Protecting Beijing: The Tibetan Image of Yamåntaka-Vajrabhairava in Late Imperial and Republican China During the Qing, an oral belief identified Beijing with the mandala of Yamåntaka as Vajrabhairava (Ch. Daweide Jingang buwei , Tib. rDo rje ’jigs byed): a statue in Beihai Park represented the deity himself, and the Forbidden City, the Imperial City and the Outer City were intended to be the three concentric rings of the mandala. This Tantric wrathful deity was thus chosen by the Manchus as one of the protectors of the capital city of the Chinese Empire. Vajrabhairava was worshiped at the Imperial Court and in the Tibetan monasteries in Beijing. Imperial translations of this Tantric cycle were also undertaken; while most of them were in Mongolian, they also included some in Chinese and Manchu. Nevertheless, it seems that this practice never really widespread among Chinese Buddhists. On the other hand, in republican China that of Yamåntaka-Vajrabhairava became a favorite practice also of a number of Chinese interested in Tibetan Buddhism. In those milieus, new translations were made, thus enriching the Chinese corpus of scriptures devoted to the deity. The present study aims at evaluating the role of Vajrabhairava during the Qing and in the first half of the 20th century, trying to understand his position among other Tibetan deities and within the context of Tibetan Buddhist practice in China proper. Pour protéger Pékin : l’image tibétaine de Yamåntaka-Vajrabhairava à la fin de l’Empire chinois et pendant la République de Chine Pendant la dynastie des Qing, une croyance orale identifiait la ville de Pékin avec le mandala de Yamåntaka sous la forme de Vajrabhairava (ch. Daweide Jingang buwei , tib. rDo rje ’jigs byed) : une statue dans le parc Beihai représentait la divinité principale, et la Cité interdite, la Cité impériale, ainsi que la Cité extérieure étaient les trois cercles concentriques du mandala. Cette divinité courroucée fut donc choisie par les Mandchous comme un des protecteurs de la capitale de l’Empire chinois. Le culte de Vajrabhairava est attesté tant à la Cour impériale que dans les nombreux monastères tibétains de Pékin sous les Qing. Alors que plusieurs textes de ce cycle tantrique furent traduits officiellement en mongol, en chinois et en mandchou, il semble que sa pratique n’était pas répandue chez les bouddhistes chinois. En revanche, pendant l’époque républicaine le culte de Yamåntaka-Vajrabhairava attira aussi l’attention des chinois qui s’intéressaient au bouddhisme tibétain. Dans ce milieu, des maîtres chinois et des lamas tibétains réalisèrent de nouvelles traductions et enrichirent le corpus des écrits chinois consacrés à cette divinité. Cette étude porte sur le rôle de Vajrabhairava en Chine pendant la dynastie Qing et la première moitié du XXe siècle avec pour but d’analyser non seulement sa position dans le panthéon des divinités tibétaines, mais aussi son rôle dans le cadre de la diffusion des pratiques tibétaines dans le territoire Han. PROTECTING BEIJING THE TIBETAN IMAGE OF YAMÓNTAKA-VAJRABHAIRAVA IN LATE IMPERIAL AND REPUBLICAN CHINA Ester BIANCHI* A t the Shanyindian , a small shrine on a hill in Beijing’s Beihai Park, in front of a buffalo-headed deity holding a variety of weapons and ritual objects, a sign states: “According to tradition, this is the protector deity (baohu shen ) of Beijing” [Fig. 1]. An oral tradition, which may date back to the reign of Gaozong (Qianlong , 1736-1796), identifies the city with ) as Vajrabhairava (“Vajra Yamåntaka (Tib. gShin rje gshed, Ch. Daweide Terror,” Tib. rDo rje ’jigs byed, Ch. Jingang buwei ),1 a Tantric wrathful * This study was conceived within a research unit of the University of Venice, belonging to the “MURST Research of Relevant National Interest,” 2000-2001, coordinated by Francesco Remotti of the University of Turin and directed by Gian Giuseppe Filippi, to whom I wish to express my gratitude: “Luoghi dei vivi e luoghi dei morti. Confini, separazioni, intersezioni: prospettive interdisciplinari e comparative.” This project was also made possible by a two-year research grant funded by the Department of East Asian Studies of the University of Venice, to whose director Magda Abbiati and vice-director Tiziana Lippiello I am particularly grateful. My gratitude goes also to sKal bzang rgyal of the Institute of World Religions of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and to Luo Wenhua and Wang Jiapeng of the Religion Section of the Palace Museum of Beijing, whose support was of primary importance for the completion of this paper. I owe a great debt of gratitude also to sprul sku Lianbo of the Xihuangsi , to Lama Dam chos nyi ma and sKal bzang don grub of the Yonghegong , as well as to Renxiang fashi . I am grateful as well for the valuable suggestions from Anne Chayet, whose study on the Chengde complex first inspired me to pursue my research on Tibetan Buddhism in Qing China. 1 The common name for Vajrabhairava in Chinese is Jingang buwei, or simply Daweide, although different translations and transliterations may also be found in both imperial and republican sources. The Chinese word daweide, “[endowed] with great power and virtue,” is employed in Chinese canonical texts to refer to Yamåntaka (see for instance T. 1215), while bhairava, “terrifier,” is generally translated as buwei or transliterated as weiluowa . Nevertheless, wei also implies a threatening or terrifying power, thus referring to the same semantic context of bhairava: “Le fait que Yamåntaka s’appelle Daiitoku [Daweide] en sinojaponais … fournit un argument non négligeable à l’appui de l’identification de Yamåntaka et ] peut fort bien avoir servi à traduire bhairava.” Robert de Bhairava. … Bref, itoku [weide Duquenne, “Daiitoku MyØØ” [Yamåntaka vidyåråja], in HØbØgirin: Dictionnaire Images of Tibet in the 19 th and 20 th Centuries Paris, EFEO, coll. « Études thématiques » (22.1), 2008, p. 329-356 330 Ester Bianchi Fig. 1: Sign in front of Shanyindian, Beihai. (Photo by E. Bianchi) deity belonging to the Anuttarayogatantra cycle, and particularly worshipped in the dGe lugs pa tradition. In view of the fact that this deity’s mandala was considered to be reproduced in the layout of Beijing, Vajrabhairava should have held a prominent position among Buddhist deities at the Qing court. Just as Vajrapåˆi was the protective deity for the Mongols, and Avalokiteßvara for the Tibetans, Mañjußr¥ played the same role for the Manchus and Chinese; thus, the choice of Yamåntaka as a protector for the empire’s capital city is not so surprising, given that he is none other than a wrathful form of Mañjußr¥ (Tib. ’Jam dpal, Ch. Wenshu ). Even though no ancient scriptural account of this tradition appears to have survived, it should be noted that “this belief lived … in Peking even after the downfall of the Manchu dynasty.”2 Furthermore, according to one modern Chinese source and Buddhist masters presently living in Beijing, this belief has persisted up to the current time.3 The present study aims to evaluate the role of Vajrabhairava during the Qing dynasty (1644-1911), trying to understand his position among other Tibetan deities and within the context of Tibetan Buddhist practice in China proper. His cult at the imperial court and in the Tibetan monasteries in Beijing, as well as the translations of his scriptural cycle, will be taken into account. Finally, the worship of Vajrabhairava in republican China and the spread of his practice among Han Buddhists will also be considered. encyclopédique du bouddhisme d’après les sources chinoises et japonaises (Tokyo – Paris: Maison Franco-Japonaise, 1983): VI, 652-670, here 652-653. On the Chinese names of Vajrabhairava, see Luo Wenhua , “Zangchuan fojiao zhong de sishen jiqi zhongjiezhe” [Death and its destroyer in Tibetan Buddhism], Zijincheng 4.97 (1997): 10-14, here 14. Also see Ester Bianchi, “The ‘Sådhana of the Glorious Solitary Hero Yamåntaka-Vajrabhairava’ in China,” in Buddhist Asia 2, eds. Silvio Vita and Giacomella Orofino (Kyoto: forthcoming). 2 Ferdinand Diederich Lessing, “The Topographical Identification of Peking with Yamåntaka,” Central Asiatic Journal 2 (1956): 140-141, here 140. 3 The oral tradition of Beijing’s association with the mandala is reported, without details, in Niu Song (ed.), Yonghegong: Zhongguo zangchuan fojiao zhuming gusi [Yonghegong: The celebrated ancient Tibetan Buddhist monastery of China] (Beijing: Dangdai Zhongguo, 2001): 548. My thanks to Ven. Dam chos nyi ma and sKal bzang don grub for acquainting me with this study: I was not able to trace any other Chinese source, ancient or modern, referring to this topic. 331 Protecting Beijing Beijing city and Vajrabhairava’s mandala With the title “The Topographical Identification of Peking with Yamåntaka,” Ferdinand Diederich Lessing introduced one of his shortest but still very significant studies, which is the only reference on this subject to be widely cited by later Western scholars.4 As clearly stated by Lessing, “The god whose image was supposed to be reflected in the city plan of Peking was one of the most formidable, if not the most formidable, creations of Tantric imagination, Yamåntaka, ‘He who has put an End to Yama (Death),’ usually referred to as Çr¥-mahå-bhairava.”5 The belief that Vajrabhairava’s mandala [Fig. 2]6 was read into the city plan of Beijing has been endorsed by contemporary Buddhist masters, who were acquainted with the story even though they could not quote any ancient written sources. A comparison of this information with the contents of Vajrabhairava’s sådhana and tantras, as well as with mandala representations, reveals striking correspondences that draw forth a number of symbolic meanings from each portion of the old city. According to Lessing, the statue of “Solitary Hero”7 Vajrabhairava in Beihai represented the main deity of the mandala [Fig. 3]. Others suggest that this position may well have been occupied by the Qing emperors themselves, since they were considered to be manifestations of Mañjußr¥.8 Furthermore, the Manchu rulers 4 F. D. Lessing, “The Topographical Identification.” For instance, Lessing’s study is cited by Patricia Berger, Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2003): 216, note 44; Susan Naquin, Peking: Temples and City Life 1400-1900 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000): 14 and 473; Bulcsu Siklós, The Vajrabhairava Tantras: Tibetan and Mongolian Versions. English Translation and Annotation (Tring, UK: The Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1996): 15; and Michel Strickmann, Mantras et mandarins. Le bouddhisme tantrique en Chine (Paris: Gallimard, 1996): 422-423. 5 F. D. Lessing, “The Topographical Identification,” 140. 6 Mandala of Vajrabhairava as a single deity on the vault of the Shanyindian. According to Paˆ chen bSod nams grags pa (1478-1554), the extensive root tantra of Vajrabhairava included the following mandalas: Vajrabhairava as a single deity, the Eight Vetålas, the Nine Deities, the Thirteen Deities, and the Forty-nine Deities. However, the short version of the root tantra, i.e., the version transmitted into Tibet, has only the Eight Vetålas and the Forty-nine Deities mandalas; it also includes the mandala of the Thirteen Deities, even if it is not explicitly described. See Panchen Sonam Dragpa, Overview of Buddhist Tantra. General Presentation of the Classes of Tantra, Captivating the Minds of the Fortunate Ones, trans. M. J. Boord and Losang Norbu Tsonawa (Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1996): 48. 