pusaseng [bodhisattva-monks]

Journal of Chinese Religions 30 (2002) 1

Pusaseng [bodhisattva-monks]:A Peculiar Monastic Institution at the Turn of

the Northern Zhou (557–581) andSui (581–618) Dynasties

CHEN JINHUA The University of British Columbia

In June of 574, Emperor Wu of the Northern Zhou dynasty (r. 560–578) began a policy ofsuppressing Buddhism and Daoism, first within his kingdom and then extending thepersecution to the territory ruled by the Northern Qi after he succeeded in annexing it in 577.Generally known as “Beizhou fa’nan” [the Hardship of the Dharma under theReign of Northern Zhou], this protracted and large-scale persecution dealt a severe blow toBuddhism in north China. One Buddhist source, although obviously exaggerating, claims thatin the Northern Qi region alone, forty thousand temples were destroyed and three millionmonks and nuns were laicized.1

On Xuanzheng 1.6.1 (21 June 578),2 Emperor Wu died and his first son Yuwen Yun (559–580) was declared his successor, to be posthumously known as Emperor Xuan

(r. 578–579). Emperor Xuan introduced some policies to alleviate the devastating effectthe previous persecution had left on Buddhism. One major measure he implemented was thepeculiar institution known as pusaseng (literally, “bodhisattva-monks”), whichallowed one hundred and twenty laicized monks to re-assume their religious careers but withtheir heads left unshaven.3

The author wishes to thank James Benn for his thoughtful suggestions. Detailed comments from

two anonymous reviewers were also very helpful to him in rewriting this article.1See Lidai sanbao ji, in 7DLVKÀ� VKLQVKÌ� GDL]ÀN\À (hereafter T), no. 2034, 49.94b20–25. The

completion of the Lidai sanbao ji has been generally dated to 597. For my reason of dating it one yearlater, see Chen, Monks and Monarchs, 17–18, n. 21.

2In this article, a date specified on the basis of a reign-era is presented in this way: name of thereign-era —year—month—day; e.g., Xuanzheng 1.6.1 is equal to the first day of the sixth month of thefirst year of the Xuanzheng reign-era. The conversion of the traditional Chinese lunar dates into thewestern solar ones is based on the service provided by the Academia Sinica Computer Center. SeeZhongyang yanjiu yuan jisuan zhongxin, Liangqian nian Zhong-Xili zhuanhuan.

3In Chinese translations of the Prajñ�S�UDPLW� and 0DK�\�QLVW� WH[WV�� pusaseng indicates0DK�\�QLVW�PRQNV��6HH��IRU�H[DPSOHV��0DK�SUDMñ�S�UDPLW� VÌWUD, T 220, 5.44c5–6; Avata

�saka VÌWUD,T 279, 10.347c15–16; <RJ�F�UDEKÌPL��VWUD, T 1579, 30.736c26–27. At the turn of the Northern Zhouand Sui dynasties, pusaseng was applied to those peculiar unshaven “monks” obviously because ofanother connotation of “bodhisattva” in the 0DK�\�QLVW�OLWHUDWXUH��³%XGGKLVW�OD\�EHOLHYHUV�´

2 Journal of Chinese Religions

Attempted as a compromise between Buddhist and Confucian ideologies, this institutionwas adopted in the hope of resisting strong pressure from the Northern Zhou Confucianideologues who favored a continuation of Emperor Wu’s anti-Buddhist policies andgrounding the state ideology solely on Confucianism. It helped alleviate the social andideological repercussions caused by the reversal of Emperor Wu’s anti-Buddhist policies. Itmay also have been part of an attempt at making Buddhism into a broader church, and onemore amenable to state control, by effectively undercutting the sa

�gha as a distinct andautonomous body.4 As the replacement of the Northern Zhou dynasty by the Sui turned out tobe unexpectedly smooth, this peculiar institution was quickly abandoned. The Great Suidynasty swiftly opted for Buddhism as the cornerstone of its new state ideology—eventuallyit went so far as to abolish the basic units of Confucian ideology and turn completely toBuddhism.5 However, as Robert Gimello points out, the pusaseng institution “constitutes aparticularly fascinating and revealing chapter in the history of Buddhism’s career in China.”6

