:K\'LGWKH.DQJ[L(PSHURU*RWR:XWDL6KDQ"3DWURQDJH
3LOJULPDJHDQGWKH3ODFHRI7LEHWDQ%XGGKLVPDWWKH
(DUO\4LQJ&RXUW
1DWDOLH.¸KOH
Late Imperial China, Volume 29, Number 1, June 2008, pp. 73-119 (Article)
3XEOLVKHGE\-RKQV+RSNLQV8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
DOI: 10.1353/late.0.0007
For additional information about this article
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/late/summary/v029/29.1.kohle.html
Access provided by Australian National University (5 Jan 2016 14:32 GMT)
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
73
Why DiD the Kangxi emperor go to Wutai
Shan? patronage, pilgrimage, anD the
place of tibetan buDDhiSm at the early
Qing court
natalie Köhle
Historians studying the Qing period have traditionally argued that the
completely sinicized Manchu Qing emperors had no personal commitment to
Buddhism, and that their lavish patronage of Tibetan Buddhism was mere political expediency, in what was essentially an attempt to create a new stronghold
of Tibetan Buddhism in the Chinese interior in order to orient the Mongols
towards China and away from Tibet. Lately, however, some scholars, such as
Patricia Berger, have offered evidence which renders this argument questionable.1 At the same time, a new trend in Qing studies stresses the Inner Asian
heritage of the Qing rulers. This “New Qing History,” in particular the work of
Pamela Crossley, Evelyn Rawski, and Mark Elliott, has shown that the Qing
emperors’ successful rule was not achieved through sinicization, but rather
through conscious and successful construction of a distinctive Manchu identity
that allowed the Manchus to sustain their rule over a decidedly Inner Asian
empire as a conquest regime.2 Whether understood as a borrowing from, and
elaboration on, Yuan precedents, or as addressing the Qing empire’s Tibetan
* I wish to thank Mark Elliott for his supervision of my M.A. thesis, of which this essay is a revised
version, and for his generosity with his time and knowledge. Gray Tuttle gave me much precious advice
and shared his unpublished work with me. Robert Gimello and Leonard van der Kuijp provided invaluable guidance, while Hoong Teik Toh helped me to prepare the translations of the Rāhula monastery and
Pusading stele inscriptions. I further wish to thank Susan Naquin and the other participants of the “Wutai
shan and Qing Culture” conference, held at the Rubin Museum of Art, New York City, 12.–13. 5. 2007, for
their encouragement, and the anonymous readers for Late Imperial China for their incisive critique. My
debt to their suggestions will be apparent to them. Thanks are also due to David Brophy, Isabelle HenrionDourcy, Daniela Helbig, Nathan Hill, Arthur McKeown, and Oriana Walker for reading and commenting
on various drafts of this work.
1
See especially Berger, Empire of Emptiness.
2
Crossley, A Translucent Mirror and “The Rulerships of China”; Rawski, The Last Emperors and “Reenvisioning the Qing”; Elliott, The Manchu Way. On the “New Qing History,” see Joanna Waley-Cohen,
“The New Qing History.”
Late Imperial China Vol. 29, No. 1 (June 2008): 73–119
© by the Society for Qing Studies and The Johns Hopkins University Press
73
74
Natalie Köhle
and Mongolian constituencies, Qing patronage of Tibetan Buddhism occupies
a prominent place in both Rawski’s and Crossley’s arguments. More than an
incidental strategy designed to win over the Mongols, this patronage is seen as
a central Inner Asian component of the Manchu emperors’ political ideology
and strategies of rule. Perhaps the most important predecessor of New Qing
scholarship on Tibetan Buddhism is David Farquhar’s 1978 article “Emperor
as Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Ch’ing Empire.”3 This was the irst
study of the identiication of the Yuan and Qing emperors as emanations of
Mañjuśr K̄ as propagated in Mongol-language texts, and, in the case of Qianlong,
by means of a much-discussed series of thang ka.4 He traces the development
of this identiication to precedents in the Tibetan tradition and thus sees it as
part of the Qing emperors’ Inner Asian mode of rule. In Farquhar’s study, Wutai
shan, one of the main centers of Tibetan Buddhism in the Chinese interior,
plays an important role: he sees the wish to propagate the “Mañjuśr K̄-emperor
belief” in the eyes of the Mongols as the main reason for the Qing emperors’
patronage and visits to Wutai shan:
It may be, as has been asserted, that the emperors were interested in
orienting the Mongols towards China and away from Tibet by this
and other imperially supported Tibetan-style monastic establishments built on and near Chinese soil, but I suspect that the wish to
spread the Mañjuśr K̄-emperor belief was the main reason for the
new imperial concern with Mount Wu-t’ai.5
Since Farquhar inds comparable modes of rulership and self-legitimation in
the conquest dynasties of the Yuan and Qing, his argument readily corroborates the thesis of New Qing historians, according to which rule as a Buddhist
emperor and generous patronage of Tibetan Buddhist institutions is particular
to the form of rule of conquest regimes.
3
Farquhar, “Emperor As Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Ch’ing Empire.”
According to Farquhar, there is late Yuan evidence that Qubilai (r. 1260–94) was identiied as the
bodhisattva Mañjuśr K̄ (“Emperor As Bodhisattva,”11–12), but Farquhar's evidence is questioned by Tuttle,
who dates the earliest clear identiication of Qubilai with Mañjuśr K̄ to the late sixteenth century. See Tuttle,
“Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan in the Qing.” On the identiication of Qianlong with Mañjuśr K̄ see also
Uspensky, “The Previous Incarnations of the Qianlong Emperor According to the Panchen Blo bzang dpal
ldan ye shes”; Henss, “The Bodhisattva-Emperor”; Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 2, 4, 43, 54–61, 63, 63,
92, 157, 162, 172, 226 n. 67, 8, 15, and “Lineages of Form”; Ishihama, “Study on the [sic] Qianlong as
Cakravartin, a Manifestation of Bodhisattva Mañjuśr K̄, Tangka.” For a reproduction of one of these thang
ka, held at the Freer/Sackler collection, see Henss, The Qianlong Emperor as a Grand Lama. It needs to
be pointed out that these thang ka could only have been addressing a very small audience.
5
Farquhar, “Emperor As Bodhisattva,” 29.
4
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
75
In contrast, Hoong Teik Toh argues that “[m]ost of the Ming emperors practiced Tibetan Buddhism,” that “Ming patronage of Tibetan Buddhism was one
of the most important factors contributing to the lorescence of the religion in
this period,” and that therefore, “in terms of popularity, the Ming was indeed
the “golden age” of Tibetan Buddhism in China.”6 Johan Elverskog likewise,
though from an entirely different perspective, distances himself from the current position of the New Qing History. He contends that it is “tautological” to
claim that the Manchus gained legitimacy among the Mongols because of their
adoption of a “Buddhist persona,” since such reasoning is based on a “static”
conception of Buddhist rule. What is needed, he argues, is a more sophisticated
investigation of the processes by which “being Mongol and Buddhist” came
to imply being part of the Qing.7
The present essay takes its inspiration from the prominent place accorded
to Tibetan Buddhism in New Qing History and, following Farquhar’s attention to the relationship between the emperor-Mañjuśr K̄ identiication and the
patronage of Wutai shan, aims, on the basis of an examination of the early
Qing emperors’ patronage of this mountain, to think further about the place
of Tibetan Buddhism at the court of the early Qing.
In connection with the arguments outlined above, I would like to raise the
following three issues. First, Toh’s indings, which show strong and sustained
imperial interest in Tibetan Buddhism up to the late Ming, keenly demonstrate
that, before it becomes possible to suggest that the generous patronage of Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan was particular to the rule of the conquest elites
of the Yuan and Qing, it is necessary to examine the imperial attitude towards
Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan during the intermediate (indigenous) dynasty
of the Ming. Second, considering that from the Tang onward, Wutai shan
served as an important site for the ritual protection of the Chinese state, and
since the political ideology of rule as cakravartin was also (or, indeed, mainly)
present within the Chinese Buddhist traditions,8 it might be the case that Qing
scholars, in their zeal to ind Altaic traditions of rulership in Qing imperial
ideology, have not only neglected Ming patronage of Tibetan Buddhism, but
6
Toh, “Tibetan Buddhism in Ming China,” 238–40. Naquin, too, notes that “Tibetan Buddhism, too
often associated only with the Qing dynasty, was established in Peking in the Ming.” Naquin, Peking, 208,
228.
7
Elverskog, Our Great Qing, 8–13, 90–126; “Two Buddhisms in Contemporary Mongolia”; and “Tibetocentrism, Religious Conversion and the Study of Mongolian Buddhism.”
8
See especially Orzech, Politics and Transcendent Wisdom, 143–5, 161, 191–205, and Ku Cheng-mei,
Cong tianwang chuantong dao fowang chuantong (From the tradition of the heavenly emperor to the tradition of the dharmar āja), 377–424; but also Birnbaum, Studies on the Mysteries of Mañjuśr K̄, 7–38; Berger,
“Preserving the Nation,” 90–93; Li Kecheng, “Cong Bukong zhi Zhangjia” (From Bukong to Lcang skya);
Barrett, “Stūpa, Sutra, and Śar K̄ra c. 656–706 CE,” 17–20, 27–30, 43–4; Wang Junzhong, Dongya Han-Zang
fojiao shi yanjiu (Research in East Asian, Chinese, and Tibetan Buddhist history), 41–80.
76
Natalie Köhle
may also have overlooked Qing imperial patronage of Chinese Buddhism at
Wutai shan. Third, it is likely that, in addition to the wish to strengthen the
emperor-Mañjuśr K̄ association in the eyes of the empire’s Mongolian subjects,
the Kangxi emperor’s travels to the mountain had other underlying motives
and objectives. Indeed, it is even possible that patronage of Buddhist foundations at Wutai shan might not have been the most compelling reason for the
Kangxi emperor’s Western Tours. Thus the emperor’s actions on the road, as
relected in imperially sanctioned contemporary sources, need to be analyzed
for what they can tell us about the meanings of his personal travels to this
mountain range.
By comparing early Qing patronage of Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan to
Ming imperial patronage of Tibetan Buddhism at the same site, the present
essay will suggest answers to the question whether the patronage of Tibetan
Buddhism at the mountain was a unique characteristic of conquest dynasties,
based mainly on an examination of epigraphical records in conjunction with
records of imperial patronage in Ming and Qing editions of the Wutai shan
gazetteer, and Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje’s (1717–86) Tibetan-language
redaction of the Chinese gazetteers.9 It will then consider whether early Qing
emperors, in their patronage of Buddhism at Wutai shan, might also have
intended to follow Chinese precedents, by examining records of the Kangxi
emperor’s patronage of monastic establishments at the mountain, such as
imperially authored stele inscriptions, records in the Wutai shan gazetteers,
and (published Chinese translations of) Manchu documents. Through the
investigation of early Qing patronage of Buddhist foundations at the mountain, this essay further seeks to raise some problems concerning the historical
complexities and motivations that underlay the Kangxi emperor’s tours to
Wutai shan. No irm conclusions can be reached here.10 Rather, I will simply
question whether the notion of pilgrimage is an appropriate way of understanding the Kangxi emperor’s excursions to this Shanxi mountain range.
9
The Chinese-language gazetteers are the Qingliang shan zhi (1596, 1661, 1755), Qingliang shan xin
zhi (1701), Qingliang shan jiyao (1780), Qinding Qingliang shan zhi (printed 1811). Throughout this paper
my citations of the Qingliang shan zhi refer to an 1887 print of the 1755 recarving of the 1661 edition,
Harvard-Yenching Library: 3035 3239.83c; citations of the Qingliang shan xin zhi refer to a reproduction
in Qingliang shan zhi, Qingliang shan xin zhi, Qinding Qingliang shan zhi (Haikou: Hainan chubanshe,
2001), 123–233; citations of the Qingliang shan jiyao refer to an original edition held at Harvard-Yenching:
Rare book T3035.17323.83b; and citations to the Qinding Qingliang shan zhi refer to a reprint in Qingliang
shan zhi, Qingliang shan xin zhi, Qinding Qingliang shan zhi, 245–463. For the Ming period, I have relied
on the 1887 Qingliang shan zhi print, which reproduces the relevant passages from the Ming gazetteer
without any alterations.
10
Published sources do not yield deinitive answers to these questions, and it is doubtful whether archival
research could indeed provide clearer answers, as only an extremely small number of palace memorials
exist for this period. See Elliott, “The Manchu-Language Archives of the Qing Dynasty and the Origins of
the Palace Memorial System.”
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
77
For this purpose, I will look at the Kangxi emperor’s western tours in their
entirety and place them in relation to earlier imperial tours. This section will
be based on the descriptions of the imperial tours in the Veritable Records, a
travel diary by the minister Gao Shiqi (1644–1703), and other contemporary
sources.11 A consideration of these issues leads to the conclusion that there is
no clear-cut break between Ming and Qing attitudes toward Tibetan Buddhism
at Wutai shan and that the Kangxi emperor’s patronage of and tours to the
mountain addressed an audience much wider than just Mongolian followers
of Tibetan Buddhism. I will also suggest that in the study of Qing patronage
of Tibetan Buddhism there is, perhaps, a need for revision of the concept of
“Tibetan Buddhism” itself.
I will be discussing the concept of “Tibetan Buddhism” at the end of the
essay, but here I should offer a preliminary caveat: in distinguishing between
“Tibetan Buddhism” and “Chinese Buddhism,” I do not intend to make an
ethnic distinction between (Han) Chinese and Tibetan Buddhist practitioners.
Rather, I speak of a distinction between monasteries of the East Asian, or Chinese, Buddhist traditions, and those which adhere to the Northern, or Tibetan,
Buddhist traditions not only practiced by ethnic Tibetans and Mongols, but
also by Han Chinese.12 Obvious markers of distinction between monasteries of
the Tibetan and Chinese Buddhist traditions would be the reliance on different
canons (the Chinese Tripit.aka vs. the Tibetan Bka’ ‘gyur and Bstan ‘gyur), as
well as differing liturgical language, doctrines, rituals, and schools, and last,
but not least, ritualia and the monks’ vestments. Heinrich Hackmann, an early
German visitor to Wutai shan, notes just that: “despite the rapprochement [of
Tibetan and Chinese Buddhism at Wutai shan] one easily distinguishes Chinese and Mongolian monasteries, especially by way of the language of their
rituals and the canon.”13
i. commonalities in ming and early Qing
patronage of tibetan buddhism at Wutai shan
Qing editions of the Wutai shan gazetteer abound with examples of imperial patronage devoted to Tibetan Buddhism. The large scale construction of
Tibetan monastic establishments at Wutai shan, and the conversion of several
Chinese monasteries to Tibetan monasteries14—in short, much of what cre11
Citations of the Veritable Records refer to Daqing lichao shilu, Shengzu shilu.
See Toh, “Tibetan Buddhism in Ming China,” 205–06, 209, 239–42.
Hackmann, Welt des Ostens, 238, my translation. There exists an English translation of Hackmann‘s
work (Hackmann, A German Scholar in the East, transl. Daisie Rommel, 119), but it does not accurately
render this particular passage.
14
Virtually all of the secondary literature about Wutai shan agrees that the Kangxi emperor converted ten
Chinese monasteries into Tibetan monasteries in 1705. See, for example, Rawski, The Last Emperors, 253,
12
13
78
Natalie Köhle
ates the distinctly Tibetan lavor that the mountain in Northern Shanxi has
preserved until the present day—can be dated to the Qing. Generous imperial gifts (such as large amounts of silver, imperial dragon robes, ka-da [kha
btags, ceremonial prayer scarves], statues, and copies of the Bka’ ‘gyur were
often donated speciically to monasteries of the Tibetan tradition.15 The two
state monasteries on the mountain, Pusading and Tailu si, which were the site
of imperially sponsored rituals, were also Tibetan monasteries. These monasteries were led by one imperially appointed J̄asag Lama and one Da Lama
respectively, and staffed with a resident population of imperially supported
Tibetan Buddhists.16 Moreover, we know that during the Qing period Tibetan
Buddhists continuously presided over the mountain starting from 1659, when
the Shunzhi emperor (r. 1644–61) sent A-wang-lao-zang (< Ngag dbang blo
bzang) (1601–87) to preside over the mountain and take charge of the affairs
of Chinese and Tibetan Buddhists.17
The important place of Tibetan Buddhism on the mountain is further conirmed by public acknowledgment of the leading positions of Tibetan Buddhists
at the mountain in the Qing gazetteers: A-wang-lao-zang wrote a preface for
the irst reprint of the Ming edition of the Wutai shan gazetteer in 1661; 18 Laozang-dan-ba (< Blo bzang bstan pa), the third J̄asag Lama, edited and wrote the
preface for an important amended Chinese-language edition, the Qingliang xin
zhi, printed in 1701, and the second J̄asag Lama, Lao-zang-dan-bei-jian-can
(< Blo bzang bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan), edited the Manchu-language edition of
the Qingliang xin zhi (Cing liyang šan alin-i ice jy bithe), also printed in 1701.19
379 n. 102, drawing on Xiangyun Wang, “Tibetan Buddhism at the Court of the Qing,” 108, n. 1, drawing
on Cui Zhengsen, “Wutai shan fojiao wenhua” (The Buddhist culture of Wutai shan), 83 (no primary source
cited). I have not yet been able to ind the primary source that records this conversion, but it is interesting
to note that a 1748 Tibetan-language description of Wutai shan also speaks of exactly “ten monasteries
and temples in which Tibetan Buddhism is practised.” Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ‘byor, Dpag bsam
ljon bzang, 956.