7 “By the term ‘solitary hero’ or ‘sole hero’ (Skt. ekkav¥ra) we understand only the father deity, as opposed to the ‘co-emergent’ (Skt. sahaja) form of the union of the father and mother deities” (Panchen Sonam Dragpa, Overview, 49). 8 This point of view was expounded by sprul sku Lianbo (private communication, December 27, 2004) and is also held by Siklós: “The essential point may well have been concealed from Lessing since the Vajrabhairava at the centre of the Forbidden City would have been the Mañjußr¥ Emperor himself in any protective or wrathful function while the relevant rituals would have centred around the representative statue” (Bulcsu Siklós, The Vajrabhairava 332 Ester Bianchi Fig. 2: Mandala on the vault of Shanyindian, Beihai. (Photo by E. Bianchi) Fig. 3: Statue of Vajrabhairava in Shanyindian, Beihai. (Photo by E. Bianchi) Protecting Beijing 333 might also be seen in the bodhisattva displaying its imperturbable features above the buffalo head of Vajrabhairava. In general terms, the layout of the Forbidden City, and the imperial and outer cities, is intended to relate to the three concentric rings of Vajrabhairava’s mandala. The Forbidden City corresponds to the first and central ring, symbolizing prajna, “wisdom.” The walls surrounding the Forbidden City correspond to the mandala’s vajra fence (Tib. rdo rje’i rwa ba), which is symbolic of emptiness and of its realization; the four main doors parallel the gates to realization in Vajrabhairava’s mansion.9 The imperial city is then identified with the ring of fire, symbolizing karuˆå, “compassion.” Finally, the outer city coincides with the ring of the charnel grounds, representing the spiritual path. At the very core of the mandala is the celestial mansion,10 where the main deity resides surrounded by twelve other deities.11 In the Tantras, 15). The idea that Manchu emperors were manifestations of Mañjußr¥ dates back to the seventeenth century, and was supported by Tibetan prophecies speaking of a ruler able to unite Chinese, Tibetans, and Mongols in the faith of dGe lugs pa Buddhism (sixteenth century); it was justified by the assonance between the Bodhisattva’s name and “Manchu.” Tibetan and Mongolian sources from the seventeenth down to the nineteenth centuries often refer to Qing rulers as “the Mañjugho a Emperors”; however, very few Chinese sources sustain the idea of emperors being manifestations of the Bodhisattva. On this issue, see particularly David M. Farquhar, “Emperor as Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Ch’ing Empire,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 38.1 (1978): 5-34; also see Patricia Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 55-61 and 162, and Xiang Si , Huangdi de foyuan [Emperors’ Buddha-karmic affinity] (Beijing: Zijincheng, 2004): 157-170. For a list of thangkas portraying Qianlong as Mañjußr¥, see Lucie Olivová, “Tibetan Temples in the Forbidden City (An Architectural Introduction),” Archiv Orientálí 71.3 (2003): 409-432, here 427, note 38, and Evelyn S. Rawski, The Last Emperors. A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998): 381-382, note 135. A so-conceived portrait of Qianlong is reproduced in Yang Xin , Wang Jiapeng , Liu Lu , and Hu Jianzhong (eds.), Qinggong zangchuan fojiao wenwu [Cultural relics of Tibetan Buddhism collected in the Qing palace] (Beijing: Zijincheng, 1998): 88-89; a Tibetan inscription on the thangka states that the Emperor is the “manifestation of Mañjußr¥, dharmaråja of great virtue.” For two other similar portraits belonging to the Qing Palace Collection, see (ed.), Zangchuan fojiao tangka [Thangka: Buddhist painting Wang Jiapeng of Tibet] (Shanghai: Shanghai kexue jishu, 2003): 38-39. 9 In commenting on the Vajramahåbhairava-tantra, Sonaßr¥ explains that the four gates are the four doors to realization: “emptiness (stong pa nyid), signlessness (mtshan ma med pa), wishlessness (smon pa med pa) and effortlessness (mgon par ’du byed med pa)” (quoted in Bulcsu Siklós, The Vajrabhairava Tantras, 28). Alternatively, Cozort writes: “The doors represent accomplishments: the white east, the five faculties of belief and faith; the yellow south, the perfect abandonment of afflictions; the red west, the ‘close contemplations’; the green north, miracles. The gateways themselves represent the four meditative concentrations of the form realm.” Daniel Cozort, The Sand Mandala of Vajrabhairava (New York: Snow Lion Publications, 1995): 26. 10 For a fine copy of a three-dimensional reproduction of Vajrabhairava’s palace (enameled copper, h. 50 cm, d. 75cm) belonging to the Qing Palace Collection, see Wang Baoguang (ed.), Zijincheng li de zongjiao [Religion in the Forbidden City] (Beijing: Zijincheng, 1999, first published 1992): 3. 11 It is thus very probable that the mandala referred to in this oral tradition is that of the Thirteen Deities (Tib. lha bcu gsum gyi dkyil ’khor, Ch. shisan zun tancheng ). For a 334 Ester Bianchi city of Beijing, this is represented by the Taihedian (Audience Hall), which is square, and has four gates as in the mandala, but positioned differently.12 In its ceiling are nine niches [Fig. 4], which in Vajrabhairava’s mansion house nine out of the thirteen deities.13 The interior of the celestial mansion, as well as the Taihedian, is divided into five parts; the center is occupied in the former by the inner lotus or seat of Vajrabhairava, and in the latter by the emperor’s throne. Fig. 4: Nine niches on the ceiling of the Taihedian, Forbidden City. (Photo by E. Bianchi) reproduction of such a mandala, belonging to the Qing Palace Collection and dating back to the eighteenth century, see Wang Jiapeng, Zangchuan fojiao tangka, 232. The thirteen deities of the mandala include Vajrabhairava himself, and represent the thirteen stages of the path described in the Yamåntaka tantras. Among them there are the five J¥nas, with Vajrabhairava in central position on behalf of Ak obhya, the head of his own lineage. On this issue, Beer writes: “The central and the eastern positions of Akshobhya and Vairochana are frequently interchanged. Most of the yoga tantras (the third of the four classes of tantras), for example, have the peaceful white form of Vairochana at their centre, whilst many of the anuttarayoga tantras (the highest of the four classes of tantras) … have blue Akshobhya at their centre.” Robert Beer, The Encyclopedia of Tibetan Symbols and Motivs (London: Serindia Publications, 1999): 92. 12 The Taihedian has three front doors and a rear gate, while the four doors of Vajrabhairava’s mansion open to the four cardinal points. On the Confucian-inspired symbolism of the Taihedian and its throne, particularly in regard to the accession ritual, see E. S. Rawski, The Last Emperors, 203-207. 13 In reality, these nine niches are not so clearly outlined on the ceiling of the Taihedian: “If one disregards the columns which support the heavy roof except for those four which mark the corners of the place occupied by the throne, then the coffers in the ceiling constitute a regular square, divided into nine small squares” (F. D. Lessing, “The Topographical Identification,” 141). The remaining four deities are gate guardians and are consequently collocated with the four main entrances to Vajrabhairava’s mansion. 335 Protecting Beijing Finally, Vajrabhairava’s palace stands on a huge blue foundation, symbolizing Ak obhya, inside which a cross vajra is inserted.14 According to a belief referred to by Lessing, such a vajra is said to be buried under the steps leading to the dais on which the throne stands in the Taihedian.15 In the Vajrayana tradition, the vajra cross is collocated with the base of Mount Meru (i.e., the axis mundi), which in fact is represented by the shape of an overturned pyramid positioned below it in Vajrabhairava’s mandala. According to such symbolism, the emperor’s throne in the Taihedian of the Forbidden City would be identified with the very center of the manifested world. Images and worship of Vajrabhairava in Beijing The dGe lugs pa cult of Yamåntaka as Vajrabhairava first entered the Chinese court at the beginning of the fifteenth century.16 Even if Ming emperors generally preferred Chinese Buddhism, Chengzu (Yongle , 1403-1425), and to some extent Taizu (Hongwu , 1368-1399)17 and Xuanzong (Xuande , 1426-1436),18 were also interested in Tibetan Buddhism. Chengzu, who had Tibetan images (including Vajrabhairava) produced and presented to high lamas,19 was more inclined towards the Karma pa tradition, which was favored by the Tibetan ruling 14 The vajra cross (Skt. vißvavajra, Tib. rdo rje rgya gram), also called “universal vajra,” symbolizes the Absolute, or the stability principle of worldly manifestation. It has five colors (white in the east, yellow in the south, red in the west, green in the north and blue in the center) representing the five J¥nas. See R. Beer, The Encyclopedia, 239-243. 15 This detail was unknown to all the Buddhist masters I interviewed. 16 A cult to Vajrabhairava seems to have already reached the court during the Yuan dynasty (1279-1368), according to a mandala of the fourteenth century showing, on its lower-left side, two seated Mongolian patrons, identified as two great-grandsons of Khubilai; Heather Stoddard suggests that they could be Togh Temur and Koshila, who might have received Vajrabhairava’s initiation around the years 1328-1329. Patricia Berger, “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: Spencer Museum of Art, 1994): 89-123, here 104-105 (citing an unpublished report by Heather Stoddard). Moreover, it should be mentioned that the Chinese canonical texts T. 1217, T. 890 and T. 891, all attributed to Faxian (?-1001), present descriptions of Yamåntaka which may well refer to Vajrabhairava (R. Duquenne, “Daiitoku,” 665). 17 Taizu, who was a devout Buddhist, sent Chinese monks to Tibet, including Zongle , and Zhiguang (?-1435), the most important translator of Tibetan texts during the Ming. Lü Jianfu , Zhongguo mijiao shi [A history of Chinese Tantric Buddhism] (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue, 1995): 543. 18 Like Chengzu, Emperor Xuande also invited Shåkya ye shes to his court (1426-1435). See Huang Hao , Zai Beijing de zangzu wenwu [Cultural objects of the Tibetans in Beijing] (Beijing: Minzu, 1993): 33, and Suonan Cairang , Xizang mijiao shi [A history of Tibetan Vajrayana] (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue, 1998): 567. 19 A statue of Vajrabhairava (Yongle reign period) is reproduced in Heather Karmay, Early Sino-Tibetan Art (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1975): 91. 336 Ester Bianchi clans of the time.20 Nevertheless, during his reign, Byams chen Chos rje Shåkya ye shes (1354-1435), one of Tsong kha pa’s closest disciples, went to Beijing (14141416), and is said to have initiated the emperor and his court into Tantric practices, including the Forty-nine Deities Vajrabhairava.21 Among later emperors, Wuzong (Zhengde , 1506-1521), “an enthusiastic devotee of Tibetan Buddhism,”2 2 also favored the production of Tibetan art in Beijing; a group of paintings from his reign include a thangka of Vajrabhairava.23 However, it was during the Qing dynasty that the cult of Vajrabhairava became widespread in Beijing’s imperial and Tibetan milieus. Since Vajrabhairava is one of the three main dGe lugs pa deities, together with Guhyasamåja (Tib. gSang ’dus, Ch. Miji ) and Sa vara (Tib. bDe mchog, ), it was very natural for this deity to be elevated to the top of the Ch. Shengle Buddhist pantheon at the Manchu court, given the court’s inclination towards the school of Tsong kha pa, founder of the dGe lugs pa tradition.24 Even if the first Manchu emperors did show some interest in Tibetan Buddhism,25 its “golden age” at the Qing court came with Qianlong, who proved to be a devout 20 Chengzu invited and received at his court the fifth Karma pa De bzhin gshegs pa (1384-1415). Elliot Sperling, “The 5th Karma-pa and some aspects of the relationship between Tibet and the early Ming,” in Tibetan Studies in Honour of Hugh Richardson, eds. Michael Aris and Aung San Suu Kyi (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1980): 280-289. The same emperor appointed altogether eight Tibetan religious dignitaries to China, including Tsong kha pa. At least two imperial delegations were sent to Lhasa for this purpose (H. Karmay, Early Sino-Tibetan, 73-74). 