This article addresses two closely related problems about this unique monastic system inmedieval China—when it was formally established and where the bodhisattva-monks werestationed. While the first question has been hotly debated among scholars, to the best of myknowledge, the second has never been raised. Scholars have been satisfied with theassumption that these bodhisattva-monks were lodged at two monasteries, both namedZhihusi , at the western and eastern capitals, Chang’an and Luoyang (they were alsoreferred to as Western and Eastern Zhihusi in accordance with their different locations).Although it is rather certain that the eastern Zhihusi was rebuilt on the old site of Shaolinsi

, which was destroyed during the Northern Zhou persecution, I find it less easy tolocate the western Zhihusi in Chang’an given that there existed in the capital, as is to berevealed, two Zhihusis, one of which was qualified by the prefix “Great.”

Relevant Sources

The date for the establishment of the pusaseng institution has become a controversialissue and not without reason, as Buddhist sources compiled by the same author, the greatBuddhist historian Daoxuan (596–667), supply varying, sometimes conflicting,accounts for this event. As far as I know, regarding the establishment of the pusasenginstitution, no fewer than eight dates are either explicitly indicated or implied in the XuGaoseng zhuan [A continuation of the Biographies of eminent monks] (initiallycompleted 645) and the Guang Hongming ji [An expansion of the Hongming ji](completed 664), both compiled by Daoxuan. Given that these two works of Daoxuanconstitute the earliest known source of information about the pusaseng institution, and that thedifferences between scholars with regards to the date of the establishment of pusaseng are

4This was suggested to me by James Benn in his private correspondence dated 12 May 2000.5Sui shu 2.46–47; Yamazaki, =XL�7À� EXNN\À�VKL� QR� NHQN\Ì��88; Wright, “The Formation of Sui

Ideology,” 100; idem, The Sui Dynasty, 125–126; Chen, Monks and Monarchs, chap. 2, sec. 4.6Gimello, “Chih-yen,” 173, n. 34a.

Bodhisattva-Monks 3

mainly due to their different readings of relevant records in these two works, I shall firstpresent by chronological order these eight varying accounts in order to see how they vary orcomplement each other. This presentation will then be followed by an in-depth analysis.

1. Daxiang 1.4.28 (8 June 579)An edict preserved in the Guang Hongming ji is perhaps most often quoted for the

discussion of any issues related to the pusaseng institution. Given its importance for ourdiscussion, let me quote and translate this edict in full:

7

Reaching the twenty-eighth of the fourth month [of Daxiang 1 (8 June 579)],8

the emperor [i.e., Emperor Xuan] issued an edict declaring: The Buddhistteaching is mysterious and profound, wondrous and broad. It is necessary thatthe Buddhist transformation be widely opened up and the cultivation [ofBuddhism] be promoted. Those who worship [it] are free to study it by readingthe scriptures; those who abide by the Way [of Buddhism] need not cut theirhair and damage their bodies, which violates the great Way [of Confucianism].9

It is proper that one aspire for the supreme teaching [of Buddhism] whilekeeping one’s hair and beard, wearing elegant clothing [of a layman]. Wehereby order that from the previous �UDPD

Øas one hundred and twenty personsbe selected, who, with their pure and excellent virtues, broad knowledge, both

7Guang Hongming ji, T 2103, 52.157a2–8.8We know that the year was Daxiang 1 since it is stated several lines before that on Dacheng

1.2.26 (8 April 579), the reign title was changed from Dacheng into Daxiang (T 2103, 52.156c24–25).According to a story recorded in the Guang Hongming ji, the new reign name Daxiang (literally, “GreatImage”) was introduced following the report of the discovery of a huge iron Buddha-image in Fangzhou

(in present-day Zhongbu County, Shaanxi). The iron image was later installed at the YuhuaShrine in Fangzhou, which was renamed Xianjisi at the beginning of the Sui (T 2103,52.202c23–29).

