Where text meets flesh

·期刊原文
Where text meets flesh: burning the body as an apocryphal
practice in Chinese Buddhism
by James A. Benn
History of Religions

Vol.37 No.4

May 1998

Pp.295-322

Copyright by University of Chicago

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTION
At first glance, burning, branding, and other forms of what we might
today call "body modification" would appear to have little to do
with Buddhism, a religion whose avowed focus is on the mind. In
fact, burning the body is one of the most obvious and commonplace
features of Sinitic Buddhism, since all Chinese and Korean monks and
nuns are burned at ordination, or at least were until recently.(1)
The scars of these burns are highly visible in the Chinese case,
since it is the head that is burned. This article investigates the
recommendation of burning the body (shao shen) in two apocryphal
texts that were well known and extremely influential in the Chinese
Buddhist tradition--the Fanwang jing (The Book of Brahma's Net)(2)
and the Shouleng'yan jing (Suramgama-sutra, The Book of the
Heroic-march Absorption)(3)--and demonstrates that these two texts,
used in combination, not only justified such extreme acts as
autocremation and the burning of fingers but were also used to
establish burning at ordination.(4) Focusing on such practices not
only adds to our knowledge of Buddhism as a way of fife in China,
but it may also allow us to identify some specific reasons for the
creation of apocryphal texts. To date, the study of Chinese Buddhist
apocrypha has consisted, for the most part, of identifying and
analyzing the contents of such works. Scholars have hardly begun to
search for specific reasons for their creation.(5)
The use of passages from these two texts to justify self-immolation
(she shen) first came to my attention in a defense of
self-immolation written by the eminent and influential tenth-century
Chinese monk Yongming Yanshou (904-75).(6) Upon further readings in
the primary sources, it became evident that the use of these two
texts by Yanshou was no accident: in no surviving Chinese scripture
other than the Fanwang jing and the Shouleng'yan jing do we find
burning the body defined and endorsed as a practice for Buddhist
monks and nuns, as opposed to advanced mahasattvas (great beings).
The term shao shen, while it may in some contexts indicate cremation
of the corpse--most notably, of course, that of the Buddha
himself--also covers a range of practices applied to the living
bodies of Buddhist monks and nuns in East Asia. These practices
extend from the least common and most spectacular--autocremation of
the living body, through the burning off or branding of limbs
(usually the arms), and the burning off of fingers--to the most
common practice, the burning of incense or moxa (i.e., Artemisia
tinder) on the body (the crown of the head or the forearm) at
ordination. The primary source of information on autocremation is
that contained in collections of biographies of Chinese monks and
nuns, where self-immolators merited a biographical category all of
their own, and it is clear that the Lotus Sutra was by far the most
common legitimating text for this type of ritual suicide.(7)
However, although heroic autocremation as an offering to the buddhas
is extolled in this and other texts of Indian origin and endorsed in
Chinese commentaries on them, a justifiable objection could be made
that the practices described and advocated therein are those of the
mahasattva rather than those of monastics bound by the Vinaya. This
is precisely the argument made in Buddhist circles by those monks
who were critical of autocremation, branding, and burning. The
primary motivation for the creation of statements made in the
Fanwang jing and the Shouleng'yan jing should therefore be clear
from the outset; no clear and unambiguous justification for burning
the body could be found in texts of non-Chinese origin, hence texts
(or parts of texts in this case) were created in order to provide
one. Burning the body is an "apocryphal practice" in a number of
different senses.(8) As I shall demonstrate, the practice existed in
China long before the composition of the Fanwang jing or the
Shouleng'yan jing, and indeed before the translation of the Lotus
Sutra itself, in the forms of (1) moxibustion and (2) ritual
autocremation in praying for rain.(9) Hence, burning the body can be
considered an apocryphal practice in the sense of an indigenous
(non-Buddhist) practice. Passages in the Fanwang jing and the
Shouleng'yan jing were specifically created in order to endorse the
practice as it developed in a Buddhist context from the early part
of the fifth century. Having been created, these two apocryphal
texts were in turn productive of more practices, including burning
of ordination, which was not an immediate effect but rather took
some centuries to evolve. These practices are thus "apocryphal" in
the sense of being inspired and justified by apocryphal texts.
Whether Buddhists burned their bodies in India or not is a moot
point, but what is clear is that some textual justification was
required in China, beyond that contained in the Lotus Sutra.(10)
Just as some apocryphal sutras were created in order to endorse
doctrinal innovation, so I would suggest that passages in these two
texts were created to endorse practices that were at times the
subject of controversy within the tradition and the subject of
censure from without. Moreover, although critics of self-immolation
within the Buddhist tradition were never entirely won over by these
texts, burning at ordination at least emerged as a fully vindicated
practice.
BURNING THE BODY IN THE FANWANG JING AND SHOULENG'YAN JING
The apocryphal nature of these two texts is not in question, and it
is not my intention to repeat or revise arguments made elsewhere by
more able scholars.(11) What this study aims to do is to examine one
particular reason for the creation of these texts and to encourage
the application of the findings to other apocryphal texts. It is
worth beginning with the two passages in question, since, when
considered in isolation, they appear rather remarkable. First, let
us examine the earlier of the two texts, the Fanwang jing, which
appeared in China sometime between 440 and 480 C.E., in other words,
not long after the first recorded cases of self-immolation by fire,
which occurred in the early fifth century.(12) The Fanwang jing in
time became the major text used in China and Japan for ordination to
the bodhisattva precepts. The sixteenth of the forty-eight lesser
precepts given in this text is that known in the Tiantai tradition
as weili daoshuo jie (the precept on making inverted statements for
[one's own] gain). I mention this fact in order to show that the
precept was understood, for the most part, as a commitment not to
make misleading statements rather than as a vow to burn one's own
body. Many of the precepts contained in the Fanwang jing can be
clearly traced back to earlier Mahayana texts, and Ono Hodo, who has
done the most extensive work on the subject, is of the opinion that
this precept derives from the Pusa dichi jing
(Bodhisattvabhumisutra).(13) He is probably correct as far as the
sense of the precept goes, but the wording of the two texts is
entirely different, and there is no mention of burning the body in
the earlier of the two. The inspiration for this particular part of
the precept is most likely drawn from the Lotus Sutra, since the
other potential culprit, the Yuedeng sanmei jing
(*Samadhiraja[candrapradipassutra]), which also contains a story of
a bodhisattva who burned his arms, was not translated until 557.(14)
Another explanation might be that the precept directly reflected
cultic practice and is not explicitly modeled on a textual
antecedent. Here is the Fanwang jing precept in its entirety:
If a son of the Buddha is to practice with a good mind, he should
start by studying the proper decorum, the scriptures and the
regulations (lu) of the Mahayana so that he thoroughly understands
their meaning and sense. Later he will meet bodhisattvas who are new
to this study and who have come a hundred or a thousand li in search
of the scriptures and regulations of the Mahayana. In accordance
with the dharma he should explain to them all the ascetic practices,
such as setting fire to the body, setting fire to the arm, or
setting fire to the finger. If one does not set fire to the body,
the arm or the finger as an offering to the Buddhas, one is not a
renunciant bodhisattva. Moreover, one should sacrifice the feet,
hands and flesh of the body as offerings to hungry tigers, wolves,
and lions and to all hungry ghosts.
Afterwards to each and every one of them one should preach the true
dharma, so that one causes the thought of liberation to appear in
their minds. If one does not behave in this way, then this is a
lesser wrongdoing.(15)
Body burners and their exegetical champions (such as Yanshou) could
point to this text with some confidence and say that as "renunciant
bodhisattvas" they were merely doing as the Buddha had told them.
The Shouleng'yan jing, unlike the Fanwang jing, is a meditation
sutra rather than a precepts sutra, but the following extract
appears in a section of the text that is certainly disciplinary in
intent. The Buddha speaks to Ananda about the Vinaya and explains to
him those prohibitions against lust, stealing, lying, and killing
that he deemed particularly appropriate during the period of the
decline of the dharma (mofa).(16) Right in the middle of the
discussion of the prohibition against stealing, and (seemingly)
apropos of nothing in particular, we find the f6flowing passage:
The Buddha said to Ananda, `After my Nirvana, if there is a bhiksu
who gives rise to a mental state wherein he is determined to
cultivate samadhi, and he is able to burn his body as a torch or to
set fire to a finger joint before an image of the Tathagata, or even
to burn a stick of incense on his body, then in a single instant he
will have repaid the debts of his previous existences since the
beginningless past. He will always avoid [being reborn] in the world
and he will be eternally free of all outflow (lou, Skt. asrava).
