously interjects Asvaghos: a into broader fields of ritual practice. In addition to providing a variety of silken riches and helping to avert the decline of silk production throughout the kingdom, Asvaghos: a can now eliminate ‘‘the retribution of utmost destitution [accumulated] through rebirth after rebirth’’ 生生世世極貧窮果報, he can alleviate ‘‘the grave injury caused by curses of loathing, evil demons and raksasas (‘‘malignant spirits’’), spirits of the dead and goblins’’ 厭眉咒咀, 惡鬼羅 剎, 亡靈魑魅之毒害, and he can ensure that the supplicant will be reborn in the Land of Bliss.73 Also, as with Asvaghos: a’s Ritual Instructions, the Siddhı Recitation emphasizes the need for a qualified Buddhist ritual master to transmit Asvaghos: a’s methods. The text directs its reader to ‘‘donate to this master your rich brocades, your immaculate clothes, and even the riches held by your wives, children, and retinue’’ 錦繡凈潔衣服乃至妻子眷屬, 所持財寶用施與師,74 thus further eliciting the patronage of silk producers. As noted above, the provenance of the Siddhı Recitation is unknown. It presents itself as a translation by Amoghavajra that was brought to Japan by Kibi no Makibi 吉備真備 (695–775), and I have found no definitive evidence to either confirm or refute these claims. Given its structural and thematic affinities with the Ritual Instructions and other sources confidently placed in medieval China, we cannot reject offhand its claim to Tang origin—at least in inspiration, if not necessarily in extant editions—although with the evidence to hand we can do little more than speculate. Even more than the Ritual Instructions, the Siddhı Recitation is best described as a pastiche. It lurches forward from general prescriptions for practice, to benefits accrued, and to opaque descriptions of its protagonist bodhisattva, the appropriate ritual platform, and a specific mantra and mudra, all without any apparent concern for segues. There are also at least two places where the text appears to end—both where it promises everything that the practitioner wishes (ruyi 如意)—only to be followed by more formulaic prescriptions for practice and resultant benefits. It thus gives the appearance of a text pieced together with passages taken from a variety of sources. This appearance is strengthened by the fact that aside from its title, the name Asvaghos: a appears nowhere in the text. It includes a brief and apparently corrupt iconographic description of ‘‘the bodhisattva’’ that is unlike Asvaghos: a’s 71 Jianlao ditian yigui, 355a. On the Foshuo beidou qixing yanming jing, see most recently Mollier, Buddhism and Taoism Face to Face, chap. 4. On the Jianlao ditian yigui, see Bussho kaisetsu daijiten, 3:166a–b. 73 Maming pusa chengjiu xidi niansong, 416b. 74 Ibid. 72 FOR A COMPASSIONATE KILLING 49 iconography in the Ritual Instructions, and apart from a few benefits related to sericulture there is nothing that specifically connects the text to Asvaghos: a. The Siddhı Recitation’s murky textual history and fragmented structure thus warrant caution in staking any firm conclusions upon its conception in medieval China. Here we can remain content to take it as a secondary and tentative example of Asvaghos: a’s role as a Chinese silkworm deity. Like the Ritual Instructions but in even more abbreviated fashion, the Siddhı Recitation opens in the ancient past with the bodhisattva addressing S a kyamuni and offering his profound dh a ran : ı to liberate sentient beings. The Buddha praises him, the dh a ran:ı is spoken, and auspicious omens ensue. The bodhisattva then assumes first-person narration, assuring the reader that if s/he recites just one word of this mantra and hears the bodhisattva’s name only once, s/he will have his or her evil karma completely erased and will dwell in happiness through present and future incarnations. But lest the reader conclude that salvation is just that easy, the text goes on to repeatedly qualify these exuberant promises and add a number of other ritual prescriptions to the fold. One must also maintain resolute faith in the bodhisattva’s methods, never allow them to be transmitted to those who do not believe in the bodhisattva’s vow, and pay careful attention to the sequence of procedures described in the text. One must make offerings to the Three Jewels, the ancestors of nine generations, and to all beggars. One must receive the transmission of the above dh a ran:ı from a master, treat this master like a Buddha, and donate all of one’s belongings to him. After the bodhisattva’s dh a ran:ı is provided, the text then instructs the supplicant to paint an image of him. His body is red, he has six arms, he