9The Confucian classic Xiaojing opens with the following saying attributed to Confucius:

(Ruan, Shisan jing zhushu, 2545b)

The body and the limbs, the hair and the skin, are given to one by one’s parents, and tothem no injury should come; this is where filial piety begins. (Chai and Chai, SacredBooks of Confucius, 326–327)

According to this understanding, to cut one’s hair is an act of forsaking one’s natural ties to one’sparents. This was a chief accusation that Confucians raised against the Buddhist faith and practice. Onewell known example might be that addressed by the author of the Mouzi lihuo lun; see Hongming ji, T2102, 52.2c16ff; and Keenan, Master Mou, 83.


brilliant in reputation and actuality, have prestige worthy of praise—all of themshould be stationed at the Zhihusi to practice the [Buddhist] Way for the benefitof the state. Whatever they need should be completely met; no lack in any ofthe “Four Necessaries [of a monk]” [sishi ]10 is allowed.

The key question raised by this edict is whether or not the one hundred and twenty Buddhistpractitioners mentioned therein can be taken as “bodhisattva-monks.” A positive answerwould lead to the conclusion that the pusaseng institution was officially established on 8 June579, the date on which this edict was promulgated. As we will see below, such anunderstanding has been the point of departure for almost all scholars when they haveapproached the pusaseng problem.

According to a passage in the Fozu lidai tongzai [A chronologicalaccount of the Buddha and other patriarchs] (completed 1341 by Nianchang [1282–after1344]), the pusaseng institution was established on Daxiang 1.4.26 (6 June 579).11 From thispassage in the Fozu lidai tongzai, we know that Nianchang’s claim is here obviously based onEmperor Xuan’s edict quoted and discussed above, although he seemed to have miscopied theday (the twenty-eighth) as the twenty-sixth.12 On the other hand, Zhipan (d. after 1269),the author of the Fozu tongji [A general record of the Buddha and otherpatriarchs] (compiled between 1258 and 1269), tells us that two hundred and twentybodhisattva-monks were appointed in Dacheng 1 (12 February 579–31 January 580),with Zhizang as the abbot of Zhihusi.13 This was probably also based on the 579 edict,

10The “four necessaries of a monk” refer to clothing, victuals, bedding, and medicine (or herbs);Soothill, A Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms, 170.

11T 2036, 49.558a18–26. The year Daxiang 1 is not given in the main text of this Fozu lidai tongzaipassage, but is suggested by an interlinear note therein (T 2036, 49.558a12, 13); see Shinohara,“Guanding’s Biography of Zhiyi,” 150, n. 9.

12Before quoting this edict, Nianchang noted that precisely two months before the issuance of thisedict, Emperor Xuan had already lifted the ban on Buddhism (T 2036, 49.558a19–21). Nianchang’squotation of Emperor Xuan’s edict contains some variances from that made by Daoxuan:

(T 2036, 49.558a21–24)

The meanings of the [Buddhist] teaching are mysterious and profound, wondrous andbroad. Although [it is Our intention to] expand the scale of the transformation andfacilitate all the matters related to the cultivation [of that religion], the followers whovenerate and uphold it need not cut their hair, which violates the Great Way. It isappropriate to abide by the norms and manners of a bodhisattva, and a hat is to be wornfor the sake of the expedients. The bureau in charge should see to it that properregulations be laid out [for this].

After this quotation, Nianchang told us that the selection of the one hundred and twenty monks wassupervised by the monk Ren Daolin (d.u.), who tried in vain to stop Emperor Wu fromimplementing his anti-Buddhist policies (T 2036, 49.558a24–26).

13T 2035, 49.359a5–10.