21 The other Tantric practices transmitted by Shåkya ye shes to Chengzu were those of Guhyasamåja, Hevajra, Sa vara and Bhai ajyaguru (Suonan Cairang, Xizang, 566). No other eminent dGe lugs pa master seems to have inherited his influence at the Chinese court. Still, his activities were of primary importance, since they introduced Tsong kha pa’s teachings in China for the first time. See Huang Hao, Zai Beijing, 31-33, Suonan Cairang, Xizang, 565-568, and H. Karmay, Early Sino-Tibetan, 80-83. 22 Marsha Weidner, “Buddhist Pictorial Art in the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644): Patronage, Regionalism and Internationalism,” in Latter Days, ed. M. Weidner, 51-88, here 59. 23 These pictures, dated 1512, were made for dPal ldan rin po che, an important lama residing in Beijing, and were most probably produced in China. See M. Weidner, “Buddhist Pictorial Art,” 59 and 250-253 (for the analysis and reproduction of Vajrabhairava’s thangka). 24 Tsong kha pa is said to have conducted a service devoted to each of the three yi dam every day. F. D. Lessing, Yung-ho-kung. An Iconography of the Lamaist Cathedral in Peking. With notes on Lamaist Mythology and Cult (Stockholm – Goteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag, 1942): 91. Moreover, according to lHun grub paˆ ita Blo bzang lhun grub, Mañjußr¥ revealed five features of the Vajrabhairava cycle to the founder of the dGe lugs pas, stating that it included the main features of Guhyasamåja and Sa vara. See B. Siklós, The Vajrabhairava Tantras, 4-5, and Sharpa Tulku, and Richard Guard, Self-initiation of Vajra bhairava. By Phabongkha Kyabje Dechen Nyingpo (Dharamsala – Delhi: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1991): vii. 25 Among Qianlong’s predecessors, both Shizu (Shunzhi , 1644-1661) and Shizong (Yongzheng , 1723-1736) seem to have preferred Chan Buddhism; the latter was also devoted to Daoism. Shengzu (Kangxi , 1662-1723), on the other hand, was mainly an adherent of Confucianism. However, all of them were also inclined towards Tibetan Buddhism, as proved by their role in the building of Tibetan temples in Beijing, on Mount Wutai, in Dolonnor, and in Chengde. Kangxi was very close to Zanabazar, the first Protecting Beijing 337 Buddhist,26 in spite of some contradictory official declarations.27 Qianlong engaged in intensive Buddhist studies, received Tantric initiations, and was said to participate in Buddhist services every day; he frequently made pilgrimages to Mount Wutai, had Tibetan temples constructed inside the Forbidden City “which could only be meant for his private practice,”28 and requested Buddhist carvings and reliefs for his personal tomb.29 He was close to the lCang skya Khutukhtu Rol pa’i rdo rje (1717-1786; Ch. Zhangjia Ruobi duoji ),30 whom he met when still young and with whom he studied Mongolian and Tibetan. Later, Rol pa’i rdo rje acted as religious and political advisor to the emperor and in 1734 was granted the title of State Preceptor (Ch. guoshi ), which had also been given to ’Phags pa during the Yuan dynasty.31 From Jebtsundamba of Urga, whom he regarded at least with “great admiration,” but probably also as a spiritual guide (P. Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 26-28). 26 Emperor Qianlong’s patronage of Buddhism may be exemplified by the fact that he had himself portrayed in the role of Vimalak¥rti, the greatest and most celebrated layman in Buddhist history. On this issue see particularly the broad and exhaustive work by Berger, Empire of Emptiness. 27 On a stele inscription in Chengde, Qianlong declared himself a non-Buddhist. See A. Chayet, Les temples de Jehol et leurs modèles tibétains (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1985): 60. Furthermore, another well-known marble stele erected in 1792 in Yonghegong, reporting an essay of Qianlong in the four main languages of the Empire, suggests that he was reprimanded for his interest in Tibetan Buddhism. This inscription, known as Lama shuo [On the lamas], is translated in Lessing, Yung-ho-kung, 58-61. Also see James Hevia, “Lamas, Emperors, and Rituals: Political Implications in Qing Imperial Ceremonies,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 16.2 (1993): 243-278, here 243-244, and the contribution by Shen Weirong and Wang Liping in this volume. 28 Wang Jiapeng , “Gugong Yuhuage tanyuan” [Investigating the origin of the Yuhua pavilion at the imperial palace], in Qingdai gongshi tanwei [Explorations into Qing dynasty palace history] (Beijing: Zijincheng, 1991): 272 (this sentence is applied by Wang only to the Yuhuage , but may also be extended to the other Tibetan temples inside the Forbidden City). 29 On Qianlong’s mausoleum, see Qingdai diwang lingqin [Imperial mausoleums of the Qing] (Beijing: Dang’an yuan, 1982): 35-36 (cited in E. S. Rawski, The Last Emperors, 381, note 128). 30 Khutukhtu (Ch. hutuketu ) is the Mongolian term corresponding to the Tibetan sprul sku. Since the eighteenth century, the lCang skya Khutukhtu resided in Beijing. On lCang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje, see Wang Xiangyun, “The Qing Court’s Tibet Connection: Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje and the Qianlong Emperor,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 60.1 (2000): 125-163, and Wang Xiangyun, Tibetan Buddhism at the Court of Qing. The Life and Work of lCang-skya Rol-pa’i rdo-rje (1717-1786) (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1995); his biography has recently been translated into Chinese: Chen Qingying and Ma Lianlong (trans.), Zhangjia guoshi Ruobi duoji zhuan [Biography of lCang skya State Preceptor Rol pa’i rdo rje], by Tuguan Luosang queji nima (Beijing: Minzu, 1987). For a thangka portraying Rol pa’i rdo rje, see Wang Jiapeng, Zangchuan fojiao tangka, 36-37; note that in the upper left corner stands an image of Vajrabhairava. 31 lCang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje and Qianlong’s connection was often compared to the ‘king/ chaplain’ relationship of Khubilai Khan and ’Phags pa. Thu’u bkwan Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma, lCang skya’s biographer, even maintained that ’Phags pa was a previous manifestation of the Khutukhtu (Wang Xiangyun, Tibetan Buddhism, 294). On Blo gros rgyal mtshan (12351280), better known as “’Phags pa the Saint,” see Luciano Petech, “Religious Leader. ’P’ags-pa 338 Ester Bianchi 1737 he became the highest lama in the imperial administration and the supervisor of all temples and monasteries in Beijing.32 Although in 1745 Rol pa’i rdo rje conferred the initiation of his own tutelary deity Sa vara on Qianlong,33 he is also said to have transmitted other Tantric practices to the emperor, as well as to princes, other members of the imperial clan, Manchu officials, and wealthy Chinese. At the request of palace officers and Chinese monks, he gave a two-day lecture in Chinese, transmitting the text of the initiation into the Thirteen Deities Vajrabhairava to a large audience of Manchus and Chinese.34 Imperial patronage of Tibetan Buddhism continued throughout the entire Qing sovereignty, which may be explained in part by the strong devotion accorded by later emperors to Qianlong,35 even if such patronage became weaker as time went by. Beijing remained one of the major centers of Tibetan Buddhism: lamas (some of them eunuchs trained for this purpose)36 resided in the imperial palace and on a daily basis performed Tibetan Buddhist rituals there, Tibetan delegations were received in Beijing, and thousands of Tibetan and Mongol lamas permanently lived in the many Tibetan monasteries of the city. In the late eighteenth century, there were fifty-three Tibetan Buddhist temples in Beijing: including the shrines in the Forbidden City and in the Beihai area, about thirty temples were to be found inside the imperial city and around the suburban villas.37 Most of them were still active at the beginning of the twentieth century, though in many cases undermined by poverty.38 Inside the walls of the Forbidden City, within the inner court, there were temples meant for the private worship of the emperor and his entourage, among which a (1235-1280),” in In the Service of the Khan. Eminent Personalities of the Early Mongol-Yüan Period (1200-1300), eds. Hok-lam Chan et al. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1993): 646-654. The title of guoshi had already been given by Kangxi to the first lCang skya Khutukhtu. The same emperor also chose the Chinese characters to transliterate his name: zhangjia instead of zhangjia (the latter being traditionally employed to transliterate the lCang skya prefecture). See Lü Jianfu, Zhongguo mijiao, 612. 32 Wang Xiangyun, Tibetan Buddhism, 117. 33 Chen Qingying and Ma Lianlong, Zhangjia guoshi, 182-183. 34 Chen Qingying and Ma Lianlong, Zhangjia guoshi, 186, and Wang Xiangyun, Tibetan Buddhism, 126, quoting the Tibetan text by Thu’u bkwan Blo bzang chos kyi nyi ma, 300-301. 35 Qianlong is generally regarded as the last great emperor of China. As Lucie Olivová has it, “a strong, if not decisive, factor of Tibetan Buddhist practice intensity in the Manchu court throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was the personal religious devotion of Emperor Qianlong” (Olivová, “Tibetan Temples,” 427). 36 See S. Naquin, Peking, 54 and 303-304, and Evelyn S. Rawski, The Last Emperors, 271. 37 Interestingly, no Tibetan temple seems to have been located in the outer Chinese city. See Naquin, Peking, 309 and 585. 38 Naquin, Peking, 591. For an overview of Beijing’s Tibetan temples, see G. Bouillard, Le temple des Lamas. Temple lamaïste de Yung Ho Kung à Péking. Description, Plans, Photos, Cérémonies (Peking: Albert Nachbaur Éditeur, 1931): 29-39; Huang Hao, Zai Beijing, and Zhou Shujia , Qingdai fojiao shiliao jigao [A collection of historical data on Buddhism during the Qing dynasty] (Taibei: Xinwenfeng, 2000): 67-89. For Qing administration of the Tibetan temples, see. Rawski, The Last Emperors, 254-259. Protecting Beijing 339 dozen halls were entirely devoted to Tibetan Buddhist practice.39 The most important was the Zhongzhengdian (Hall of Central Uprightness) complex, rectangular in shape and predominantly dedicated to Amitåyus, except for a small temple in the northern courtyard in which Mañjußr¥ was worshipped.40 In the middle of the southern courtyard stood the Yuhuage (Pavilion of Raining Flowers),41 a four-storey pagoda built by Qianlong in 1750 and representing the four classes of tantras. On the ground floor were three huge three-dimensional mandalas of the three main dGe lugs pa yi dam, including Vajrabhairava.42 The same deities, embracing their Tantric consorts, were worshipped on the fourth floor, which was devoted to the Anuttarayogatantra: Guhyasamåja in the center, with Sa vara and Vajrabhairava (here Ch. Weiluowa jingang ) on either side.43 Every year, on the eighth day of the fourth month, this upper floor was the venue where five lamas from Yonghegong recited a text on Mahåvajrabhairava’s mandala (Ch. Dabuwei tancheng jing 39 For a general but still in-depth outline of the Tibetan temples of the imperial palace, see Olivová, “Tibetan Temples,” and Wang Jiapeng , “Qinggong zangchuan fojiao wenhua kaocha” [Investigation into Tibetan Buddhist culture in the Qing palace], in Qingdai gong shi congtan [Conference on Qing palace history] (Beijing: Zijincheng, 1996): 135-152, here 137-139 (cited by Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 97). Wang lists thirty-five buildings in the Forbidden City completely devoted to Tibetan Buddhism. Also see Wang Baoguang, Zijincheng; Yang Xin, Wang Jiapeng, Liu Lu, and Hu Jianzhong, Qinggong; (ed.), Qinggong shuwen [Reports about the Qing palace] and Zhang Naiwei (Beijing: Zijincheng, 1990): 444-448. On the Tibetan rituals performed within the Forbidden City, see DQHDSL , Neiwu fu—zali [Internal archives, diverse regulations], j. 1219. Far from being exhaustive, this account refers only to the most important of these events; in general terms, private rituals within the inner court were not cited in the public records. On the same issue, see also Zhou Shujia, Qingdai fojiao, 101-103. 