Even if he has not yet understood the supreme path of awakening,
such a person has already focused his mind on the dharma. But if he
does not have this secret underlying cause for sacrificing the body,
then even if he attains the unconditioned he must be reborn again as
a human in order to repay the debts from his previous lives. Just as
when I [had to] eat horse-fodder.'(17)
The above passage provides an excellent example of the typically
reductive nature of Sinitic apocrypha in the positing of a single
practice that leads to enlightenment-described here in terms of
being free from rebirth and from the outflows.(18) By extension, a
body that is free from outflows or "cankers" is the perfect body of
a buddha. The scholar of Chinese religions will see here immediate
parallels with "deliverance from the corpse" and "postmortem
immortality" in Taoism, but I fear this line of inquiry must await a
fuller exploration elsewhere.(19)
It is evident from the above that even before we consult the
commentarial literature, these two passages explicitly permit or
require the burning of the body by renunciates, be they renunciate
bodhisattvas (chujia pusa) or fully ordained monks (biqiu, bhiksu).
It is tempting to leap straight from what we know about ordination
now--where "incense" (in fact moxa as we shall see) is burned on the
head or arm--back to a point in time when these two texts first came
together and to conclude that ordination practice is based on the
simple conjunction of these two texts, that is, that burning incense
on the body is equivalent to burning the body and is symbolic of the
ascetic practices of the bodhisattva. While this may in fact be
true, the story of how this came about is perhaps a little more
complicated than it might first appear.
BURNING AT ORDINATION
We must perforce begin with an account of burning at ordination as
we know it today. There may well exist earlier Chinese accounts of
ordination that give the kind of procedural and ritual detail
beloved of the anthropologist, but if they do exist I have so far
been unable to locate them.(20) However, for ordination as practiced
from the late nineteenth century onward we do have some very useful
descriptions from outside observers such as J. J. M. de Groot,
Johannes Prip-Moller, and Holmes Welch and for modern-day Korea, the
unique insights of a participant-observer, Robert Buswell, who was
ordained and spent some years in a Korean monastery.(21) Chinese and
Korean monks and nuns may also be questioned on their own
experiences of ordination. The consensus of opinion of scholars and
monastics alike is that there is some connection between the
sixteenth minor precept of the Fanwang jing and burning at
ordination. But what, precisely, is this connection? Where and when
was it first made? One particularly significant fact that emerges
when looking at East Asia as a whole is that monks and nuns in Japan
are ordained to precisely the same bodhisattva precepts of the
Fanwang jing, but they do not burn their arms or heads, and there is
no evidence that they ever did.(22)
De Groot's chapter "Acceptation des Commandements des Bodhisatwas"
in his erudite and detailed study of the Fanwang jing is based on
the observations he made over a number of years at ordination
ceremonies conducted at Yongquan si on Gushan in Fuzhou. As he
notes, this particular ceremony was one that was first established
there by Yuanxian (1578-1657). Yuanxian in turn is said to have
borrowed it from that in use at Yunqi si in Hangzhou, the abbot and
founder of which was the eminent Ming monk Zhuhong (1532-1612).(23)
De Groot quotes the relevant part of the sixteenth minor precept at
the beginning of his discussion of the burning of the head, which
follows that part of the ceremony that he terms "acte de penitence
et serment" (an act that is penance and vow).(24)
What exactly happens at this point in the proceedings, and how is it
described? According to de Groot, terms in use for burning the head
at ordination in this particular monastery at the end of the
nineteenth century were ranxiang (burning incense) and jiuxiang
(calcination by incense). As far as I have been able to ascertain,
these terms are not attested in the Taisho edition of the Buddhist
canon, and I have not seen them attested in ordination manuals
before the mid-seventeenth century. This may indicate that there was
an ordination vocabulary, which was not drawn from canonical
sources, and that terms and techniques for ordination might well
have been transmitted orally from teacher to student. The ordinands
knelt in front of the masters of ceremonies, who marked their heads
with ink in the places where they were to be burned. De Groot notes
that the following numbers of burns were administered: three, nine,
twelve, and eighteen. Apparently these were all in use at Yongquan
si, the number being burned at the request of the ordinand; compare
this with Prip-Moller's observation that nine was the usual number
of burns for monasteries around Chengdu in the 1920s and 1930s and
the fact that he saw only one monk with eighteen burns on his
head.(25) Nine burns are clearly visible in the photographs of
recently ordained monks in Prip-Moller's book.(26) The significance
of the number of burns was explained to de Groot as follows: three
for the Three Jewels (san bao, Sanskrit triratna); nine in the
square of three, hence the power is redoubled; no one could explain
the significance of twelve; and finally, eighteen represented the
eighteen arhats.(27) Again, this would seem to be an example of oral
ordination lore, since I have not seen the burns explained in any
way in a Chinese source.
Having had their heads marked, the ordinands knelt in front of
tables, their heads were grasped from behind by an officiating monk,
and a small pastille of dried pulp (gui yuan) from the fruit
nephelium longan (longyan, "dragon's eye") was placed on each inked
spot.(28) Then, cones of moxa were placed on top of the pulp.(29)
Each cone was then lit with a burning stick of incense, and the
cones were allowed to burn down into the skin. As this was
happening, the ordinand recited the name of Amitabha, while the monk
holding the ordinand's head pressed on his temples in order to
lessen the pain.(30) If we imagine this procedure divorced from its
context, it bears a remarkable similarity to a type of therapy that
has been practiced in China for centuries, moxibustion.
MOXIBUSTION
"Moxibustion" is the term used in the West for the Chinese practice
of burning moxa, that is, Artemisia tinder (ai), on or near the
skin, for therapeutic or prophylactic purposes.(31) The traditional
term in Chinese was ai rong jiu. The character jiu is the same as
that which we have seen used by monks for burning at ordination,
jiuxiang. There are three main methods of moxibustion, all of which
are mirrored in ordination burning in China or Korea.(32) In the
first technique, a small cone of moxa is allowed to burn down to the
skin, resulting in a blister and leaving a scar. In some cases this
was modified so that a layer of vegetable tissue was placed between
the cone and the skin. This is precisely the technique used at
ordination in China, which was described above and which is common
in Taiwan today. The third technique was to use a burning cylinder
of moxa, either to provide mild radiant beat or to administer a
light burn. This last technique mirrors that used in Korea to
administer a light burn on the arm to laypeople who receive the
Fanwang jing precepts (Korean yonbi).(33)
Why use moxa for ritual burning? Why not simply use incense (xiang),
which is what is specified in the Shouleng'yan jing? The answer
seems to be that the intention is not to cause pain, simply to leave
a visible scar. Moxibustion practitioners all claim that the pain of
moxibustion is not an unpleasant one but instead produces a deep
glowing sensation (chang kuai, kuai gan).(34) Ordained Chinese monks
and nuns whom I questioned about their experiences at ordination
agreed that the sensation was "not unpleasant." Moreover, if we
think back to the text, the presence of the term ai would have
immediately looked suspect in a text of supposedly Indian origin, as
the substance was not known or used there. As we shall see, incense
was (and still is) used to burn off fingers in their entirety.
Moxibustion points largely mirrored those used in acupuncture, and
just as with acupuncture, there were loci on the body where use of
burning moxa was contraindicated. There are three moxibustion points
on the head above the hairline that correspond to the three points
commonly used in ordination burning. These are tou hui in the center
and two points named zheng guang flanking it.(35) I have, as yet,
not found these particular terms attested in Chinese Buddhist texts,
which speak only of shao ding (burning the crown of the head).
Again, such terminology would look more orthodox by analogy with the
Tantric rite of consecration (abhiseka, Chinese guanding) during
which the crown of the head is anointed, whereas the presence of
specifically Chinese medical terminology in a text of supposedly
Indian origin would have immediately looked suspect.
As with some other Chinese inventions, moxibustion is not quite as
ancient as is sometimes claimed. The oldest extant works on
moxibustion date from between the third and fifth centuries C.E.,
well before the Shouleng'yan jing speaks of burning incense on the
body in the early eighth.(36) Certainly moxibustion was widely
practiced during the Tang, and works were produced with diagrams of
moxibustion points on the body.(37) At the time of the composition
of the text, the idea of a fragrant substance being burned on the
body was not only known, it was widely practiced and had
overwhelmingly positive connotations. Against this background, our
passage, which at first glance looks quite bizarre, begins to look a
lot less strange. My contention is that when the Shouleng'yan jing
speaks of burning incense on the body, it is to the indigenous
Chinese practice of moxibustion that it refers, albeit perhaps
indirectly.
Even if we discount this suggestion, it is beyond dispute that
ordination burning as it has been known for the last hundred years
or so draws more or less explicitly on a well-established Chinese
medical technique. That Buddhism and healing could be linked in such
a manner is hardly a great revelation, but it leads me to wonder
what deeper symbolic links might exist between burning and healing.