Bodhisattva-Monks 5

although it seems that Zhipan did not know that two months and twenty-six days before theissuance of the edict, a new reign-name Daxiang was inaugurated to replace the old one ofDacheng. Also, Zhipan made three more mistakes in the same passage about the pusaseng.First, there were only one hundred and twenty, rather than two hundred and twenty, as hesays, former monks who were stationed at Zhihusi.14 Second, it was Fazang , rather thanZhizang, who was made the abbot of Zhihusi.15 Finally, the most serious mistake Zhipanmade here is that he confused two events, the issuance of the 579 edict and the appointment ofFazang (whom he mistook as Zhizang) as the abbot of Zhihusi, as one and the same event. Aswe will see below, Fazang did not come to Chang’an until five months after the edict wasissued. It is to this important point that we are now turning.

2. Daxiang 1.9 (6 October–4 November 579)The Xu Gaoseng zhuan biography of Fazang (546–629/30)16 provides a very

detailed account of the historical circumstances leading to the establishment of the pusasenginstitution. This account suggests two different dates for the initiation of this institution. Letus start with the earlier date; viz., sometime in the ninth month of Daxiang 1 (6 October–4November 579), five months after the date which is apparently supported by the 579 edict.

Sometime between 6 October and 4 November 579, Fazang came down from MountZigai (a range within the Mount Zhongnan range), where he had lived as arecluse until then, to Chang’an, and was ordered by Emperor Xuan to keep his hair and to

14Here we need to consider another possibility. As two monasteries, both named Zhihusi, in

Chang’an and Luoyang, were used to house the bodhisattva-monks, and one hundred and twentybodhisattva-monks were appointed in Chang’an, probably the same number of bodhisattva-monks werealso appointed in Luoyang. This might have made the number of bodhisattva-monks total two hundredand forty.

15The identity of the monk Zhizang whom Zhipan mentioned here is not clear. He might have beenreferring to Zhizang (541–625), a disciple of the distinguished Northern Zhou monk Jing’ai (534–578); for Jing’ai and Zhizang as his disciple, see Chen, Fame and Obscurity. Zhipan made theconfusion probably because Zhizang was once affiliated with Zhihusi, or the Great Zhihusi (thedifference between these two separate monasteries and their relationship with the Western Zhihusi are tobe treated below). However, this affiliation happened before 574 when Zhou Emperor Wu began tosuppress Buddhism. After that, Zhizang hid himself among the laymen (apparently some of his laybelievers were willing to protect him), continuing to wear a dharma-robe and keeping his head shaved,defying the official prohibition on doing so. He was said to have upheld this practice throughout the six-year period in which Buddhism was under suppression (574–578) (actually only five years) (see his XuGaoseng zhuan biography at T 2060, 50.586c9–13) (it is interesting to note that Jing’ai, according to theXu Gaoseng zhuan biography of his disciple Puan [530–609; T 2060, 50.681b6ff], once hid in aunderground cellar in the home of his patron Du Yingshi [d. after 574, otherwise unknown]during the Northern Zhou suppression). Judging by this description, it seems impossible that during thepersecution Zhizang would have affiliated himself with Zhihusi as one of the one hundred and twentyBuddhist practitioners, since he had refused to keep his hair, which was a prerequisite for a Zhihusiresident in this period.

16This Fazang should not be confused with the famous Avata

�saka master by the same name, wholived from 643 to 712.


wear the head-dress and clothing of a bodhisattva (i.e., layman). He was also made the abbotof Zhihusi:

17

We intend to rule by the ideas of a bodhisattva. This monk, coming down fromMount Zigai, accords with our intention perfectly. It is proper to order him togrow out his hair and wear the clothing and cap of a bodhisattva, and act as theabbot of the Zhihusi.

It is easy to read this edict of Emperor Xuan as suggesting that the pusaseng institution wasestablished either at this time or before, mentioning as it does the idea of bodhisattva, twocharacteristics of a bodhisattva-monk (the bodhisattva dress and long hair) and Zhihusi, atwhich the bodhisattva-monks were believed to have lived. Is this true? Let us survey moreaccounts about the establishment of the pusaseng institution before formally turning todiscuss this piece of evidence.