15
See Qingliang shan xin shi, juan 3, 18a–19b, and Tuttle, “Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan,” table 2.
16
Qinding Daqing huidian zeli, juan 142, 84a, in Siku quanshu vol. 624, 514. Qinding Qingliang shan
zhi, juan 7, 3b; Qingliang shan xin shi, juan 3, 20b.
17
Qingliang shan xin shi, juan 7, 21b. A-wang-lao-zang was a lama from Xishen, Beijing who had been
trained in Chongguo si (Beijing). Cui Zhengsen, Wutai shan fojiao shi (History of Buddhism at Wutai
shan), vol. 2, 752. For a detailed discussion of the subsequent Tibetan Buddhist leaders at Wutai shan, see
Tuttle, “Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan,” especially appendix 2 and Cui, ibid.
18
This preface is preserved in the Qingliang shan zhi reproduction in Qingliang shan zhi, Qingliang
shan xin zhi, Qinding Qingliang shan zhi, 3–5.
19
For a detailed overview of the extant Chinese, Tibetan, Manchu, and Mongolian editions of the Wutai
shan gazetteers, see Tuttle, “Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan,” table 3. See also Brook, Geographical
Sources of Ming-Qing History, 99; Heissig, Die Pekinger Lamaistischen Blockdrucke in Mongolischer
Sprache, 12–13.
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
79
A-wang-lao-zang and Lao-zang-dan-bei-jian-can were further honored by the
inclusion of their biographies in this new edition of the gazetteer.20
In summary, the foundation of Tibetan monastic establishments, imperial
patronage, placement of Tibetan Buddhists in leading ofices at the mountain,
and public acknowledgment of the leading role of Tibetan Buddhists in the
gazetteers, all conirm the important position of Tibetan Buddhism at the
mountain during the Qing.
The extent of imperial patronage of Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan was
certainly unprecedented in previous dynasties. However, before one can relate
this patronage pattern to the Inner Asian heritage of the Qing emperors and the
logic of conquest rule, one should ask whether imperial patronage of Tibetan
Buddhism really constituted a new development under the Qing. In fact, an
examination of sources pertaining to imperial patronage of Buddhism at Wutai
shan during the Ming Dynasty reveals that almost all the above aspects of Qing
imperial patronage of Tibetan Buddhism, such as (1) imperially sponsored
construction of monasteries for Tibetan Buddhists, (2) sponsorship of rituals
for the protection of the state performed by Tibetan Buddhists, (3) placement
of Tibetan Buddhists in leading ofices, and (4) recognition of the prominent
place of Tibetan Buddhists in the Wutai shan gazetteer, were already present
during the Ming.
First, imperial patronage of a number of monastic buildings, which was
either requested or carried out by Tibetan Buddhists, or carried out in Tibetan
style, is recorded in the Ming gazetteer. On the occasion of the Fifth Kar ma
pa De bzhin gshegs pa Chos dpal bzang po’s (1384–1415) stay at the mountain in 1406, the Yongle emperor (r. 1403–24) renovated the mountain’s main
monastery, Xiantong si. At the request of De bzhin gshegs pa, he also restored
a st ūpa in Tibetan style, said to contain King Aśoka’s relics.21 When De bzhin
gshegs pa left, the emperor had a statue of the lama made and installed at
Xiantong si.22
In 1426, Śāriputra, an eminent Indian monk who had been invited from
the country (guo) of Wu-si-zang (< Dbus gtsang, Central Tibet), died. He had
resided in the capital where he had given “the emperor and his retinue many
tantric teachings.” He thus had gained the esteem of the Yongle, Hongxi (r.
1425), and Xuande (r. 1426–35) emperors. After his death, the Xuande emperor
20
Qinding Qingliang shan zhi, juan 16, 21a–22b; Qingliang shan xin zhi, juan 7, 21b–24b. For a partial
translation of these biographies into English, see Toh, “Tibetan Buddhism in Ming China,” 228–37.
21
Qingliang shan zhi, juan 4, 9b; Wang Lu, “Wutai shan yu Xizang” (Wutai shan and Tibet), 26.
22
Qingliang shan zhi, juan 4, 9b, juan 8, 21a–22a; Yu Qian, Xinxu Gaosengzhuan (New continuation
of biographies of eminent monks), juan 52, 1525–6; Lcang skya II Rol pa’i rdo rje, Zhing mchog ri bo (A
guide to the holy places of the Clear and Cool Mountain. . .), 122–4.
80
Natalie Köhle
divided his śar¯K ra in two parts and built a Tibetan style stūpa on the ground
of Puning si at Wutai shan to house one part of the relics.23 On this occasion,
the emperor also founded a new monastery on which he bestowed the name
“Yuanzhao”.24 Yuanzhao si was presided over by a Tibetan Buddhist from
at least 1458.25 Even later, in 1507, the Zhengde emperor (r. 1506–21) commanded the “Indian” monk fanseng [1 in glossary] Duo-er-zhi-jian (< Rdo rje
rgyal [mtshan]) to build a hall with cast iron tiles at Middle Peak, on which
he imperially bestowed the name Guangzong si, and gave the order “protect
and support” it.26
Second, the Ming gazetteer also records imperial sponsorship of a ritual
for the protection of the state carried out by Tibetan Buddhists, along with
a regulation that might mark the beginning of the conversion of Pusading
(the principal state [Tibetan Buddhist] monastery on Wutai shan during the
Qing) to Tibetan Buddhism: in the summer of 1481 the emperor ordered that
Pusading should be restored, that twenty monks should be installed there and
be given a monthly allowance of grain, and should, under the leadership of
Duan-zhu-ban-dan (< Don grub dpal ldan) chanshi—a high-ranking monk with
a Tibetan name—“pray for the happiness of the country and the prosperity of
the people (fenxiu shang zhu guo xi xia qi min fu).”27 Although the term seng,
used to refer to the twenty monks headed by Duan-zhu-ban-dan chanshi, does
not indicate whether they belonged to the Tibetan or Chinese Buddhist traditions, the fact that the leader of these monks had a Tibetan name suggests that
by the time of Chenghua (r. 1465–87) Pusading had already become a site for
the performance of imperially sponsored Tibetan Buddhist rituals.
Third, just as the mountain was under Tibetan Buddhist administration during the Qing, at some point the leadership of the mountain was similarly in the
hands of Tibetan Buddhists during the Ming: in 1458 a stele inscription records
that Yingzong28 issued a proclamation in which he ordered “Ban-ma-gu-ma23
Lcang skya II Rol pa'i rdo rje, Zhing mchog ri bo, 39. Śāriputra’s biography, “Dashan guoshi zhuan,”
may be found in Ming He, ed., Buxu gaoseng zhuan (Amended record of eminent monks), juan 25, 334b–
335b. See also Qingliang shan zhi, juan 3, 2a–b; “Chongxiu Yuanzhao si beiwen” and “Xitian shanshi da
chanshi pan-di-ta de gong shili ta ming you xu,” in Cui Zhengsen and Wang Zhichao, Wutai shan beiwen
xuanzhu (Annotated selection of Wutai shan stelae), 17, 185; Cui Zhengsen, Wutai shan fojiao shi, 691–6.
For a photograph of the st ūpa in question, see Tuttle, “Tibetan Buddhism at Ri bo rtse lnga/Wutai shan in
Modern Times,” 16.
24
“Huangdi chiyu Wutai shan sengsuren deng beiwen,” in Cui and Wang, Wutai shan beiwen, 9; Qingliang
shan zhi, juan 3, 2a–b, juan 4, 12a–b; “Dashan guoshi zhuan,” in Ming He, ed., Buxu gaoseng zhuan, juan
25, 334b–335b.
25
“Huangdi chiyu hu chi Shanxi Wutai shan Yuanzhao si beiwen,” Cui and Wang, Wutai shan beiwen, 11.
26
Qingliang shan zhi, juan 4, 14b–15a; “Xiu Tongwa dian beiwen,” in Cui and Wang, Wutai shan beiwen,
13. According to Toh, in Ming China the term fanseng [1 in glossary], lit. “Indian monk,” referred to ethnic
Tibetan monks. Toh, “Tibetan Buddhism in Ming China,” 17–58.
27
Qingliang shan zhi, juan 4, 14a, juan 3, 2b; Xiao, “Pusading de fojiao lishi,” 10.
28
I am referring to Yingzong with his temple name, because he reigned under two different reign names,
Zhengtong (r. 1436–49) and Tianshun (r. 1457–64).
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
81
.
luo (< Padmakum āra) to replace Mang-ge-luo-bu-la-jia (< Mangalapūraka) as
Overseer Dugang [of Wutai shan], while acting as abbot zhuchi of Yuanzhao
si and to head, together with the Right Enlightener of the Central Buddhist
Registration Senglusi youjueyi Cong-ling-cheng-cun (< Drung Rin chen brtson
[‘grus]), all the Tibetan and Chinese monks who are present to freely perform
religious practice there.”29 This proclamation shows that Yingzong had made
the newly founded Yuanzhao si the seat of the overseer of Wutai shan, and that
he had chosen two monks with Sanskrit and Tibetan names, Padmakum āra
and Drung Rin chen brtson [‘grus], to be in charge of the two highest oficial
positions at the mountain: Overseer and Right Enlightener.30
The fact that Wutai shan was under Tibetan administration during the Ming
was already remarked upon by the Japanese scholar Ry ūchi Kiyoshi, who
writes that the number of “western” monks who were awarded with oficial
posts started to increase in the Tianshun reign, to the extent that there were
foreign monks who were even put in charge of Han monks in the provinces.
In support of his argument, he quotes a May 1448 entry in the Ming Veritable
Records which refers to the monk Cong-ling from Wutai’s Xiantong si as
“Right Enlightener of the Central Buddhist Registration in charge of all the
monasteries on Wutai shan.”31
Thus, from these two entries we may infer that, during the reign of Yingzong,
Xiantong si and Yuanzhao si were Wutai shan’s administrative seats—Xiantong
si was the seat of the Right Enlightener of the Central Buddhist Registration,
and Yuanzhao si was the seat of the Overseer—and both of their leaders were
Tibetan monks.32 I suspect that the fact that these two monasteries had become
the administrative seats of the mountain must be the reason why in 1458 Yingzong issued two separate proclamations in which he ordered that Xiantong si
29
“Huangdi chiyu hu chi Shanxi Wutai shan Yuanzhao si beiwen,” Cui and Wang, Wutai shan beiwen,
11; Zhen Lin, “Yuanzhao si fojiao jianshi” (Short history of Yuanzhao monastery) 11. The reprint in Cui
and Wang, Wutai shan beiwen, gives Senglusi youjueyi Tong-ling cheng cun, whereas the reprint in Zhen,
“Yuanzhao si fojiao jianshi,” gives Senglusi youjueyi Zong-ling cheng cun. Because of the occurrence of
Cong-ling in the 1438 Ming Veritable Records passage quoted below, I have followed the reading Congling given in the “Yuanzhao si fojiao jianshi” reprint. This reading was conirmed for me by Guang Kuang,
resident monk of Bishan si, Wutai shan, who has seen the original stele at the mountain. (Personal communication,
London, August 2005). I thank Hoong Teik Toh for making the identiications of Padmakum āra,
.
Mangalapūraka, and Drung Rin chen brtson [‘grus].
30 On the government administration of the clergy during the Ming, see Yü, The Renewal of Buddhism
in China, 166–7; Ryūchi, “Mindai no sōkan” (Ming Dynasty Buddhist oficials).
31
Ryūchi, “Mindai no sōkan,” 45. Since there is a time span of only 10 years between the edict inscribed
on the stele and the entry in the Ming Veritable Records, I strongly suspect that Cong-ling-cheng-cun of
the previously quoted stele inscription and the Cong-ling of the entry in the Veritable Records refer to the
same person.
32
According to Xiao Yu, Xiantong si had already been made the seat of the Subprefectural Buddhist
Registration sengzheng si of Wutai shan in 1405. Xiao, “Xiantong si fojiao shilue” (A brief history of
Xiantong monastery), 5 (no primary source cited).
82
Natalie Köhle
and the newly built Yuanzhao si should be especially protected and that the
military should not be allowed to approach them.33
There is evidence that a succession of Tibetan Buddhists maintained at least
part of the mountain’s administration. The entry for Yuanzhao si in the Qingliang shan zhi records that “during the time of Zhengde, Zhang Jian-can (<
Lcang34 rgyal mtshan) was enfeoffed as Dharmar āja (Fawang) and was given
a silver seal while he was concurrently holding the seal of Overseer (Dugangyin).”35 Moreover, in a stele that was erected on the mountain in the fourth
month of Jiajing (r. 1522–66) 17 (1538), reference is made to an “imperially
appointed Commander of Wutai, concurrently in charge of all the Tibetan and
Chinese monasteries, greatly compassionate national preceptor (Hongci yijiao
guoshi [1 in glossary]) who is assisting the teaching, resident of Da Yuanzhao
si, Jian-can.”36 In another stele erected in the seventh month of Jiajing 17
(1538) we meet again with the “imperially appointed commander of Wutai,
in charge of all the Tibetan and Chinese monasteries, greatly compassionate
national preceptor (Hongci yijiao guoshi [2 in glossary]) who is assisting the
Teachings, resident of Da Yuanzhao si, Jian-can, imperially granted the title of
Buddha of the Western Regions greatly enlightened Dharmar āja (Xitianfozi
dahui fawang).”37 Because of the correspondence of part of the name (Jiancan [< Rgyal mtshan]), monastic afiliation (Yuanzhao si), title (Fawang), and
responsibility (leadership of Tibetan and Chinese monasteries on Wutai shan),
one cannot help but conclude that the Zhang Jian-can Fawang referred to in
the irst stele and the Jian-can mentioned in the second are same person. If
this inference is correct, the mountain’s Tibetan and Chinese Buddhists were
led by a succession of Tibetan Buddhists who were installed at Yuanzhao si
starting from 1448 until at least 1538. However, the second Jiajing period
inscription also refers to an “imperially appointed commander of Wutai, in
charge of all the Tibetan and Chinese monasteries, Overseer of the Prefectural
Buddhist Registration Senggangsi dugang, concurrently residing at Da Jixiang
Xiantong si, Mingxu.” This shows that while the Tibetan Buddhist Jian-can of
33
Qingliang shan zhi, juan 4, 11b–12b; “Huangdi chiyu huchi Shanxi Wutai shan Xiantong si beiwen,”
“Huangdi chiyu Wutai shan sengsuren deng beiwen,” and “Huangdi chiyu huchi Shanxi Wutai shan Yuanzhao si beiwen,” in Cui and Wang, Wutai shan beiwen, 1, 9, 11.
34
Zhang is not necessarily a transliteration of a Tibetan name. It might indicate that this Tibetan Buddhist
monk originally had a Chinese surname, as was the case with the Lcang skya reincarnation lineage. See
Tuttle, Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China, 248–9 n. 15.
35
Qingliang shan zhi, juan 3, 2b. According to Zhen Lin, Zhang Jian-can was a Dge lugs monk and the
third abbot of Yuanzhao si. Zhen, “Yuanzhao si fojiao jianshi,” 21 (no primary source cited).
36
“Wutai shan Jinganku banruo si chongkai shan diyi dai zhuchi siyi linqi ershisi shi baoshanyu da
heshang yuanqi shixing gongde beiwen,” in Cui and Wang, Wutai shan beiwen, 235.
37
“Wutai shan Datayuan si chongxiu Ayuwang suo jian Shijiawen zhenshen sheli baota bei bing ming,”
in Cui and Wang, Wutai shan beiwen, 240.
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
83
Yuanzhao si was still “in charge of all the Chinese and Tibetan monasteries of
the mountain,” by 1538 the ofice of Overseer had been moved to Xiantong si,
and its oficiant was a monk with a Chinese name. One possible explanation
for this change is that the seat of the ofice of Overseer had been transferred
to Xiantong si in the early Jiajing period. Another possible explanation is that
this was the outcome of the inlation of ofices that started after the mid-fourteenth century and that by 1538 there was more than one overseer in charge
of the mountain.38
Fourth, the presence of Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan was almost as
publicly acknowledged in the Ming gazetteer as it was in those of the Qing,
albeit with the important difference that the Ming edition did not carry an imperial preface, whereas the Qing editions were imperially sponsored. The Ming
edition not only records that the irst copy of the Yongle Bka’ ‘gyur (printed
1410) was presented to Pusading,39 but also includes the biographies of the
abovementioned De bzhin gzhegs pa (1384–1415) and of Shākya ye shes
(1354–1435), who was dispatched to China in Tsong kha pa’s (1357–1419)
stead, and irst arrived at Wutai shan in 1414.40 The gazetteer also reproduces
prominently and in great detail the imperial correspondence and the gifts given
to Shākya ye shes at Wutai shan, such as a monk’s robe to protect the master
from the harsh winter climate at the mountain.41 Further letters and gifts sent
by the emperor to Shākya ye shes in spring 1419, summer 1421, summer 1427
(by which time the Tibetan hierarch seems to have already returned to Tibet)
are also recorded in the gazetteer.42 As regards the visit of De bzhin gshegs
pa, the gazetteer records the name of Dazhifawang Dpal ldan bkra shis who
was imperially dispatched to Central Tibet to invite him.43 The gazetteer also
On the inlation in the number of monk oficials towards the late Ming, see Ry ūchi, “Mindai no sōkan,”
45; Yü, The Renewal of Buddhism, 168–9.