sits upon a lotus flower and white horse, and has six attendants surrounding him.75 Although the text is unclear on this point, it would seem that the painted image should be set atop a ritual altar, which is given specific dimensions and described as smeared with ox dung and surrounded by incense burners. ‘‘If kings, great ministers and the various rulers, at times when the living things upon their lands are completely withered, the harvest of the five grains is meager, the silkworms do not produce rich brocades, and money and silks are lacking, put this method into practice for three months out of the year [. . . ] making offerings of all sorts of food and drink [. . . ] all the people of their kingdoms will be completely fulfilled with the joy of heavenly beings.’’ 若有國王大臣及諸小國王, 國土萬物枯盡, 五榖不豐登, 又蠶子 不生錦繡, 財綿乏少時, 年中三箇月, 修行是法所謂. . . 種種餚[食z善]飲食用供 養. . . 國民皆悉天上人中所有樂具滿足.76 Finally, the bodhisattva prescribes a specific mudra that is used to seal five parts of the body (usually forehead, left and right shoulders, heart, and throat) and thereby protect the practitioner from all sorts of evil influences. 75 Pan, Zhongguo minjian meishu quanji, 110, includes a color photograph of a statue of the ‘‘Great King Asvaghos: a’’ (Maming dawang 馬鳴大王) atop an altar in a modern Horse King temple (Mawang miao 馬王廟), Shaanxi 陜西 province, that partially fits this description. It is red, has six arms, and sits on a horse. This is the only Chinese image of Asvaghos: a I have found that matches the Siddhı Recitation iconography; I have seen at least four such Japanese drawings that combine this iconography with that of the Ritual Instructions. 76 Maming pusa chengjiu xidi niansong, 416b. 50 STUART H. YOUNG While I would submit that the Siddhı Recitation draws upon the Ritual Instructions and Asvaghos: a’s hagiographic tradition in highlighting this bodhisattva’s association with silken riches, it is most notable for the ways in which it extends his capabilities to a wide variety of apotropaic functions, from eliminating bad karma to warding off malignant spirits and shielding the practitioner from evil curses. It also follows the Ritual Instructions in emphasizing the good that this bodhisattva attracts in place of the baleful forces that he repels: mountains of treasure, merit, abundant harvests, government office, longevity, rebirth in the Pure Land, and whatever else the practitioner desires. Were this the only ostensibly medieval Chinese text to claim such broad powers for Asvaghos: a, we might be more inclined to disregard its assertion of Tang provenance and treat it as a Japanese apocryphon—since it only survives in Japan and Asvaghos: a seems to have been a fairly popular deity there as well.77 However, at least two other texts more confidently placed in Tang China advertise Asvaghos: a’s ability to provide a similar range of material, salvific, and protective benefits. These are N a ga rjuna’s Treatise on the Five Sciences78 and the Scripture Spoken by the Buddha on the Power and Virtue of Prince Kumbhıra 佛說金毘羅童子威德經,79 which further tout Asvaghos: a’s immanent presence as a local deity who offers everything from clairvoyance to invisibility and extreme longevity. In the same way as these sources, the Ritual Instructions and Siddhı Recitation worked to localize Asvaghos: a for their medieval audiences, supplying for this great bodhisattva a wide range of advanced Esoteric rituals. But by emphasizing the silk-related benefits to be accrued through Asvaghos: a’s rites, the Ritual Instructions and Siddhı Recitation furthered the effort evidenced in the Baolin Tradition and other medieval Chinese sources to secure for Buddhism a niche in the ubiquitous sericulture industry. These texts thus worked to supplant traditional Chinese sericulture rites with competing Buddhist ritual technologies while further promoting Asvaghos: a as a most efficacious god of silkworms. CONCLUSION Overall, this case of Asvaghos: a as silkworm god conforms to our preliminary and rather sketchy picture of the relationship between medieval Chinese Buddhism and sericulture. On the one hand, Chinese Buddhists were conflicted over their involvement in the industry. Silk was in some settings symbolic of luxury and indulgence, and the process of sericulture involved killing countless silkworms. On 77 This possibility is suggested by Shimizu, ‘‘Sanshin Memyo bosatsu,’’ 86. For discussion of Asvaghos: a as silkworm god in Japan, see Birnbaum, Studies on the Mysteries of Mañjusrı, 112– 114; Bukkyo daijiten, 5:4863; Endo, ‘‘Memyo mandara seiritsu no haikei’’; Hardacre, Religion and Society in Nineteenth-Century Japan, 202–206; Iyanaga, Kannon henyo tan, 528–532; and Shimizu, ‘‘Sanshin Memyo bosatsu.’’ 