40 Built in the early fifteenth century, Zhongzhengdian was located in the north-western section of the Forbidden City and, after 1697, it housed the Nianjingchu , a place where religious services where organized and where Tibetan scriptures and worship objects were produced. See Wang Jiapeng , “Zhongzhengdian yu Qinggong zangchuan fojiao” [The Hall of Central Uprightness and Tibetan Buddhism at the Qing palace], Gugong bowuyuan yuankan 53.3 (1991): 58-71. 41 On this pavilion, which was meant to be a reproduction of mTho ling gser khang monastery (or of bSam yas, according to others), see Liu Sheng , “Yuhuage yu Sangyesi bijiao yanjiu” [A comparison between the Pavilion of Raining Flowers and bSam yas monastery], in Zhongguo Zijincheng xuehui lunwen ji [A collection of studies by the Forbidden City Association of China], eds. Yu Zhuoyun and Zhu Chengru (Beijing: Zijincheng, 2002): 100-104, and Wang Jiapeng, “Gugong Yuhuage.” Also see Patricia Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 97-104, and Lucie Olivová, “Tibetan Temples,” 412-417. 42 These huge mandalas (d. 3.65 m), which are ornamented with lace-like decorations of enamel, were commissioned by Qianlong and were made in the years 1753-1755. For an account of Qianlong’s orders and the subsequent production of the mandalas, see Qianlong reign’s DAG, quoted in Wang Jiapeng, “Gugong Yuhuage,” 264-265 and 266-267 (also see 278-279). For a reproduction, see Yang Xin, Wang Jiapeng, Liu Lu, and Hu Jianzhong, Qinggong, 248. 43 Wang Jiapeng, “Gugong Yuhuage,” 270. For an overview of the main altar, holding a statue and a thangka of each deity, see Yang Xin, Wang Jiapeng, Liu Lu, and Hu Jianzhong, Qinggong, 260. 340 Ester Bianchi ).44 North-west of the Yuhuage, Qianlong erected in 1768 a small two-storey building, the Fanzonglou (Hall of Buddhism), which was completely devoted to this same Tantric cycle; on the ground floor, a statue of Mañjußr¥ was enshrined and on the upper floor, one of Vajrabhairava.45 Among the other Buddhist buildings, the most important was the Baohuadian (Hall of Treasure Brilliance), which was consecrated to Íåkyamuni Buddha and in front of which all major Buddhist ceremonies took place. In addition, statues and paintings representing Buddhist deities (including Vajrabhairava or other forms of Yamåntaka) were kept and worshipped in some of the other temples and chapels, as well as in the residential palaces of emperors, empresses, concubines, and princes.46 Out of the eight Buddhist temples in the Western Park (Ch. Xiyuan ), or Beihai,47 four were inhabited by lamas. On Qionghua Island there was an impressive Tibetan worship place, which was to become Beihai’s principle landmark. The Baita (White Stupa) was built in 1651 by Shunzhi in order to welcome the Dalai Lama’s official visit to Beijing.48 Positioned on a hill associated with Mount Kunlun,49 the Baita was intended to reproduce the homonymous stupa constructed by Anige in the Yuan era. Right in front of the bell-shaped pagoda, and at the rear of the Yong’ansi (Monastery of Everlasting Peace), a Yamåntaka Hall (Ch. Yamendagadian ), i.e., Shanyindian (Good Causes Hall) [Fig. 5] was erected in 1751.50 This small square building, covered with about four hundred and fifty 44 DQHDSL , j. 1219, 2b. On the same day other texts where chanted at Qingjingdi in Yuanmingyuan and at Bao’enyanshousi . Also see Niu Song, Yonghegong, 516. The useful account of services by the Yonghegong monks in Niu’s work is , Yonghegong manlu [Casual notes on the mainly based on Wei Kaizhao Yonghegong] (Zhengzhou: Henan renmin, 1985): 147-166. 45 On every first and fifteenth day of the lunar calendar months, libations were offered to the Bodhisattva. These two statues are the biggest representations of the two deities inside the Forbidden City. See Yang Xin, Wang Jiapeng, Liu Lu, and Hu Jianzhong, Qinggong, 240-243. 46 Some of these statues, thangka and religious objects were imported from Tibetan or Mongolian areas, while others where made by the artists, painters and artisans of the Nianjingchu, the Ruyiguan , and the Zaobanchu inside the imperial palace. For some images of Vajrabhairava and of other forms of Yamåntaka, see Luo Wenhua (ed.), Tuxiang yu fengge. Gugong zangchuan fojiao zaoxiang [Iconography and styles. Tibetan Buddhist statues in the Palace Museum] (Beijing: Zijincheng, 2002): 124-139; Wang Jiapeng, Zangchuan fojiao tangka, 43, 168, 241, 255 and 266[Buddhist statues of Tibet] 267; Wang Jiapeng (ed.), Zangchuan fojiao zaoxiang (Shanghai: Shanghai kexue jishu, 2003): 152-153, 207, 215, 253-254 and 263; and Yang Xin, Wang Jiapeng, Liu Lu, and Hu Jianzhong, Qinggong, 76-79 and 146-147. 47 On Beihai, see particularly Liu Xianyin and Wang Xin (eds.), Beihai Jingshan gongyuan zhi [Records of Beihai’s Jingshan park] (Beijing: Beihai Jingshan gongyuan guanlichu – Zhongguo Linye, 2000). 48 On this official visit, see W. W. Rockhill, “The Dalai Lamas of Lhasa and their Relations with the Manchu Emperors of China 1644-1908,” T’oung Pao 2.11 (1910): 1-104, here 13-18. Also see Ya Hanzhang, The Biographies of the Dalai Lamas. Translated by Wang Wenjiong (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1991): 31-44. 49 See L. C. Arlington and William Lewisohn, In Search of Old Peking. With an Introduction by Geremie Barmé (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1987): 82. 50 Liu Xianyin, and Wang Xin, Beihai Jingshan gongyuan, 67. The consecration of the Protecting Beijing 341 small Buddhas on blue glazed tiles, nowadays enshrines a reproduction of the already mentioned statue of Vajrabhairava [Fig. 3].51 According to Ven. Renxiang , who was quoting Nenghai’s (1886-1967) words, the reason why Vajrabhairava’s statue was placed on the top of the hill was to protect Beijing by propitiating waters of the imperial lake, in line with Tibetan geomancy.52 The Shanyindian was repeatedly renovated during the 19th century, thus confirming that after Qianlong the imperial court did not lose interest in it.53 Another important site in Bei hai was the Chanfusi (Conferring Blessing Monastery), a Ming construction converted into a temple in 1746, and a main venue for court Buddhist rituals during the Fig. 5: Detail of Shanyindian, in front of the Baita, whole dynasty; here, Qianlong had Beihai. (Photo by E. Bianchi) a service for the Sixteen Arhats, Amitåyus, the four great Dharmapålas, and Vajrabhairava celebrated by a hundred and eight lamas from the fourteenth to the sixteenth day of the last month of every year.54 The Regulations of the Qing inform us that during the same days, fifty-four lamas statue took place in the eleventh month of the same year. 51 The original bronze gilded statue was destroyed during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Interestingly, in 1933 Arlington and Lewisohn were told by Chinese people that “only a horrible-looking god like this can keep such wild people as the Mongols in order” (L. C. Arlington and W. Lewisohn, In Search of Old Peking, 82). 52 Private communication with Renxiang fashi (January 20, 2005). According to Susan Naquin, in spite of their intention to propitiate the gods who governed the waters that flowed into the imperial lakes, Qing rulers “built rather few institutions for Daoist clerics within this part of their domain” (Naquin, Peking, 309). Nenghai’s words may be taken as a partial explanation for this absence. 53 Renovations took place in 1832 during the reign of Xuanzong (Daoguang , 1821-1851), in 1856 during the reign of Wenzong (Xianfeng , 1851-1862), and finally in 1888, 1895 and 1905 during the reign of Dezong (Guangxu , 1875-1908) (Liu Xianyin and Wang Xin, Beihai Jingshan gongyuan, 67). 54 Liu Xianyin and Wang Xin, Beihai Jingshan gongyuan, 281 (quoting a source in the DAG). The Regulations of the Qing specify that these rituals took place in the Dacizhenru baodian (Hall of Reality and Compassion) and do not mention the text devoted to the four great Dharmapålas (DQHDSL, j. 1219, 3a). For the Chanfusi, located on the northwestern edge of Beihai, see Liu Xianyin and Wang Xin, Beihai Jingshan gongyuan, 107-111. 342 Ester Bianchi chanted the text of Vajrabhairava in the nearby Dayuanjingzhi baodian (Hall of Perfect Mirror-like Knowledge).55 Among Beijing’s Tibetan Buddhist temples, the most outstanding and important was the Yonghegong, which had been the princely residence of Shizong (Yongzheng, 1723-1736) and was located in the northeastern quadrant of the imperial city.56 It was converted into a monastery by Yongzheng himself and later dedicated by Qianlong to his father in 1743-1745.57 The monastery soon became the stronghold of Tibetan Buddhism within China proper and was closely connected with the imperial court.58 The Yonghegong once housed between six and twelve hundred Mongol and Tibetan monks,59 though by 1905 fewer than four hundred lived there.60 As for the cult of Vajrabhairava, an impressive bronze-cast statue of Solitary Hero61 was worshipped in the Mizongdian (Vajrayana Hall) [Fig. 6], a blackroofed building devoted to Tantric practices. He also appeared as a gilt bronze statue in a pentad with Guhyasamåja, Sa vara, Mahåkåla and Yama,62 and, in the upper section of the same shrine, as the main deity of a painting also portraying Tsong 55 DQHDSL , j. 1219, 3a. As at the Chanfusi, texts devoted to the Sixteen Arhats and to Amitåyus were also chanted. On the Dayuanjingzhi baodian, which was located next to the Nine Dragons Screen (Ch. Jiulongbi ), see Liu Xianyin and Wang Xin, Beihai Jingshan gongyuan, 98-102. 56 On Yonghegong, see particularly the recent and comprehensive collection of studies by Niu Song, Yonghegong, and Lessing, Yung-ho-kung, which still stands as the most thorough study on the monastery in a Western language. Also see: RXJW, j. 20, 263-269; and Jean Bouchot, Le temple des lamas (Pékin: La Politique de Pékin, 1923); G. Bouillard, Le tem, Zangchuan fojiao gusi Yonghegong ple des Lamas; Chang Shaoru [Yonghegong, ancient Tibetan Buddhist monastery] (Beijing: Beijing yanshan, 1996); and Wei Kaizhao, Yonghegong. 57 On the history of the foundation and organization of the Yonghegong, mainly based on lCang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje’s biographies, see Wang Xiangyun, Tibetan Buddhism, 91-98. 