Qingliang shan zhi, juan 4, 8a. Jonathan Silk translates the relevant passage from the gazetteer in his
“Notes on the History of the Yongle Kanjur,” 163–7.
40
Short biographies of Shākya ye shes may be found in Qingliang shan zhi, juan 8, 23b–24a; reprinted
in Yu Qian, Xinxu Gaosengzhuan, juan 4, 3a–b and translated into Tibetan by Lcang skya II Rol pa’i rdo
rje, Zhing mchog ri bo, 126–8. See also the partial translation of the biography into English by Sperling in
his “Early Ming Policy Toward Tibet,” 117.
41
Qingliang shan zhi, juan 4, 10a. The dating in the Qingliang shan zhi may be lawed, as it is in contradiction with Sperling’s dating which is based on the Ming Veritable Records and Cha har dge bshes Blo
bzang tshul khrims’ Rje thams cad mkhyen pa Tsong kha pa chen po’i rnam thar go sla bar brjod pa bde
legs kun gyi ‘byung gnas. Sperling, “Early Ming Policy Toward Tibet,” 152, 153, 191 n. 85, 192 n. 92.
42
Qingliang shan zhi, juan 4, 10a–11a. These dates, too, do not correspond with the dates of the missions
from the court to Shākya ye shes as recorded in the Ming Veritable Records. Sperling, “Early Ming Policy
Toward Tibet,” 153, 193, n. 93, 94.
43
Qingliang shan zhi, juan 4, 9b; juan 8, 21a–22b. In contrast to the Qingliang shan zhi, the Ming Veritable Records, as well as a reproduction of Ming Chengzu’s original letter to Kar ma pa V, record that the
eunuch Hou Xian was dispatched to summon Kar ma pa. See Toh, “Tibetan Buddhism in Ming China,”
126; Sperling, “The 1413 Ming Embassy to Tsong-kha-pa,” 106. On Dpal ldan bkra shis, see Toh, “Tibetan
Buddhism in Ming China,” 181–2, and Debreczeny, “Sino-Tibetan Artistic Synthesis in Ming Dynasty
Temples at the Core and Periphery,” 52, 68–9 n. 27–9.
38
39
84
Natalie Köhle
records an imperial correspondence in which the emperor expresses his deep
appreciation of De bzhin gshegs pa and remembers the miraculous manifestations that had appeared when the lama had carried out ritual performances at
Linggu si in Nanjing.44
Thus it is clear that almost all aspects of Qing patronage of Tibetan Buddhism had precedents in the Ming. Those differences that we do ind are that
the Ming emperors, unlike the Qing emperors, did not personally travel to the
mountain, nor did they sponsor the printing of the Ming Wutai shan gazetteer.
The imperially sponsored Qing editions of the Wutai shan gazetteer render a
very explicit portrait of the preeminence of Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan
and the ways in which it was favored by the court.45 The Ming gazetteer, too,
mentions visiting Tibetan dignitaries, and the performance of Tibetan Buddhist
rituals at Wutai shan, but, in contrast to the Qing editions, does not bring the
imperial patronage of Tibetan Buddhism to the fore. This certainly shows a
greater emphasis on the part of the Qing emperors on (the public display of)
their patronage of Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan. However, it may also relect the unequal nature of the sources: in contrast to the imperially sponsored
Qing editions which were edited by imperially appointed Tibetan Buddhists
and clearly part of the courts’ attempt to create legitimacy, the Ming edition
was a local production which was compiled by the eminent Chinese monk
Zhencheng (1547–1617) at the request of the abbot of Tayuan monastery,
Wutai shan.46 As it was a local production that was authored by a Chinese Buddhist, the Ming edition would likely put less emphasis on the prominence of
another (competing?) tradition, and on imperial patronage itself.47 Thus, when
comparing Ming and Qing patronage of Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan as
depicted in the gazetteers, it is important to keep in mind that the difference
in emphasis on the imperial patronage of Tibetan Buddhism might, at least
partly, be introduced by the different authorship of the source texts.
ii. the persistence of imperial patronage
of the chinese buddhist traditions
Notwithstanding the unevenness of the sources, it is clear that while the
Manchu emperors favored Tibetan Buddhist institutions, Qing imperial patron44
Qingliang shan xin zhi, juan 8, 21b–22a; Sperling,”Early Ming Policy Toward Tibet,” 80–2, 111 n. 24.
For a detailed desciption of this, see Tuttle, “Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan.”
46
Qingliang shan zhi, xu 2b–3a; “Yuechuan fashi zhuan,” Ming He, ed., Buxu gaoseng zhuan, juan 5,
73a–b. On Zhencheng and the compilation of the Qingliang shan zhi see also Cui Zhengsen, Wutai shan
fojiao shi, 669–75.
47
For example, in the Ming edition of the Qingliang shan zhi the section on imperial patronage forms
the fourth juan, whereas in Qingliang shan xin zhi and Qinding Qingliang shan zhi the record for Qing
imperial patronage is placed prominently in the opening section of the gazetteer.
45
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
85
age of Tibetan Buddhism had ample precedents both in the Yuan and Ming.
This should cause us to rethink how uniquely “Inner Asian” such patronage
was. Another factor to consider is that Qing imperial patronage was not limited to Tibetan Buddhism. For example, in 1698 Kangxi renovated Bishan si
and Shuxiang si, two predominantly Chinese monasteries, with 6000 taels of
gold,48 and in 1683 Kangxi “offered incense” and “worshipped the Buddha”
in “all the temples,” and “presented each monastery of the mountain with 200
taels of silver.”49 Moreover, while the recipients of exceptional gifts are in
most cases speciied to be ge-long (dge slong, fully ordained Tibetan Buddhist
monks), or monasteries of the Tibetan Buddhist traditions,50 the gazetteers
clearly state that after each imperially sponsored prayer ceremony “all the
Tibetan and Chinese monks” received imperial gifts.51 Kangxi also inscribed
approximately ifty tablets and seventeen stelae for the main monasteries
on the mountain, and these inscriptions were donated evenly to Tibetan and
Chinese Buddhist monasteries.52
A reading of the Kangxi emperor’s Chinese-language stele inscriptions
shows that while they acknowledge the presence of Tibetan Buddhists, none
of the inscriptions, not even those for monasteries of the Tibetan Buddhist
tradition, make any reference to the Tibetan Buddhist traditions or the legacy
of the Yuan emperors.53 Rather, they note the origin of the monasteries in the
Tang, and contain numerous references to the Chinese (and Indian) Buddhist
traditions. Thus, in the example of the dedication for Rāhula monastery,
the Kangxi emperor explicitly aligns his own dynasty’s patronage with that
of the “defeated dynasty” of the Ming, and expresses the hope that—under
the guidance of a Tibetan Buddhist abbot—the monastery might once again
lourish, and become the site of miraculous manifestations that it had been
during the Song:
48
Qingliang shan xin zhi, juan 3, 22a–23b, Qingliang shan jiyao, shang juan 67b–68a. Tuttle, “Tibetan
Buddhism at Wutai shan,” table 2. On Bishan si and Shuxiang si, see Zhen Lin, “Bishan si fojiao jianshi,”
3–8, and Zhu Ying, “Shuxiang si fojiao jianshi” (Brief introduction to Buddhism at Shuxiang monastery),
3–7.
49
Qingliang shan xin zhi, juan 3, 18a–19b; Qingliang shan jiyao, shang juan 65a–b, emphasis mine.
50
See, for example, Qingliang shan xin zhi, juan 3, 18a–19b; Qingliang shan jiyao, shang juan 64a–65b;
Qinding Qingliang shan zhi, juan 7, 2a–b. More research is needed to determine whether ge-long exclusively
referred to ethnic Tibetan and Mongolian Buddhists, or whether Han Chinese Tibetan Buddhists could also
be denoted by this term.
51
Qingliang shan xin zhi, juan 3, 17a, 18a–19a, 21a, 22a–23b; Qingliang shan jiyao, shang juan 63a,
64a–65a, 67b–68a; Qinding Qingliang shan zhi, juan 1, 1a, juan 7, 2a–b, emphasis mine.
52 See, for example, Qingliang shan jiyao, shang juan 60a–62b and Qinding Qingliang shan zhi, juan
1, 1a–15b. For later reprinted versions, see, among others, Zhang Yuxin, Qing zhengfu yu lamajiao (Qing
government and lamaism), 232–75; Cui and Wang, Wutai shan beiwen, 31–97.
53
It is an interesting question whether or not the Qing emperors acknowledged the Yuan precedent over and
above that of the indigenous dynasties in their Mongol- and Tibetan-language stele inscriptions. However,
these inscriptions are only found at the site of Wutai shan, and I have not had the chance to examine them.
86
Natalie Köhle
As for this Rāhula monastery, its location is near to where Mañjuśr K̄
[once] manifested himself [while] its name seems to signify the
seeking of refuge of the sixteenth western patriarch. It was founded
in the Tang, became prominent in the Song and was, subsequently,
restored by the “virtuous [prince of the] outlying province” of the
defeated dynasty (shengguo xianfan).54 Coming to the reign of the
former emperor of Our Dynasty a hall had been constructed to
provide accommodation for monks from all directions.55 Even I
myself had also favored it with calligraphy, [but] in the vicissitudes
of time, the carved beams collapsed, colors faded away, and the
inscribed calligraphies have become barely legible. Now the abbot Yuan-dan (< Yon tan) has, again, renovated and embellished it
further. A monk, according to Buddhist precepts, should not tarry
for more than three nights under the same mulberry tree. [Should
one be able] to equate that which is supported with that which has
no support56 then where on this earth is it not cool? Nonetheless it
is also the duty of a Buddhist disciple to secure a vih āra wherever
a Buddhist master passes by and educates [the people]. In the
past, upon hearing the Rāhula monastery’s bell being struck, the
monks would assemble to distinguish the Śr āvakas. The Song premier Zhang Shangyin once beheld a miraculous lamp within this
monastery.57 Now that Yuan-dan will raise [the monastery] before
it becomes defunct, perhaps the sound of the bell and the shadow
cast by the lamp will be heard and seen again? For this reason I
take up my brush and confer this record upon it.58
Continuity with the patronage of previous dynasties is also emphasized in
the gazetteers. The imperial preface for the Qingliang xin zhi notes that imperial
patronage of Wutai shan’s monasteries persisted “from the Tang up to the present day,”59 and, as Gray Tuttle points out, the chronological arrangement of the
entries in the gazetteers themselves serves to underscore this continuity.60
54
The “virtuous [prince of the] outlying province” of the defeated dynasty most likely refers to Prince
Zhaohui of the Chenghua period, whose patronage of Rāhula monastery is recorded in the gazetteers.
Qingliang shan zhi, juan 3, 3a.
55
This is a reference to the Shunzhi emperor. On the construction of this hall, see Li Shiming, “Luohou
si yu shifang tang” (Rāhula monastery and the hall of the ten directions), 29.
56
This is an allusion to the Diamond Sūtra. See Poppe, The Diamond Sutra, 59.
57
See Gimello, “Chang Shang-yin on Wu-t'ai shan.”
58
“Chongxiu Qingliang shan Luohou si Beiji,” Qinding Qingliang shan zhi, juan 1, 10a–b, reprinted in
Zhang Yuxin, Qing zhengfu yu lamajiao, 261; Kangxi di yuzhi wenji (Anthology of the Kangxi emperor’s
writings), vol. 3, juan 23, 7a–8b,1672; Zhu Ye, “Luohou si beiwen” (Stele inscriptions of Rāhula monastery), 30. On the history of Rāhula monastery, see Qingliang shan xin shi, juan 2, 10b; Qingliang shan zhi,
juan 3, 3a; Xiao Yu, “Luohou si fojiao shilu,” 6–13. References to a Tibetan Buddhist presence at Rāhula
monastery date back to the late Ming. Wang Siren (1574–1646), “You Wutai shan ji,” 7.
59
Qingliang shan xin shi, xu 2b.
60
See Tuttle, “Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan.”
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
87
The fact the Chinese-language materials emphasize the patronage of previous dynasties and the legacy of the Chinese Buddhist traditions at Wutai shan
should not be surprising. Yet it highlights an important and often overlooked
point: in contrast to Farquhar’s assertion that the main audience that the Qing
emperor’s patronage of Wutai shan was intended to address was the empire’s
Mongolian subjects, the emperors also addressed a Chinese audience.61 Laozang-dan-ba’s preface to the 1701 Qingliang shan xin shi provides further
evidence to support this view, as it refers to Kangxi as “the present emperor,
teacher of the previous seven Buddhas, who has manifested as the sage of the
ninth layer.”62 Since it was Mañjuśr K̄ who was the “teacher of the previous
seven Buddhas,” the preface contains a veiled reference to Kangxi as an emanation of the bodhisattva Mañjuśr K̄ that could easily be understood by Chinese
Buddhists.63 This reference suggests that the Qing emperors were not only
addressing a Chinese Buddhist audience, but that the image of the emperor
as an emanation of Mañjuśr K̄ was also known and (carefully) propagated in
Chinese-language publications, and must therefore have been meaningful also
for Chinese Buddhists.64
Epigraphical evidence further indicates that another central motive for early
Qing patronage of Buddhism at Wutai shan, in addition to creating legitimacy
in the eyes of Tibeto-Mongolian and Han Chinese Buddhists, was to ensure
the support of rituals for the protection of the state. These rituals continued to
be performed for the court by Wutai monks: 65
Since Our Dynasty was established, the Court annually confers
grants and gifts [on Pusading] so that it may pray for the prosperity
of the State. As its region is too secluded to be suitable for secular
activities of the four classes of people, it is it for the residence
of monks. It is desolate, remote, and very mountainous, located
somewhere within an almost uninhabited land, and too far away to
be visited by donors. And yet, under the inluence of the Teaching
of Images, offerings of provisions accumulate here from the four
directions. Those who reside here should in general also be able
61
In this respect my conclusion concurs with those reached by Tuttle in “Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai
shan.”
62
Ch. jin huangdi qiansheng qi fo zhi shi xian zai jiu chong zhi sheng. Qingliang shan xin shi, yuzhi xu,
21b. The ninth layer (jiu chong) is a reference to the emperor.
63
That Mañjuśr K̄ is the teacher of all the previous Buddhas is stated in many scriptures. See Étienne
Lamotte, who quotes a relevant passage from the Ajātaśatrukauk.rtyavinodana in his “Mañjuśr K̄,” 93–4.
To my knowledge, this phrase in the Qingliang shan xin shi is the irst written reference to the emperor as
an avatar of the bodhisattva Mañjuśr K̄ in a Chinese-language document that has been found to date.
64
This, again, contrasts with Farquhar's claims. See Farquhar, “Emperor as Bodhisattva,” 25–6.
65
For examples of late Ming rituals for the protection of the state performed at Wutai shan, vide supra,
note 27. See also Sung-peng Hsü, A Buddhist Leader in Ming China, 74; Yü, “Ming Buddhism,” 938; Cui
Zhengsen, Wutai shan fojiao shi, 669–71. For Tang precedents vide supra, note 8.
88
Natalie Köhle
to observe carefully the philosophical teachings as well as monastic disciplines, and strictly restrain minds and behaviors to attain
purity and piety, so that all together are subject to the teachings of
the Compassionate One. Then they might be compatible with the
generous patronage of the Court.66
Numerous Manchu archival documents conirm this “generous patronage”
of rituals for the protection of the state and the longevity of the imperial family.67 One record even indicates that long-life rituals were performed up to six
times a month.68 Such an abundance of references to imperial sponsorship of
rituals at Wutai shan in records that were not widely accessible suggests that
the stele inscription’s public emphasis on Wutai shan as a site for the ritual
protection of the state was not merely rhetorical, but that the rituals were
genuinely thought to be eficacious.
An intriguing passage from a 1714 stele inscription suggests that some of
these rituals for the protection of the state were, on a regular basis, jointly
performed by monks of the Tibetan and Chinese Buddhist traditions:
Every new and full moon the Qingxiu chanshi [Ding-ceng-jian-cuo
Bstan ‘dzin rgya mtsho] leads the ge-long and ban-di (ban de, Tibetan Buddhist monks) and all Tibetan and Chinese monks to ascend
to [Jingang]ku [Banruo si] in unison, to reverently offer mystic
incantations and make solemn prostrations (fengyan mizhang qiao
chi [qin] wu ti). They wish an eternally stable imperial realm and
longevity to the emperor above, and pray that the beings of the four
births and the nine existences below all cross to the other shore.69
Unfortunately, neither the stele inscriptions nor the gazetteers’ records of
the imperially sponsored prayer ceremonies tell us just what kind of rituals
66
“Yuzhi Pusading Da Wenshu yuan bei,” Qingliang shan xin shi, yuzhi beiwen, 9a–b, reprinted in Zhang
Yuxin, Qing zhengfu yu lamajiao, 241; Kangxi di yuzhi wenji, vol. 2, juan 34, 21a–b. See also the annotated
reprint by Wang Zhichao, “Wutai shan beiwen xuanzhu” (Selection of annotated Wutai shan epigraphy),
38–9. On the history of Pusading Da Wenshu yuan, see Qingliang shan zhi, juan 3, 2b; Qingliang shan
xin shi, juan 2, 9b–10a; Qinding Qingliang shan zhi, juan 10, 2a–3b; Xiao Yu, “Pusading de fojiao lishi”
(Pusading’s Buddhist history), 3–17.