For example, the bodhisattva who burned himself in the Lotus Sutra,
Bhaisajyagururaja, was known in China as Yaowang (Medicine King) and
as such was the center of a cult of significant proportions.(38)
This kind of symbolic link might prove to be a profitable line of
inquiry for further investigation of the practice.
THE FANWANG JING AND SHOULENG'YAN JING AND THE HISTORY OF BURNING AT
ORDINATION
De Groot sees a clear connection between the sixteenth minor precept
of the Fanwang jing and the act of burning at ordination, and
Chinese monks and nuns whom I questioned also felt that there was a
connection between the two. None of my informants was able to point
me toward a text that actually made that connection explicit. There
is such a text, but compared to the Fanwang jing, it is both fairly
obscure and fairly late. The eighteenth-century monastic gazetteer
Wulin dazhaoqing lusi zhi (Gazetteer of the Great Zhaoqing Vinaya
Monastery in Wulin) contains an entry on receiving the bodhisattva
precepts that reads:
Those who wish to receive the great bodhisattva precepts first give
rise to a great aspiration. The burning of the crown of the head is
taken as the vow. After the burning one receives the precepts. The
Fanwang jing says, "Bodhisattvas who are new to study come a hundred
or a thousand li in search of the scriptures and regulations of the
Mahayana. In accordance with the dharma one should explain to them
all the ascetic practices, such as setting fire to the body, setting
fire to the arm, or setting fire to the finger. If one does not set
fire to the body, the arm or the finger as an offering to the
Buddhas, one is not a renunciant Bodhisattva." On this precedent,
out of compassion one burns the head and vows to cultivate the four
dhyanas and samadhi and to uphold the dharma. This has now been
established.(39)
The significance of this passage, beyond its explicit explanation of
when and why monks' heads were to be burned, lies in the fact that
Vinaya monasteries in late imperial China were responsible for
training monks to give ordinations. It is highly likely, then, that
these instructions applied not to one particular institution but to
many, perhaps even to all ordinations performed in China at this
time. It is hard to be sure if this is true, since an extensive
search of other monastic gazetteers; has failed to turn up anything
similar. This does not mean that the monastery in Wulin was unusual,
but rather that the gazetteer itself is unusual in that it devotes
any attention at all to living monks. Most so-called monastic
gazetteers were in fact literary-cum-topographical guidebooks rather
than records of mundane Buddhist activities.(40)
The Fanwang jing contains precepts but does not contain instructions
on how to administer those precepts. Moreover, the sixteenth minor
precept does not say anything about vows, burning the head, or
burning incense on the body. Clearly, the model for ordination
burning is drawn from the Fanwang jing and the Shouleng'yan jing
used in conjunction. We can very easily confirm that the two
passages were so linked by looking at commentaries on the Fanwang
jing. The Fanwang jing pusa fie zhu by the Song monk Huiyin (dates
unknown) cites the Shouleng'yan jing in support of the sixteenth
minor precept of the Fanwang jing, as does the Fanwang jing pusa fie
lueshu by Hongzan (1611-85).(41) However, neither of these texts
makes any mention of burning at ordination as such.
One theory that might be advanced is that the passage from the
Shouleng'yan jing was composed in the early eighth century in order
to validate some preexisting ordination practice based on the
Fanwang jing. This is certainly a reasonable supposition, but one
that is not borne out by the textual evidence. Although we have
evidence that people burned or branded their heads in the centuries
after the composition of the Shouleng'yan jing, it was never
explicitly linked to ordination, nor to the bodhisattva precepts.
In his infamous Memorial on the Buddha Relic (Lun fo gu biao) of
819, Han Yu (768-824) complained to the emperor that if he should
honor the Buddha's relic, the people, being easily misled, would "in
their tens or hundreds burn the crowns of their heads and burn off
their fingers in sacrifice." Furthermore, "unless there is an
immediate prohibition to check and control the various monasteries,
there will inevitably be those who will cut off their limbs or slice
up their bodies in making offerings which will pervert our customs
and destroy normal usages, making us a laughing stock to the world.
This would be no small matter."(42) Han Yu is not simply waxing
rhetorical here, since there are accounts of laypeople burning the
crown of the head (shao ding) and branding their arms (zhuo bi) when
the relic of the Buddha was brought to Chang'an despite his
protests, and the biography of Li Wei speaks of common people
cutting off their fingers in 873 when the relic was again brought to
the capital.(43) In fact, Tang sources never speak of any burning
practice associated with the ordination of monks. Given what we know
of Han Yu, had such ordination practices existed they would have
been ideal ammunition for his anti-Buddhist polemic. If anything
then, burning or branding of the head and arms is associated with
what we might call overzealous cultic practice. It is not the
sanctioned or controlled violence that occurs in ritual burning at
ordination. Nor is there any evidence that burning the body was
associated with ordination in the tenth century; witness, for
example, this edict of 955 promulgated by the (Later) Zhou emperor
Shizong: "Hitherto, samgha and laity have been practising
self-immolation, burning their arms and igniting their fingers, or
cutting off their hands and feet and then carrying them on pikes
like flaming torches, hanging burning lamps from hooks ... all this
must now cease. These are very serious offences as defined in the
Vinaya."(44)
This edict is reproduced in the later administrative compendium
Zizhi tongjian (A Comprehensive Mirror for the Aid of Government),
where it merits some informative annotation by Hu Sanxing (1230-87),
the Yuan commentator. He writes, "Burning the finger (lian zhi)
means wrapping incense around the finger and igniting it.(45)
Hanging lamps (gua deng) means being naked and piercing the skin
with small iron hooks, from which are suspended small lamps. The
lamps are filled with oil and then lit. These are commonly known as
`burning body lamps' (ran roushen deng)."(46) This indicates, to me
at least, that such practices were either known in the Yuan and had
been witnessed by the commentator or that he is drawing on textual
materials now lost or that are perhaps simply obscure.
There is no indication in the original edict, or in the Yuan
commentary, that these burning practices were in any way associated
with ordination. Even assuming that the evidence is missing, or has
been deliberately expunged from the record, we are faced with
incontrovertible fact that there is no burning at ordination in
Japan, where Buddhists were notoriously fascinated by precepts,
especially those of the Fanwang jing. Accounts by Japanese pilgrims
who visited Tang and Song China such as Ennin, and Eisai, and even
Sakugen, who visited China as late as the 1530s make no mention of
any such practice in China. Had such practices existed, they would
surely have been exported wholesale to Japan, along with every other
aspect of continental Buddhist practice.
Previous attempts to find a date for the introduction of ordination
burning in China have tended to peter out into speculation. De
Groot, noting a claim that Zhuhong had based his ordination ritual
on one of Song date (not a claim I have been able to trace, let
alone substantiate) concludes, "cet rituel semble donc avoir un age
respectable" (this ritual seems to be of a respectable age).(47)
Both Prip-Moller and de Groot note a substatute of 1649 in the Qing
legal code that says that ordination certificates are required
before any burning takes place, which at least gives us a terminus
ante quem for the practice.(48) Is it possible that this edict alone
was responsible for burning at ordination? I am inclined to doubt
it, since the wording of the text, which speaks rather vaguely of
"the burning practice by the abbot" (zhuchi fenxiu) implies that
this was a practice that was already known and did not have to be
explained and that it was already part of ordination procedure. The
term fenxiu employed here normally refers to the ritual burning of
incense in general rather than any kind of burning of the body. De
Groot's Sectarianism and Religious Persecution in China provides a
very useful compendium of legislation that applied to the Buddhist
and Taoist clergy, but there is no discussion of burning at
ordination in edicts or legal codes prior to that of the Qing. An
electronic search of the historical materials now available online
through the good offices of Academia Sinica has also failed to
reveal any earlier legislation that even mentions ordination
burning.
In fact, the earliest reference to burning at ordination dates to
the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368). It occurs in the biography of Zhide
(1235-1322), in Ming gaoseng zhuan (Biographies of Eminent Monks
compiled under the Ming), and would put the earliest recorded use of
burning at ordination at around 1280: "Whenever he bestowed the
precepts on the seven assemblies (qi zhong), he thought it necessary
to make the fathers, mothers, older and younger brothers teach each
other so that they would not transgress.(49) So with burning incense
he burned the crowns of their heads and their fingers, as a vow that
would last to the end of their lives."(50)
The idea of burning the body to "seal a vow" that is present both in
Zhide's biography, and in the eighteenth-century gazetteer seems to
have been already familiar in a slightly different context--that of
the bodily practices of Song Tiantai masters. Zunshi (964-1032), for
example, who seems to have had rather a reputation for making
powerful vows, burned his head as he swore to "exert himself in the
practice of the four forms of samadhi until the end of his life,"
which is extremely close to the vow taken by those burned at
ordination, according to the monastic gazetteer quoted above.(51)
We now have a starting point for burning at ordination, but we are
still faced with the problem of understanding by precisely what
means this practice grew from (apparently) a single monastery and a
single teacher in the Yuan, to become an empirewide phenomenon in
the early Qing. The obvious sources--ordination manuals for the
bodhisattva precepts--are, for the most part, frustratingly silent
on the matter. This is largely due to the fact that such manuals
largely prescribe speech rather than action, and as de Groot's
account indicates, there were no ritual words that accompanied
ordination burning. The earliest explicit references in these
materials that I have been able to find are (1) in a Qing commentary
by Chaoyuan (1631-87) that inserts "stage directions" into the
Chuanshou santan hong jiefayi by Hanyue (1573-1635) and (2) in an
ordination manual completed in 1650 by Duti (1601-79), which does
draw on the Fanwang jing to account for the burning that ordinands
undergo.(52) The fact that the latter text appeared one year after
the Qing regulation that speaks of burning at ordination makes one
immediately suspicious that burning at ordination may have been a
sudden innovation, as much as the product of gradual evolution. Yet,
as Duti's manual reveals, and as I have tried to indicate here, it
was an innovation that could be doctrinally supported by texts.