58 During the Qing, emperors used to go to the Yonghegong every year on the third day of the first month, on the summer solstice in the fifth month, and on the thirteenth day of the eighth month, i.e., on the three days devoted to Qianlong (Wei Kaizhao, Yonghegong, 26). Patricia Berger defines the Yonghegong as a “lineage temple for the Manchus, established to honor the link in the dynastic chain between Yongzheng and his son,” but also adds that the monastery was “both private and public” (Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 117). 59 Most of those living at the Yonghegong were Mongol monks, since it was conceived specifically for Mongol practitioners. However, high positions were held mainly by Tibetans, and from the very beginning the Yonghegong’s abbot was a Tibetan (DQHDSL, j. 974, 1082, cited by Wang Xiangyun, Tibetan Buddhism, 96). On the place of origin of the Yonghegong’s monks, which varied during four phases from its foundation up to the end of the Qing dynasty, see Wei Kaizhao, Yonghegong, 134-138. 60 Jean Bouchot, Le temple des Lamas, 15, and Wang Xiangyun, Tibetan Buddhism, 94. For everyday life in Yonghegong at the beginning of the 1930s, see G. Bouillard, Le temple des Lamas, 97-101. 61 For this statue, which is approximately 2 meters high, see Niu Song, Yonghegong, 330-331, and Wei Kaizhao, Yonghegong, 93-94. 62 This shrine is reproduced in Yonghegong (Beijing: Zhongguo minzu sheying yishu, 2001): 38-39. Protecting Beijing 343 Fig. 6: Statue of Vajrabhairava in Mizongdian, Yonghe gong. (Photo by E. Bianchi) Fig. 7: Statue of Vajrabhairava in Dongpeidian, Yonghe gong. (Photo by E. Bianchi) Fig. 8: Statue of Vajrabhairava in Yamandagalou, Yonghe gong. (Photo by E. Bianchi) 344 Ester Bianchi kha pa and other deities.63 Finally, another statue of him, in yab yum position, was once placed on the second floor (which was usually closed to visitors), together with statues of Vajrasattva and Sa vara.64 The Dongpeidian (Eastern Side Hall), also called Wudajingangdian (Hall of the Five Mahåvajra), was dedicated to the five principal protectors of the dGe lugs pa pantheon; Vajrabhairava was here portrayed in a colorful clay statue embracing his mudrå Vajravetål¥ [Fig. 7].65 Finally, at the rear of the monastic complex, just west of the Wanfuge , the principal hall of the Yonghegong, stood the Yamudekelou (now renamed Yamandagalou ), where chanting services were held every day by the resident monks.66 Nowadays, a modern statue of Vajrabhairava [Fig. 8] shares the place with Guanyu , the Chinese god of war,67 who was once worshipped in another nearby building. The connection between the two deities is far from casual, considering that the Yamåntaka pavilion was a martial tower where officials used to make sacrifices during times of war, and where Qianlong kept his own weapons.68 In fact, on the two days of the year consecrated to Guanyu, the thirteenth of the fifth month and the twenty-fourth of the sixth month, a service including the sådhana 63 Lessing, Yung-ho-kung, respectively 72-76 and 91. In the same hall, there were also other paintings of Vajrabhairava (see Lessing, Yung-ho-kung, 109-110). 64 Lessing, Yung-ho-kung, 113-114 and pl. XXV, 2. 65 This colorful statue was partially covered at the time of the author’s photograph. It is reproduced in full in Yonghegong, 66. For a detailed description of this statue, which is approximately 1.5 meters high, see Niu Song, Yonghegong, 321-322. 66 Vajrabhairava, or other forms of Yamåntaka, were also worshipped elsewhere in the Yonghegong. For instance, he was among the deities surrounding Tsong kha pa on a painting to be hung above the offering table in the Tianwangdian (Hall of the Mahåråja) on the occasion of a special ritual (Lessing, Yung-ho-kung, 53). Three fine small statues of Vajrabhairava belonging to the Yonghegong’s collection (one from the Ming and two from (ed.), Yonghegong foxiang baodian the Qing), are reproduced in Lü You [Buddhist statues in the Yonghegong] (Beijing: Beijing chubanshe, 2002): 17-19. A mandala of the Thirteen Deities Vajrabhairava and a thangka of Solitary Hero Vajrabhairava are reproduced in Jia Muyang et al. (eds.), Yonghegong tangka guibao [The treasured thangkas in Yonghegong palace] (Beijing: Zhongguo minzu sheying yishu, 1998): 31 and 45. 67 Guanyu, also called Emperor Guan (Guandi ) or Duke Guan (Guangong ), the famous Chinese hero of the third century, was worshipped as the god of war of the bannermen by the Manchus, who built a Guandi temple outside the northern gate of Mukden (modern Shenyang) before conquering Beijing, and afterwards encouraged devotion to him by all their subjects. He was identified with Vaißravaˆa, the Buddhist guardian king of the north, and with the Tibetan hero Gesar (E. S. Rawski, The Last Emperors, 259). Guanyu also became a tutelary deity of lCang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje who, in his offering-prayer for this Chinese god, declared he was the protector deity of the Chinese-Manchu empire and placed him in connection with the three main dGe lugs pa yi dam, thus also with Vajrabhairava (Wang Xiangyun, Tibetan Buddhism, 137-139 and 315-316). On Guandi as protector deity of Rol pa’i rdo rje, see Wang Zilin , “Sanshi Zhangjia yu tade hufa shen” [The third lCang skya and his protector deities], Zijincheng 2.119 (2003): 36-43, here 43. 68 Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 118. Protecting Beijing 345 of Solitary Hero Vajrabhairava and a text devoted to Guanyu, was celebrated in the Falundian (Dharmacakra Hall).69 As is well known, the Yonghegong was conceived as a great Buddhist university with four monastic colleges,70 which were also the sites for Buddhist services. Chanting sessions devoted to Vajrabhairava or other forms of Yamåntaka were held in the Jiangjingdian (Hall for Sutra Explanation), or “Philosophy College,” on the eighth day of the third month, and in the Mizongdian from the fourteenth to the twenty-first of the tenth month.71 It should also be mentioned that nowadays, at dawn on the first day of the new year, monks gather to chant a sådhana of Vajrabhairava.72 Finally, in modern times, from September 24th to 30th of the solar calendar, the Festival of Vajrabhairava’s Mandala (Ch. Daweide Jingang tancheng fahui ) takes place in the Yonghegong; the event is now attended by hundreds of visitors, while in former times it was closed to the public.73 It involves the creation of the mandala by the monks and also includes the recitation of various texts belonging to Vajrabhairava’s cycle (first to third day); the celebrations end with a hØma (Tib. sbyin sreg, Ch. huogong ) rite on the last day,74 thus coinciding with the eve of China National Day. The Yonghegong monks link these rituals with the belief that Vajrabhairava is the protector of Beijing, and state that they are meant to be auspicious for the grand event of the following day.75 During the Qing, the cult of Vajrabhairava was also common in the other Tibetan temples in Beijing, most of which belonged to the dGe lugs pa tradition.76 A sin69 Niu Song, Yonghegong, 546-547. The annual ceremonies to Guanyu on the thirteenth day of the fifth month were celebrated from Yongzheng’s reign up to 1911 (Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 119). 70 The four monastic colleges were focused on the following Buddhist disciplines: philosophy, tantra, arts and sciences, and medicine. See Wang Xiangyun, Tibetan Buddhism, 93. 71 The texts to be chanted were respectively the Yamudagajing and the Daweide Jingangjing . See Niu Song, Yonghegong, 519 and 520. 72 Niu Song, Yonghegong, 534. 73 During the Qing dynasty, the Yonghegong was normally closed to the public, and only opened on certain occasions, such as the masked dances at the beginning of the new year. For the latter, see Niu Song, Yonghegong, 534-546, and Wei Kaizhao, Yonghegong, 183-197. 74 On Vajrabhairava’s fire offering, see Sharpa Tulku, and Michael Perrott, A Manual of Ritual Fire Offerings (Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1987): 16 and 29-73. 75 Niu Song, Yonghegong, 548. For a detailed description of the festival see also 547-551. 76 Among the other Tibetan temples in Beijing, worthy of mention is the celebrated Yellow Monastery (Huangsi ) which was built in 1651 by Shunzhi to host the 5th Dalai Lama. The 3rd Panchen Lama and the 13th Dalai Lama also stayed there during their official visits to Beijing. One of the two parts of the building was inhabited by lamas throughout the entire Qing dynasty. Nowadays it is a monastic college for Tibetan monks. See the comand Li Decheng (eds.), Mingcha prehensive study: Danjiong Rannabanza shuang Huangsi. Qingdai Dalai he Banchan zai Jing zhuxidi [The celebrated two Yellow Monasteries, place of residence of the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama in Beijing] (Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua, 1997). Finally, even if not closely related to the main topic of this study, which only considers Beijing city, there are two other localities which should be mentioned in regard to Tibetan Buddhism in China proper: 346 Ester Bianchi gle example may suffice to give an idea of the way Han people regarded such a wrathful deity. According to a Chinese chronicle, in Beijing’s Huguosi (Monastery for the Protection of the State), Tibetan monks venerated “blue-faced and pig-headed statues, fat and short, carrying human heads all over the body, with ten paired legs and war weapons, and having a very terrifying appearance,” a description which, in spite of some inaccuracies, may well have referred to Vajrabhairava.77 Chinese translations of the Vajrabhairava cycle As a consequence of the support given by emperors to Tibetan Buddhism, during the Qing dynasty the translation of Tibetan Buddhist scriptures continued and flourished.78 These were mostly into Mongolian but also included some into Chinese and Manchu. According to Song Zhusi , the first Chinese imperial translation of a text from the Vajrabhairava Tantric cycle dates back to Emperor Yongzheng’s reign.79 However, it should be noted that its title, which refers to a Complete Sådhana of Vajrabhairava, includes a name for the deity that was presumably standardized during Qianlong’s reign by lCang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje (Ch. Daweide buwei jingang ).80 The oldest extant Chinese translations of the Vajrabhairava cycle appear to be three works in a collection titled Three Texts of Vajrabhairava (Ch. Daweide jingang buwei sanjing ), which include the Precious Basket of the Sådhana of Chengde’s Jehol complex (Ch. Rehe ), and the various Tibetan temples on Mount Wutai. Vajrabhairava was worshipped on the third floor of the Pududian in Chengde’s Anyuanmiao . For Chengde’s Tibetan temples, see Chayet, Les temples de Jehol. For Wutaishan, where during Kangxi, Yongzheng, and Qianlong’s reigns thirty-two Tibetan temples were consecrated (newly built or converted from Chinese monasteries), see E. S. Fischer, “The Sacred Wu T’ai Shan,” Journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 54 (1923): 81-113, and D. Pokotilov, “Der Wu Tai Schan und seine Klöster. Eine historisch-geographische Skizze und Schilderung der örtlichen Verhältnisse im Jahre 1889,” Sinica Sonderausgabe (1935): 38-89. 77 RXJW, j. 53, 847 (quoting the Chongguosi youji ). Huang Hao definitely identifies the deity described here with Vajrabhairava (Huang Hao, Zai Beijing, 12). 78 For the translation of Tibetan works into Chinese, see Lü Jianfu, Zhongguo mijiao, , “Song Yuan Ming Qing yijing tuji” [A 543-546, and Zhou Shujia scheme of Buddhist scriptures translated during the Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties], in Foxue lunzhu ji [A collection of studies on Buddhism] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1991): vol. 2, 583-604. Also see the contributions by Françoise Wang-Toutain and Chen Bing in the present volume. 