78 Longshu wuming lun, 967b–968a. For more on this text, see Davis, Society and the Supernatural, 134–136; Strickmann, Chinese Magical Medicine, 170–178; Xiao, Daojiao shuyi yu mijiao dianji, 399–406; and Young, ‘‘Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China,’’ 285–292. 79 Foshuo Jinpiluo tongzi weide jing, 372a–c. See Xiao, Daojiao shuyi yu mijiao dianji, 320– 327, and Young, ‘‘Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China,’’ 292–299, for further discussion of this text. FOR A COMPASSIONATE KILLING 51 both of these counts silk was seen to contravene traditional monastic ideals. On the other hand, Chinese Buddhists were practically minded products of an environment in which silk goods and sericulture workshops were everywhere. Buddhist involvement in the silk industry was simply unavoidable, at least to some degree, and it also presented a host of opportunities for the monastic community— politically, economically, and soteriologically. Chinese sources depicting Asvaghos: a as a sericulture deity likewise exhibit a mixture of ethical concerns and a sort of soteriological entrepreneurship. While some of these sources emphasized the crucial moral problem of silkworm murder, some also worked to transform this killing into a Buddhist virtue—a vehicle for the unparalleled compassion and generosity of the great bodhisattva. With this ethical dilemma properly framed in Buddhist doctrinal terms, the path was cleared for Asvaghos: a to personally proffer his magical services to silk producers, vowing to clothe the destitute, naked masses and prescribing spells, icons, and ritual procedures to ensure plentiful silken clothing. In this way Buddhists touted their own powerful silkworm god and program of efficacious sericulture rites, which could compete with existing sericulture deities and rituals to secure for the Buddhist monastic community a new revenue stream in the form of patronage from silk producers. Mercantile agendas of this nature were, of course, not necessarily inimical to the moral and soteriological concerns of medieval Chinese Buddhists. According to the time-honored Mah a yana logics of merit production and expedient means, expanding the institutional presence of the monastic community through increased material wealth was the most effective way to make Buddhism accessible to all, thus liberating the greatest number of beings. Individual donors who helped make this happen reaped great rewards in terms of merit, or wholesome karma, generated for themselves and their families. As such, good monastic business and orthodox Mah a yana soteriology went hand in hand, and the case of Asvaghos: a as silkworm god demonstrates how these ideals were applied to Buddhist involvement in the sericulture industry. Nevertheless, while ethics and economics were inextricably intertwined, and the financial clout of the saṅgha was necessitated in the name of spiritual salvation, the sericulture industry still presented special problems for Buddhist devotees because it involved so much silkworm killing. Buddhists could not respond to this dilemma by denouncing the industry outright; silk production, trade, and use were just too widespread. Instead, as we saw especially in the Baolin Tradition hagiography of Asvaghos: a, one Buddhist solution was to completely uproot sericulture from its traditional Chinese foundation and radically resituate it within a new historical, moral, and soteriological framework that was explicitly labeled Indian and Buddhist. Having in fact originated in ancient India, at the hands of a great Buddhist master, sericulture was fully consonant with traditional Mah a yana ideals of the bodhisattva path, and was thus the true heritage of medieval Chinese Buddhists alone. In this way, the perceived foreignness of Asvaghos: a was crucial to his ability to integrate Buddhism into the silk industry—or, rather, to reconfigure Chinese sericulture on ancient Indian Buddhist grounds. Asvaghos: a’s status as an accomplished bodhisattva of ancient Indian origin allowed him to most effectively legitimize sericulture in the face of widespread moral outrage over unchecked silkworm murder. As such, while it might seem to the modern observer that 52 STUART H. YOUNG Asvaghos: a was thoroughly ‘‘Sinified’’ through his silkworm persona—made to look more Chinese by virtue of his notably Sinitic sericulture associations—for Zhiju, his audiences, and successors in this new hagiographic tradition, it was precisely Asvaghos: a’s ancient Indian identity that made him