Here, I can do no more than introduce another suspect, the
fascinating late Ming monk Zhixu (1599-1655), a man highly regarded
by his contemporaries, whatever their religious inclinations. Not
only was Zhixu profoundly influenced by the Shouleng'yan jing and
the Fanwang jing, but also his collected writings allow a remarkable
insight into the practices of an eminent monk. Many of those
practices involved writing scriptures in his own blood and burning
the crown of his head and his arms. Between the ages of 26 and 56
Zhixu burned incense on his head on six occasions and on his arms
twenty-eight times.(53) Whether his personal practices had any
effect on ordination in general is unknown, but the possibility is
an intriguing one that deserves further exploration. More attention
needs to be focused on Zhixu, Duti, and the agenda of the Qing state
in order to settle this question. But burning at ordination remains
an apocryphal practice, one that is purely Sinitic and that is
firmly grounded in two apocryphal texts.
PRAYING FOR RAW
Given the predominance of references to the Lotus Sutra in the
biographical literature, there is an understandable tendency to
attribute the inspiration for the act of autocremation solely to
this particular non-Chinese textual model. While it is true that
there is a strong case for claiming that Chinese Buddhist
autocremators found inspiration and justification for their acts in
the Lotus--a justification that was of course reinforced by our two
apocryphal texts--there was in fact a well-attested Chinese model
for autocremation that was sometimes explicitly mimicked in Buddhist
autocremation. It is a historical fact that autocremation was known
and practiced in China long before the translation of the Lotus
Sutra. Shao shen can therefore be considered an apocryphal practice
in the sense of being an indigenous practice that clearly predated
the translation of the Lotus Sutra.
Leaving aside for the moment the early mentions of "burning shamans"
(fen wu) to produce rain in times of drought that appear in such
texts as the Zhou li, Zwo zhuan, and the treatises on rainmaking
contained in the Chunqiu fan lu, let us now turn to early accounts
of non-Buddhist autocremators. Rainmaking was normally practiced by
the emperor or one of his representatives exposing his body to the
rays of the sun, causing rainfall by a kind of reverse sympathetic
magic.(54) But when this ritual exposure failed to produce a result,
stronger measures were called for.
Our first account comes from the biography of an official called Dai
Feng in the Hou Han shu (History of the Later Han): "That year (90
C.E.) there was a great drought. Feng prayed and petitioned [for
rain] without success. So, he piled up firewood and sat on top in
order to burn himself, as the fire rose, thereupon there was a heavy
downpour of rain."(55)
The rain presumably extinguished the fire, since Feng survived. The
second account, also from the Hou Han shu, nicely demonstrates that
autocremation was considered a further stage after the failure of
ritual exposure of the body. Liang Fu first "exposed himself in the
courtyard" but this did not bring rain, so, "He piled up firewood,
and gathered water-chestnut reeds together, making a circle of them
around him and set fire to the edge. He was about to burn himself
when ... it rained."(56)
This ritual is attested not only in the Han, even as late as the
Song people vowed to burn themselves alive in order to bring rain.
In 991 the empire was suffering from drought and plagues of locusts.
When praying for rain failed to work, the emperor himself, Song
Taizong (r. 976-97), vowed to burn himself alive. The next day it
rained and the locusts died.(57) In all these cases the threat of
autocremation was enough to produce a result, but sometimes it did
not rain in time, and the vow was carried out so that the
participant actually burned to death.(58)
Such acts did not remain the prerogative of the state; Buddhists
also burned themselves in order to bring rain. In the year 1000,
there was a great drought:
The master (Zhili 960-1028) together with the repentance master of
Tianzhu (Tianzhu chanzhu, i.e., Zunshi) prayed for rain and obtained
a result.(59) The Xingye ji says, "The master together with Zunshi
jointly performed the Luminous and Bright Repentance (guang ming
chan). They prayed for rain for three days. When it did not rain,
they resolved to burn one hand as an offering to the Buddha. Before
this act for the Buddha was complete, there was a great downpour of
rain. The Ciyun Xingye ji says "[That year] there was a great
drought in Siming.(60) The master commenced repentance, and prayed
for rain for three days. When it did not rain he resolved to burn
himself. Then he obtained a result. The Prefect Su thought this was
extraordinary and erected a stele recording the event."(61)
Other accounts of Buddhists who vowed to burn themselves to bring
rain can be found in Yudi jisheng.(62) A Ming dynasty monk who
followed through on the vow and did burn himself can be found in Xin
xu gaoseng zhuan si ji (Four Collections of New Continued
Biographies of Eminent Monks).(63) Buddhist scriptures say many
interesting things, but even apocryphal sutras do not permit monks
to burn their bodies in order to bring rain. So it is interesting to
see this intersection between indigenous and Buddhist practice,
legitimated in the acts of eminent monks. These monks themselves had
two sources of legitimation: on the one hand they did what any
self-respecting emperor or official would have done; on the other
they were aware that "burning the body as an offering to the Buddha"
(explicitly marked in the text here) was a legitimate Buddhist act.
THE FANWANG JING AND SHOULENG'YAN JING AS TEXTUAL JUSTIFICATION FOR
BURNING THE BODY BY MONKS AND NUNS
CREATION AND FUNCTION OF THE SHOULENG'YAN JING
My thesis is that the function of these few lines from the two texts
was to provide textual justification for burning practices by
members of the Chinese samgha, but what further evidence can be
found to indicate that the texts were understood in this way? The
Fahua jing san da bu buzhu (Supplementary notes on the Three Great
Divisions of the Lotus Sutra) was compiled by the Song Tiantai monk
Congyi (1042-91) as a supplement to the three commentaries on the
Lotus by Zhiyi (538-97). The autocremation of the Bodhisattva
Bhaisajyagururaja in the Lotus prompts the following exegesis:
Some people say that the Vinaya prohibits the burning of the body to
bring deliverance and the burning of the finger to bring good
fortune.(64) But this is to confuse the greater and lesser
[vehicles]. Nanshan (Daoxuan 596-4667), citing the four-part and
five-part [Vinayas], says that suicide is sthulatyaya (a major
transgression). Furthermore he cites the ten-recension [Vinaya] to
say that inflicting injury on the self or mutilating the body, which
includes cutting off the fingers, are all transgressions. Therefore
suicide to attain deliverance is the transgression of murder. This
is broadly what the text of the Hinayana Vinayas state.