79 Ch. Daweide buwei jingang zun fo yigui quanjing . See Song Zhusi , “Mizong suxiang shuolüe” [A short talk on Tantric Buddhist statues] (1936), in Luoyinshi xueshu lunzhu [Academic studies of the Luoyinshi], ed. Wu Shichang (Beijing: Zhongguo wenyi lianhe, 1984): vol. 4, 421-455, here 434. 80 I am grateful to Luo Wenhua for this valuable suggestion. On the method of transliterating Sanskrit and Tibetan syllables into Manchu and Chinese by lCang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje, see particularly Luo Wenhua, “Qianlong shiqi manwen aligali zi yanjiu” [A study of Manchu Ólikåli of Qianlong period], Yanjing xuebao 17 (2004): 157-181. Protecting Beijing 347 the Thirteen Deities Vajrabhairava, the Sådhana of Solitary Hero Vajrabhairava’s Victory over Måra, and the Initiation of Vajrabhairava.81 The collection was sponsored by the Xian Prince Yanhuang ,82 and edited between 1741 and 1763. The Prince’s preface gives a detailed account of the long work of editing. His primary intention was to produce well written copies of the Tibetan texts; for this purpose, 83 he asked Chongfan Jingjue to revise the texts, and asked phonologists to gloss them according to the national rules. For more than twenty years, he repeatedly had them corrected, copied, and printed, and saw to their circulation in the Tibetan temples of Beijing. The phonetic glosses proved to be very useful as far as chanting was concerned, but did not facilitate an understanding of the texts. In order to make their meaning clear to non-Tibetan practitioners, the Xian Prince had each of the texts translated into Chinese. The Precious Basket was translated in 1742 by Gongbu Chabu (Tib. mGon po skyabs), an imperial relative.84 In 81 Respectively: Ch. Daweide jingang buwei shisan zun chengjiu yigui baoqie jing , Weide jingang buwei benzun duyong chengjiu yigui shengmo chuang jing , Jingang buwei guanding jing . See Daweide jingang buwei shisanzun chengjiu yigui baoqie jing . Translated by Gongbu Chabu , revised by Chongfan Jingjue , established by Baerzang jiacuo (Beijing: 1763; reprint Beijing: 1803) (a copy of the Precious Basket, presently preserved in Beijing National Library), and Wu Wude (ed.), Daweide Jingang duyong fa [Sådhana of Solitary Hero Vajrabhairava] (Taibei: Haide, 1988) (reprint of the Victory over Måra). The Tibetan text of the Victory over Måra was taken from a collection of works by lCang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje. As for the Precious Basket, it was first based on another version and then compared with lCang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje’s text as soon as the Xian Prince knew of its existence in 1743. In regard to the Initiation, Xian explains that some bannermen gave him an incomplete Chinese text, and that he emended it on the basis of a Tibetan text which circulated in the city. See Xian Qinwang, “Xu” [Preface], in Daweide jingang buwei, respectively 2b and 3a, and 6a and 7a. 82 Prince Yanhuang inherited the rank of Xian Prince in 1702. He died in 1771 and was given the posthumous title of Jin . The same rank was already held by Haoge Fushou and Danzhen (Yanhuang’s father) (QSG 5018 and 5034). A more famous imperial prince involved in Tibetan Buddhism was Yunli , the seventeenth son of Emperor Kangxi. It is worth mentioning that in 1734-1735 in mGar thar, the 7th Dalai Lama wrote a sådhana of Solitary Hero Vajrabhairava to be practiced by Yunli. See Vladimir L. Uspensky, Prince Yunli (1697-1738). Manchu Statesman and Tibetan Buddhist (Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 1997): 20. 83 According to the biographical note at the beginning of the Precious Basket and the Xian Prince’s preface, Chongfan Jingjue was a “great lama” from Lintao’s Chandingsi , i.e., from the celebrated Co ne monastery in A mdo. His name was transliterated as (Tib. Chos dbyangs Blo bzang ?) (Daweide jingang buwei, 5a, Zhuoyang Luozan [¬] ; he died and Xian Qinwang, “Xu,” 1b). While in Beijing, he used to live at the Cidusi in 1760 (Xian Qinwang, “Xu,” 4b). Chongfan Jingjue also collaborated with mGon po skyabs in the translation of T. 927, and is mentioned in the latter’s introduction to T. 1419 (see below, note 84). On the Cidusi, see G. Bouillard, Le temple des Lamas, 33-34. 84 mGon po skyabs was a member of the Üjümücin tribe from Inner Mongolia and was an imperial relative by marriage. He studied “the languages of the lands of the West” during Kangxi’s reign, and was put in charge of imperial translations during the reigns of both Yongzheng and Qianlong. He is well-known for his Chinese version of the Pratimålak aˆa 348 Ester Bianchi 1759, all mantras and dharanis were rectified according to the rules of the Tongwen yuntong ,85 to which the subsequent translations also strictly conformed. In 86 integrated into the Precious Basket more than a 1761, Baerzang jiacuo hundred words that were not included in the first Chinese version. The same lama was also entrusted with the translation of the Victory over Måra (1761) and of the Initiation (1762-1763). As for other translations of this Tantric cycle during the Qing, there was a Chinese version of a sådhana of Vajrabhairava by Ngag dbang blo bzang chos ldan, the first historical lCang skya Khutukhtu,87 and five more short texts whose translation dates are uncertain.88 (Ch. Zaoxiang liangdu jing , Sutra on Iconometry, T. 1419), probably translated from a Tibetan version of the text in 1742. He participated in the translation of the Mongolian bsTan ’gyur (1741-1742) sponsored by Qianlong (Berger, The Empire of Emptiness, 84). He is also the translator of T. 927 and T. 1144. The biographical note at the beginning of the Precious Basket adds to this information that he was director of the Tibetan Studies and in charge of translating from the Tibetan and the Mongolian languages for the Qing court (Daweide jingang buwei, 5a). 85 This text, whose full title is Qingding tongwen yuntong , was composed between 1748 and 1750 by Qianlong’s uncle, Prince Zhuang (1695-1767) and by lCang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje, and gives cross references in Manchu script, Chinese characters, and Sanskrit and Tibetan alphabets. On this text, explained as the origin of the ålikåli system of transliteration, see Luo Wenhua, “Qianlong shiqi,” 158-164; see also Wang Xiangyun, Tibetan Buddhism, 149. The Tongwen yuntong was the basis for the compilation of one of the most important Buddhist works sponsored by Qianlong: the Yuzhi Man Han Menggu Xifan hebi dazang quanzhou (1748-1758, printed in 1773), a huge anthology of dharanis and mantras, elaborated by a team of phonologists headed by Prince Zhuang and lCang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje, all of which were transcribed in Tibetan, Mongolian, Chinese, and Manchu scripts. This work was primarily meant to correct wrong Chinese pronunciation of mantras. See for instance Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 39 and 44-45, and David M. Farquhar, “Emperor as Bodhisattva,” 23-24. Before its compilation, Qianlong wrote a commentary about the importance of the correct pronunciation of mantras and dharanis (DQSL, 926 juan, 457, cited in Wang Xiangyun, Tibetan Buddhism, 149-150). 86 Tib. dPal bzang rgya mtsho? According to our text, it was a “great lama” from (Monastery of Buddhist Fragrance), who also operated in the Beijing’s Fanxiangsi court’s Jingzhouguan (Xian Qinwang, “Xu,” 5b). He further completed mGon po skyabs’s translation of T. 927. 87 Ch. Weide jingang buwei fo chengjiufa huiyi zhi guansong yigui Wenshu hui yan dabao jujing . The translation of this text, and of the texts collected by Xian Qinwang, is ascribed by Zhou Shujia to Chongfan Jingjue (Zhou Shujia, “Song Yuan,” 603-604). The Tibetan title is given by Siklós, The Vajrabhairava, 257. For the first historical lCang skya, see Klaus Sagaster, ‹ag dba blo bza ı’os ldan (1642-1714). Leben und historische Bedeutung des I. (Pekinger) l¿a skya khutukhtu, dargestellt an Hand seiner mongolischen Biographie Subud erike und anderer Quellen (PhD diss., University of Bonn, 1960), and Manfred Taube, “Einige Notizen zum Leben des 1. Pekinger Lˆa -skya Qutu tu,” Oriens 21-22 (1968-69): 326-356. 88 Ch. Yama ana daga huixiang wen , Yama ana daga lizan , Yama ana daga gongzan , Yama ana daga jixiang zan , and Bala duolaji jiga geida ba bo jiga bi’an duo ga zhaila die shuga suo (Bulcsu Siklós, The Vajrabhairava, 257). For the translation of Vajrabhairava’s texts into Manchu and Mongolian, see Siklós, The Vajrabhairava, 255-256 and 258. Finally, Song Zhusi mentions that the Chinese Index of Tibetan Canonical Scriptures (Ch. Rulai Protecting Beijing 349 Xian Qinwang’s preface also provides interesting data on the practice of Vajrabhairava at the Qing court. Full of biographical details, it informs the reader that in 1735, while in mourning for his wife’s death, he was comforted by Buddhist scriptures and thus decided to found a “pure abode” (Skt. vihåra, Ch. jingshe ) of his own, where he later invited Tibetan lamas for chanting services. He studied Tibetan language with Chongfan Jingjue, and chose the Precious Basket for his daily practice, but found the text too long and complicated. Therefore, in 1743, as soon as he knew of the existence of the Victory over Måra in a collection of Buddhist texts by Rol pa’i rdo rje, he decided to dismiss the Precious Basket in favor of this shorter and easier text. The Xian Prince received the initiation into the Vajrabhairava cycle together with five other people in 1741; in 1762 he invited a lama in his vihåra to bestow the initiation on five other people. But he also tells us that other Manchus, whom he refers to as “blue bannermen,” had also been initiated into the same Tantric cycle, presumably by Rol pa’i rdo rje at the imperial court.89 The bannermen repeatedly requested the Chinese translations from Xian, and it was to them that the collection of the three works was destined. These people, who were not fluent in Tibetan, did not consult the texts in order to fully understand their meaning (as in Xian’s case), but “made the Chinese version [of the Precious Basket] the text of their daily practice.”90 Even if we know from Rol pa’i rdo rje’s biography that he also lectured on Vajrabhairava texts to some Chinese followers, it is difficult to understand the extent of Han devotees’ involvement in these practices, particularly considering the undeniable fact that the majority of the Chinese people were not concerned with Tibetan Buddhism during the Qing.91 On this issue, the Xian Prince concludes his preface (1763) with the following meaningful words:92 These three texts belong to a secret practice. Only those followers who have received the initiation and frequent Buddha Halls can read them and compredazangjing mulu ), which was translated from the Manchu language and sponsored by Qianlong, includes the titles of two sådhana of Vajrabhairava (Song Zhusi, “Mizong suxiang,” 435, citing the Wei Zang tongzhi , j. 16, 219). 89 See above, note 34. 90 Xian Qinwang, “Xu,” 9b. Manchu people were more likely to be acquainted with Chinese language than with Tibetan: “The only possible way for the Manchu rulers to exert control was to adopt Chinese governmental institutions as well as the cultural soil on which they evolved, including the Chinese language” (Uspensky, Prince Yunli, 2). 