Setting aside these points for now, that the mummies of eminent monks in Chinese Buddhism were treated as having some significance in itself should merit our attention. Such ideas did not exist in Indian Buddhism, and we could say they are conceptions unique to Chinese Buddhism. In our sources, when the mummies of certain monks are mentioned, they are labeled by names such as roushen 肉身 (“flesh bodies”) or zhenshen 真身 (“true bodies”), from which we can already see that it seems these bodily remains were not conceived of merely as mummified bodies. In the beginning, before the word zhenshen meant mummy, it was used as a doctrinal term. As is written in the frequently cited passage of scroll 19 of the Essay on the Meaning of the Mahāyāna:
His virtue is named true [body]. His manifestations in accordance with [the beings he] transforms is called response [body]. The true (zhen) is the body of his Dharma gate. The response (ying) is the body that he shares [in common with] the worldly. (5)
Accordingly, the zhenshen combines the dharma body (fashen 法身) and the recompense body (baoshen 報身), and is in contrast to the response body (yingshen 應身) or transformation body (huashen 化身). Looking only up to this point in time at [the term] zhenshen, we should conclude that it has in no way gone beyond the bounds of the conceptual. Even if “recompense body” can concretely refer to [beings such as] the Thus Come One Amitabha and the Buddha Rocana, and Buddha statues were made of such [beings], such statues were ultimately no more than images of idealized Buddhas put into concrete form.
While on the one hand this kind of doctrinal identification existed, on the other hand, the effort to try to capture a more concrete meaning for the term zhenshen was to continue in Chinese Buddhist history. <page 869> In particular, we can conjecture that the chain of events surrounding the Buddha śarīra that even today are enshrined in Famen Monastery in the suburbs of Xi’an City were decisive in establishing the trend to regard Buddha sariras as zhenshen. That is, the śarīra-stupa of Famen Monastery, which was originally known as a stupa of King Aśoka, since its establishment in year two of the Yuanwei reign period (497) by Tuoba Yu was frequently presented with offerings by successive generations of emperors. Among these offerings were Tang emperor Zhongzong’s bestowal in year four of the Jinglong reign period (710) (6) of an inscribed plaque titled “Precious Stupa of the Great Sage’s True Body 大聖真身寶塔,” and Emperor Daizong’s construction in 778 of an inscribed stele titled “Stele for the Precious Stupa of the Great Sage’s True Body of Wuyouwang Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty 大唐朝無憂王寺大聖真身寶塔碑” (available in Quantangwen 全唐文 516). These two bestowals in particular seem to have been significant events in establishing the tendency to connect Buddha śarīras and the term zhenshen. In scroll 14 of the Lives of the Eminent Monks Compiled during the Song, which was completed in 988, in the chapter on Daoxuan 道宣, there is premised the following schema that assumes Buddha śarīra to be equivalent to zhenshen:
He [Daoxuan] also escorted the true body [relics] to Wuyouwang Monastery of Fufeng. When orders were received for monks to make prostrations, etc., he presented letters to court officials [in opposition]. (7)
Another entry in the same text states as follows:
He [the monk Pujing 普靜] went to give obeissance to the true body [relics] at Famen Monastery in Fengxiang. And then in Suiyang he attended lectures [tingshe 聽涉]. (8)…Then in the second year of the Xiande reign period of the Zhou (955), it happened that the true body [relics] were invited to enter the [Ciyun] monastery [that is, Pujing’s monastery]. Following this, he submitted a document to the Metropolitan Governor, Lord Yang, with his wish to cremate his body as an offering. (9)
(5) The original Chinese is: 自德名真。隨化所現說以為應。真則是其法門之身。應則是其共世間身 (T 1851: 44.838c28-839a1). Here I want to elaborate a bit more than Nagai did on relevant conceptions of Buddha in the Essay on the Meaning of the Mahāyāna. To show the context in which the above translated passage appears, I translate the sentences preceding it: “…All of these [different types of “Buddhas”] are all merely one Buddha, namely the one Buddha-treasure from among the Three Treasures. Some divide it [the Buddha-treasure] into two. There are two approaches to [dividing these] two. [Approach] one: it is divided into [the following] two: the born body and the dharma body. The form born in the king’s palace with the major and minor marks is named the born body. The virtues of morality, concentration, wisdom, and the five categories of virtues are called the dharma body. [Approach] two: it is separated into [the following] two different [aspects]: “true” and “response.” His virtue is named the true [body]. His manifestations in accordance with [the beings he] transforms is called the response [body]. The true (zhen) is the body of his Dharma gate. The response (ying) is the body that he shares [in common with] the worldly” (T 1851: 44.838c24-839a1). From this we can have a glimpse into the multiplicity of ways of parsing “Buddha” in this text. Translator.
(6) Emending “712” in the Japanese article to “710” for the fourth year of the Jinglong 景龍 reign period. Zhongzong died in 710 and so he could hardly have bestowed a plaque in the year 712. Translator.
(7) The original Chinese is: 又送真身往扶風無憂王寺。遇勅令僧拜等上啟朝宰。護法又如此者 (T 2061: 50.790c24-c25, in the biography of Daoxuan in scroll 14). These orders may refer to the orders given in 662 that religious make
obeisances to their parents. For Daoxuan's written opinions on such
issues see the Guang hongming ji 廣弘明集, scroll 25, T 2103: 52.284c4-c25.Translator.
(8) I am unsure of the meaning of the term 聽涉. Thanks are due to John Kieschnick, who suggested "attended lectures" and opined that the term might be a combination of 聽 and 涉學. Translator.
(9) The original Chinese is: 往禮鳳翔法門寺真身。乃於睢陽聽涉…. 至周顯德二年。遇請真身入寺。遂陳狀於州牧楊君願焚軀供養 (T 2061: 50.859c16-c23, in the biography of Pujing in scroll 23). Translator.
Back to Top
Page 1 2 3