But, according to the Fanwang [jing], "if you do not burn your body
then you are not a renunciant bodhisattva." This is approved in the
commentaries on this precept [which state] that having attained the
stage of the clan (xingdi, Sanskrit gotra-bhumi) one has the ability
for this requirement.(65)
The venerable Yijing (635-713) in his Jigui zhuan (Nanhai jigui
neifa zhuan) says,
"Burning the body is not fitting. Among all renunciates those who
are commencing their studies want to be brave and keen. They
consider burning the fingers as the practice of vigor (jingqin,
Sanskrit, viriya) and the burning of the body as the production of
great merit. Although they do occur in the sutras, such actions are
for the laity who may offer their own bodies, not to mention any
external possessions which they have. Renunciates, on the other hand
should abide by the Vinaya. If they transgress the precepts then
they have not correctly perceived their significance. Thus for
Sarvasattvapriyadarsana [i.e., Bhaisyagururaja], who is classed as a
lay person, to burn his arms et cetera, is considered perfectly
permissible. Bodhisattvas may give up their sons and daughters, but
bhiksus need not seek for sons and daughters to surrender:(66) And
so on. But I would say that Yijing has made a false analysis, which
is neither Hinayana nor Mahayana. If one sides with the Hinayana,
how can one recognize Sarvasattvapriyadarsana? Likewise if one sides
with the Mahayana how can one not cite the Fanwang jing, but
perversely use the Hinayana Vinaya? Presumably he had not yet read
the Fanwang jing! In recent times Master Cheng's Yaolan [i.e.,
Shishi yaolan (Essential Readings for Buddhists), comp. Daocheng,
fl. 10 17, T.54.21271 also fails to cite the Fanwang jing. This is
quite wrong and mistaken.(67)
There follows a discussion of Hinayana versus Mahayana precepts, and
then Congyi cites both passages from the Fanwang jing and
Shouleng'yan jing to demonstrate that the practices of burning the
body are justified and that Yijing and his kind are sadly mistaken
to believe otherwise.(68)
The mention of Yijing and his extraordinarily heartfelt attack on
shao shen, from which Congyi merely extracts a few lines, may now
help us to identify a very specific reason for the creation of part
of the Shouleng'yan jing. Yijing returned to China after his
peregrinations around India and the southern seas in 695. Although
the Kaiyuan shijiao lu (Kaiyuan Catalogue of Buddhist Teachings)(69)
states that his travel record, Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan (An Account
of the Dharma Sent Back from the Southern Seas) was compiled between
700 and 710, there is evidence from within the text that Yijing must
have completed it before 705. At the end of the text he sends his
respects to "the worthies of the Great Zhou," Da Zhou.(70) The Zhou
was of course the name of Empress Wu's dynasty, and it would not
have been used after she abdicated on February 22, 705. Moreover,
Wang Bangwei's recent study of the text confidently ascribes the
text to 692, the year in which it was "sent back" to China.(71) We
can be fairly sure then that the text was in circulation before the
alleged translation of the Shouleng'yan jing.
The last section of his work, which is only partly a travel diary
and partly a discourse on the minutiae of the Vinaya, consists of a
sustained attack on the illegitimacy of burning the body. We have
seen his first line of attack above, and Yijing goes on to argue as
follows. Human rebirth is hard to attain, and one should not give up
the body before one has really begun to study.(72) Second, suicide
is not permitted in the Vinaya.(73) The Buddha did not even permit
castration but encouraged the "releasing of living beings" (e.g.,
releasing fish into ponds).(74) If one takes refuge in this
practice, one contravenes the teachings of the Buddha, although this
does not apply to those who follow the bodhisattva path without
being ordained to the Vinaya.(75) Those who burn their bodies are
guilty of a sthulatyaya offense, but those who then imitate them are
guilty of parajika (since their intention is worse).(76) There were
suicides in India at the time of the Buddha, and he declared them
"heretics" (waidao).(77) The rest of his argument, which takes some
seven frames of Taisho text, can be summed up quite succinctly as
follows: my teachers were all wise and virtuous men; they never
burned their bodies and they told me it was wrong.(78)
We should not suppose that Yijing's diary was merely a curiosity to
his Tang audience; where earlier Chinese pilgrims had been keen to
seek out new and better texts from India, Yijing's purpose was to
find out exactly what Indian Buddhists did and to relay that
knowledge to an expectant audience in China.(79) The fact that
Indian Buddhists did not burn themselves would have been a matter of
no small impact on his contemporaries, and we have already seen that
his words continued to be cited hundreds of years later. A response
to this unsettling news was not long in coming.
The Shouleng'yan jing purports to be a translation by the otherwise
unknown Paramiti or Pramiti (Banlamidi) dating from the twenty-third
day, fifth month, first year of Shenlong (June 18, 705) at Zhizhi si
in Guangzhou.(80) According to another catalog of Buddhist
scriptures, the XU gujin yijing tuji,(81) the man who assisted this
alleged monk was a certain ex-official of Empress Wu's court called
Fang Rong, toward whom the finger of suspicion has pointed ever
since.(82) Internal evidence from the text would suggest that the
part of Yijing's text that attacks shao shen would have been known
to him, since it was presented to Empress Wu. Fang is described as
"a disciple of the Bodhisattva Vinaya:' which might mean nothing
more than that he had received those particular precepts, hardly
uncommon for laymen in the Tang. But, suppose that he had some
particular interest in the validity of those precepts that he saw as
being under attack from Yijing's work? What if he knew monks who
themselves were missing the odd finger, again hardly unlikely in the
Tang, when even elite exegetes such as Fazang (643-712) burned off
their fingers?(83)
Burning the body was always on somewhat shaky ground doctrinally
speaking, and Yijing's polemic attacked the practice from many
angles. But, what could better answer Yijing's charge that the
Buddha never said that monks could burn their bodies than the
creation of a text in which the Buddha says "a monk may burn his
body"? Also, consider where in the text of the Shouleng'yan jing the
passage occurs--in the middle of the Buddha's discussion of Vinaya.
Is this not the first place a Vinaya master would turn when
presented with a newly "translated-sutra?
Moreover, there is additional evidence that other parts of the
Shouleng'yan jing were composed as a direct response to statements
made in Yijing's work. I can hardly claim to have made a close
comparative study of the two texts, but there are a number of lines
that immediately leap off the page. Here, for example, is a
quotation from Yijing: "As to fine and rough silk, these are allowed
by the Buddha. What is the use of laying down rules for the strict
prohibition of silk? ... Such a rule may be classed with the
forcible prohibitions that have never been laid down (by the
Buddha)."(84) And, "If one attempts to protect every being there
will be no means of maintaining oneself, and one has to give up life
without reason. A proper consideration shows that such a practice is
not right. There are some who do not eat ghee or cream, do not wear
leather boots, and do not put on any silk or cotton. All these are
in the same category as above."(85) Here is the Shouleng'yan jing:
"If bhiksus do not wear garments made of silk from the East, boots
of leather and furs and refrain from consuming milk, cream and
butter, they will really be liberated from the worldly; after paying
their former debts, they will not transmigrate in the three realms
of existence."(86) Yijing says that monks may eat the three pure
kinds of meat.(87) The Buddha, speaking in the Shouleng'yan jing,
says, "You should know that those who eat meat, although their minds
may be open and realize a semblance of samadhi, are but great
raksasas who, after this life will sink back into the bitter ocean
of samsara and cannot be my disciples."(88) So, the section on
morality in the Shouleng'yan jing seems to have been composed in
part as a response to definitive opinions expressed on the Vinaya by
Yijing, which occurred in a text available to the forgers.
On the basis of the close textual relationship between the two texts
I conclude that the lines relating to burning the body were most
likely placed in the text of the Shouleng'yan jing in direct
response to Yijing's attack on the practice. The vindication of shao
shen by the Buddha himself was an unanswerable argument that would
have effectively topped any of Yijing's objections.
USE OF THE TEXTS BY AUTOCREMATORS
The fact that the Fanwang jing and Shouleng'yan jing were directly
referred to by self-immolators themselves helps us to understand why
they were originally composed. The Song Tiantai master Zhili, whom
we have already encountered in the context of praying for rain, used
the two passages to justify his own proposed autocremation. In 1017
he vowed to burn himself alive and to attain rebirth in the Pure
Land on completion of the fahua repentance.(89) He did not do so,
being eventually persuaded to "remain in the world" by a series of
letters written to him by the well-known Song literatus Yang Yi
(974-1020), who also memorialized the emperor, asking him to
persuade Zhili to change his mind.(90) Yang Yi's letters and Zhili's
replies are preserved in Siming zunzhe jiaoxing lu.(91) In the reply
to Yang Yi's first letter Zhili explicitly cites both the Fanwang
jing and the Shouleng'yan jing as justification for his actions.(92)
Self-immolators in biographies of eminent monks very rarely get to
speak in their own voices, and there is little discussion of
motivation or justification other than the formulaic "wish to
imitate the Medicine King." This letter by Zhili is probably as
close to the mind of a self-immolator as it is possible for us to
get. And it indicates that apocryphal texts affected the motivations
and beliefs not just of the less talented members of the monastic
community but also of the scholastic elite.
The Shouleng'yan jing could be used to justify autocremation, but
did it effectively silence critics of self-immolation? Well, perhaps
not. As noted above, Daocheng was unwilling to admit the legitimacy
of self-immolation (she shen) in his Shishi yaolan some three
hundred years after the creation of the apocryphon. In the Ming, the
eminent cleric Zhuhong wrote an extremely critical piece on the
practice of burning the body, contained in his Zheng'e ji
(Rectification of Errors, 1614). It is titled Huo fen (Burning
Alive).
There are demonic people (moren) who pour on oil, stack up firewood
and burn their bodies while still alive. Those who look on are
overawed, and consider it the attainment of enlightenment. This is
erroneous. In the thoughts of all humans there is attachment, and
this is where Mara arises. If one has a single moment of thought of
admiration for the wonder of this burning while alive, then before
this [thought of] admiration is complete, Mara enters the mind and
one is no longer self-aware.