67
See Tuttle, “Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan,” table 1, compiled from First Historical Archives, comp.,
Kangxichao manwen zhupi zouzhe quanyi (Translation of Manchu-language vermillion rescripts of the
Kangxi period).
68
See Tuttle, “Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan,” referring to First Historical Archives comp., Kangxichao
manwen zhupi zouzhe quanyi, 261, #460.
69
“Huang qing cifeng qingxiu chanshi tidu Wutai fan han Zha-sa-ke Da lama chongxiu Jinggangku
Banruosi gongde beiji,” Cui and Wang, Wutai shan beiwen, 346. Qingxiu chanshi Ding-ceng-jian-cuo was
Wutai shan’s fourth J̄asag Lama.
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
89
were performed by the Tibetan and Chinese monks who resided at Wutai shan.
While in some cases the records specify that a ritual was performed by ge-long,
which suggests that it must have been part of the Tibetan tradition, in most cases
the rituals are referred to by such generic terms as “long-life ritual” (yanshou
wujiang daochang),70 or “ritual for the protection of the state” (xiujian zhuguo
youmin daochang),71 which does not indicate whether they were part of the
Tibetan or Chinese Buddhist traditions. Although the terminology is similar
to that used in the description of rituals of the Ming period, the generality of
these terms does not allow the conclusion that similar rituals were performed
during the Ming and Qing dynasties. Perhaps this vagueness was intentional,
as it served in yet another way to create an appearance of continuity between
the patronage of the Qing emperors and that of earlier dynasties. It might
have also served to give an impression of commonality between practices of
the Chinese and Tibetan Buddhist traditions. However, it is also possible that
these terms only seem vague to us, because we are imagining very distinct
(Tibetan vs. Chinese Buddhist) audiences to be addressed in terms of the patronage of their respective traditions. But, as the above quoted 1714 record of
joint ritual practice by Tibetan and Chinese Buddhists suggests, it may be the
case that these two traditions were not perceived to be so far apart. The vague
description of the ritual performances in the gazetteers may indicate that it
was simply not important for the chroniclers in late imperial China to clearly
distinguish between the performance of (protective) rituals of the Chinese and
Tibetan Buddhist traditions at Wutai shan.
On this point, let me quote, once more, the observations of Hackmann, the
early twentieth-century visitor to the mountain:
The most curious feature of Buddhism on the Wutai shan is the
amalgamation of Chinese Buddhism and Lamaism. . . . Where the
two doctrines meet on Chinese ground as they do on the frontier of
Tibet, they stand apart. Lama is Lama, Hoshang [heshang, Chinese
Buddhist monk] is Hoshang as the Chinese say. But things are different on the Wutai shan. Both doctrines borrow from one another
in habits and arrangements. . . . The structure of the temples is for
the greater part Chinese, but the form of the pagodas is mostly
Indo-Tibetan. Chinese and Tibetan idols stand side by side, Tibeto70
Qingliang shan xin shi, juan 3, 18a; Qinding Qingliang shan zhi, juan 7, 2a; Qingliang shan jiyao,
shang juan 64a.
71
Qingliang shan xin shi, juan 3, 17a; Qinding Qingliang shan zhi, juan 1, 1a; Qingliang shan jiyao,
shang juan 63a. The Veritable Records, Kangxi chao qijuzhu ce (Diaries of activity and repose from the
Kangxi reign), and Daqing huidian shili do not give detailed descriptions of these rituals either.
90
Natalie Köhle
Mongolian inscriptions are next to Chinese ones, Tibetan butter
lamps, praying cylinders, also boards on which the monks throw
themselves for prayer, all such things are seen here in Chinese
temples. In their services, too, one style blends with the other.72
At least one further reference indicates that the early Qing emperors did
not themselves entertain, or publicly promote, the notion of an exclusive association between Tibetan Buddhism and Wutai shan. For at the same time
in 1659 that the Shunzhi emperor sent A-wang-lao-zang to preside over the
mountain’s Chinese and Tibetan Buddhist affairs, he also entertained close
relations with a number of Chan masters, and sent one of them, Maoxi chanshi (1614–77) to Wutai shan. Maoxi’s biography, which clearly states that he
was favored by Shunzhi, was also included in one of the imperially sponsored
Wutai shan gazetteers.73
What seems clear from a reading of the Kangxi period stele inscriptions,
and the Qing editions of the gazetteer, is that the level of patronage of monasteries and rituals of both the Tibetan and Chinese Buddhist traditions was
considerably elevated under the Qing. This increase in imperial patronage of
Buddhism at Wutai shan corresponds to an overall increase in the patronage of
religious institutions under the Qing,74 but also indicates that Wutai shan igured
much more prominently in Qing imperial ideology than that of the Ming. The
Qing emperors’ inscriptions at Wutai shan not only outnumber those of the
Ming emperors, but differ in content. The Ming emperors’ inscriptions are
proclamations that mark particular events, such as an imperial order to protect
a monastery or an imperially sponsored restoration of a building, and, for the
most part, do not align Ming patronage with that of preceding dynasties.75 In
72
Hackmann, A German Scholar in the East, 118–9. See also the original passage in Hackmann, Welt
des Ostens, 237–8. Similar observations were made by Emil Fischer, in his The Sacred Wu Tai Shan, 10.
Of course, both accounts are from a much later date than the period discussed in this essay.
73
Qingliang shan zhi, juan 8, 27a–28b. Since Maoxi chanshi’s biography is dated 1734, it could only
have been added to the 1755 recarving of the 1661 edition of the Qingliang shan zhi (I was not able to
consult the 1661 edition). Maoxi chanshi was a disciple of the National Preceptor Yulin Tongxiu guoshi
(1614–75). On the Shunzhi emperor’s interest in Chan Buddhism and his wish to be tonsured by Maoxi,
see especially Liu Er, “Yulu yu Shunzhi gongting.” On Shunzhi’s interest in Chan, see also Chen Yuan,
Qing chu seng zheng ji (Record of monastic disputes of the early Qing); Jiang Weiqiao, Zhongguo fojiao
shi (A history of Chinese Buddhism), 325–6. On Yulin Tongxiu guoshi, see Guo Peng, Zhongguo fojiao
shi (A history of Chinese Buddhism), 324–8, and Ming-Qing fojiao (Ming and Qing Buddhist history),
322–29. According to Cui, the myth that Shunzhi faked his death in order to become a monk at Wutai shan
originated in the Shunzhi emperor’s having dispatched Maoxi to Wutai shan while preparing to take the
tonsure (Cui Zhengsen, Wutai shan fojiao shi, 705–9). This legend, in turn, led to the popular myth that
Kangxi had gone to Wutai shan in order to visit “Shun Chih, his father, the irst Emperor of the Manchus,
who gave up his imperial power, and who had retired and lived for 30 years a Priest on Mount Wutai.”
Fischer, The Sacred Wu Tai Shan, 19.
74
See Naquin, Peking, 316, 331–2.
75
The Ming stele inscriptions are reproduced in Cui and Wang, Wutai shan beiwen, 1–30.
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
91
contrast, most of the Kangxi emperor’s inscriptions do not record speciic
events, but make a clear effort to draw on the legacy of the longstanding history of previous dynasties’ involvement with Wutai shan. This greater concern
on the part of the Qing emperors with the creation of legitimacy through the
patronage of Buddhism at Wutai shan is also suggested by the Qing emperors’
personal tours to the mountain, to which I now turn.
iii. multiple meanings of the Kangxi emperor’s Western tours
Altogether the Kangxi emperor personally visited Wutai shan ive times:
twice in 1683, and again in 1698, 1702, and 1710. Following Farquhar, in
much of contemporary scholarship these imperial tours to Wutai shan are referred to as “pilgrimages,”76 and in the case of the second tour, during which
the Kangxi emperor accompanied his aging Mongolian grandmother on her
pilgrimage to Wutai shan, such a description seems apt.77 For this tour, it is
recorded that the emperor prohibited his retinue from taking life while in the
mountain precincts,78 that he “reverently sponsored a ritual for three days,”
“worshipped respectfully” in Pusading, and “prayed on behalf of his grandmother in all the monasteries.”79 The Wutai shan gazetteers even record that
one of Mañjuśr K̄’s apparitions, for which Wutai shan is famous, could be seen
during the imperial visit:
Only at the Western Terrace there was an auspicious, ive colored,
and majestic appearance of the bodhisattva. [When] the imperial
carriage arrived at Middle Peak, the place was mysterious and
among all the princes and imperial guardsmen, as well as oficials
serving in the capital and in the outer provinces, there was no one
who did not praise it.80
76
Farquhar, “Emperor As Bodhisattva,” 29; Rawski, The Last Emperors, 260; Chang, “A Court on
Horseback” (2001), 130, 133; Tuttle, “Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan”; Symons, “Qianlong on the Road,”
56.
77
The Diaries of Activity and Repose explicitly state that Kangxi embarked on his second tour to Wutai
shan because he wanted to fulill the Grand Empress Dowager’s longstanding wish to worship at the temples
there. By contrast, one of the Kangxi emperor’s reasons for undertaking his irst tour to the mountain was
to prepare the road for his grandmother’s trip. Kangxi chao qijuzhu ce, 1073. See also Spence, Emperor of
China, 104.
78
Kangxi chao qijuzhu ce, 1070; Veritable Records, juan 112, 151a.
79
Qingliang shan xin shi, juan 3, 19a–b, Qingliang shan jiyao, shang juan 65a–b; Kangxi chao qijuzhu
ce, 1072–74; Veritable Records, juan 112, 152b–153a.
80
Qingliang shan xin shi, juan 3, 19 a. Mañjuśr K̄ frequently appears at Wutai shan illuminated by ivecolored light. On Wutai shan as a privileged site for the appearance of unusual cloud formations and the
bodhisattva Mañjuśr K̄, see Gimello, “Wu-t’ai shan during the Early Chin Dynasty,” 529, and “Chang
Shang-yin on Wu-t’ai Shan,” 133–4 n. 33; Birnbaum, “Light in the Wutai Mountains,” 195–226. On the
light symbolism of Mañjuśr K̄ see C. Wong, “A Reassessment of the Representation of Mt. Wutai from
Dunhuang Cave 61,” 33–4.
92
Natalie Köhle
In Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje’s edition of the gazetteer, this manifestation is
explicitly described as a result of the emperor’s prayers:
The Kangxi emperor renovated all old temples and monasteries.
He personally came to make pilgrimage, and, after worshipping,
made costly gifts to the samgha.
In particular, at the time when he
.
prayed on behalf of his mother, a light of ive colors appeared above
the western mountain. Thereupon, the Venerable One showed his
body, and, it was seen, unfading, until the emperor had arrived at
Middle Peak.81
However, if Kangxi’s tours are examined in more detail, it soon becomes
clear that the records of the tours he undertook on other occasions, without his
grandmother, contain few descriptions of religious activities and no injunctions against consumption of meat or the taking of life. Moreover, patronizing temples and sponsoring rituals were only two of the many activities
performed by the emperor on his tours to Wutai shan, as Kangxi took part in
a wide range of activities with dissimilar ideological resonances. He not only
inscribed stelae and tablets for monasteries, but also composed and enjoyed
classical Chinese poetry together with his retinue,82 sacriiced to Confucius,83
appraised local oficials,84 displayed his benevolence to local people, had a
county student recite from the Classics,85 inspected waterways and dike works,86
competed with and trained his sons and imperial guardsmen in archery,87 and
81
Lcang skya II Rol pa'i rdo rje, Zhing mchog ri bo, 204–5. See also the (recent) translation of the Tibetan
gazetteer into modern Chinese: Wang Lu, “Shengdi Qingliang shan zhi” (Guide to the sacred land of Wutai
shan), 45.
82
See, for example, the description in Gao Shiqi's travel diary which records that the retinue was reading
a verse from a poem of Yuan Haowen (1190–1257) while ascending Middle Peak: “[A couplet] of Yuan
Haowen's poem reads 'The wind of the peaks forcefully clears shady mists, the sunny and clear sky opens
vistas in the four directions. This truly is the visage of the [Wu]tai mountains, how could it be possible that
Master Po did not come here!' While we were ascending [Middle Peak], we read [these lines] so much as to
feel majestic.” (Gao Shiqi, Hucong xixun rilu [Following in the retinue of the (Kangxi emperor’s) Western
tour], 1159b–60a). Gao Shiqi quotes here from the fourth couplet of Yuan Haowen’s “Song of [Wu] Taishan
in Sixteen Verses.” Master Po is a reference to reference to Dongpo, the hao of Su Shi (1037–1101). See
Zhao Lin’en, Wutai shan shi ge zongji (General anthology of Wutai shan poems), vol. 2, 81–5. The poems
written by the Kangxi emperor himself were prominently included in some of the Qing editions of the
gazetteer (Qingliang shan xin shi, xu 15a–17a; Qinding Qingliang shan zhi, juan 2, 1a–3b). For annotated
reprints of the Kangxi emperor’s poems, and the poems of the accompanying imperial princes Yunreng
and Yinzhen, the future Yongzheng emperor, see Zhao Lin’en, Wutai shan shi ge zongji, 405–13, 464–70,
and Qingchao huangdi yong Wutai (Qing emperors singing about Mt. Wutai), 13–22, 30–37.
83
Veritable Records, juan 187, 5b.
84
Kangxi chao qiijuzhu ce, 961; Veritable Records, juan 107, 94–1.
85
Gao Shiqi, Hucong xixun rilu, 1155b. For similar occurrences during the Southern Tours, see Chang,
A Court on Horseback (2007), 265–71.
86
Veritable Records, juan 207, 10b–11a.
87
Veritable Records, juan 207, 6b–7a.
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
93
even engaged in hunting himself! In fact, Kangxi’s swift killing of a tiger that
had menaced local people, pilgrims, and merchants at Changcheng ling road,
appears to be the most widely reproduced scene of all of Kangxi’s tours to
Wutai shan.88 The memorial of the Shanxi governor, Mu-er-sai (< Mursai),
and the surveillance commissioner Ku-er-kang (< Kurkang), requesting the
bestowal of a place name by the emperor in commemoration of the event, is
recorded in the Veritable Records,89 and in Gao Shiqi’s Hucong xixun rilu;90
two stele inscriptions by Mu-er-sai that treat this incident are included in the
Qianlong edition of the gazetter;91 the event was further commemorated by the
construction of the abovementioned imperially sponsored (Tibetan Buddhist)
monastery, Tailu si, at “Tiger Shot Stream” (Shehu chuan), which was the new
name given to the site of the tiger killing;92 and stele inscriptions bestowed on
Tailu si by Kangxi also refer to this event,93 as does a poem written by a contemporary monk, Chao Kui, that was immediately included in the new edition
of the gazetteer.94 The Qianlong emperor, too, wrote poems about the history
of the site, and included them in the Qianlong period edition of the text.95
It is possible—even likely—that, since the only day-to-day records of
Kangxi’s tours are Confucian court annals and a travel diary of a Confucian
minister, this emphasis on worldly activities is a distortion brought about by the
authors and the nature of the sources.96 However, even if we may assume that
88
Veritable Records, juan 107, 93b; Kangxi chao qijuzhu ce, 961. Gao Shiqi, Hucong xixun rilu, 1163b;
Spence, Emperor of China, 10; Wen-shing Chou, “Ineffable Paths,” 123–4. The killing took place during
the irst tour, undertaken in 1683.
89
Kangxi chao qijuzhu ce, 961; Veritable Records, juan 107, 94a. Chang translates the relevant passage
from the Kangxi chao qijuzhu ce in A Court on Horseback (2007), 84–5.
90
Gao Shiqi, Hucong xixun rilu, 163b.
91
“Shehu chuan beiji” and “Shenwu quan beiji,” Qinding Qingliang shan zhi, juan 19, 18a–20a.
92
Qinding Qingliang shan zhi, juan 1, 8b–9b.
93
“Shehu chuan Tailusi bei,” bestowed by the emperor in direct response to the killing, and “Tailu si bei”
which also mentions the incident. Zhang Yuxin, Qing zhengfu yu lamajiao, 242–3, 259–60.
94
Qingliang shan xin zhi, juan 10, 16a; see also the annotated reprint in Zhao Lin’en, Wutai shan shi ge
zongji, 447–8.
95
Qinding Qingliang shan zhi, juan 4, 4a–5b; juan 5, 16b, juan 6, 3a. See also the annotated reprints of
these poems in Zhao Lin’en, Wutai shan shi ge zongji, 501, 522, 566, and Qingchao huangdi yong Wutai,
41, 67, 89, 110, 132.