3. Daxiang 2.5.10–24 (8–22 June 580)By describing the historical circumstances under which the bodhisattva-monks were

appointed, a Xu Gaoseng zhuan biography supports a different time frame for theestablishment of the pusaseng institution:

18

When [Emperor] Tianyuan [Emperor Xuan] became ill, he began to repent hisprevious sins. [As a result,] he appointed one hundred and twenty bodhisattva-monks. [Tan]yan [ (516–588)] participated in the senior group [amongthese bodhisattva-monks]. However, regretting that he had to assume a secularappearance [that is, with his head unshaven], [Tanyan] retired to the forests.

As Emperor Xuan became seriously ill on 8 June 580 (Daxiang 2.5.10 [yiwei]) (that is,fourteen days before he died on the twenty-fourth [the day of jiyou] of the same month [22June 580]),19 this Xu Gaoseng zhuan passage has actually set the establishment of thepusaseng institution within a two-week period (i.e., 8–22 June 580).

4. Daxiang 2 (2 February 580–20 January 581)A passage in the Xu Gaoseng zhuan biography of Jingying Huiyuan (523–

592) explicitly states that in Daxiang 2 a monastery with the name of Zhihusi was built in

17T 2060, 50.581a14–16.18See Tanyan’s Xu Gaoseng zhuan biography, T 2060, 50.488c23–24.19Zhou shu 7.124.

Bodhisattva-Monks 7

each of the two capitals (Chang’an and Luoyang) for the purpose of housing bodhisattva-monks:

20

In Daxiang 2 [2 February 580–20 January 581], Emperor Tianyuan slightlyrelaxed [restrictions on] the preaching of Buddhism. In each of the two capitalsin the east [Luoyang] and west [Chang’an] one Great Zhihusi was establishedto house bodhisattva-monks. Edicts were issued to some former Buddhistmonks of virtue, ordering them to be stationed [at the two monasteries]. Thus,[Huiyuan] started his long series of lectures at Shaolin[si].

This passage also proves that the Eastern Zhihusi in Luoyang was rebuilt on the ruins ofShaolinsi.

5. Xuanzheng 1.6.2 (22 June 578)–Daxiang 2.5.24 (22 June 580)In some other Xu Gaoseng zhuan biographies, on the other hand, Daoxuan limits himself

to a general observation that the pusaseng institution was established by Emperor Xuan.According to a biographical note found in the Xu Gaoseng zhuan about Sengxiu (d. ca.594), one of the “Six Buddhist Monks of Great Virtue” [liudade ] who weresummoned to Chang’an by Sui Wendi in 587, some bodhisattva-monks were appointed afterEmperor Xuan succeeded the newly deceased Emperor Wu, and some of these bodhisattva-monks, like Sengxiu, were stationed at a certain Zhihusi, which turns out to be the easternZhihusi (in Luoyang).21 The same is asserted by a Xu Gaoseng zhuan biography, whichfurther specifies that one hundred and twenty bodhisattva-monks were appointed.22

Although these two Buddhist sources fail to specify when the institution was established,given that officially Emperor Xuan’s emperorship lasted for less than one year, one mightsuggest that the establishment of the pusaseng institution could be easily dated to the year in

20T 2060, 50.491a3–5.21This biographical note about Sengxiu is found in the Xu Gaoseng zhuan biography for his only

known disciple Baoxi (ca. 546–ca. 626) (T 2060, 50.520a24–28). Both Sengxiu as a liudade monkand his Xu Gaoseng zhuan biographical note are discussed in Chen, “A Holy Alliance,” 23–26.