important to the silk industry. Through this figure in particular, whose original equine affiliations also closely resonated with Chinese astro-agricultural thought, sericulture could be reshaped into an exclusively Buddhist enterprise, morally justifiable as an ancient Indian expedient means devised by a great bodhisattva out of compassion for suffering beings. Who exactly was responsible for Asvaghos: a’s silkworm metamorphosis? Unfortunately, it is impossible to identify any specific individuals or discrete social groups with ultimate agency in this transformation. We can, however, be relatively certain on two points. First, Asvaghos: a’s sericulture associations most likely began in China. There are no extant Indic sources that present similar images, and the ancient Chinese links between horses and silkworms were clearly influential in this development. Second, contrary to prior scholarly accounts that emphasize a clear distinction between Asvaghos: a the Indian patriarch and Asvaghos: a the silkworm god, with the former being the preserve of Buddhist clerics and the latter a product of silkworm cults, evidence indicates that both Buddhist monastics and lay sericulturists shared agency in Asvaghos: a’s Chinese transformation. Asvaghos: a’s associations with sericulture were promoted (or at least acknowledged) by Buddhist authors and lay literati, and sericulturists themselves entreated him for the betterment of their trade. As such, Asvaghos: a’s hagiographic and ritual imagery simultaneously trickled down and bubbled up, with the concerns of monastics and laypeople, educated literati and silk producers all infusing his silkworm persona. Representatives of the Buddhist institution upheld this figure as an effective means of securing patronage from sericulturists, who adopted him for the benefits that he might provide their silk production. And on the whole, this case of Asvaghos: a as silkworm god offers a valuable entrée into the complex relationships between premodern Chinese Buddhism and the omnipresent sericulture industry. ABBREVIATIONS DZ Zhengtong Daozang (numbered according to Schipper and Verellen, eds., The Taoist Canon) T Taisho shinshu daizo kyo Z Dai Nippon zokuzokyo BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources Baolin zhuan 寶林傳 [Tradition of the Baolin (temple)]. Attributed to Zhiju 智炬 (n.d.) in 801. Yanagida Seizan 柳田聖山, ed., So zo ichin: Ho rinden, Dento gyokuei shu 宋藏遺 珍: 寶林傳, 傳燈玉英集 [The ‘‘Tradition of the Baolin (temple)’’ and the ‘‘Collection of jade heroes who transmitted the lamp’’ of the Yizhen Song (dynasty Chinese Buddhist) canon]. Kyoto: Chu bun shuppansha, 1983. FOR A COMPASSIONATE KILLING 53 Byakuhokusho 白寶口抄 [Pure treasures recorded from oral tradition]. By Ryoson 亮尊 (fl. 1300). T no. 3119, 92 (Zuzo supplement vol. 7). Chuanfa zhengzong ji 傳法正宗記 [Record of the transmission of the Dharma of the true school]. By Qisong 契嵩 (1007–1072) in 1061. T no. 2078, 51. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 [Collected notes on the production of the threefold canon]. By Sengyou 僧祐 (445–518) ca. 515. T no. 2145, 55. Dai Nippon zokuzo kyo 大日本續藏經 [The Kyoto supplement to the Manji edition of the canon]. Edited by Nakano Tatsue 中野達慧. Kyoto: Zo kyo shoin, 1905–1912. Dasheng qixin lun 大乘起信論 [Treatise on the awakening of faith in the Mah a yana]. Attributed to Asvaghos: a; trans. attributed to Param a rtha (499–569) ca. 550. T no. 1666, 32. Dasheng qixin lun 大乘起信論 [Treatise on the awakening of faith in the Mah a yana]. Attributed to Asvaghos: a; trans. attributed to  Siks: a nanda (652–710) ca. 700. T no. 1667, 32. Da Tang xiyu ji 大唐西域記 [Great Tang record of the western regions]. By Xuanzang 玄奘 (602–664) in 646. T no. 2087, 51. Dunhuang baozang 敦煌寶藏 [Dunhuang canon]. Edited by Huang Yongwu 黃永武, et al. Taipei: Xin wen feng, 1981–1986. Fayuan zhulin 法苑珠林 [Grove of pearls in a Dharma garden]. By Daoshi 道世 (ca. 596– 683) in 668. T no. 2122, 53. Foshuo beidou qixing yanming jing 佛說北斗七星延命經 [Scripture spoken by the Buddha on prolonging life (by worshiping) the seven stars of the northern dipper]. Translator unknown. T no. 1307, 21. Foshuo jinpiluo tongzi weide jing 佛說金毘羅童子威德經 [Scripture on the power and virtue of prince Kumbhıra]. Trans. Amoghavajra (705–774). T no. 1289, 21. Fozu tongji 佛祖統紀 [Comprehensive history of the buddhas and patriarchs]. By Zhipan 志 磐 (1220–1275); completed in 1269. T no. 2035, 49. Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳 [Tradition of the causes and conditions of the Dharma-treasury transmission]. Trans. attributed to Kiṅkara (fl. ca. 460–472) and Tanyao 曇曜 (ca. 410–485) in 472. T no. 2058, 50. Jianlao ditian yigui 堅牢地天儀軌 [Ritual instructions of the earth goddess Pr: thivı]. Trans. Subhakarasim : ha (637–735) between 717 and 734. T no. 1286, 21. Jingde chuandeng lu 景德傳燈錄 [Jingde (era) record of the transmission of the lamp]. By Daoyuan 道原 (fl. 1004) in 1004. T no. 2076, 51. Liudu jijing 六度集經 [Scripture on the collection of the six perfections]. Trans. Kang Senghui 康僧會 (d. ca. 280). T no. 152, 3. Longshu wuming lun 龍樹五明論 [N a g a rjuna’s treatise on the five sciences]. Attributed to N a g a rjuna and Asvaghos: a; translator unknown. T no. 1420, 21. Longshu zengguang jingtu wen 龍舒增廣凈土文 [Expanded writings on the Pure Land from Longshu]. By Wang Rixiu 王日休 (d. 1173) in either 1173 or 1161–1162. T no. 1970, 47. Maming pusa chengjiu xidi niansong 馬鳴菩薩成就悉地念誦 [The perfect siddhı recitation of Asvaghos: a bodhisattva]. Trans. attributed to Amoghavajra (705–774). Z 1: 3: 5: 416b. Maming pusa da shenli wubi yan fa niansong guiyi 馬鳴菩薩大神力無比驗法念誦軌儀 [Ritual instructions for the recitation of the incomparably efficacious method of the divine power of Asvaghos: a bodhisattva]. Trans. attributed to Vajrabodhi (671?–741). T no. 1166, 20. Maming pusa zhuan 馬鳴菩薩傳 [Tradition of the bodhisattva Asvaghos: a]. Trans. attributed to Kuma rajıva (344–413 or 350–409). T no. 2046, 50. See also Ochiai and Saito . Qixin lun shu bixue ji 起信論疏筆削記 [Notes on the awakening of faith treatise]. By Zixuan 子璿 (965–1038). T no. 1848, 44. 54 STUART H. YOUNG Renwang bore jingshu 仁王般若經疏 [Commentary on the scripture of benevolent kings]. By Jizang 吉藏 (549–623). T no. 1707, 33. Renwang huguo bore jingshu 仁王護國般若經疏 [Commentary on the scripture of benevolent kings who defend the nation]. By Guanding 灌頂 (561–632). T no. 1705, 33. Shimen yingyong wen(fan) 釋門應用文(範) [Buddhist usage formulary]. See Yinyuan lun 因 緣論. Shi moheyan lun 釋摩訶衍論 [Treatise expounding the Maha yana]. Attributed to N a g a rjuna; trans. attributed to Vr: ddhimata (n.d.), but likely written in Korea sometime between 720 and 779 by Wŏlch’ung 月忠 (n.d.). T no. 1668, 32. Shu pu 鼠璞 [Fresh rat]. By Daizhi 戴植 (or 埴) (fl. 1241). In Lidai biji xiaoshuo jicheng 歷 代筆記小說集成 vol. 23: Songdai biji xiaoshuo 宋代筆記小說. Edited by Zhou Guangpei 周光培. Shijiazhuang: Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 1995. Sifen lü 四分律 [Dharmaguptaka vinaya]. Trans. Buddhayasas (fl. 384–417) and Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 (n. d.). T no. 1428, 22. Soushen ji 搜神記 [Record of the search for the supernormal]. By Gan Bao 干寶 (fl. 317– 322). Yang Jialuo 楊家駱, ed. Xinjiao Soushen ji 新校搜神記. Taipei: Shijie shuju, 1962. Taishang ganying pian 太上感應篇 [Tract of the most exalted on action and retribution]. By Li Changling 李昌齡 (937–1008). DZ 1167. Taishang shuo liyi canwang miaojing 太上說利益蠶王妙經 [Wondrous scripture spoken by the most high (lord Lao) for the multiplication of the silkworm king]. Author unknown. DZ 365. Taisho shinshu daizo kyo 大正新修大藏經 [Revised version of the canon, compiled during the Taisho era]. Edited by Takakusu Junjiro 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊 海旭. Tokyo: Taisho issaikyo kanko kai, 1924–1932. Accessed from the online archive of the Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association ,http://www.cbeta.org.. Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 [Continued biographies of eminent monks]. By Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667); initially completed in 645, supplemented until 667. T no. 2060, 50. Yinyuan lun 因緣論 [Treatise on causes and conditions] (AKA Shimen yingyong wen[fan] 釋門應用文[範]). Stein ms. 5639. Youposai jie jing 優婆塞戒經 [Upasakasıla su tra]. Trans. Dharmaks: ema (385–433). T no. 1488, 24. Zhengtong Daozang 正統道藏 [Zhengtong Daoist canon]. Shanghai: Hanfen lou, 1923– 1926. Secondary Sources Beal, Samuel, trans. Si-yu-ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World. 2 vols. London: Trubner & Co., 1884. Benn, James A. Burning for the Buddha: Self-Immolation in Chinese Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2007. Birnbaum, Raoul. Studies on the Mysteries of Mañjusrı: A Group of East Asian Man : d: alas and Their Traditional Symbolism. Boulder: Society of the Study of Chinese Religions, 1983. Birrell, Anne. Chinese Mythology: An Introduction. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. Bodde, Derk. Festivals in Classical China: New Year and Other Annual Observances during the Han Dynasty, 206 B.C.–A.D. 220. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975. Bray, Francesca. Technology and Gender: Fabrics of Power in Late Imperial China. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Broadwin, Julie. ‘‘Intertwining Threads: Silkworm Goddesses, Sericulture Workers and Reformers in Jiangnan, 1880s–1930s.’’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 1999. FOR A COMPASSIONATE KILLING 55 Bukkyo daijiten 佛教大辭典 [Encyclopedia of Buddhism]. Edited by Mochizuki Shinko 望 月信亨. 10 vols. Kyoto: Seikai Seiten Kanko Kyokai, 1932–1964. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典 [Encyclopedia of Buddhist texts]. Edited by Ono Gemmyo 小野玄妙. 13 vols. Tokyo: Daito shuppansha, 1933–1936. Buswell, Robert E., Jr. The Formation of Ch’an Ideology in China and Korea: The Vajrasam a dhi-Su tra, a Buddhist Apocryphon. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. Campany, Robert. To Live As Long As Heaven and Earth: A Translation and Study of Ge Hong’s Traditions of Divine Transcendents. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Chavannes, Édouard, trans. Cinq cents contes et apologues. 4 vols. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1910–1934. Como, Michael. Weaving and Binding: Immigrant Gods and Female Immortals in Ancient Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2009. Davis, Edward L. Society and the Supernatural in Song China. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2001. Demiéville, Paul. ‘‘Sur l’authenticité du Ta Tch’eng K’i Sin Louen.’’ Bulletin de la Maison Franco-Japonaise 2.2 (1929): 1–79. DeWoskin, Kenneth and J. I. Crump, Jr., trans. In Search of the Supernatural: The Written Record. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996. Dunhuang yanjiu yuan 敦煌研究院, ed. Dunhuang yishu zongmu suoyin xinbian 敦煌遺書 總目索引新編 [Dunhuang manuscripts table of contents and index, new edition]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2000. Endo Yujun 遠藤純祐. ‘‘Memyo mandara seiritsu no haikei ni tsuite’’ 馬鳴曼茶羅成立の背 景について [On the background of the formation of Asvaghos: a’s man : d: ala]. Gendai mikkyo 現代密教 14 (2001): 193–210. Foguang dacidian 佛光大辭典 (Encyclopedia of the Buddhas’ Light). Edited by Ciyi 慈怡, et al. 8 vols. Taipei: Foguang wenhua shiye youxian gongsi, 1988–1989. Foulk, T. Griffith. ‘‘Sung Controversies Concerning the ‘Separate Transmission’ of Ch’an.’’ In Buddhism in the Sung. Edited by Peter N. Gregory and Daniel A. Getz. Jr., 220–294. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1999. Giles, Lionel. Descriptive Catalogue of the Chinese Manuscripts from Tunhuang in the British Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1957. Girard, Frédéric, trans. Traité sur l’acte de foi dans le Grand Véhicule, Traduction commentée et Introduction par Frédéric Girard. Tokyo: Keio University Press, 2004. Hakeda Yoshito S., trans. Awakening of Faith Attributed to Asvaghos: a. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967. Hardacre, Helen. Religion and Society in Nineteenth-Century Japan. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2002. Hirosato Iwai 岩井大慧. ‘‘The Compilers of Ching-t’u pao-chu chi.’’ Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 13 (1951): 47–86. Hou Chuanwen 侯傳文. Maming dashi zhuan 馬鳴大師傳 [Tradition of the great master Asvaghos: a]. Sanchong: Foguang shizhuan congshu, 1999. Howard, Angela F. ‘‘The Eight Brilliant Kings of Wisdom of Southwest China.’’ RES 35 (1999): 92–107. Huang Diming 黃滌明. Soushen ji quanyi 搜神記全譯 [Complete translation of the Record of the Search for the Supernormal]. Guiyang: Guozhou renmin chubanshe, 1991. Huang Zheng 黃徵 and Wu Wei 吳偉, eds. Dunhuang yuanwen ji 敦煌願文集 [Collected prayer texts from Dunhuang]. Changsha: Yuelu shushe, 1995. Iyanaga Nobumi 彌永信美. Kannon henyo tan 觀音變容譚 [Tales of the transformations of Kannon]. Kyoto: Ho zo kan, 2002. 56 STUART H. YOUNG Jia Jinhua. The Hongzhou School of Chan Buddhism in Eighth- through Tenth-Century China. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006. Johnson, E. H., trans. The Buddhacarita: Or, Acts of the Buddha. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, (1936) 1984. Kashiwagi Hiroo 柏木弘雄. Daijo kishinron no kenkyu: Daijo kishinron no seiritsu ni kansuru shiryoronteki kenkyu 大乗起信論の研究: 大乗起信論の成立に関する資料論的 研究 [A study of the Awakening of Faith in the Mah a yana: critical research on the materials concerning the composition of the Awakeing of Faith in the Mah a yana]. Tokyo: Shunju sha, 1981. Khosla, Sarla. Asvaghos: a and His Times. New Delhi: Intellectual Publishing House, 1986. Kieschnick, John. The Eminent Monk: Buddhist Ideals in Medieval Chinese Hagiography. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1997. ———. The Impact of Buddhism on Chinese Material Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003. Knoblock, John. Xunzi: A Translation and Study of the Complete Works. 