As they sit upright in the midst of the fire, it seems as if they
have no suffering. They do not realize it is Mara's power which aids
them. They temporarily attain suchness, but when their life-force is
exhaused Mara departs. Then they are miserable and in pain which is
quite indescribable. For hundreds of kalpas and thousands of
rebirths they are always in the midst of flames, screaming and
waiting as they run. So that they are dead ghosts to whom one should
give compassionately.
Some might say, "The sutras extol the Medicine King who burned his
body, so what of that?" Alas! How can a green insect surpass [a bird
with] golden wings? When the Medicine King burned his body, the
radiance was illuminating. It lasted for many kalpas and extended to
the ten directions. But these people who burn themselves alive,
their light is negligible. For the followers of Guifeng [Guifeng
Zongmi 780-8411 burning the arm in praise of the dharma is not
permitted by the pure precepts, so how much worse for burning the
living body?(93) This is what Wenling calls "a cause of suffering
returning as an effect of suffering."(94)
CONCLUSION
Both the Fanwang jing and the Shouleng'yan jing were popular and
influential texts. I have merely indicated some ways in which they
distinctively shaped Chinese Buddhism even many centuries after
their composition. Chinese monks and nuns continued to burn their
bodies throughout the imperial and republican periods, but one
particular form of burning, that done at ordination, became
orthodox, ironically enough on the basis of texts that were not
orthodox at all. I have suggested some ways in which text and
practice were locked in a cycle of production, and in doing so have,
I hope, shed a little light on some aspects of Chinese Buddhist
history that have hitherto remained obscure. On the actual
production of these texts I have been able to add tittle, other than
to indicate what seems at least a plausible motive for the inclusion
of those very few lines in the Shouleng'yan jing that relate to the
burning of the body. Moreover, while burning practices were
"apocryphal" in the medieval period, there was nothing odd or
unprecedented about burning the body, due to the existence of
non-Buddhist analogues: moxibustion and burning the body to bring
rain. The concept of "apocryphal practice" as I have defined and
applied it in this study seems to be a workable hermeneutical tool
that might be applied to other investigations of Sinitic Buddhist
practices and texts. I hope that others more skilled and more
patient than myself might like to apply it to other practices and
other texts.
Parts of this article were presented to the China Workshop at the
University of California, Los Angeles, in May 1997 and at the
Needham Research Institute, Cambridge, in September 1997. My thank
to the participants of both these seminars, and to Robert Buswell,
William Bodiford, and T. H. Barrett who commented on earlier drafts
of the article. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own
(1) In December 1983, the Chinese Buddhist Association (Zhongguo
fojiao xiehui), which is nominally in charge of the religion in the
People's Republic, declared that burning the head at ordination was
"a ritual Practice which was not of Buddhist origin, and since it
was damaging to the health was to be abolished forthwith" (Wang
Jinglin, Zhongguo gudai siyuan shenghuo [Xi'an Xi'an xinhua
yinshuchang, 1991]), p. 39. It remains to be seen whether this has
had any discernible influence on ordination practice in China.
(2) See Taisho shinshu daizokyo, ed. Takakusu Junjiro et al., 100
vols. (Tokyo: Taisho Issaikyo Kankokai, 1924-32), 1494; cited as T
hereafter, with volume, text, page number, register, and line number
given in that order. Chinese characters for texts, personal names,
and technical terms appear in a glossary in the appendix.
(3) T.945.
(4) The term "apocryphal text" and the translation of the tides of
apocryphal texts ("The Book of ...") is consistent with that used
throughout Robert E. Buswell, Jr., ed., Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha
(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990).
(5) There are of course exceptions, and notable among them is
Antonino Forte. See, e.g., his Political Propaganda and Ideology in
China at the End of the Seventh Century: Inquiry into the Nature,
Authors and Function of the Tunhuang Document S 6502, Followed by an
Annotated Translation (Napoli: Instituto Universitario Orientale,
1976).
(6) See my "Is Self-Immolation a `Good Practice'?: Yongming
Yanshou's Endorsement of Relinquishing the Body in His Wanshan
tonggui ji" (paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American
Academy of Religion, San Francisco, November 25, 1997). For the
passage in question, see Wanshan tonggui ji (Treatise on the Common
End of the Myriad Good Practices), T48.2017.969b26-c19.
(7) The biographical sources for self-immolators are many, but
significant collections may be found in the following: Gaoseng zhuan
(Biographies of Eminent Monks), comp. Huijiao, ca. 531, T.50.2059;
Xu gaoseng zhuan (Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks), comp.
Daoxuan, preface dated 645, T.501060; Song gaoseng zhuan (Song
Dynasty Biographies of Eminent Monks), comp. Zanning, 988,
T.50.2061; Bu xu gaoseng zhuan (Supplementary Continued Biographies
of Eminent Monks), comp. Minghe, Xuzang jing (Continued Canon), 150
vols. (Taipei: Xinwen feng, 1968-78; reprint of Dai Nihor Zokuzokyo,
Kyoto: Zokyo shoin, 1905-12), 134.320b-326a, cited as "XZJ"
hereafter Xin xu gaoseng zhuan (New Continued Biographies of Eminent
Monks), Dazang jing bubian (Buddhist Canon: Supplementary Section),
(Taipei: Xinwen feng, 1994--86), vol. 27, cited as "Supplement"
hereafter Biqiuni zhuan (Biographies of Nuns, ca. 501. T.50-2063);
Fayuan zhulin (A Grove of Pearls in a Dharma Garden), comp. Daoshi,
preface dated 669, T.53.2122; Fozu tongji (Comprehensive Account of
the Buddhas and Patriarchs), comp. Zhipan (active 1258-69),
T.49.2035; Siming zunzhe jiaoxing lu (Record of the Teachings and
Practices of the Worthy of Siming), comp. Zongxiao, 1151-ca. 1214,
T.46.1937; Fahua lingyan zhuan (Biographies which Attest the
Miraculous Power of the Lotus), comp. Liaoyuan, Do date for text or
compiler, but the title appears in a catalogue of 1094,
XZJ.134.387-407; Fahua jing chiyan ji (Accounts of Testimonies to
the Lotus), re-edited by Zhou Kefu, 1644-61, XZJ. 134.449-95. See my
forthcoming dissertation, "Burning for the Buddha. Self-Immolation
in Chinese Buddhism," for a discussion of these sources and a fuller
account of the history of self-immolation in Chinese Buddhism.
(8) My term "apocryphal practice" is one that owes an obvious debt
to the term "apocryphal word" coined by Lewis Lancaster. See his
paper, "The Question of `Apocryphal' Words in Chinese Buddhist
Texts" (delivered at the Annual meeting of the American Academy of
Religion, Atlanta, November 24, 1986).
(9) The date of the first complete translation was 286 C.E.; see
Erik Zurcher, The Buddhist Conquest of China (Leiden: Brill, 1959),
pp. 69-70, although Buddhist autocremation appears not to be
attested before the early fifth century.
(10) There is some evidence that the practice was not unknown in
India, but a fuller discussion of this must perforce be left to my
colleagues in Indian Buddhism.
(11) On the Fanwang jing, see Paul Groner, "The Fan-wang ching and
Monastic Discipline in Japanese Tendai: A Study of Annen's `Futsu
jubosatsukai koshaku,'" in Buswell, ed., pp. 251-90, and the
scholarship cited therein. On the Souleng'yan jing, see Paul
Demieville's masterly footnote in Le Concile de Lhasa: une
controverse sur le quietisme entre bouddhistes de l'Inde et de la
Chine au VIIIe siecle de l'ere chretienne (Paris: College de France,
Institut des hautes etudes chinoises, 1952), Pp. 42-52; and
Mochizuki Shinko, Bukkyo kyoten seiritsu shiron (Kyoto: Hozokan,
1946), pp. 493-509. Robert Buswell, in The Formation of Ch'an
Ideology in China and Korea The Vajrasamadhi Sutra a Buddhist
Apocryphon (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 1989), p.
114, n. 125, notes a dissertation by Ronald Epstein that attempts to
prove an Indian origin for the text. I have not seen this, but I
would say that the presence of a recommendation of burning the body
spoken by the Buddha would alone argue for the apocryphal nature of
the text.
(12) On the date of the Fanwang jing, see Groner, p. 255. See
Jacques Gernet, "LA-s suicides par le feu chez les bouddhistes
Chinois du [V.sup.e] au [X.sup.e] siecle," in Melanges publies par
l'Institut des hautes etudes chinoises (Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 1960), 2:527-58, on this "first wave" of
autocremation.
(13) T.30.1581.916b. See Ono Hodo, Daijo kaikyo no kenkyu (Tokyo:
Risosha, 1954), p. 271.