96
For example, the above described manifestation of Mañjuśr K̄, which, as the gazetteer records, was
praised by “all the princes, imperial guardsmen, as well as oficials serving in the capital and in the outer
provinces,” is not mentioned in any of these oficial sources. The sources are the Veritable Records, the
Kangxi chao qijuzhu ce (only covering the irst and second tour) and Hucong xixun rilu, a day-to-day account of the Kangxi emperor’s irst tour to Wutai shan in 1683 written by one of the emperor’s favorite
literati and minister, Gao Shiqi. Gao Shiqi’s biography may be found in Arthur Hummel’s Eminent Chinese
of the Ch’ing Period (1644–1912), 413–5. The entry on Gao Shiqi notes that he “often lingered with the
emperor till late night, helping him in calligraphy and poetry.” On Gao Shiqi, see also Silas Wu, Passage
to Power, 42–3. It is interesting to note that in the Veritable Records the entries for some days of the tour
to Wutai shan are completely missing. For example, one of the missing days is the day after the emperor’s
94
Natalie Köhle
religiosity played a greater role for the emperor than extant sources divulge,
is it, in view of the above described array of polyvalent activities, useful to
think of the emperor’s tours to Wutai shan as “pilgrimages”?
Answering this question is dificult, since, although pilgrimage was widely
practiced in late imperial China, there exists neither a Buddhist term, nor a
deinition of this activity which would allow analysis according to emic categories.97 Discussing this issue based on Victor Turner’s model of pilgrimage as a
liminal state98 (a theoretical concept widely applied in the comparative study
of pilgrimage in monotheistic religions) is also dificult, since this model has
proven to be of limited use for the study of East Asian pilgrimages. As Susan
Naquin and Chün-fang Yü note, in the case of China this is due mainly to the
different nature of records of religious travel in the Chinese Buddhist and the
Christian traditions respectively. Whereas in the corpus of pilgrimage records
in the Christian traditions (on the basis of which Turner developed his model)
descriptions of pilgrimage as process abound, in China such descriptions of
pilgrimage as a journey (as opposed to descriptions of the pilgrimage destinations) are almost non-existent. Therefore, while there is a substantial body
of data on the history of pilgrimage sites, we are not as well served by what
is said about what pilgrims actually did during their tours to and from these
places.99 This problematic extends to the case in point, the Kangxi emperor’s
tours to Wutai shan: even though Gao Shiqi’s Hucong xixun rilu is a document
that focuses explicitly on the imperial tour to Wutai shan, it mostly consists of
quotations which are culled from the records of local gazetteers.
Naquin and Yü further argue that it is wrong to carry over the distinction
between the sacred and the profane (which, they note, only seems natural in
the three great monotheistic traditions) into the study of East Asian religions.100
In order to “study pilgrimage cross-culturally, scholars have had to shake off
arrival at Rāhula monastery (Veritable Records, juan 241, 399a). Might it be the case that during this day
the emperor was participating in rituals and receiving empowerments at this (Tibetan Buddhist) monastery,
and that these were activities that were not taken down in the Veritable Records?
97
See Naquin and Yü, “Pilgrimage in China,” 5, 11, 15; Pei-yi Wu, “An Ambivalent Pilgrim to T'ai Shan
in the Seventeenth Century,” 65; Birnbaum, “Thoughts on T'ang Buddhist Mountain Traditions and Their
Context,” 10, 21 n. 6.
98
Turner, “Pilgrimage and Communitas”; Turner and Turner, Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture.
99
Naquin and Yü, “Pilgrimage in China,” 6–8; Dott, Identity Relections, 9. See also Birnbaum, “Thoughts
on T’ang Buddhist Mountain Traditions and their Context,” 10, 21–2 n.7; Pei-yi Wu, “An Ambivalent Pilgrim
to T’ai Shan in the Seventeenth Century,” 66–8. In his study of Wutai shan during the early Jin Dynasty,
Gimello alludes to Turner’s notion of liminality to describe the location of the mountain as a place that is
particularly conducive to mystical experience. This shift of Turner’s concept from the notion of liminal
state to a notion of liminal place is an example of meaningful use of Turner’s ideas in the case of China.
See Gimello, “Wutai shan during the Early Chin Dynasty,” 503, 554–5 n. 2.
100
Naquin and Yü, “Pilgrimage in China,” 4. See also Dott, Identity Relections, 204, 315 n. 23.
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
95
the inluence of Western religions—with their clear deinitions of religion and
believer, identiiable acts of worship, and assumption of hardship as part of
the pilgrimage journey” and accepted for comparison “any journey to a sacred
place to perform some religious act.”101 In consequence, following this broad
deinition of pilgrimage, Naquin and Yü include the ancient pre-Buddhist imperial practice of touring the empire’s sacred peaks as one instance of a Chinese
“pilgrimage-like activity” in the introduction to their volume.102
Indeed, I think that it is precisely this contextualization of the Kangxi
emperor’s journeys in the tradition of imperial touring that is key to an understanding of the emperor’s ideologically dissimilar activities on his western
tours. Early instances of the practice of imperial touring can be (and were by
the Qing emperors) traced back to examples in the Book of Changes, the Book
of Documents, the Liji and the Rites of Zhou. The irst historical emperor who
embarked on an imperial tour of inspection was Qin Shihuangdi (r. 221–209
BCE). Following that, emperors of the Qin, Han, Sui, and Tang dynasties frequently embarked on such tours before the practice was abandoned in Central
China in line with the increasing bureaucratization of the empire that began
during the Song. In contrast, imperial touring continued to be practiced as an
integral part of government in the northern traditions of the Liao, Jurchen, and
Jin, as well as under the Mongol Yuan and the early Ming emperors.103
As imperial tours of inspection were taken up again by the Qing emperors,
Kangxi’s western tours were only one part of a larger project of imperial touring
of the empire, and the tours were modeled after (Han) Chinese as well as Inner
Asian styles of rulership.104 Moreover, the timing of the irst series of Kangxi’s
tours, undertaken shortly after the consolidation of the empire in the wake of
the suppression of the Three Feudatories in 1683, shows that the tours were
also designed as tours of victory over the newly consolidated realm.105
In his study of the Qing emperors’ Southern Tours, Michael Chang argues
that the dovetailing of Han and Inner Asian modes of ruling within the single
101
Naquin and Yü, “Pilgrimage in China,” 3. “Sacred place” here is deined as a place “where the power
of a deity is manifest, places that are ling (numinous, eficacious).” Naquin and Yü, “Pilgrimage in China,”
11.
102
Naquin and Yü, “Pilgrimage in China,” 14. Howard Wechsler similarly notes the resemblance of
imperial tours of inspection to pilgrimage. Wechsler, Offerings of Jade and Silk, 163.
103
Chang, A Court on Horseback (2007), 34–71; Robson, “Imagining Nanyue,” 46; Wechsler, Offerings
of Jade and Silk, 161–9; Naquin and Yü, Pilgrims and Sacred Sites in China, 13; Magnin, “Les Pèlerinages
dans le Bouddhisme Chinois,” 295.
104
Wutai shan did not, however, form part of the circuit of the previous imperial tours of inspection, which
centered on the four (later ive) marchmounts. On the marchmounts vs. the “four famous [Buddhist] Mountains,” see Robson, “Imagining Nanyue,” 35–100; Kleeman, “Mountain Deities in China,” 226–30.
105
See Spence, Ts’ao Yin and the K’ang-hsi Emperor, 125; Kessler, K’ang-hsi and the Consolidation of
Ch’ing Rule, 1661–1684, 75–111; Chang, A Court on Horseback (2007), 81.
96
Natalie Köhle
practice of imperial touring made this practice capable of “generating meanings within a variety of different social formations.”106 According to Chang it
was precisely this “multivalent” quality of imperial touring that allowed the
rulers to use it as a means to simultaneously address the culturally different
populations of the empire.
Chang critiques the previous scholarship which has tended to view the
Southern Tours as exclusively directed towards a Han Chinese audience and
approached them as “phenomenon sui generis to be analyzed in isolation,” as
well as the tendency of (some) New Qing historians who, while recognizing
that Qing imperial ideology was composed of culturally different constituencies, continue to study them as separate phenomena.107
Such a reductive “one-to-one instrumentalism,” argues Chang, “overlooks
Crossley’s insight into the ‘simultaneity’ of universal emperorship.”108 According to him, “tours of inspection were intended to make the court simultaneously
comprehensible to a heterogeneous, not a homogenous, audience of imperial
subjects that included Manchu, Mongol, Muslim Uigur, Han, and even Tibetan
and Kazakh subjects.”109
Chang’s argument is useful in trying to understand the multiple ideological
resonances of Kangxi’s Western Tours to Wutai shan. Seen not as a “Tibetan
Buddhist pilgrimage” that only addresses the Mongolian population of the
empire, but rather as “pilgrimage” in the broad deinition as introduced by
Naquin and Yü, or viewed simply as the western part of a series of ideologically polyvalent tours, seemingly incoherent and ideologically contradictory
actions of the emperor, such as practicing archery while descending the sacred
mountain, begin to make sense.110
Thus, when the emperor shows concern for an impoverished local county
student, chastises local oficials for extorting provisions from the local population, and inspects the local infrastructure such as waterways and dike works, he
shows himself in the role of a benevolent Confucian monarch to his Han Chinese
subjects; and when he and his retinue recite and write poetry that extols the
beauty of the mountain, they partake in a time-honored activity of the (Confucian
106
Chang, A Court on Horseback (2007), 27, and “A Court on Horseback” (2001), 113.
Chang, “A Court on Horseback” (2001), 22, and A Court on Horseback (2007), 27.
108
Chang, “A Court On Horseback” (2001), 31.
109
Chang, “A Court On Horseback” (2001), 33, emphasis in the original.
110
As mentioned above, apart from a few prescriptive documents, we neither have information on how
Chinese Buddhists conceptualized pilgrimage, nor on what they actually did during their journeys to and
from religious sites. At the very least, however, it seems safe to say that hunting and the practice of archery
would certainly not be part of a Buddhist pilgrimage. On dietary restrictions placed on Wutai pilgrims and
their retinue while on the mountain precincts, see Gimello,“Chang Shang-yin on Wu-t'ai Shan,” 103, 132
n. 28.
107
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
97
and Daoist) literati elite.111 In order to ensure appreciation of and enthusiastic
response to his actions, Kangxi even enforced local participation:
Statutes of 1675 had laid down that whenever the Emperor traveled
through an area, all oficials living within a hundred li must come
and welcome him; those failing to do so were to forfeit one year’s
salary for the irst offence, on the second offence they were to be
lowered two grades and transferred. These statutes were enforced
in 1684 by oficials from the Court of State Cermonial [sic], who
rode out ahead of the cortege ordering all oficials within a hundred
li to assemble the local elite (hsiang-shen) and scholar-commoners (shih-min) in their area to kneel and greet the Emperor on his
arrival and departure.112
Contrary to this, when we see the emperor hunting and competing with
his retinue in martial skills, he displays his excellence in one of the prime
virtues of the “Manchu Way” before a different group of admirers.113 Farquhar
was also correct when he concluded that by journeying to the mountain the
Qing emperors sought to reinforce the emperor-Mañjuśr K̄ connection in the
eyes of their Mongolian subjects, and communicate to them their support of
Buddhism. Apart from sponsoring the production of a number of Mongolian
editions of the Wutai shan gazetteer, in 1698 Kangxi also took with him on
his third tour the newly surrendered Kokonor Ölöd Mongol nobles Bkrašis
bagatur, Tüsiyetü dayičing, Namčar erdeni, Punčug tayiǰi,114 the irst Rje btsun
dam pa Khutukhtu (1635–1723).115
Although they were undoubtedly an impressive spectacle for people who
witnessed them up close, the tours of inspection served as more than just
On literati and mountains see Dott, Identity Relections, 194–224; Demiéville, «La montagne dans l’art
littéraire chinois.»
112
Spence, Ts’ao Yin and the K’ang-hsi Emperor, 126, speaking of the Kangxi emperor’s southern
tours.
113
On Manchus and hunting, see Elliott, The Manchu Way, 57–8, 183–7, and Elliott and Ning Chia, “The
Qing Hunt at Mulan,” 66–69.
114
Veritable Records, juan, 187, 1b, 7a–b; Sagaster, Subud Erike, 117.
115
Ye shes thub bstan (19th cent.), Khyab bdag ‘khor lo’i Mgon po Rje btsun dam pa Blo bzang bstan
pa’i rgyal mtshan gyi rnam thar (Biography of Rje btsun dam pa’i rgyal mtshan), 41b. I thank Vladimir
Uspensky for this citation and for sending me a copy of the text. On this biography, see Sh. Bira, Mongolian Historical Literature of the XVII-XIX Centuries Written in Tibetan, 57–58. See also Uspensky, “The
Legislation Relating to the Tibetan Buddhist Establishments at Wutai shan”; Bawden, The Jebtsundamba
Khutukhtus of Urga, 58; Chen Lu, Menggu yishi (Unoficial history of Mongolia), 514–5; Cheng Chongde
and Shen Xiaoting, Qingdai Menggu gaosengzhuan yiji (Translated collection of biographies of eminent
Mongol monks of the Qing period), 231. These are all rather late sources and may not be reliable. Moreover,
Chen’s source may be corrupt as it records that the Rje btsun dam pa accompanied the Kangxi emperor
twice to Wutai shan, in 1689 and 1698, even though there was no imperial tour to the mountain in 1689.
111
98
Natalie Köhle
a display of palpable imperial presence; they also helped in a much more
concrete way to create a connection between the alien rulers and the Chinese
soil. As the emperor traveled the country, his actions were both remembered
and recorded, and thus became part of local lore. In one case, a site along
the imperial itinerary where the emperor had shot three arrows, was named
“Three Arrow Mountain” (San jian shan).116 The erection of stelae and naming
of a site as “Tiger Shot Stream,” in commemoration of the emperor’s killing
of a tiger, mentioned earlier, is another case in point.117 Gao Shiqi’s Hucong
xixun rilu may also be read in this way, since by combining quotations from
local gazetteers with a description of Kangxi’s actions, a connection between
Kangxi and the previous emperors is established in the reader’s mind.118 It
certainly is not coincidental that Gao Shiqi and Zhu Yizun (1629–1709),119 two
eminent literati, accompanied the emperor on his irst tour and left records of
the journey in highly sophisticated classical Chinese — all of these activities
illustrate what Peter Perdue calls “the determination of the king to mark the
expanse of his territory with his personal presence.”120
Even Kangxi’s bestowal of the above-quoted stele inscriptions takes on
additional meaning if one bears in mind that many of the stelae had been inscribed during Kangxi’s irst inspection of the newly conquered empire, and
that most of them were donated on the occasion of the emperor’s personal
visits to Wutai shan. All eulogies, they describe the origin of the monasteries
on Wutai shan (which, in some cases, they even push back to the legendary
introduction of Buddhism to China at the time of Han Mingdi [58–75 CE]),
and extol the beautiful scenery of the mountain. Not surprisingly, few stelae
116
Gao Shiqi, Hucong xixun rilu, 1164a; Qinding Qingliang shan zhi, juan 4, 9b–10a, 42b, juan 5, 3a–b,
16b–17a, juan 6, 1a–b.
117
“Tiger Shot Stream” even crops up in a contemporary Tibetan record, where mention is made of a
certain Da Lama Bkra shis yar 'phel of Shee hu chon (< Shehu chuan). Thu'u bkwan II Ngag dbang chos
kyi rgya mtsho, Ri bo rtse lnga’i gzhi bdag rnams la bsang mchod ‘pul tshul legs tshogs lhun grub (The
way of offering to Mt. Wutai local gods that is called “heaps of what is good come about spontaneously”),
5b. See also the depiction of the Kangxi emperor’s killing of the tiger on a map that was printed from a
set of wood blocks carved in 1846 by a Mongol lama at Cifu si, Wutai shan. Rubin Museum of Art, Wutai
shan Interactive Map, and Wen-shing Chou, “Ineffable Paths,” 124. On the signiicance of Three Arrow
Mountain, Tiger Shot Stream, and the Kangxi emperor’s “presence in the landscape more than a hundred
years after he visited Wutaishan,” see also Wen-shing Chou, “Ineffable Paths,”123–4.
118
Hucong xixun rilu was published by Gao Shiqi around 1700, in a collection of his writings entitled
Qingyin tang ji.
119
Zhu Yizun authored a number of poems about Kangxi's western tour and Wutai shan. See Wutai shan
shi ge zongji, 417–20; Qinding Qingliang shan zhi, juan 20, 10b. He was a renowned scholar and poet.
At the time of Kangxi’s irst western tour he had already helped editing the oficial history of the Ming
dynasty, published several literary collections, was serving in the imperial study and living inside Di’an
men. See his biographies in Hummel, Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period, 182–5 and Wang Zhonghan,
Qing shi lie zhuan (Qing period biographies), 5776–7.
120
Perdue, China Marches West, 422.