22Note the following passage in the Xu Gaoseng zhuan biography of Daopan (532–615;discussed in Chen, Fame and Obscurity) at T 2060, 50.517a23–25:

After Northern Zhou Emperor Xuan acceded to the throne, the evil trend [of persecutingBuddhism] was halted. One hundred and twenty bodhisattva-monks, among whom wasDaopan, were appointed. He first resided at Zhihusi, which was renamed“Daxingshan[si]” after the Great Sui received the [Heavenly] Mandate [to rule] andbegan to promote Buddhism broadly.


which Emperor Xuan ruled as an emperor insofar as the institution was indeed established byhim. This, however, turns out to be unfeasible.

Emperor Xuan became the new ruler of the Northern Zhou dynasty on 22 June 578(Xuanzheng 1.6.2 [wuxu]), one day after the death of Emperor Wu. He announced a newreign-name “Dacheng” on 12 February 579 (Dacheng 1.1.12 [kuisi]). Around one and a halfmonths later, on the nineteenth [the day of xinsi] of the second month of the same year (1April 579), Emperor Xuan, in his aspiration for a new title supposedly more powerful than theimperial one, the so-called “Tianyuan Huangdi” [Emperor of the HeavenlyOrigin], transferred the throne to his son, who was to be posthumously known as EmperorJing (r. 579–581). Another new reign-name, Daxiang, was introduced for this reign shift.23

However, as Emperor Jing was then merely seven years old, the former Emperor Xuan (nowcalled Emperor Tianyuan) must have remained as the actual ruler of the state until he diedfifteen months later (on Daxiang 2.5.24 [22 June 580]).24 For this reason, logically, thepusaseng institution could have been established by Emperor Xuan (Emperor Tianyuan) atany time within the two years when he actually ruled (i.e., 22 June 578–22 June 580).

6. Daxiang 2.5.24 (22 June 580)–Dading 1.2.13 (4 March 581)According to the Xu Gaoseng zhuan biography for Pukuang (548–620), the

bodhisattva-monks were appointed on the eve of the founding of the Sui:

25

When the Sui was about to rise, the [institution of] pusaseng was established.[All these bodhisattva-monks] wore the robes of court-officials. Their headswere not shaven. The number [of bodhisattva-monks] was fixed at one hundredand twenty, completely including the most outstanding of the former monkswho refused to wallow in the secular mire. Pukuang, who was enlightened anddistinguished, became one of them. The institution was abolished soon after.The Great Law prospered [again] and all of them were [re-]ordained as monks,living together at the [Da]xingshan[si] [ ].

It seems that this Xu Gaoseng zhuan passage has set the establishment of the pusasenginstitution during the later half of Emperor Jing’s (nominal) reign, the approximately eight-and-half-month period from the death of his father (Emperor Xuan) on 22 June 580, to the rise

23Zhou shu 7.115–119.24This is corroborated by a Xu Gaoseng zhuan biography to be discussed below. In this Buddhist

source, as late as the ninth month of Daxiang 1 (6 October–4 November 579), nine months afterEmperor Xuan surrendered the throne to his son Emperor Jing, the Northern Zhou dynasty is stillregarded as being ruled by Emperor Xuan himself, as is clearly indicated by the expression: XuandiDaxiang yuannian jiuyue [the ninth month of the first year of the Daxiang eraunder the reign of Emperor Xuan] (T 2060, 50.581a4–5).

Bodhisattva-Monks 9

of Yang Jian as the founding emperor of the Great Sui on 4 March 581 (Dading 1.2.13[jiazi]).26