91 “Lamaism never became popular among the common people, being limited to Tibetans, Mongols and perhaps some Manchu. As to the Confucianist ruling class, it was as contemptuous and coldly hostile towards Lamaism as towards every other foreign religion.” Luciano Petech, China and Tibet in the Early 18th Century: History of the Establishment of Chinese Protectorate in Tibet (Westport, Connecticut: Hyperion Press, 1973): 241. Susan Naquin, who depicts Tibetan lamas in Beijing as being as foreign to Chinese people as Jesuit priests, adds to this same issue that “the spread of Tibetan Buddhism to the Chinese lay community was discouraged” (Naquin, Peking, 584). Nevertheless, the same author also states that the early Ming prohibition against the Chinese studying Tibetan Buddhism was probably rescinded and that contacts between lamas and Chinese lay people were not infrequent (Naquin, Peking, 589-591). 92 Xian Qinwang, “Xu,” 10a-b. 350 Ester Bianchi hend their fundamental meanings. Those who have not been initiated [into this practice] cannot even see them. They also cannot generally be consulted by the [Chinese] monks (seng ) who often go to the court. In fact, there was formerly no Chinese version; the [Chinese] sangha, in seeing that they have not been transmitted among the Chinese Buddhist works, is not only unable to believe in them reverently, but is also likely to give birth to criticism and discussions, thus accumulating heavy guilt. This collection was composed to be kept in the vihåra and to permit a comparison with the Tibetan texts. Unlike other texts, they should not be reprinted and circulated. The situation changed drastically during the first part of the twentieth century, when new translations and explanatory texts on this Tantric cycle were explicitly compiled for Han practitioners. In 1931, the Mongol lama Guxili dorje (Tib. Gu sri dkon mchog rdo rje, Ch. Guxili gunque duoji ) gave some lectures on the Precious Texts of the Generation of the Three Bodies in the Practice of Vajrabhairava, which were later recorded by his Chinese disciples.93 In 1933, at the Institute for Tibetan Tantric Studies of Beijing, Lama Gongjue dorje lectured on Vajrabhairava to Chinese followers; together with works dating back to Qianlong, this resulted in a collection of oral instructions: Mandala Rite, Chanting Rite, and Notes on the Initiation of the Thirteen Deities Vajrabhairava.94 Other of his texts were collected in another work, edited in 1938 in Beijing by the laymen Liu Yumin and Jun Pengyi , which included the Explanation of the Great Tantric Fast Method of Vajrabhairava and Images and Generation in the Preliminary Method of Vajrabhairava.95 A Chinese translator of Vajrabhairava texts was Tang Xiangming , who lived in Beijing during the twenties and thirties; he is the author of the Brief Sådhana of Solitary Hero Vajrabhairava, and of the Sådhana of the Thirteen Deities Vajrabhairava.96 Far from Beijing, another translator was taking on the same task: the 93 Guxili dorje , Da jingang weide qifen zhi xing sanshen baozang (Taibei: Xinwenfeng, 1987, first published 1931). On this master see G. Tuttle, “Translating Buddhism from Tibetan to Chinese in early 20th Century China (1931-1951),” in Buddhism Between Tibet and China, ed. M. T. Kapstein (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2008). 94 Gongjue dorje (ed.), Buwei shisanzun tanyi. Buwei shisanzun ziru songyi. Buwei shisanzun guanding biji (Taibei: Xinwenfeng, 1987, first published 1933). Note that the text Buwei shisanzun ziru songyi in Gongjue dorje’s collection has a postface penned by the Xian Prince and dated 1763. 95 Liu Yumin and Jun Pengyi (eds.), Jingang buwei yuanwen shushi dami sudao. Jingang buwei chujidao quanxiang. Jingang buwei chujidao qifen (Beijing: Mizang Foxueyuan, 1938). The first of these texts is attributed to Gongjue dorje. 96 Respectively: Tang Xiangming , “Daweide jingang yizun lüegui” [Brief sådhana of Solitary Hero Vajrabhairava], and “Daweide jingang buwei shisan zun chengjiu yigui baoqie huiyi zhi guansong Wenshu zhenyan jing” [Precious basket of the sådhana of the Thirteen Deities Vajrabhairava], in Zangmi xiufa midian [Secret compendium of Tibetan Tantric practices], ed. Zhou Shaoliang (Beijing: Huaxia, 1991): 659-682, 875-970. Note that the second text, which is given as the recording of teachings by Anqin , probably refers to the same tradition as the text mentioned above, note 87. On this master Anqin identified 351 Protecting Beijing Chinese monk Nenghai (1886-1967),97 who operated mainly in Tibet and in Sichuan, in the 1930s translated and composed fifteen works of the same Tantric cycle;98 the most popular text among his disciples, also in contemporary times, is the Sådhana for the Practice of the Yidam Mañjußr¥ Vajrabhairava.99 ,. In regard to the worship of Vajrabhairava at the Qing court, it has to be admitted that the number of statues, halls, rituals and translations devoted to him did not outnumber those of the other principal Tibetan deities of the dGe lugs pa pantheon, thus implying that the role of primary importance he was granted was mainly due to the fact that he was one of the three higher yi dam of the Anuttarayogatantra.100 Similarly, in the Tibetan temples in Beijing his practice was parallel to those of Guhyasamåja and Sa vara, as it was in all dGe lugs pa monasteries. Nevertheless, Vajrabhairava as sNgags chen Khutukhtu (1884-1947) see the contribution by Chen Bing in this volume (pp. 398-399 note 43 and 46). 97 On this master see particularly Ester Bianchi, “The ‘Chinese lama’ Nenghai (18861967). Doctrinal tradition and teaching strategies of a Gelukpa master in Republican China,” in Buddhism Between Tibet and China, ed. M. Kapstein (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2008). 98 For a list of his works devoted to the Vajrabhairava cycle (written by Nenghai himself or by his disciples), see E. Bianchi, The Iron Statue Monastery. “Tiexiangsi,” a Buddhist Nunnery of Tibetan Tradition in Contemporary China (Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 2001): 171-173. 99 Nenghai , Wenshu Daweide jingang benzun xiuxing chengjiufa (Ningbo: Duobaojiang si, 2000). For an Italian translation, see Bianchi, “Sådhana della divinità solitaria Yamåntaka-Vajrabhairava. Traduzione e glossario della versione cinese di Nenghai,” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 8 (2005): 4-37 (Part I); and 10 (2006): 4-43 (Part II). This text is very close to a Tibetan sådhana by sKyabs rje Pha bong kha bDe chen snying po (1878-1941), translated in Sharpa Tulku, and Richard Guard, Meditation on Vajrabhairava. The procedures for doing the serviceable retreat of the glorious solitary hero Vajrabhairava with the sadhana “Victory over Evil”, By Phabongkha Kyabje Dechen Nyingpo (Dharamsala – Delhi: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1990). Nenghai also translated a commentary to this sådhana: Nenghai, “Daweide Wenshu chengjiu fangbian lüeyin” [Introductory notes on the practice of Mañjußr¥ Vajrabhairava], in Zangmi xiufa midian, ed. Zhou Shaoliang, 683-820. For a comparison of some of the Chinese translations of the Vajrabhairava texts, see Bianchi, “La ‘via del vajra’ e il ‘palazzo fiorito.’ Immagini sessuali in alcune traduzioni cinesi di testi tantrici tibetani,” in Caro Maestro … Scritti in onore di Lionello Lanciotti per l’ottantesimo compleanno, eds. Maurizio Scarpari and Tiziana Lippiello (Venice: Cafoscarina, 2005), 121-131, and Bianchi, “The ‘Sådhana of the Glorious Solitary Hero Yamåntaka-Vajrabhairava’ in China.” 100 In regard to the position of these three deities at the Qing court, Luo Wenhua suggests that they were not simply chosen because of their preeminence within the dGe lugs pa tradition; instead, he claims that Guhyasamåja and Vajrabhairava, both related to Mañjußr¥, also referred to Qianlong, the “bodhisattva-emperor”; Patricia Berger, in discussing Luo’s article, adds to this interesting point of view that the third deity was also connected with Qianlong, considering that he was firstly initiated into Sa vara’s practice. See Luo Wenhua , “Gugong Yuhuage shenxi yu mizong sibu yanjiu” [Research into the lineages of deities and the four divisions of tantras in the Pavilion of Raining Flowers of the Old Palace], Foxue yanjiu 8 (1997): 8-12, and Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 101. 352 Ester Bianchi was the most powerful manifestation of Mañjußr¥, the main tutelary deity of the Manchus. Furthermore, the Bodhisattva and Yamåntaka were both associated with the eastern direction.101 With such a perspective, the tradition that Yamåntaka was chosen as the protector of Beijing becomes more believable, and a special consideration of this deity may be envisioned. Qianlong himself was said to be a manifestation of Mañjußr¥, so the next step was very logical: connecting the Taihedian, the center of political imperial affairs, with the celestial mansion of Vajrabhairava allowed the emperor not only to enhance his authority as universal sovereign (Skt. cakravartin) endowed with temporal and spiritual powers,102 but also placed his throne at the core of the mandala, thus implying that he stood at the unique point of encounter between the manifested world and the vertical metaphysical axis. The existence of other traditions concerning the symbolic layout of Beijing should not be considered contradictory.103 Instead, it emphasizes the sacredness of the place from the perspectives of all the different subjects of the empire, be they Chinese, Manchu, Mongol or Tibetan people. Vajrabhairava’s cult during the Qing 101 Yamåntaka already appears as the gate protector of the east in the Guhyasamåjatantra, dated around the fourth century (Siklós, The Vajrabhairava Tantras, 7). He is associated with the east also in the class of the ten krodha deities, the protectors of the ten directions. Finally, Vajrabhairava is part of the retinue of Ak obhya, the J¥na of the east. On Mañjußr¥’s connection with the east, i.e., China, see below note 109. 102 On the implications of the emperor being at the same time a cakravartin and a manifestation of a bodhisattva, see D. Seyfort Ruegg, “Mchod yon, yon mchod and mchod gnas / yon gnas: On the Historiography and Semantics of a Tibetan Religio-Social and Religio-Political Concept,” in Tibetan History and Language. Studies Dedicated to Uray Geza on his Seventieth Birthday, ed. Ernst Steinkellner (Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, 1991): 441-453, here 450. 