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
99
were erected to record speciic historical events. This suggests that the tablets
and stele inscriptions, as much as they were ostentatious religious patronage
directed at a Mongol and Chinese Buddhist audience, were also intended to be
the Qing emperor’s superscription of the stelae of previous dynasties, a sign
of the Kangxi emperor’s taking possession of this sacred site which, though
remote in location, was one of the ritual centers of the newly conquered empire.121 This is not to say that, once erected, these imperially inscribed stelae
did not also add to the sanctity of the mountain. In a sense, since the Kangxi
emperor himself was, by the Tibeto-Mongolian world and in certain circles of
Chinese Buddhists, regarded as an emanation of Mañjuśr K̄, these inscriptions
were a powerful sign of the continued tangible presence of the bodhisattva at
the site of Wutai shan. In Robert Gimello’s words, the imperial inscriptions
became “points at which the secular and sacred orders of meaning and power
intersect, . . . junctures of the mundane and the transmundane.”122
Considering such skillful manipulation of the empire’s constituencies by
means of imperial touring, is it appropriate to conclude with Brian Dott, that
the Qing emperors were “intent on transforming not themselves but sacred
spaces”?123 In other words, does a careful consideration of the politics of imperial touring disprove Berger’s suggestion that the Kangxi emperor might,
among other objectives, have also followed a religious pursuit? I would suggest
it does not. First, it is obvious that pilgrims can (and certainly do when they
are performing such complex roles as, in Chang’s sense, truly simultaneous
rulership as sage-king, cakravartin, and qagan) have multiple identities which
entail that they have multiple, and even mutually contradictory, expectations of
their pilgrimage.124 In this light, the search for the “real face” vs. the “façade”
of the Qing emperors seems somehow misplaced.125 Second, Mahāyāna Buddhism in general, and the performance of esoteric Buddhist ritual in particular,
is based on recursive cosmology; that is to say, a cosmology in which the world
of samsāra
and the world of nirvana are one, which leads to the possibility of
.
simultaneous achievement of mundane and transmundane goals through the
practice of esoteric ritual:126
121
The new Qing editions of the Wutai shan gazetteer are another example of religious patronage which,
at the same time, serves as the superscription of, and a means to create a link with, the history of previous
dynasties.
122
Gimello, “In Praise of 'Material Forms,'” 2.
123
Dott, Identity Relections, 227, speaking of Taishan.
124
Dott makes this point himself in reference to ordinary pilgrims to Taishan. Dott, Identity Relections,
10.
125
By the same token, such an argument implies that prima facie Tibetan Buddhism did not necessarily
take absolute precedence over other imperial ideologies of the Qing.
126
Orzech, Politics and Transcendent Wisdom, 30.
100
Natalie Köhle
The ultimate soteriological element of Esoteric ritual is “identiication,” or the generation of the adept in the body of the divinity for
the purpose of insight into emptiness. Nevertheless, most rites . . .
focus on the effect of such identiication in the world. Thus most
rituals are apotropaic, and the adept, acting as the divinity, secures
various sorts of blessings for a community. . . . Indeed the two
kinds of siddhi may be considered the ritual realization of the Two
Truths, a realization in which the adept simultaneously becomes
“world renouncer” and “world conqueror.”127
In such a cosmology, any kind of pilgrimage, patronage, and performance of
ritual, even with the intention to attain otherworldy goals, would be expected
also to have worldly effects. Conversely, it is wrong to argue that because
the western tours were undertaken with mundane intentions, they therefore
necessarily have to be seen merely as a cynical manipulation of the empire’s
Mongol constituency on the emperor’s part. Mundane and supramundane goals
are not necessarily mutually contradictory.128 In line with Buddhist cosmology
it is therefore possible to amend Dott’s words and allow for the possibility
that by transforming themselves the emperors transformed sacred spaces and
by extension the whole empire.
conclusions
In answer to the three issues raised at the outset of this essay—1) Was the
patronage of Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan particular to the rule of conquest
elites? (2) Did the Qing also patronize Chinese Buddhism ? (3) Why did the
Kangxi emperor personally travel to Wutai shan?—I suggest the following
tentative conclusions.
The above evidence calls into question the argument made by New Qing
historians which posits that patronage of Tibetan Buddhism was one of the
deining characteristics of conquest dynasties. At least in the case of Wutai
shan—a case often invoked as a demonstration of the Qing emperors’ particular attention to Tibetan Buddhism129—it would seem that this claim has to be
modiied. Although their patronage of Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan eclipsed
that of the preceding dynasty, most aspects of Qing patronage of Tibetan Buddhism at the mountain were already present during the Ming.130
127
Orzech, Politics and Transcendent Wisdom, 152.
See, for example, the above quoted 1714 stele inscription which refers to bi-weekly prayer assemblies
which were at the same time conducted to ensure the stability of the empire and to cause all sentient beings
to attain nirvana. “Huang qing cifeng qingxiu chanshi tidu Wutai fan han Zha-sa-ke Da Lama chongxiu
Jinggangku Banruosi gongde beiji,” Cui and Wang, Wutai shan beiwen, 346.
129
See, for example, Rawski, The Last Emperors, 253; Waley-Cohen, “The New Qing History,” 199.
130
Such a conclusion is also implied by the indings of Toh in his “Tibetan Buddhism in Ming China.”
128
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
101
Of course, it is not known whether Tibetan or Chinese Buddhists were in
charge of the mountain after 1538, and there is no evidence of Ming patronage of Tibetan Buddhism on Wutai shan after the Zhengde reign (1506–21).
This lack of evidence may suggest that patronage of Tibetan Buddhism had
lapsed toward the late Ming. Therefore it might still be possible to argue that,
despite the similarity of their patronage patterns, the Qing emperors were still
following the precedent of the Yuan rather than that of the Ming.131 However,
references to preceding Chinese dynasties in the Qing gazetteers and stele
inscriptions, such as the invocation of the “defeated dynasty” of the Ming
in the Kangxi emperor’s inscription for Rāhula monastery, suggests that the
early Qing emperors were clearly aware of the Ming Dynasty’s patronage of
Buddhism at the mountain. These references, together with the absence of
references to the Yuan Dynasty in the Kangxi emperor’s Chinese-language
stele inscriptions, also suggest that the Qing emperors consciously wanted
to project an appearance of continuity between their patronage of Buddhist
institutions at Wutai shan and that of the Ming, at least to a Chinese audience.
It is possible that the Qing emperors may have highlighted Yuan precedents
when they were addressing an Inner Asian audience, but a discussion of this
question will require the examination of the Mongol-, Tibetan-, and Manchulanguage stele inscriptions at the site of Wutai shan.
There is also evidence that, at least during the early Qing, the emperors,
while clearly favoring Tibetan Buddhist monks, sponsored monasteries of both
the Tibetan and Chinese Buddhist traditions.132 Moreover, there are strong indications that, in addition to appealing to a Tibeto-Mongolian audience, the early
Qing emperors made efforts to address Chinese Buddhists, and even propagated
the image of the emperor as an emanation of Mañjuśr K̄ among them.
Since the Kangxi emperor’s public stele inscriptions emphasize the Qing
Dynasty’s generous patronage of the performance of rituals for the protection of the state at Wutai shan, it further appears that, during the Qing, Wutai
shan continued to be the important center for the ritual protection of the state
that it had been in preceding dynasties. Moreover, the fact that Manchu archival records, which were not written for public display, conirm generous
and frequent imperial patronage of these rituals, seems to indicate that the
Manchu emperors genuinely believed in their eficacy. Thus a number of dif131
In my opinion, as the Ming gazetteer was compiled by a Chinese Buddhist, printed in 1596, and the
Qing editions may not have updated the patronage record of the preceding dynasty, the absence of late
Ming evidence for imperial support of speciically Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan does not compellingly
indicate that late Ming support for Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan had waned. Non-speciic patronage
records for the Wanli period (r. 1573–1620) exist. Qingliang shan zhi, juan 4, 15b–20b.
132
In contrast, Dmitrii Pokotilov's eyewitness account provides evidence that in the late eighteenth century
the state only sponsored Tibetan Buddhist monasteries. Pokotilov, “Der Wu tai Shan und seine Klöster,”
58.
102
Natalie Köhle
ferent sources indicate that patronage of both Tibetan and Chinese Buddhist
institutions considerably increased under the Qing. But as an examination of
the Ming and Qing emperors’ stele inscriptions reveals, their difference lies
not only in number but also in content and style. This is an indication that the
way the Qing emperors attached meaning to their patronage of Buddhism at
Wutai shan differed considerably from that of the Ming. Such a difference is
also suggested by an examination of their personal tours to the site.
For the Qing emperors, these tours, though partly undertaken in order to
patronize Buddhist institutions, were a means to simultaneously address the
empire’s various (Han and non-Han) constituencies, to enhance the emperors’
connection to Mañjuśr K̄ in the eyes of Mongol as well as Chinese subjects,
and to inscribe a Manchu presence onto the soil and historical records of the
newly conquered Chinese empire. These characteristics of Qing patronage
clearly differ from those of the patronage of the Ming emperors who, while
also patronizing Buddhism on the mountain, never personally toured the
mountain, and did not–at least not according to present knowledge–propagate
the idea that they were emanations of Mañjuśr K̄.133 These meanings that the
Qing emperors deliberately associated with Wutai shan seem to indicate that,
in addition to following the precedent of the Ming, the Qing emperors were
also mindful of the legacy of the Yuan. Moreover, they suggest that by comparison with the Ming, the mountain igured more prominently in Qing imperial
ideology, particularly in their attempts at self-legitimation. This greater need
of a conquest dynasty to create legitimacy (both within the Chinese and Inner
Asian cultural spheres) is, of course, precisely what the arguments of the New
Qing historians, which posit a similarity between Yuan and Qing methods of
legitimation, seek to address. And yet, evidence like the above-quoted reference to the emperor as Mañjuśr K̄ in a widely propagated Chinese text, should
caution against presuming the existence of clearly demarcated constituencies
that were addressed in their respective traditions of rule, or hasty identiication of propaganda directed at the Mongols as the main objective of the Qing
emperors’ Western Tours.
There is another question concerning the signiicance of Tibetan Buddhism
in Qing imperial ideology which needs to be addressed. The documents examined above demonstrate that during the Ming and early Qing periods at Wutai
shan a number of monasteries jointly housed Tibetan and Chinese monks.134
133
It is suggestive that De bzhin gshegs pa, when at the court of the Yongle emperor, performed ceremonies that posthumously designated Emperor Hongwu as an emanation of Mañjuśr K̄ (Farquhar, Emperor as
Bodhisattva, 16), and that Zhu Qiyu (r. 1449–57) was addressed as ‘Jam dbyangs gong ma rgyal po kyen
tha’i — “his Highness, the Mañjughosa
. emperor, Jingtai.” Toh, Tibetan Buddhism in Ming China, 182.
134
Chinese and Tibetan monks also co-resided at monasteries in Beijing. Naquin, Peking, 208 n. 133.
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
103
Additionally, Toh has shown that a considerable number of Tibetan Buddhist
practitioners in Ming and Qing China were of Mongol and Chinese ethnicity,135 and the evidence presented above suggests joint performance of rituals
by monks of the Chinese and Tibetan Buddhist traditions and it appears that
no descriptive division of the rituals of the Tibetan vs. the Chinese Buddhist
traditions was upheld.136 Moreover, until the late Ming, Tibetan Buddhism
was not yet known as “lamaism” (lama [zhi] jiao), a term that would later
set it apart and exclude it from (Chinese) Buddhism (fojiao). Both during the
Ming and Qing periods, Tibetan Buddhist monks were commonly referred to
as fanseng [2 in glossary].137 Much the same situation seems to have prevailed
during the Yuan.138 This already led Herbert Franke to ask “whether it is at
all appropriate to speak of Tibetans in China as if their nationality would be
relevant,” and to suggest that “it would perhaps make more sense to speak
of Buddhist clerics who happened to be Tibetans.”139 In other words, despite
the records of Ming prohibitions of the practice of Tibetan Buddhism for Han
Chinese, and despite the at times xenophobic depiction of Tibetan Buddhist
135
A prohibition against (Han) Chinese becoming Tibetan Buddhist monks was issued in 1397 (Naquin,
Peking, 209), but in my opinion it is likely that this prohibition, rather than pointing to the absence of (Han)
Chinese Tibetan Buddhist practitioners, indicates that such practitioners existed. This judgment seems to
be borne out by a later prohibition dating from 1500, which reads: “Any Chinese who became a monk and
practiced Tibetan Buddhism (fanjiao), regardless of his being military personnel or a commoner, or having
been granted a permit (dudie) or not, should without exception be examined and sent back to his birthplace
to work for the military oficials there. As for the Chinese who pretend to be Tibetan (fanren), banish them
to the frontier for military service.” Toh, Tibetan Buddhism in Ming China, 212.
136
See the above quoted 1714 stele inscription which notes that every new and full moon Tibetan and
Chinese monks assemble for prayer ceremonies. There also exist records which indicate that, in addition
to members of the court elite, ordinary Chinese monks were also practising Tibetan Buddhism. See, for
example, the passage in Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje’s biography: “From every area, many hwa shang (<
heshang) who were studying the Dharma, and were experiencing dificulty, came forward to the presence
of Lcang skya Rin po che, prostrated themselves in front of him and pressed their heads against his feet.
According to the hwa shang’s wish, Lcang skya started to gradually transmit the view-points of the Middle
Way and thus caused many people to attain enlightenment.” Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma,
Khyab bdag rdo rje sems dpa’i ngo bo dpal ldan bla ma dam pa Ye shes bstan pa’i sgron me dpal bzang
po’i rnam par thar pa mdo tsam brjod pa dge ldan bstan pa’i mdzes rgyan (The biography of Lcang skya
II Rol pa’i rdo rje), 154; see also Chen Qingying and Ma Lianlong, transl., Zhangjia Guoshi Ruo-bi-duo-ji
zhuan (The biography of the National Preceptor Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje), 92. For other examples, see
also Tuttle, “A Tibetan Buddhist Mission to the East,” 80–1, and “Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan.”
137
Naquin records the (earliest?) occurrence of the term lamajiao in 1573. By contrast, the term lama
was, along with other terms, in use from a much earlier time on. Naquin, Peking, 49, 208.
138
Franke, “Tibetans in Yüan China,” 297. For the Yuan (as well as Tangut and early Ming) period there
also exist records of Tibetan Buddhist texts that were translated into Chinese, which strongly suggest Chinese
interest in the practice of Tibetan Buddhism. See especially Shen Weirong, “Tibetan Tantric Buddhism at
the Court of the Great Mongol Khans,” and “Xixia Heishuicheng suo jian Zangchuan fojiao yujia xiuxi
yiguiwenshu yanjiu [I]” (Research on the sGyu lugs kyi man ngag found in Xixia, Heishuicheng documents); Beckwith, “A Hitherto Unnoticed Yüan-Period Collection Attributed to ‘Phagspa.”
139
Franke, “Tibetans in Yüan China,” 298.
104
Natalie Köhle
monks,140 the question of whether Tibetan Buddhists in Yuan, Ming, and Qing
China were at all times perceived as a distinct ethnic group, or sometimes
rather as followers of liturgically and doctrinally different schools, needs
further examination.141
This question cannot be addressed without further study, but even a cursory
consultation of the Qing Veritable Records yields interesting results. While it is
already well known that the term lama [zhi] jiao as a designation for Tibetan
Buddhism started to be used only towards the end of the Qianlong reign,142 it
is worth noting that there are merely ive occurrences of the term lamajiao and
thirteen occurrences of the term lama zhi jiao in the Veritable Records of the
entire Qing Dynasty altogether. In only two out of those thirteen occurrences
does the term lama zhi jiao stand on its own, while in nine cases it reads Dalai
Lama zhi jiao— School of the Dalai Lama[s].143 What seems to be used much
more frequently instead of lama [zhi] jiao, is the term Huangjiao—Yellow
School (Dge lugs pa).144 In fact, even in the famous Lamashuo Qianlong uses
the term Huangjiao rather than lamajiao to denounce Tibetan Buddhists.145
Now “School of the Dalai Lamas” and “Yellow School” seem to express both
a little more and a little less than the generic term “lamaism.” These terms are
less of a global way to designate Tibetan Buddhism, and at the same time they
are more precise—they refer to a speciic school.
No doubt, a detailed examination of the Chinese terminology used to refer to
Tibetan Buddhism is needed before any conclusions can be drawn. However, it
is possible that “Tibetan Buddhism” is a category that was not, until recently,
operative in Asia as such, and did not function as an ethnic category until
perhaps the very late Qing, or even the early Republican period.146 This possibility demonstrates the need for a more nuanced understanding of the Manchu
emperors’ interest in “Tibetan Buddhism”—a term that had no equivalent in
140
Franke, “Tibetans in Yüan China,” 304; 317–28. Charleux, “Les «lamas» vus de Chine,” 136–42; Shen
Weirong, “Shentong yaoshu he zeikun” (Magic power, sorcery, and evil spirits).
141
Charleux also points out that much of the critique directed at Tibetan Buddhists did not differ from
the critique that was leveled at Daoists and Chinese monks. Charleux, “Les «lamas» vus de Chine,” 139,
141, 145.
142
See Lopez, Prisoners of Shangri-la, 20, 216 n. 14; Charleux, «Les «lamas» vus de Chine,»134.
143
In the two remaining cases lamajiao also appears after a title.
144
Altogether, it occurs in 237 edicts of the Qing Veritable Records, some of which have multiple occurrences of the term.
145
For a reprint of the lamashuo see Zhang Yuxin, Qing zhengfu yu lamajiao, 339–43. It was translated
into English by Ferdinand Lessing in Yung-ho-kung, an Iconography of the Lamaist Cathedral in Peking,
58–60.