(14) T.15.639.598a-599c. See Jean Filliozat. "La mort voluntaire par
la fen et la tradition bouddhique indienne," Journal Asiatique, 251,
no. 1 (1963): 21-51, The passage from the Lotus Sutra that was so
inspirational is Miaofa lianfula jing, T.9.262.53b, trans, in Leon
Hurvitz, Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma:
Translated from the Chinese of Kumarujiva (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1976), p. 295.
(15) T.24.1484.1006a.
(16) T.19.945.131c-132c. Compare Charles Luk's translation, The
Surangama Sutra (London: Rider, 1966), pp. 151-57.
(17) T.19.945.132b. Mamai (Sanskrit yava-tandula), literally,
"horse-wheat." The reference is to an incident when King Agnidatta
invited the Buddha to spend the summer retreat in Veranja. There was
a famine, and so the Buddha and 500 bhiksus survived on horse fodder
for three months. See Shanjianlu piposha (Samantapasadika),
T.24.1462.706a-707a, trans. in R V. Bapat and A. Hirakawa,
Shan-chien-p'i-po-sha; a Chinese version by Sanghabhadra of
Samantapasadika (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute,
1970), p. 128.
(18) An excellent example of this would be the "single practice" of
charity (dana) recommended in the Xiangfia jueyi jing (The Book of
Resolving Doubts Concerning the Semblance Dharma), a Chinese
apocryphon particularly associated with the Three Stages sect. See
Mark Edward Lewis, "The Suppression of the Three Stages Sect:
Apocrypha as a Political Issue," in Buswell, ed. (n. 4 above), p.
217.
(19) This topic is given a fuller treatment in my forthcoming
dissertation, but see, e.g., Isabelle Robinet, "Metamorphosis and
Deliverance from the Corpse in Taoism," History of Religions 19
(1979): 37-70; and Anna Seidel, "Post-mortem Immortality; or, the
Taoist Resurrection of the Body," in Gilgul, ed. S. Shaked, D.
Shulman, and G. G. Stroumsa (Leiden: Brill, 1987).
(20) A satirical view of a late Qing ordination scene may be seen
illustrated in Dianshizhai huabao, set. 2 (Guangdong: Guangdong
renmin chubanshe, 1983), 3:51b-52a. I am indebted to Meng Yue of the
University of California, LA)s Angeles, for this reference.
(21) J. J. M. de Groot, Le Code du Mahayana en Chine, son Influence
sur la Vie Monacale et sur le Monde Laique (Amsterdam: J. Muller,
1893); Johannes Prip-Moller, Chinese Buddhist Monasteries: Their
Plan and Its Function as a Setting for Buddhist Monastic Life (Hong
Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1937; reprint, 1967); Holmes
Welch. The Practice of Chinese Buddhism 1900-1950 (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1967); Robert Buswell, The Zen Monastic
Experience: Buddhist Practice in Contemporary Korea (Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1992).
(22) Matsuo Kenji, cited in personal communication from Jacqueline
Stone, March 11, 1997.
(23) De Groot, Le Code du Mahayana, p. 210.
(24) Section titled "Brulure du crane" in ibid., p. 217.
(25) Prip-Moller, p. 318.
(26) Ibid., p. 319.
(27) De Groot, Le Code A Mahayana, p. 218.
(28) Prip-Moller, p. 318.
(29) De Groot's account does not mention moxa specifically, but what
he describes as being placed on the head can only be moxa. It was
clearly not incense.
(30) De Groot, Le Code du Mahayana, pp. 218-19.
(31) See Lu Gwei-Djen, Celestial Lancets: A History and Rationale of
Acupuncture and Moxa (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1980), pp. 291-92, for the etymology of the word "moxa."
(32) An illustration may be found in Lu, p. 172.
(33) Buswell, The Zen Monastic Experience (n. 21 above), p. 142.
(34) Ibid., p. 171.
(35) See the diagram of moxibustion points in ibid., pp. 173-74.
(36) Ibid., pp. 175-76 for these and earlier references.
(37) Ibid., p. 177. See also the illustrations reproduced from Tang
moxibustion texts in Guo Shiyu, Zhongguo zhenjiu ski (Tianjin:
Tianjin kexue ji shu chubanshe, 1989), pp. 119, 121-22.
(38) See Raoul Birnbaum, The Healing Buddha (Boulder, Colo.:
Shambala, 1979).
(39) Wulin dazhaoqing lusi zhi (Gazetteer of the Great Zhaoqing
Vinaya Monastery in Wulin), comp. Zhuanyu, preface dated 1742
(reprinted as vol. 16 of Zhongguo fosi zhi [Taipei: Mingwen shuju,
1980]), p. 253.
(40) See Timothy Brook, Geographical Sources of Ming-Qing History
(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Chinese Studies,
1988), pp. 49-466.
(41) XZJ.60.277a and W.60.422b-c.
(42) Han Changli wenji, jiaozhu (Annotated Complete Works of Han
Changli [Han Yu]), ed. Ma Qichang (Shanghai: Gudian wenxue
chubanshe, 1957), p. 615. See the discussion of this text and its
repercussions in Charles Hartmen. Han Yu and the T'ang Search for
Unify (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 94-86;
135; 139-40; 158; 251; 258; 304, n. 166; 325, n. 58. Compare the
translation by Homer H. Dubs, "Han Yu and the Buddha's Relic: An
Episode in Medieval Chinese Religion," Review of Religion 11 (1946):
11-12, which misleadingly overtranslates the characters shoo ding as
"set fire [to incense] on the tops of their heads [in becoming
monks]."
(43) For accounts relating to 819, see Tang Huiyao (Essentials of
the Tang), comp. Wang Pu [961 ] (Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1955),
47/838; Au Tang shu (Old History of the Tang), comp. Liu Xu [945]
(Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975), 160/4198, 15/466; and Hartman, pp.
94-85. For 873, see the biography of Li Wei in Xin Tang shu (New
History of the Tang), comp. Ouyang Xiu and Song Qi [10601 (Beijing:
Zhonghua shuju, 1975), 181/5354.
(44) Wudai huiyao (Essentials of the Five Dynasties), comp. Wang Pu
(922-82) (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1978), 12/202; Au Wudai
shi (Old History of the Five Dynasties), comp. Xue Juzheng (912-81),
(Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1976), 115/1530.
(45) This sounds very similar to techniques used for burning of the
finger as witnessed in twentieth-century China. See Welch (n. 21
above), pp. 324-25. Compare this with the slightly different
technique used in Korea, as described by Buswell in The Zen Monastic
Experience (n. 21 above), p. 196.
(46) Zizhi tongjian jinzhu (A Comprehensive Mirror for the Aid of
Government; with Contemporary Annotation) (Taipei: Taiwan Shangwuyin
shuguan, 1966), pp. 292, 789.
(47) De Groot, Le Code du Mahayana (n. 21 above), p. 210.
(48) Prip-Moller (n. 21 above), p. 317; and J. J. M. de Groot,
Sectarianism and Religious Persecution in China (Amsterdam: J.
Mallet, 1903), p. 110. The edict in question is at Qing huidian
shili (Essential Legislation of the Qing with Sub-statutes) (1899;
reprint, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1991), 501.793a
(49) The seven assemblies are traditionally given as (1) bhiksu
(biqiu) fully ordained monks, (2) bhiksuni (biqiuni fully ordained
nuns), (3) siksamana (shichamona) nuns preparing for full ordination
who follow only six of the novice's ten precepts, (4) sramanera
(shami) male novices, (5) Sramanerika (shamini) female novices, (6)
upasaka (youposai) laymen who took the five precepts, (7) upasika
(youpoyi) laywomen who took the five precepts. The category of
siksamana seems not to have existed in Chinese Buddhism and was
replaced by other categories, such as tongxing (monastic laborer).
(50) T50.2062.907c.
(51) Fozu tongji (Comprehensive Account of the Buddhas and
Patriarchs), comp. Zhipan (fl. 1258-69), T49.2035.207a; and Shimen
zhengtong (True Record of the Buddhist Order) 1237] by Zongjian,
XZJ. 130.834a.
(52) XZJ. 107.9c. See Hasebe Yukei, Min Shin Bukkyo kyodanshi kenkyu
(Kyoto: Dohosha Shuppan, 1993), pp. 192-215. Hanyue's dharma name
was Fazang, but he is more commonly known by his hao in order to
distinguish him from his more famous predecessor. See the ordination
manual in question, Quanjie zhengfan (The Correct Method for
Transmitting the Precepts), XZJ. 107.413-14.
(53) Lingfeng zonglun (Lingfeng's Discussion of the Teachings),
Supplement 23, 477-97. See Shen-yen, Mingmo Zhungguo fojiao zhi
yanjiu [translation of Minmatsu Chugoku bukkyo no kenkyu] (Taipei:
Taiwan xuesheng shuju, 1988), pp. 265-67, for the information
reproduced in tabular form.