103 As suggested by Michel Strickmann (Mantras et mandarins, 422-423), Lessing’s account on Yamåntaka and Beijing echoes a precedent Mongolian legend which connected the capital city of the Chinese empire with the body of the young warrior Nalak¨bata (Ch. Nazha ), son of the guardian of the north Vaißravaˆa. Particularly see Hok-lam Chan, “A Mongolian Legend of the Building of Peking,” Asia Major 3.2 (1990): 63-93. On the same legend: L. C. Arlington, and W. Lewisohn, In Search of Old Peking, 28 and 338-339. Another Mongolian belief saw Beijing as the home of Vairocana, symbol of the cakravartin (Naquin, Peking, 473). A more “Chinese” tradition associated the city structure with a dragon body. See Juliet Brendon, Peking: A Historical and Intimate Description of Its Chief Places of Interest (Shanghai: ) was also employed to Kelly and Walsh, 1922): 37. Chinese geomancy (Ch. fengshui enhance Beijing’s perfect layout and location (Naquin, Peking, 15). An analysis of Ming-Qing Beijing as a mirror of the whole world with the emperor at its core, is given in Jeffrey F. Meyer, The Dragons of Tiananmen: Beijing as a Sacred City (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1991). It should also be mentioned that the accession ritual in the Taihedian created “a symbolic universe,” “a microcosmic representation of the social-political cosmic order” in a Confucian-Chinese perspective. Christian Jochim, “The Imperial Audience Ceremonies of the Ch’ing Dynasty,” Society for the Study of Chinese Religions 7 (1979): 88-103, here 92 (quoted in Rawski, The Last Emperors, 206). Finally, only in regard to the Forbidden City, see Yu Xixian and Yu Yong , “Zhouyi xiangshu yu Zijincheng de guihua buju” [Divination figures and numbers in the Zhouyi and the layout of the Forbidden City], Gugong bowuyuan yuankan 97.5 (2001): 18-22. Protecting Beijing 353 has thus to be inserted in the more complex picture of the Qing regime’s policies towards their multiethnic empire. They chose to address the people they were governing in their own different languages, both spoken and visual.104 Qing emperors looked for ideologies that could legitimize their authority, and Tibetan Buddhism was there to sustain their role as universal rulers and as bodhisattvas, at least with the Mongols and the Tibetans.105 This also helps to explain why very few references to their connection with Mañjußr¥ may be found in Chinese sources;106 in addressing the Han people, the Qing emperors for the most part borrowed and used a Chinese world view.107 Yet, as Patricia Berger clearly demonstrates, at the same time, Manchu rulers also offered a composite view of their empire, thus synthesizing all cultures and beliefs by speaking to several audiences at once.108 If the combination of different traditions was a trademark of Qing sovereignty, by extension it might be argued that the belief in a link between Beijing and Vajrabhairava was inspired not only by Mongolian and Tibetan faith, but also, even if indirectly, by the affection of the 104 Pamela Crossley, A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999). 105 The favor granted to Tibetan Buddhism by the Qing court may have been encouraged by the foreign origins of the dynasty, which looked for a universal and non-Chinese ideology able to recognize its temporal authority in the Middle Kingdom. At the same time, it served as a means of control of Mongols and Tibetans. See Sabine Dabringhaus, “Chinese Emperors and Tibetan Monks: Religion as an Instrument of Rule,” in China and Her Neighbours, Borders, Visions of the Other, Foreign Policy 10th to 19th Century, eds. Sabine Dabringhaus and Roderich Ptak (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1997): 119-134; Samuel Grupper, “Manchu Patronage and Tibetan Buddhism during the First Half of the Ch’ing Dynasty: A Review Article,” Journal of the Tibet Society 4 (1984): 46-75; Yu Benyuan , Qing wangchao de zongjiao zhengce [Religious policy of the Qing imperial court] (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue, 1999); and Zhou Shujia, Qingdai fojiao, particularly 91-104 and 303-380. 106 In referring to Qing China, Farquhar maintains that both Confucians and Chinese Buddhists would probably reject such an idea (D. M. Farquhar, “Emperor as Bodhisattva,” particularly 32-34). 107 “Manchu styles of rulership were likewise collaged from a number of available models, Chinese, Mongolian, and Buddhist, and the Qing emperors presented themselves variously as huangdi, Khan of Khans, and cakravartin” (Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 40). On the creation of different images of rulership for the various subjects of the empire, see also Rawski, The Last Emperors, 231-263. 108 Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 14-33. Patricia Berger, throughout her work on Tibetan Buddhism in Qing China, refutes the critique which questions the sincerity of Qing emperors’ Buddhist faith and practice, and the idea of their complete sinicization to a Chinese world view. Instead, she argues, they borrowed “models of history and cosmology from several different systems of thought” and “sought synthesis on many different levels” (Berger, Empire of Emptiness, 9). In the same line of thought, in her study on the eight exterior Tibetan temples of Rehe, which reveal a strong Chinese influence from an architectonic and iconographical point of view, Anne Chayet suggests that the whole Chengde complex evoked the composite unity of the Manchu Empire (Chayet, Les temples, 18). Also see Bo Qingyuan , “Qingdai gongyuan de Qianlong jianzhu fengge” [Style of Qianlong’s buildings in Qing imperial gardens], in Qingdai gongshi tanwei, 280-287. 354 Ester Bianchi Han people for Mañjußr¥.109 In fact, a deep devotion to the Bodhisattva was shared by Manchu and Chinese peoples, resulting in the enlisting of Confucius among his manifestations,110 and, in general terms, making the whole Chinese empire a huge mandala of Mañjußr¥. In republican times, Vajrabhairava was finally granted a clear preeminence within Tibetan practices in China. Even if his cult had already attracted a small number of Chinese devotees during the Qing dynasty, it was only at the time of the so-called “Tantric revival” (Ch. mijiao fuxing yundong )111 that it drew more Han followers. Chinese masters and laymen (sometimes together with Tibetan lamas) were involved in the translation of Vajrabhairava scriptures, and some of the texts edited in Qing times were “rediscovered” and collected in new editions, in order to make them accessible to Han practitioners. More recently, new translations of the same Tantric cycle are being made.112 Vajrabhairava’s practice was thus transmitted in Chinese up to the contemporary era, and is nowadays the main focus of 109 The idea that Mañjußr¥ was the special protector of China, sustained by Chinese Buddhists as well as by Tibetans and Indians, is much earlier than the Qing dynasty, and is connected with the association of Mount Wutai with the Bodhisattva. The first Chinese reference to this belief is to be found in the translation of the Avata saka (T. 278, fifth century); a later translation of another text (T. 1185, eighth century) went further, stating that Mañjußr¥ resided on the “five peaks” (Ch. wuding ) mountain in Mahåc¥na (Ch. Dazhenna ), to the north-east of India, a place easily identified with China. On this issue, see Étienne Lamotte, “Mañjußr¥,” T’oung Pao 48.1-3 (1960): 1-96, here particularly 84-85, and D. M. Farquhar, “Emperor as Bodhisattva,” 12-13. On the role of Amoghavajra , 705-774) in promoting Mañjußr¥ as protector of the Tang dynasty and, (Ch. Bukong consequently, in establishing him as China’s own bodhisattva, see Raoul Birnbaum, Studies on the Mysteries of Manjusri: A Group of East Asian Mandalas and their Traditional Symbolism (Boulder: Society for the Study of Chinese Religions, 1983) (cited in Berger, “Preserving the Nation,” 92). On the use that later foreign dynasties made of Mañjußr¥’s role as protector of China, thus justifying their right to rule Han and non-Han subjects of the Empire, see Patricia Berger, “Preserving the Nation,” 93. 110 See Lessing, “Bodhisattva Confucius,” Oriens 10.1 (1957): 110- 113. 111 See Bianchi, “The Tantric Rebirth Movement in Modern China. Esoteric Buddhism re-vivified by the Japanese and Tibetan Traditions,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum and Deng Zimei , Ershi shiji Zhongguo Hungarica 57.1 (2004): 31-54; Chen Bing fojiao [Buddhism in twentieth century China] (Beijing: Minzu, 2000): 347381, and Chen Bing’s contribution in the present volume; Dongchu , Zhongguo fojiao jindai shi [A modern history of Chinese Buddhism] (Taipei: Zhonghua fojiao wenhuaguan, 1974): 436-458; Monica Esposito, “Una tradizione di rDzogs-chen in Cina. Una nota sul Monastero delle Montagne dell’Occhio Celeste,” Asiatica Venetiana 3 (1998): 221-224 and her contribution in the second volume; G. Tuttle, “Translating Buddhism from Tibetan to Chinese in Early 20th Century,” in Buddhism Between Tibet and China; id., Tibetan Buddhists in the Making of Modern China (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005); Françoise Wang-Toutain, “Quand les maîtres chinois s’éveillent au bouddhisme tibétain. Fazun: le Xuanzang des temps modernes,” Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient 87.2 (2000): 707727 and her contribution in the present volume. 112 An example is Xiligong Chizhu (trans.), “Jixiang jingang buwei duyong zun fo xingxiu zisheng fangbian huo yijing” [Sådhana of Solitary Hero Ír¥vajrabhairava], in Da jixiang jing [Greatly auspicious scriptures] (Taibei: Geluba, 1997): 129-175. Protecting Beijing 355 many Chinese people interested in Tibetan Buddhism, in the surviving monasteries belonging to Nenghai’s tradition as well as in new Buddhist centers both in Taiwan and in the People’s Republic of China. On the other hand, it seems that very few Chinese are involved in the practices of Guhyasamåja and Sa vara. The main explanation for this ‘success’ of Vajrabhairava within dGe lugs pa practices in modern China might be that “the path conceived in the Vajrabhairava tantras is much simpler than other Anuttarayogatantras, thus suiting the direct and practical Chinese mentality.”113 But other reasons may also be considered. Even if Vajrabhairava was almost unknown in China before the Qing dynasty, the Chinese Buddhist pantheon did include other minor forms of Yamåntaka. Therefore, this yi dam appeared less alien to Han devotees than other Tibetan deities, especially when taking into account his connection with Mañjußr¥, whose youthful features are well visible above the other eight fierce heads of Vajrabhairava. As in the case of Nenghai, who is said to have been well acquainted with the oral tradition about the special relationship between Beijing and Vajrabhairava,114 in those milieus, Chinese devotees accepted the idea that the Bodhisattva’s most wrathful manifestation as Vajrabhairava was the special protector of the Empire’s capital city. In general terms, as it had been for the ten-centuries long assimilation of Buddhism in China, the assimilation of Tibetan doctrines also involved a kind of sinicization, which favored all those aspects that were more easily reconcilable with existing Chinese needs and beliefs. The preference granted to this deity in the twentieth century thus implies that Chinese devotees were inclining towards an image of Tibet that fitted them. Similarly, in Qing times, the belief about the correspondence between Beijing’s city plan and the Vajrabhairava mandala had also been, in Lessing’s words, “an attempt to reconcile Tibetan Tantrism with Chinese Buddhism or at least to work out some sort of rapprochement.”115 Abbreviations DAG DQHDSL DQSL 113 Zhongguo diyi lishi dang’anguan [First historical archives of China]. Beijing: Forbidden City. Qinding Da Qing huidian shili [Imperially commissioned collected regulations and precedents of the great Qing]. Guangxu edition. Reprint Taibei: Xinwenfeng, 1976. Da Qing shilu [Authentic records of the great Qing]. Reprint Beijing: Zhonghua, 1986. Private communication with sprul sku Lianbo (December 27, 2004). Renxiang fashi, one of the last direct disciples of Nenghai, during a private conversation with the author confirmed that he was informed of Vajrabhairava’s role as protector of Beijing by his master, and related that he was sent by Nenghai to pay homage to the statue in Beihai (January 20, 2005). 115 Lessing, “The Topographical Identification,” 141. 114 356 Ester Bianchi QSG Xin jiaoben Qingshi gao [New collated history of the Qing]. Reprint Taibei: Academia Sinica Computing Center, 1997. Qinding rixia jiuwen kao [Study on the historical monuments of the National Capital]. By Zhu Yizun (1688), completed by Ying Lian et al. (1783). Reprint Beijing: Guji, 2001. RXJW