146
On the separation of “Tibetan Buddhism” (lamajiao) and Chinese Buddhism during the Republican
period, see Tuttle, Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China, 70–2. Elverskog makes a related
point about the absence of the category of “Tibetan Buddhism” in Mongolian sources. See his “Two Buddhisms,” 38.
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
105
Chinese for much of the Qing. It is likely that the Qing emperors’ patronage
relations with Tibetan Buddhist leaders and early Qing patronage of Tibetan
Buddhism at Wutai shan, while clearly seen as related, were not understood
to be conceptually the same. Although the Shunzhi emperor’s audience with
the Fifth Dalai Lama certainly involved geopolitical considerations and harkened back to precedents of the Yuan,147 the Kangxi emperor’s preference for
Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan might have been motivated by entirely different concerns. It might be the case that these concerns had less to do with the
Buddhism of their choice being “Tibetan” than with the wish to continue the
time-honored (Chinese) tradition of state protection by means of esoteric Buddhism at the site of Wutai shan. Although in its origin an Inner Asian tradition,
“Tibetan Buddhism” had continually been practiced and imperially supported
in the Chinese interior since the Yuan, and had thus become a familiar feature
of the religious landscape there.148 Therefore scholars need to clarify what
they mean by speaking of Tibetan Buddhism in Ming and Qing China as an
Inner Asian tradition. As Chinese esoteric Buddhism had declined,149 rituals
of the Tibetan Buddhist traditions—irrespective of the ethnicity of the oficiant—might have been perceived as the most potent esoteric rituals, offering
the best available protection for the ledgling dynasty, then available in China,
and not necessarily as Inner Asian traditions or as elaborations of precedents
from the Yuan. Perhaps in their very patronage of Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai
shan the early Qing emperors were, after all, following what they perceived
to be a Chinese tradition of rule.
glossary
A-wang-lao-zang (Ngag dbang blo bzang)
阿王老藏
Ban-ma-gu-ma-luo (Padmakum āra)
班麻孤麻羅
ban-di (ban de)
Bishan si
碧山寺
Changcheng ling
長城嶺
147
班弟
One should note however, that the Third and Fourth Dalai Lamas (1542–88, 1589–1617) were repeatedly invited by the Ming Wanli emperor in 1579, 1588, and 1616, and that both accepted the invitation but
died shortly thereafter. Zahiruddin Ahmad therefore points out that the Qing might have wished to renew
these Ming invitations “so as to [also] indicate, to the Tibetans, the succession of the Ch’ing to the Ming.”
Ahmad, Sino-Tibetan Relations in the Seventeenth Century, 154, emphasis in the original.
148
Note, for example, that the early generations of Tibetan Buddhist abbots who were sent out to preside
over Wutai shan by the Shunzhi emperor were Tibetan Buddhists who had received their education in
Chongguo si, in Peking. Vide supra (note 17) and Cui Zhengsen, Wutai shan fojiao shi, 752.
149
Robert Sharf and Richard McBride II have recently argued that the use of the term “Esoteric Buddhism”
in reference to a distinct school in medieval China constitutes itself an imposition on earlier materials of
a category that was only constructed later. See Sharf, Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism, 263–78;
McBride, “Is there Really ‘Esoteric’ Buddhism?”
Natalie Köhle
106
Chao Kui
超揆
fanseng (1)
梵僧
chanshi
禪師
fanseng (2)
番僧
Chongguo si
崇國寺
fenxiu shang zhu guo xi xia qi min fu
焚修上祝國釐下祈民福
Chongxiu Qingliang shan Luohou si beiji
重修清凉山羅睺寺碑記
Cong-ling-cheng-cun (Drung Rin chen
brtson [‘grus])
從[同]鈴澄存
Da Jixiang Xiantong si
大吉祥顯通寺
Da Wenshu yuan
大文殊院
dalai lama jiao
達賴喇嘛之教
Dashan guoshi zhuan
大善國師傳
dazhifawang
大智法王
Ding-zeng-jian-cuo (Bstan 'dzin rgya mtsho)
頂增堅錯
Dongpo
東坡
Duan-zhu-ban-dan (Don grub dpal ldan)
短竹班丹
dudie
度牒
dugang
都綱
dugangyin
都綱印
Duo-er-zhi-jian (Rdo rje rgyal [mtshan])
朵而只堅
fawang
法王
fan
番
fanjiao
番教
fanren
番人
fengyan mizhang qiao chi [qin] wu ti
奉寅秘章翹敕[勤?]五體
fojiao
佛教
Gao Shiqi
高士奇
ge-long (dge slong)
格隆
Guangzong si
廣宗寺
guo
國
hongci yijiao guoshi (1)
洪慈翊教國師
hongci yijiao guoshi (2)
弘慈翊教國師
Hou Xian
侯顯
Huangdi chiyu hu chi Shanxi Wutai shan
Yuanzhao si beiwen
皇帝敕諭護持山西五臺山圓照寺碑文
Huangdi chiyu hu chi Shanxi Wutai shan
Xiantong si beiwen
皇帝敕諭護持山西五臺山顯通寺碑文
Huangdi chiyu Wutai shan sengsuren deng
beiwen
皇帝敕諭五臺山僧俗人等碑文
Huang qing chifeng qingxiu chanshi tidu
Wutai fan han Zha-sa-ke Da Lama chongxiu
Jingangku Banruo si gongde beiji
皇請敕封請修禪師提督五臺番漢扎薩克大
喇嘛重修金剛窟般若寺功德碑記
huangjiao
黃教
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
107
Hucong xixun rilu
扈從西巡日録
Qingliang laoren
清涼老人
Jian-can (Rgyal mtshan)
堅参
Qingliang shan
清涼山
Qingliang shan jiyao
清涼山輯要
Qingliang shan zhi
清涼山志
Qingliang shan xin shi
清涼山新志
Qingxiu chanshi
清修禪師
Rāhula monastery
羅睺寺
Rāhulabhadra
羅睺羅多
San jian shan
三箭山
seng
僧
senggangsi dugang
僧綱司都綱
Jin huangdi qiansheng qi fo zhi shi xian zai
jiu chong zhi sheng
今皇帝前生七佛之師現在九重之聖
Kangxi chao manwen zhupi zouzhe quanyi
康熙朝滿文朱批奏折全譯
Ku-er-kang (Kurkang)
庫爾康
Lao-zang-dan-ba (Blo bzang bstan pa)
老藏丹巴
Lao-zang-dan-bei-jian-can (Blo bzang bstan
pa'i rgyal mtshan)
老藏丹貝堅参
Lama
senglusi youjueyi
僧錄司右覺義
喇嘛
Lamashuo
Su Shi
蘇軾
喇嘛說
lama [zhi] jiao
sengzheng si
僧正司
喇嘛[之]教
ling
shengguo xianfan
勝國賢藩
靈
Linggu si
Shehu chuan
射虎川
靈谷寺
Mang-ge-luo-bu-la-jia (Mangalapūraka)
忙葛羅不剌加
Shehu chuan Tailusi bei
射虎川台麓寺碑
Maoxi chanshi
Shehu chuan beiji
射虎川碑記
茆溪禪師
Mingxu
Shenwu quan beiji
神武泉碑記
明續
Mu-er-sai (Mursai )
shifang tang
十方堂
穆爾賽
Puning si
Shuxiang si
殊像寺
普寧寺
Pusading
Tailu si
臺麓寺
菩薩頂
Qinding Qingliang shan zhi 欽定清涼山志
Tailu si bei
臺麓寺碑
Qingyin Tangji
Tayuan
塔院
清吟堂集
Natalie Köhle
108
Wu-si-zang (dbus gtsang)
烏思藏
yanshou wujiang daochang
延壽無疆道場
Wutai shan
五臺山
Yinzhen
胤禎
Wutai shan Datayuan si chongxiu Ayuwang
suo jian Shijiawen zhenshen sheli baota bei
senglusi youjueyi Cong-ling-cheng-zun
僧錄司右覺義從鈴澄存
bing ming"
五臺山大塔院寺重修阿育王所建釋迦文真
身舍利寶塔碑并銘
senglusi youjueyi Tong-ling-cheng-zun
僧錄司右覺義同鈴澄存
Wutai shan Jingangku Banruo si chongkai
shan diyi dai zhuchi siyi linqi ershisi shi
baoshanyu da heshang yuanqi shixing
gongde beiwen
五臺山金剛窟般若寺重開山第一代住持
嗣裔臨濟二十四世寶山玉大和尚緣起實
行功德碑文
Xiangshan
香山
Xiantong si
顯通寺
Xishan
西山
Xitianfozi dahui fawang
西天佛子大慧法王
Xitian shanshi da chanshi pan-di-da gong
shili ta ming you xu
西天善世大禪師板的達公設利塔銘有序
Xiu Tongwa dian beiwen
Yuan Haowen
元好問
Yuanzhao
圓照
Yuanzhao si
圓照寺
Yulin Tongxiu
玉琳通琇
Yunreng
允礽
Yuzhi Pusading Dawenshu yuan bei
御製菩薩頂大文殊院碑
Zhang Jiancan (Lcang Rgyal mtshan)
張堅参
Zhaohui wang
趙惠王
Zhencheng
鎮澄
Zhenrong yuan
真容院
Zhu Yizun
朱彝尊
zhuchi
住持
Zifu shan
紫府山
修銅瓦殿碑文
xiujian zhuguo youmin daocheng
修建祝國佑民道場
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
109
bibliography
Ahmad, Zahiruddin. Sino-Tibetan Relations in the Seventeenth Century. Serie
Orientale Roma XL. Roma: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed il Estremo Oriente,
1970.
A-wang-lao-zang (Ngag dbang blo bzang). Qingliang shan zhi (Gazetteer of Qingliang shan). 1755. Harvard-Yenching Library, Rare Book T 3035. 17 323.83.
———. Qingliang shan zhi (Gazetteer of Qingliang shan). 1887 (Reproduction of
the 1755 blockprint). Harvard-Yenching Library: 3035 3239.83c .
Barrett, Timothy H. “Stūpa, Sutra, and ŚarK̄ra c. 656–706 CE.” Buddhist Studies
Review 18, no. 1 (2001): 1–64.
Bawden, Charles. The Jebtsundamba Khutukhtus of Urga. Asiatische Forschungen
Band 9. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1961.
Beckwith, Christoph. “A Hitherto Unnoticed Yüan-Period Collection Attributed to
‘Phagspa.” In Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Alexander Csoma de Körös, ed. Louis Ligeti, 9–16.
Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1984.
Berger, Patricia. Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing
China. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2003.
———. “Lineages of Form: Buddhist Portraiture in the Manchu Court.” The Tibet
Journal 28 (2003)” 109–16.
———. “Preserving the Nation: The Political Uses of Tantric Art in China.” In
Latter Days of the Law: Images of Chinese Buddhism, 850–1850, ed. Marsha
Weidner. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1994, 89–123.
Bira, Sh. Mongolian Historical Literature of the XVII-XIX Centuries Written in
Tibetan. Bloomington: The Mongolia Society, 1970.
Birnbaum, Raoul. “Light in the Wutai Mountains.” In The Presence of Light:
Divine Radiance and Religious Experience, ed. Matthew Kapstein, 195–226.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.
———. Studies on the Mysteries of MañjuśrK̄: A Group of East Asian man. dalas
and
.
their Traditional Symbolism. Society for the Study of Chinese Religions Monograph no. 2. Boulder, Colorado: Society for the Study of Chinese Religions,
1983.
———. “Thoughts on T’ang Buddhist Mountain Traditions and their Context.”
T’ang Studies 2 (1984): 5–23.
110
Natalie Köhle
Brook, Timothy. Geographical Sources of Ming-Qing History. Michigan Monographs in Chinese Studies, vol. 58. Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies,
University of Michigan, 2002.
Chang, Michael. “A Court On Horseback: Constructing Manchu Ethno-Dynastic
Rule in Eighteenth Century China, 1751–1784.” Ph.D. diss., University of
California, 2001.
———. A Court on Horseback: Imperial Touring and the Construction of Qing
Rule, 1680–1785. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007.
Charleux, Isabelle. «Les «lamas» vus de Chine: fascination et répulsion.» ExtrêmeOrient, Extrême-Occident 24 (2002) : 136–42.
Chen Lu. Menggu yishi (Unoficial history of Mongolia). Shanghai: Shangwu
yingshu guan, 1917.
Chen Qingying and Ma Lianlong, transl. Zhangjia Guoshi Ruo-bi-duo-ji zhuan
(The biography of the National Preceptor Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje). Beijing:
Minzu chubanshe, 1988.
Chen Yuan. Qing chu seng zheng ji (Record of monastic disputes in the early Qing).
Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1962.
Cheng Chongde and Shen Xiaoting. Qingdai Menggu gaosengzhuan yiji (Translated collection of biographies of eminent Mongol monks of the Qing period).
Bejing: Xinhua shudian, 1990.
Chou, Wen-shing. “Ineffable Paths: Mapping Wutai shan in Qing Dynasty China.”
Art Bulletin 89, no. 1 (2007): 108–29.
Crossley, Pamela K. “The Rulerships of China.” American Historical Review 97,
no. 5 (1992): 1468–83.
———. A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.
Cui Zhengsen. “Qingliang si fojiao jianshi” (Brief Buddhist history of Qingliang
monastery). Wutai shan yanjiu 2 (2001): 7–13.
———. Wutai shan fojiao shi (History of Buddhism at Wutai shan). 2 vols. Taiyuan: Shanxi renmin chubanshe, 2000.
———. “Wutai shan fojiao wenhua” (The Buddhist culture of Wutai shan). Wutai
shan yanjiu 3 (1991): 79–92.
Cui Zhengsen and Wang Zhichao. Wutai shan beiwen xuanzhu (Annotated selection of Wutai shan stelae). Wutai shan yanjiu congshu zhi si, Taiyuan: Beiyue
wenyi chuban faxing. 1995.
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
111
Cui Zhengsen and Zhao Zhenglin. Wutai shan yinglian paibian jidiao (Outstanding
examples of Wutai shan pillar scroll couplets and tablets). Beijing: Zhongguo
Lüyou chubanshe, 1993.
Daqing lichao shilu, Shengzu shilu (Veritable Records of the Kangxi reign). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1985. Cited as Veritable Records.
Debreczeny, Karl. “Sino-Tibetan Artistic Synthesis in Ming Dynasty Temples at the
Core and Periphery.” Tibet Journal 28 (2003): 49–107.
Demiéville, Paul, «La montagne dans l’art littéraire chinois.» In Choix d’études
sinologiques by Paul Demiéville, 364–89. Leiden: Brill, 1973.
Dott, Brian. Identity Relections: Pilgrimages to Mount Tai in Late Imperial China.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Elliott, Mark C. The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late
Imperial China. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001.
———. “The Manchu-Language Archives of the Qing Dynasty and the Origins of
the Palace Memorial System.” Late Imperial China 22, no. 1 (2001): 1–70.
Elliott, Mark C., and Ning Chia. “The Qing Hunt at Mulan.” In New Qing Imperial History: the Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde, ed. James A.
Millward, Ruth Dunnell, Mark C. Elliott, and Philippe Forêt, 66–83. London:
Routledge Curzon.
Elverskog, Johan. Our Great Qing: The Mongols, Buddhism and the State in Late
Imperial China. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2006.
———. “Tibetocentrism, Religious Conversion and the Study of Mongolian Buddhism.” In The Mongolia-Tibet Interface: Opening New Research Terrain in
Inner Asia, ed. Hildegaard Diemberger and Uradyn Bulag Leiden: Brill, 2007,
59–80.
———. “Two Buddhisms in Contemporary Mongolia.” Contemporary Buddhism
7, no. 1 (2006): 29–46.
Farquhar, David. “Emperor As Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Ch’ing Empire.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 38 (1978): 5–34.
First Historical Archives, comp. Kangxi chao qijuzhu ce (Diaries of activity and
repose from the Kangxi reign). 3 vols. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984.
———. Kangxi chao manwen zhupi zouzhe quanyi (Translation of Manchu language vermillion rescripts of the Kangxi period). Beijng: Zhongguo Shehuikexue, 1996.
112
Natalie Köhle
Fischer, Emil. The Sacred Wu Tai Shan, in connection with Modern Travel from
Taiyuan Fu via Mount Wu Tai to the Mongolian Border. Shanghai: Kelly and
Walsh, 1925.
Franke, Herbert. “Tibetans in Yüan China,” In China under Mongol Rule, ed. J. D.
Langlois, 296–327. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981.
Gao Shiqi. Hucong xixun rilu (Following in the retinue of the [Kangxi emperor’s]
Western Tour). Siku quanshu vol. 460, 1153–68. Taipei: Taiwan shangwu yinshu guan, 1983–86.
———. Qingyin tang ji (Qingyin tang collection). N.d. (circa 1700). HarvardYenching Library: Rare Book T 5463 0244b.
Gimello, Robert M. “Chang Shang-yin on Wu-t’ai Shan.” In Pilgrims and Sacred
Sites in China, ed. Susan Naquin and Chün-fang Yü, 89–149. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.
———. “In Praise of ‘Material Forms’ – Zhu Bian’s Inscription Commemorating
the Repair of the Pu’en si.” Unpublished.