7. Daxiang 2.7.15 (11 August 580)This is the later of the two dates suggested by an account in the Xu Gaoseng zhuan

biography of Fazang, which was mentioned in section 2 above. Regarding Fazang’s activitiesafter leaving Zhihusi for his mountain life, Daoxuan provides us the following report. Fazangremained in the mountains until sometime after Yang Jian became the prime minister of theNorthern Zhou on Daxiang 2.5.25 (23 June 580),27 when he was invited to the capital again.After an audience with Yang Jian, who had Fazang’s head shaven and bestowed him with aset of monk’s clothing, Fazang returned to the mountains again. However, he was called downto the capital at the beginning of the seventh month of the same year (28 July–26 August580)28 to assist the Duke of Jingling (i.e., Yang Zan , a.k.a. Yang Hui , 550–591),29 to superintend the ordination of one hundred and twenty monks (presumably theZhihusi-based “bodhisattva-monks”). According to Daoxuan, this happened on the fifteenthof the same month (11 August 580).30 On 4 March 581, Yang Jian founded his own dynasty,the Great Sui, to replace the Northern Zhou. On the fifteenth of the same month (6 March581), the monks previously ordained were stationed at Daxingshansi to practice the Way forthe state.31

On the basis of this passage, some scholars, as we will see below, have concluded that theone hundred and twenty bodhisattva-monks were not appointed until Daxiang 2.7.15 (10August 580).

8. Around Dading 1.2.13 (4 March 581)Finally, one Xu Gaoseng zhuan biography, at least literally understood, suggests that the

establishment of the pusaseng institution was in fact simultaneous with the founding of theSui dynasty on 4 March 581:

32

25T 2060, 50.512b18–21. For Pukuang, see Chen, Monk and Monarchs, chap. 5, sec. 3, and app. B.26For the date of Yang Jian’s formal acceptance of Emperor Jing’s abdication, see Zhou shu 8.136,

Sui shu 1.13.27This date is confirmed by Zhou shu 8.131 and Sui shu 1.3. It happened one day after Emperor

Xuan’s death.28However, as Daoxuan later reports that Fazang supervised the ordination of one hundred and twenty

monks on the fifteenth of the same month, Fazang must have re-entered Chang’an sometime in the half-month period from the first to the fifteenth of the seventh month, Daxiang 2 (28 July–11 August 580).

29Yang Zan was a maternal uncle of Yang Jian, whose mother was Yang Zan’s older sister (see hisofficial biography at Sui shu 44.1221–1222).

30T 2060, 50.581b13–14.31T 2060, 50.581b8–17; Shinohara, “Guanding’s Biography of Zhiyi,” 138.32See Linggan’s Xu Gaoseng zhuan biography at T 2060, 50.518b7–10.


When the Sui began to promote Buddhism, an edict was issued to appoint[Linggan ] as a “bodhisattva-monk.” With the government providing himclothing and bowl, he was housed at Shaolin[si]. Although sufficientlysupported [by the government], his appearance was the same as that of alayman. It was not until Kaihuang 3 [29 January 583–16 February 584] that hegot the opportunity to have himself ordained at Jingtusi in Luozhou [in present-day Yiyang , Henan].

As the Sui began to restore Buddhism openly from the moment of its foundation, theexpression Sui kaifo ri (literally, “the day when the Sui began to [re-]openBuddhism”) might indicate the very beginning of the Sui dynasty.33

Analysis

These eight different dates regarding the establishment of the pusaseng institution can beroughly grouped into the following two general alternatives: either it occurred (i) during therule of Emperor Xuan (Emperor Tianyuan) (the former five dates) or (ii) on the eve of theestablishment of the Sui (the latter three dates). Is it possible to fix on the most likely date forthe establishment of the pusaseng institution?

A majority of scholars working on the pusaseng institution regard the one hundred andtwenty Buddhist practitioners mentioned in the 579 edict as “bodhisattva-monks.” This hasnaturally led to the conclusion that the pusaseng institution was officially inaugurated on 8June 579, the date on which this edict was issued.34 The only exception I know is Tokiwa'DLMÀ� (1870–1945), who, on the basis of the record in Fazang’s Xu Gaosengzhuan biography, maintains that the pusaseng institution was not installed until 11 August580. In other words, he accepts the seventh dating that we have discussed above.35

In my opinion, we should pay special attention to the Xu Gaoseng zhuan account ofFazang’s relationship with Emperor Xuan. After reporting Emperor Xuan’s edictpromulgating Fazang’s abbacy of Zhihusi, Daoxuan continues his account of this episode. Theemperor enjoined Yuwen Yi (d. after 579), a member in his “Palace DomesticService” [neishi(sheng) ( )], to complete all the necessary procedures for this

33This might also refer to, as James Benn suggested to me in one of his private correspondences

(dated 3 July 2000), Yang Jian’s personal promotion of Buddhism as prime minister of the NorthernZhou before he actually founded the Sui (in other words, this re-opening of Buddhism heralded the newdynasty).