(54) See Edward Schafer, "Ritual Exposure in Ancient China," Harvard
Journal of Asiatic Studies 14 (1957): 130-84; and Alvin P. Cohen,
"Coercing the Rain Deities in Ancient China," History of Religions
17 (1978): 244-465.
(55) Hou Han Shu (History Of the LAW Han), comp. Fan Ye (398-445)
(Beijing: Zhonghua shiyu, 1965), 81/2684.
(56) Ibid., 81/2694.
(57) Song shi (History of the Song), comp. Tuotuo et a]. (Beijing
and Shanghai: Zhonghua shuju, 1977), 5/87.
(58) See Taiping yulan, by Li Fang [9831, ed. Wang Yunwu (1935;
reprint Taipei: Yangwu yinshuguan, 1980), 35.8b.
(59) Zunshi was himself Do stranger to body burning, as I noted
above.
(60) In present-day Zhejiang.
(61) Siming zunzhe jiaoxing IN (Record of the Teachings and
Practices of the Worthy of Siming), comp. Zongxiao 1151-ca. 1214,
T.46.1937.8576 14-19. Prefect Su can be identified as one Su Qi. See
Siming tujing, ed. Zhang Jin [1169], 12. 1 a (reprinted in Song Yuan
Siming liuzhi, in the series Song-Yuan difangzhi sanshiqi zhong
[Taipei: Guotai wen hua shiye youxian gongsi, 19801). My thanks to
Bruce Rusk of the University of California Los Angeles, for this
information.
(62) Yudi jisheng, comp. Wang xiangzhi (Beijing: Zhonghua shiyu,
1992).
(63) Supplement 27.3036-304a.
(64) Compare Fahua jing shu, by Jizang (549-623),
T.34.1721.620c26-27.
(65) The second stage of the bodhisattva career, at which the
practitioner determines his future path, performing either the
practices of the sravaka, pratyekabuddha, or bodhisattva. Texts in
which this stage appears are discussed in Hirakawa Akira. A History
of Indian Buddhism: From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana tram. and ed.
Paul Groner (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990), pp. 305-6.

(66) This is a paraphrase of Yijing's text; cf. T.54.2125.231a28-b9.
See Junjiro Takakusu, Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised
in India and the Malay Archipelago (A.D. 671-695) by I-tsing
(London: Clarendon, 1898), p. 195.
(67) Fahua jing san da bu buzhu, M. 54.157b-c.
(68) XZJ.54.157c.
(69) T.55.2154.569a19.
(70) T.54.2125.233c24.
(71) Wang Bangwei, Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan jiaozhu (Beijing:
Zhonghua shuju, 1995), p. 159, n. 17.
(72) T.54.2125.231b14-17; English translation in Takakusu, p. 196.
(73) T.54.2125.231b23-24; Takakusu, p. 197.
(74) T.54.2125.231b25-26; Takakusu, p. 197.
(75) T.54.2125.231b26-28; Takakusu, p. 197.
(76) T.54.2125.231c3-4; Takakusu, pp. 197-98.
(77) T.54.2125.231c101-12; Takakusu, p. 198.
(78) T.54.2125.231c-233c; Takakusu, pp. 198-215.
(79) Yijing was, it seems, not above doctoring his words to suit the
political climate in China. See I H. Barrett, "Did I-ching Go to
India?-paper delivered at the annual meeting of the United Kingdom
Buddhist Studies Association, London, June 6, 1997.
(80) Kaiyuan shijiao lu, T.55.2154.371c28.
(81) T.55.2152.371c.
(82) Fang Rong, as a loyal servant of Empress Wu, has suffered the
unfortunate fate of being almost entirely erased from the official
historical record. However, his traces can be found in Buddhist
material. In addition to the catalog entries cited in Mochizuki (n.
11 above), pp. 493-509, see also the biography of Wei Que in Song
Gaoseng zhuan, T.50.2060.738b, which also indicates that Fang was up
to some distinctly shady business.
(83) All biographies of Fazang are consistent on this point; see,
e.g., T.50.2054.280b 11-12, 283b10,284a1-2.
(84) T.54.2125.212c22-26; English translation in Takakusu, p. 58.
(85) T.54.2125.213a3-4; Takakusu, p. 58.
(86) T.19.945.132a22-24; English translation in Luk (n. 16 above),
p. 154.
(87) T.54.2125.213a6; Takakusu. p. 58.
(88) T.19.945.132a14-16; Luk, p. 153.
(89) Siming zunzhe jiaoxing lu, T.46-1937.858a6-16.
(90) Chan Chi-wah, "Chih-li (960-1028) and the Formation of
Orthodoxy in the Sung T'ien-t'ai Tradition of Buddhism" (Ph.D.
diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1993), pp. 242-44.
Yang Yi's biography is at Song shi, 305/10079.
(91) T.46.1937.898a-901a.
(92) T.46.1937.899c14-16.
(93) Zhuhong claimed lineal descent from Zongmi through the Huayan
school.
(94) Supplement 23.291a-b. Wenling is Jiehuan (n.d.), a Song
commentator on the Lotus Sutra. I have not traced the source of the
quotation.
APPENDIX
GLOSSARY
ai ai rong jiu Banlamidi biqiu biqiuni Biqiuni zhuan Bu xu gaoseng
zhuan Bukkyo kyoten seiritsu shiron chang kuai Chaoyuan Chengdu
Chuanshou santan hong jiefayi chujia pusa Chunqiu fan lu Ciyun
xingye ji Congyi Da Zhou Dai Feng Daijo kaikyo no kenkyu Daocheng
Daoshi Daoxuan Dianshizhai huabao Duti Eisai Ennin Fahua jing chiyan
ji Fahua jing san da bu buzhu Fahua jing shu Fahua lingyan zhuan
fahua Fang Rong Fanwang jing pusa jie lueshu Fanwang jing pusa jie
zhu Fanwang jing Fayuan zhulin Fazang fen wu Fozu tongji Fozu tongji
Fuzhou Gaoseng zhuan gua deng guanding guang ming chan Guangzhou gui
yuan Guifeng Zongmi Guo Shiyu Gushan Han Changli wenji jiaozhu Han
Yu Hangzhou Hanyue hao Hasebe Yukei Hongzan Hou Han shu Hou Zhou ji
Hu Sanxing Huijiao Huiyin Huo fen Jiehuan Jigui zhuan
(Nanhai jigui neifia zhuan) jingqin Jiu Tang shu Jiu Wudai shi jiu
jiuxiang Jizang Kaiyuan shijiao lu kuai gan Li Fang Li Wei lian zhi
Liang Fu Liaoyuan Lingfeng zonglun Liu Xu longyan lou Lun fo gu biao
lu Ma Qichang Mamai Min Shin Bukkyo kyodanshi kenkyu Ming gaoseng
zhuan Minghe Mingmo Zhongguo fojiao zhi yanjiu Mochizuki Shinko mofa
mojen Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan jiaozhu Nanshan Ono Hodo Ouyang Xiu
Pusa dichi jing Qing huidian shili Quanjie zhengfan ran roushen deng
ranxiang Sakugen san bao shami shamini Shanjianlu piposha shao ding
shao shen she shen Sheng-yen Shenlong shichamona Shimen zhengtong
Shishi yaolan Shizong Shouleng'yan jing Siming tujing Siming zunzhe
jiaoxing lu Siming Song gaoseng zhuan Song Qi Song shi Song Taizong
Song-Yuan difangzhi sanshiqi zhong Song-Yuan Siming liuzhi Su Qi
Taiping yulan Tang Huiyao Tiantai Tianzhu chanzhu tongxing tou hui
Tuotuo waidao Wang Bangwei Wang Jinglin Wang Pu Wang Yunwu Wanshan
tonggui ji Wei Que weili daoshuo jie Wenling Wudai huiyao Wulin
dazhaoqing lusi zhi xiang Xiangfa jueyi jing Xin Tang shu Xin xu
gaoseng zhuan si ji Xin xu gaoseng zhuan xingdi Xingye ji Xu gaoseng
zhuan Xu gujin yijing tuji Xue Juzheng yonbi Yang Yi yaowang Yijing
Yongming Yanshou Yongquan si youposai youpoyi Yuan Yuanxian Yudi
jisheng Yuedeng sanmei jing Yunqi si Zanning Zhang Jin Zhejiang
zheng guang Zheng'e ji ZhLide (sometimes written) Zhili Zhipan Zhixu
Zhiyi zhizhi si Zongguo fojiao xiehui Zhongguo gudai siyuan shenghuo
Zhongguo zhenjiu shi Zbou Kefu Zhou li Zhou zhuchi fenxiu Zhuhong
zhuo bi Zizhi tongjian jinzhu Zizhi tongjian Zongjian Zongxiao
Zunshi Zuo zhuan