———. “Wu-t’ai Shan during the Early Chin Dynasty: The Testimony of Chu
Pien.” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 7 (1994): 501–612.
Guo Peng. Ming-Qing fojiao (A history of Ming and Qing Buddhism). Fuzhou:
Fujian renmin chubanshe, 1982.
———. Zhongguo fojiao shi (A history of Chinese Buddhism). Taipei: Wenjin
chubanshe, 1993.
Hackmann, Heinrich. A German Scholar in the East: Travel Scenes and Relections.
Transl. Daisie Rommel. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1914.
———. Welt des Ostens. Berlin: Karl Curtius. 1912.
Heissig, Walther. Die Pekinger Lamaistischen Blockdrucke in Mongolischer
Sprache. Göttinger Asiatische Forschungen, Band 2. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1954.
Henss, Michael. „The Bodhisattva-Emperor: Tibeto-Chinese Portraits of Sacred
and Secular Rule in the Qing Dynasty.“ Oriental Art 3 (2001): 1–16; 5 (2001):
71–83.
———. “The Qianlong Emperor as a Grand Lama.” 1998. http://www.asianartgallery.co.uk/research/article.php?article=Grand%20Lama.
Hsü, Sung-peng. A Buddhist Leader in Ming China: The Life and Thought of HanShan Te-Ch’ing. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press,
1970.
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
113
Hummel, Arthur. Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period (1644–1912). 2 vols.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Ofice,1943.
Ishihama, Yumiko. “Study on the [sic] Qianlong as Cakravartin, a Manifestation
of Bodhisattva MañjuśrK̄, Tangka.” Bulletin of Waseda Institute for Mongolian
Studies (2005): 19–39.
Jiang Weiqiao, Zhongguo fojiao shi (A history of Chinese Buddhism). Beijing:
Tuanji chubanshe, 2005.
Kangxi chao qijuzhu ce. See First Historical Archives, comp.
Kangxi di yuzhi wenji (Anthology of the Kangxi emperor’s writings). Taipei:
Xuesheng shengshu ju, 1966.
Kessler, Lawrence. K’ang-hsi and the Consolidation of Ch’ing Rule, 1661–1684.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976.
Kleeman, Terry F. “Mountain Deities in China: The Domestication of the Mountain
God and the Subjugation of the Margins.” Journal of the American Oriental
Society 114, no. 2 (1994): 226–38.
Ku Cheng-mei. Cong tianwang chuantong dao fowang chuantong (From the
tradition of the heavenly emperor to the tradition of the dharmarāja). Taipei:
Shangzhou, 2003.
Lamotte, Etienne. “MañjuśrK̄.” T’oung Pao 158 (1960): 1–96.
Lao-zang-dan-ba (Blo bzang bstan pa). Qingliang shan xin zhi (New gazetteer of
Qingliang shan). 1701. Reprinted in Qingliang shan zhi, Qingliang shan xin
zhi, Qinding Qingliang shan zhi. Haikou: Hainan chubanshe, 2001.
Lcang skya II Rol pa’i rdo rje. Zhing mchog ri bo dwangs bsil gyi gnas bshad dad
pa’i padmo rgyas byed ngo mtshar nyi ma’i snang ba (A guide to the holy
places of the Clear and Cool Mountain). 1831. Xining: Mtsho sngon mi rigs
dpe sgrun khang, 1993.
Lessing, Ferdinand. Yung-ho-kung, an Iconography of the Lamaist Cathedral in
Peking. Sino-Swedish Expedition Publication 18. Stockholm: Elanders boktryckeri, 1942.
Li Kecheng. “Cong Bukong zhi Zhangjia - Mizong zai Wutai shan de fazhan”
(From Bukong to Lcang skya - the development of esoteric Buddhism at Mt.
Wutai). Wutai shan yanjiu 3 (1995): 21–7.
Li Shiming. “Luohou si yu shifang tang” (Rāhula monastery and the hall of the ten
directions). Wutai shan yanjiu 1 (1998): 29.
114
Natalie Köhle
Liu Er. “Yulu yu Shunzhi gongting (Yulu and the Shunzhi court).” In Zhongguo
fojiao shi lunji, Ming-Qing fojiao shi pian, Zhang Mantao, 303–17. Taipei:
Dacheng wenhua chubanshe, 1977.
Lopez, Donald. Prisoners of Shangri-la: Tibetan Buddhism and the West. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1998.
Magnin, Paul. “Les Pèlerinages dans le Bouddhisme Chinois.” In Histoire des Pèlerinages non Chrétiens. Entre Magique et Sacré: le Chemin des Dieux, ed. Jean
Chélini and Henry Branthomme, 278–310. Paris: Hachette, 1987.
McBride, Richard, II. “Is there Really ‘Esoteric’ Buddhism?” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 27, no. 2 (2004): 329–56.
Ming He, ed. Buxu gaoseng zhuan (Amended record of eminent monks). Xuxiu siku
quanshu, 1–358. Shanghai: Guji chubanshe, 1995–9.
Naquin, Susan Peking: Temples and City Life, 1400–1900. Berkely: University of
California Press, 2000.
Naquin, Susan. and Chün-fang Yü. Pilgrims and Sacred Sites in China. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1992.
———. “Pilgrimage in China.” In Pilgrims and Sacred Sites in China, ed. Susan
Naquin and Chün-fang Yü, 1–38. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1992.
Orzech, Charles. Politics and Transcendent Wisdom: The Scripture for Humane
Kings in the Creation of Chinese Buddhism. University Park: The Pennsylvania
State University Press, 1998.
Perdue, Peter C. China Marches West: the Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005.
Pokotilov, Dmitrii Dmitrievich. “Der Wu tai Shan und seine Klöster. Eine historisch-geographische Skizze und Schilderung der örtlichen Verhaeltnisse im
Jahre 1889.” Transl. W. A. Unkrig. In Sinica-Sonderausgabe, 38–89. Frankfurt:
China-Institut, J.W. Goethe-Universität, 1935.
Poppe, Nicholas. The Diamond Sutra. Asiatische Forschungen Band 35. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1971.
Qinding Daqing huidian zeli (Imperially commissioned collected regulations of the
Qing dynasty). Siku quanshu vols. 620–25. Taipei: Taiwan shangwu yinshu
guan, 1983–6.
Qinding Qingliang shan zhi (Imperially commissioned gazetteer of Qingliang
shan). Peking: Palace publishing house. 1811 (compiled 1785). Reprinted
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
115
in Qingliang shan zhi, Qingliang shan xin zhi, Qinding Qingliang shan zhi.
Haikou: Hainan chubanshe, 2001. (Another reprint of this text may be found in
Xuxiu siku quanshu vol. 722, 1–223).
Rawski, Evelyn S. The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
———. “Re-envisioning the Qing: the Signiicance of the Qing Period in Chinese
History.” Journal of Asian Studies 55, no. 4 (1996): 829–50.
Robson, James. “Imagining Nanyue: a Religious History of the Southern Marchmount through the Tang Dynasty (618–907).” Ph.D. diss., Stanford University,
2002.
Rubin Museum of Art. Wutai shan Interactive Map. http://www.rmanyc.org/education/resources/wutaishan/blockprint/
Ryūchi Kiyoshi. «Mindai no sōkan» (Ming Dynasty Buddhist oficials). Shina
bukkyō shigaku 4, no. 3 (1940): 35–6.
Sagaster, Klaus. Subud Erike: Ein Rosenkranz aus Perlen. Die Biographie des 1.
Pekinger lCang skya Khutukhtu Ngag dbang blo bzang c‘os ldan. Asiatische
Forschungen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1967.
Sharf, Robert. Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism: A Reading of the Treasure
Store Treatise. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2002.
Shen Weirong. “Shentong Yaoshu he zeikun: lun Yuandai wenren bixia de fanseng xingxiang” (Magic power, sorcery, and evil spirits: the image of Tibetan
monks in Chinese Literature during the Yuan dynasty). Hanxue yanjiu 21, no. 2
(2003): 219–47.
———. “Tibetan Tantric Buddhism at the Court of the Great Mongol Khans,
Sa skya pan. dita
. and ‘Phags pa’s works in Chinese during the Yuan period.”
Quaestiones Mongolorum Disputatæ 1 (2005), 61–89.
———. “Xixia Heishuicheng suo jian Zangchuan fojiao yujia xiuxi yiguiwenshu
yanjiu [I]: Mengxuan shenyao men (sGyu lus kyi man ngag).” (Research on
the sGyu lugs kyi man nag found in Xixia, Heishuicheng documents). In 21st
Century Tibet Issue, Symposium on Contemporary Tibetan Studies, 384–473.
Taipei: Mengzang weiyuanhui, 2004.
Silk, Jonathan. “Notes on the History of the Yongle Kanjur.” In Suh rllekha
h:
.
.
Festgabe für Helmut Eimer, ed. Michael Hahn, 153–200. Indica et Tibetica 28.
Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1996.
116
Natalie Köhle
Spence, Jonathan. Emperor of China: Self-portrait of K’ang-hsi. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf. 1974.
———. Ts’ao Yin and the K’ang-hsi Emperor, Bondservant and Master. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966.
Sperling, Elliot. “Early Ming Policy Toward Tibet: An Examination of the Proposition that the Early Ming Emperors Adopted a ‘Divide and Rule’ Policy Toward
Tibet.” Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1983.
———. “The 1413 Ming Embassy to Tsong-kha-pa and the Arrival of Byams-chen
Chos-rje Shakya Ye-shes at the Ming Court.” Journal of the Tibet Society 2
(1982): 105–7.
Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal ‘byor. Dpag bsam ljon bzang (The auspicious wishfulilling tree). Lanzhou: Gansu’i mi rigs dpe sgrun khang, 1992.
Symons, Van J. “Qianlong on the Road: the Imperial Tours to Chengde.” In New
Qing Imperial History: the Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde,
ed. James A. Millward, Ruth Dunnell, Mark C. Elliott, and Philippe Forêt,
54–65. London: Routledge Curzon, 2004.
Thu’u bkwan II Ngag dbang chos kyi rgya mtsho, Ri bo rtse lnga’i gzhi bdag
rnams la bsang mchod ‘pul tshul legs tshogs lhun grub (The way of offering to
Mt. Wutai local gods that is called “heaps of what is good come about spontaneously”). In his Gsung ‘bum. Printed in Peking, n.d.
Thu’u bkwan III Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma, Grub mtha’ thams cad kyi khungs
dang ‘dod tshul ston pa legs bshad shel gyi me long (The clear mirror of philosophical tenets). 1801. In Collected Works of Thu’u bkwan Blo bzang chos
kyi nyi ma, ed. Nawang Gelek Demo, vol. 2, 5–519. Gedan Sungrab Minyam
Gyunphel Series. Delhi: Gutenberg Printing Press, 1969.
———. Khyab bdag rdo rje sems dpa‘i ngo bo dpal ldan bla ma dam pa Ye shes
bstan pa‘i sgron me dpal bzang po‘i rnam par thar pa mdo tsam brjod pa dge
ldan bstan pa‘i mdzes rgyan (The biography of Lcang skya II Rol pa‘i rdo
rje). 1792–4. In Collected Works of Thu’u bkwan Blo bzang Chos kyi nyi ma,
ed. Nawang Gelek Demo, vol. 1, 5–831. Gedan Sungrab Minyam Gyunphel
Series. Delhi: Gutenberg Printing Press, 1969..
Toh, Hoong Teik. “Tibetan Buddhism in Ming China.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2004.
Turner, Victor. “Pilgrimage and Communitas.” In Worship and Ritual in Christianity and Other Religions, 305–27. Studia missionalia, vol. 23. Rome: Gregorian
University Press, 1974.
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
117
Turner, Victor, and Edith Turner. Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture, Anthropological Perspectives. New York: Columbia University Press, 1978.
Tuttle, Gray. “Tibetan Buddhism at Ri bo rtse lnga/Wutai shan in Modern Times.”
Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies 2 (2006): 1–35.
———. “Tibetan Buddhism at Wutai shan in the Qing: the Chinese Language
Register.” Forthcoming.
———. “A Tibetan Buddhist Mission to the East: The Fifth Dalai Lama’s Journey
to Beijing, 1652–1653.” In Power, Politics, and the Reinvention of Tradition:
Tibet in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, ed. Bryan J. Cuevas and
Kurtis R. Schaeffer, 65–87. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
———. Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China. New York: Columbia
University Press, 2005.
Uspensky, Vladimir. “The Legislation Relating to the Tibetan Buddhist Establishments at Wutai shan.” Forthcoming.
———. “The Previous Incarnations of the Qianlong Emperor According to the
Panchen Lama Blo bzang Dpal ldan Ye shes.” In Tibet, Past and Present: Tibetan Studies I. Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Leiden 2000, ed. Henk Blezer, 215–26. Leiden: Brill,
2002.
Veritable Records. See Da Qing lichao Shilu Shengzu Shilu.
Waley-Cohen, Joanna. “The New Qing History.” Radical History Review 88
(2004): 193–206.
Wang Benzhi ed. Qingliang shan jiyao (Important points about Qingliang shan).
Printed after 1780.
Wang Junzhong. Dongya hanzang fojiaoshi yanjiu (Research in East Asian Chinese
and Tibetan Buddhist history). Taipei: Dongya tushu gongsi, 2003.
Wang Lu. “Shengdi Qingliang shan zhi” (Guide to the sacred land of Wutai shan).
Wutai shan yanjiu 2 (1990): 8–48.
———. “Wutai shan yu Xizang” (Wutai shan and Tibet). Wutai shan yanjiu 4
(1995): 22–9.
Wang Siren. “You Wutai shan ji (Record of [my] travels at Wutai shan.” In Wutai
shan youji xuanzhu (Selected annotated travel accounts of Wutai shan), ed. Cui
Zhengsen, 5–16. Taiyuan: Shanxi renmin chubanshe, 1989.
118
Natalie Köhle
Wang Xiangyun. “Tibetan Buddhism at the Court of the Qing: The Life and Work
of lCang-skya Rol-pa’i-rdo-rje (1717–1786).” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University,
1995.
Wang Zhichao. “Wutai shan beiwen xuanzhu” (Selection of annotated Wutai shan
epigraphy). Wutai shan yanjiu 4 (1994): 35–41.
Wang Zhonghan. Qing shi lie zhuan (Qing period biographies). Beijing: Zhonghua
shuju, 1987.
Wechsler, Howard J. Offerings of Jade and Silk, Ritual and Symbol in the Legitimation of the T’ang Dynasty. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.
Wong, Dorothy C. “A Reassessment of the Representation of Mt. Wutai from Dunhuang Cave 61.” Archives of Asian Art 46 (1993): 27–52.
Wu, Pei-yi. “An Ambivalent Pilgrim to T’ai Shan in the Seventeenth Century.”
In Pilgrims and Sacred Sites in China, ed. Susan Naquin and Chün-fang Yü.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992, 65–88.
Wu, Silas. Passage to Power: K’ang-hsi and His Heir Apparent, 1661–1722. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979.
Xiao Yu. “Luohou si fojiao jianlue” (Brief history of Rahula monastery). Wutai
shan yanjiu 1 (1998): 6–13.
———. “Pusading de fojiao lishi” (Pusading’s Buddist history). Wutai shan yanjiu
1 (1996): 3–17.
———. “Xiantong si fojiao shilue” (A brief history of Xiantong monastery). Wutai
shan yanjiu 2 (1997): 3–5, 41.
Ye shes thub bstan. Khyab bdag ‘khor lo’i Mgon po Rje btsun dam pa Blo bzang
bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan gyi rnam thar skal bzang dad pa’i shing rta (Biography of Rje btsun dam pa bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan). 1831. Institute of Oriental
Studies (St. Petersburg branch) of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Tib. B
9235/5.
Yü, Chün-fang. “Ming Buddhism.” In The Cambridge History of China, Volume 8:
The Ming Dynasty, 1368–1644, Part Two, ed. Denis Twitchett and Frederick
W. Mote, 893–952. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
———. The Renewal of Buddhism in China, Chu-hung and the Late Ming Synthesis. New York: Columbia University Press, 1981.
Yu Qian. Xinxu Gaosengzhuan (New continuation of biographies of eminent
monks). 2 vols. Taipei: Xinwen feng chuban gufen youxiangongsi, 1974.
Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?
119
Zhang Yuxin. Qing zhengfu yu Lamajiao (The Qing government and lamaism).
Lhasa: Xizangrenmin chubanshe, 1988.
Zhao Lin’en. Qingchao huangdi yong Wutai (Qing emperors singing about Mt.
Wutai). Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe, 2002.
———. Wutai shan shi ge zongji (General anthology of Wutai shan poems). 2 vols.
Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe, 2002.
Zhen Lin. “Bishan si fojiao jianshi (Short history of Buddhism at Bishan monastery). Wutai shan yanjiu 2 (1996): 3–8.
———. “Yuanzhao si fojiao jianshi” (Short history of Buddhism at Yuanzhao monastery). Wutai shan yanjiu (1997): 16–23.
Zhu Ye. “Luohou si beiwen” (Stele inscriptions of Rahula monastery). Wutai shan
yanjiu 1 (1998): 30.
Zhu Ying. “Shuxiang si fojiao jianshi” (Brief introduction to Buddhism at Shuxiang
monastery). Wutai shan yanjiu 3 (1996): 3–7.