In addition to these, in the “discourse 論” section of scroll 23, and in the entry on Wuji 無迹 in scroll 30, there are also examples [of the use of “true body”] which are not included here.
As for specifying roughly when the equation between Buddha śarīras and zhenshen began, although that would require a bit more time, it cannot be doubted that the previously described reception of the śarīra of Famen Monastery was a turning point.
Furthermore, as has been indicated by scholars such as Ishikawa Ryōiku and Takahashi Jikidō there have been many debates, and so a hasty conclusion cannot be made. (10) Yet at this point in time, how we think about the complation of the Śarīra Ritual Text 舍利禮文, which contains the words “true body śarīra,” would be a big item on the agenda.
Although I also do not mean to say that I have a conclusion concerning this point, if provisionally accept the traditional attribution of authorship of the Śarīra Ritual Text to Bukong Sanzang 不空三藏 (705-774), then this [text] might also have a connection to the <Page 870> aforementioned Famen Monastery śarīra reception. This is because during Bukong’s life, in the first year of emperor Xiaozong’s Shangyuan reign period (670), it is a fact that, in order to give offerings to this śarīra, it was received in the inner court. In the Tang period, Hanyu 韓愈 presented his “Memorial on the Buddha’s Bone 排佛骨表,” which provoked Emperor Xiaozong’s imperial wrath and which eventuated in Hanyu’s exile to Chaozhou. As we can see from this incident, we could say that this was an era that was concerned about Buddha śarīras to an extraordinary degree. Although there are problems with the claim that Bukong compiled the Śarīra Ritual Text, I don’t think we can entirely neglect such Chinese compilations.
Incidentally, if we look historically, as can be gleaned from the term “Buddha śarīra” we can see that initially, within the religious order, the term śarīra referred to the relics of Śākyamuni. Later, however, the bone remains of eminent monks who were devoted to and preached Buddhism also came to be regarded as śarīra. Furthermore, we expect that “śarīra” referred to bone remains themselves. However, although the simple question of how bone remains were distinguished from śarīra still remains, at some point “śarīra,” in the form of the remains after cremation, began to be treated and represented as proof of the virtue of an eminent monk. In cases in which śarīra were left, even things such as “how many śarīra grains 舍利何粒” were recorded. The more there were, the higher people regarded the virtue of that monk. [In this view], for ordinary monks śarīra were not left behind.
On the one hand, in China there exist many examples of mummies regarded as the so-called “true bodies” of such monks. Buddhists, despite their religion, did not always necessarily undergo cremation after passing away. Whereas in India four methods of corpse disposal, by water, fire, wind, or earth were known, in China, longstanding, traditional disposal methods centered on inhumation had come to be widespread.
(10) See ISHIKAWA Ryōiku 石川良昱. 1963. “Sari ribun ni tsuite 舎利礼文について.” In Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究22 (11-2); and TAKAHASHI Jikidō 高崎直道. 1981. Nichijō tonaeru gebun no kenkyū 日常唱える偈文の研究. Published by Daihonzan Sōjiji 大本山総持寺. Author.
Back to Top
Page 1 2 3
|
|
|