3 vols. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988. Kuhn, Dieter. ‘‘Tracing a Chinese Legend: In Search of the Identity of the ‘First Sericulturalist.’’’ Toung P’ao 70 (1984): 213–245. ———. Science and Civilisation in China. Vol. 5, Chemistry and Chemical Technology. Pt. 9, Textile Technology: Spinning and Reeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Lai, Whalen. ‘‘The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana (Ta-ch’eng ch’i-hsin lun): A Study of the Unfolding of Sinitic Mahayana Motifs.’’ Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1975. Lévi, Sylvain. ‘‘Notes sur les Indo-Scythes.’’ Journal Asiatique 9th ser., vol. 8 (1896): 444– 484. ———. ‘‘Açvaghos: a: Le Su tralam : ka ra et ses sources.’’ Journal Asiatique 10th ser., vol. 12 (1908): 57–184. ———. ‘‘Encore Asvaghos: a.’’ Journal Asiatique 213 (1928): 193–216. ———. ‘‘Autour d’Asvaghos: a.’’ Journal Asiatique 215 (1929): 255–285. Li Rongxi, trans. The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions. Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1996. ———. trans. ‘‘The Life of Asvaghos: a Bodhisattva.’’ In Lives of Great Monks and Nuns. Translated by Albert A. Dalia and Li Rongxi, 5–16. Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2002. Li Yuxi 黎玉璽, trans. ‘‘Maming pusa zhuan’’ 馬鳴菩薩傳 [The tradition of Asvaghos: a bodhisattva]. In Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳 [Tradition of the causes and conditions of the Dharma-treasury transmission]. Taipei: Daqian chubanshe, 1997. Liebenthal, Walter. ‘‘New Light on the Maha yana-sraddhotp a da s a stra.’’ Toung P’ao 46 (1959): 155–216. Liu Xinru. Silk and Religion: An Exploration of Material Life and the Thought of People, AD 600–1200. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996. Loewe, Michael, ed. Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographic Guide. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Mikkyo daijiten 密教大辭典 [Encyclopedia of esoteric Buddhism]. Edited by Mikkyo Daijiten Saikan Iinkai 密教大辭典再刊委員會. Kyoto: Ho zo kan, 1979. Mikkyo jiten 密教辞典 [Dictionary of Esoteric Buddhism). Edited by Sawa Ryuken 佐和隆 研. Kyoto: Ho zo kan, 1975. Miller, Alan. ‘‘The Woman Who Married a Horse: Five Ways of Looking at a Chinese Folktale.’’ Asian Folklore Studies 54 (1995): 275–305. Mollier, Christine. Buddhism and Taoism Face to Face: Scripture, Ritual, and Iconographic Exchange in Medieval China. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2008. FOR A COMPASSIONATE KILLING 57 Niu Tianwei 牛天偉. ‘‘Hanjin huaxiang shi, zhuan zhong de ‘Canma shenxiang’ kao’’ 漢晉 畫像石, 磚中的‘蠶馬神像’考 [A study of the Han and Jin period portrayals in stone and brick of the ‘‘image of the silkworm-horse deity’’]. Zhongguo hanhua yanjiu 中國漢畫 研究1 (2004): 89–101. Ochiai Toshinori 落合俊典. ‘‘Heisei shinshutsu Memyo bosatsu den no bunkengakuteki kenkyu’’ 平成新出馬鳴菩薩伝の文献学的研究 [Philological research on the ‘‘Tradition of Asvaghos: a bodhisattva’’ discovered in the Heisei period (number one)]. Kacho tanki daigaku kenkyu kiyo 華頂短期大学研究紀要 37 (1992). ———. ‘‘Ko sho ji hon Memyo bosatsu den ni tsuite’’ 興聖寺本馬鳴菩薩伝について [On the Ko sho ji manuscript of the ‘‘Tradition of Asvaghos: a bodhisattva’’]. Indo gaku bukky o gaku kenkyu 印度學佛教學研究 81 (41.1, 1992b): 293–299. ———. ‘‘Heisei shinshutsu Memyo bosatsu den no bunkengakuteki kenkyu’’ 平成新出馬鳴 菩薩伝の文献学的研究 [Philological Research on the ‘‘Tradition of Asvaghos: a bodhisattva’’ discovered in the Heisei period (number two)]. Kacho tanki daigaku kenkyu kiyo 華頂短期大学研究紀要 38 (1993). ———. ‘‘Heisei shinshutsu Memyo bosatsu den no bunkengakuteki kenkyu’’ 平成新出馬鳴 菩薩伝の文献学的研究 [Philological research on the ‘‘Tradition of Asvaghos: a bodhisattva’’ discovered in the Heisei period (number three)]. Kacho tanki daigaku kenkyu kiyo 華頂短期大学研究紀要 39 (1994). ———. ‘‘So ei to Memyo bosatsu den’’ 僧叡と馬鳴菩薩伝 [Sengrui and the ‘‘Tradition of Asvaghos: a bodhisattva’’]. Indo gaku bukkyogaku kenkyu 印度學佛教學研究 88 (44.2, 1996): 68–73. ———. ‘‘Nishu no ‘Memyo bosatsu den’—sono seiritsu to ryuden’’ 二種の‘馬鳴菩薩傳’—そ の成立と流傳 [The origin and development of the two textual traditions of the  七 ‘‘Tradition of Asvaghos: a bodhisattva’’]. In Nanatsu-dera koitsu kyoten kenkyu sosho 寺古逸經典研究叢書 [The long hidden scriptures of Nanatsu-dera research series]. Edited by Makita Tairyo 牧田諦亮 and Ochiai Toshinori 落合俊典, vol. 5, 619–646. Tokyo: Daito shuppansha, 2000. Ochiai Toshinori 落合俊典 and Saito Takanobu 齊藤隆信. ‘‘Memyo bosatsu den’’ 馬鳴菩薩 傳 [The tradition of Asvaghos: a Bodhisattva]. In Nanatsu-dera koitsu kyoten kenkyu so sho 七寺古逸經典研究叢書 [The long-hidden scriptures of Nanatsu-dera research series]. Edited by Makita Tairyo 牧田諦亮 and Ochiai Toshinori 落合俊典, vol. 5, 265– 295. Tokyo: Daito shuppansha, 2000. Ohnuma Reiko. Head, Eyes, Flesh, and Blood: Giving Away the Body in Indian Buddhist Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007. Orzech, Charles D. and James H. Sanford. ‘‘Worship of the Ladies of the Dipper.’’ In Tantra in Practice. Edited by David Gordon White, 383–395. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Pan Lusheng 潘鲁生, ed. Zhongguo minjian meishu quanji 中國民間美術全集 [Complete collection of Chinese folk art], vol. 1. Ji’nan: Shandong jiaoyu chubanshe, 1993. Ren Jiyu 任繼愈. Daozang Tiyao 道藏提要 [Synopsis of the Daoist canon]. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1995. Schipper, Kristofer and Franciscus Verellen eds. The Taoist Canon: A Historical Companion to the Daozang. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005. Sen, Tansen. Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade: The Realignment of Sino-Indian Relations, 600–1400. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2003. Shih Heng-ching, trans. The Sutra on Upasaka Precepts. Berkeley: The Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1994. Shiina Ko yu 椎名宏雄. ‘‘Ho rinden kan kyu kan ju no itsubun’’ 宝林伝卷九巻十の逸文 [The lost texts of scrolls nine and ten of the Baolin zhuan]. Shu gaku kenkyu 宗学研究 22 (1980): 191–198. 58 STUART H. YOUNG ———. ‘‘Ho rinden itsubun no kenkyu’’ 宝林伝逸文の研究 [A study of the lost texts of the Baolin zhuan]. Komazawa daigaku bukkyo gakubu ronshu 駒沢大学仏教学部論集 11 (1980b): 234–257. ———. ‘‘Ho rinden no ihon’’ 宝林伝の異本 [Different editions of the Baolin zhuan]. Indogaku bukkyogaku kenkyu 印度学仏教学研究 49.1 (2000): 68–72. Shimizu Ryosho 清水亮昇. ‘‘Sanshin Memyo bosatsu narabini sono kigen ni tsuite’’ 蠶神馬 鳴菩薩並にその起原について [On the origin of the silkworm god Asvaghos: a bodhisattva]. Mikkyo ronso 密教論叢 11 (1937): 73–86. Sterckx, Roel. The Animal and the Daemon in Early China. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002. Strickmann, Michel. Chinese Magical Medicine. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002. Suwa Gijun 諏訪義純. Chu goku chusei bukkyoshi kenkyu 中国中世仏教史研究 [Studies in the history of medieval Chinese Buddhism]. Tokyo: Daito Shuppansha, 1988. Suzuki Daisetz Teitaro, trans. Açvaghosha’s Discourse on the Awakening of Faith in the Mah a yana. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Co., 1900. Tanaka Ryosho 田中良昭. Ho rinden yakuchu 寶林傳訳注 [Annotated translation of the Baolin zhuan]. Tokyo: Naiyama shoten, 2003. Tarocco, Francesca. ‘‘Lost in translation? The Treatise on the Mah a yana Awakening of Faith (Dasheng qixin lun) and its modern readings.’’ Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 71.2 (2008): 323–343. Teiser, Stephen. ‘‘Prayers for the Dead: A Preliminary Definition of a Liturgical Genre from Dunhuang.’’ Paper for the conference, ‘‘Hagiography and Zen Poetry: An International Conference on Chinese Literature and Religion.’’ Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan, 2004. Tokiwa Daijo 常盤大定. Ho rinden no kenkyu 寶林傳の研究 [Studies on the Baolin zhuan]. Tokyo: Kokusho kanko kai, (1934) 1973. Twitchett, D. C. Financial Administration under the T’ang Dynasty. London: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Van Gulik, R. H. Hayagrıva: The Mantrayanic Aspect of Horse-Cult in China and Japan. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1935. Verellen, Franciscus. ‘‘The Heavenly Master Liturgical Agenda According to Chisong Zi’s Petition Almanac.’’ Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 14 (2004): 291–343. Walsh, Michael J. Sacred Economies: Buddhist Monasticism & Territoriality in Medieval China. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010. Werner, E. T. C. A Dictionary of Chinese Mythology. Shanghai: Kelley and Walsh, 1932. Xiao Dengfu 蕭登福. Daojiao shuyi yu mijiao dianji 道教術儀與密教典籍 [Daoist rites and esoteric Buddhist texts]. Taipei: Xinwenfeng chuban gongsi, 1994. Yamabe Nobuyoshi. ‘‘On the School Affiliation of Asvaghos: a: ‘Sautrantika’ or ‘Yog a c a ra’?’’ Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 26.2 (2003): 225–254. Yampolsky, Philip. The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967. Yin Wei 殷偉 and Yin Feiran 殷斐然. Zhongguo minjian sushen 中國民間俗神 [Folk gods of the Chinese people]. Kunming: Yunnan renmin chubanshe, 2002. Young, Stuart H. ‘‘Biography of the Bodhisattva Asvaghos: a.’’ National Taiwan University, Digital Buddhist Library and Museum, 2002. ,http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JRAN/103180.htm.. ———. ‘‘Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China.’’ Ph.D dissertation, Princeton University, 2008.