34For examples, see Yamazaki, =XL�7À� EXNN\À�VKL� QR� NHQN\Ì, 39–44; Nomura, 6KÌEX� KÀQDQ� QRNHQN\Ì, 235–258 (especially 245), 427; Michihata, &KÌJRNX� EXNN\À�VKL� QR� NHQN\Ì�� 179–183;Tsukamoto, “+RNX�VKÌ�QR�VKÌN\À�haiki seisaku no KÀNHL��´��±��

35Tokiwa, “6KÌPDWVX�Zuisho ni okeru bosatsu EXNN\À�QR�\ÀN\Ì�´��±��

Bodhisattva-Monks 11

nomination.36 However, the emperor met with resistance from two of his court-officials, TangYi (d. after 579) and Yuan Xinggong (a.k.a. Tuoba Xinggong , d.after 579), who remonstrated that to allow one person to be a monk contravened the edict ofthe late emperor (i.e., Emperor Wu) that all the monks within the empire should be laicized.37

Probably under their pressure, the emperor gave an audience to Fazang one month later todiscuss the relationship of the “Three Teachings” (sanjiao , Confucianism, Daoism andBuddhism). In the course of the audience, Fazang greatly exasperated the emperor bycriticizing him for having failed to make any effort to dissuade the late emperor frompersecuting Buddhism. The emperor ordered Fazang to be executed immediately. Fortunately,the order was rescinded when the emperor learned of the stoicism that Fazang demonstratedin the face of imminent death. Fazang was pardoned and re-appointed as the Zhihusi abbot.However, he did not stay at Zhihusi long. He left the monastery and the capital for a reclusivelife in the mountains and forests.38

What is remarkable in this episode is not only the two court-officials’ remonstrations, butalso what they objected to. Daoxuan makes it clear that Emperor Xuan allowed Fazang towear a set of “bodhisattva” clothing, with the condition that he keep his head unshaven, whichwas still a far cry from the standard of a fully-ordained monk. Strikingly, even this decisionprovoked an objection from the two court officials, who claimed that this violated EmperorWu’s edict. This implies that Emperor Wu’s anti-Buddhist measures were then still strictlyobserved and that the bodhisattva-monks had not yet been appointed until at least the timewhen Emperor Xuan made this decision about Fazang, sometime in the ninth month ofDaxiang 1 (6 October–4 November 579)—otherwise, the two court officials would not haveraised such objections. This argues against the plausibility of the first and second dates (8June 579, and sometime between 6 October–4 November 579).

Then, how are we to understand the 579 edict, which, at first glance, might establish thatthe pusaseng institution was set up on 8 June 579? Regarding this edict, we should note that itmakes no mention whatsoever of the title “bodhisattva-monks” (as a matter of fact, neither theChinese word for bodhisattva [pusa ] nor that for “monk” [seng ] appears in theedict). Rather, it only proclaimed that one hundred and twenty of the “previous �UDPD

Øas” [jiushamen ] were to be gathered at Zhihusi in Chang’an to study and practice Buddhismfor the benefit of the state. Strictly speaking, from the 579 edict itself we cannot read that itgranted the status of “Buddhist monk” [seng ] to the one hundred and twenty residents of

36Yuwen Yi had served in the Northern Qi court as a zhongshu sheren [Secretariat

Drafter] before he shifted his loyalty to the Northern Zhou when the latter annexed the Northern Qi in577; his official biographies at Bei shi 55.2006; and Bei Qi shu 38.505.

37T 2060, 50.581a17–18: . The Bei Qi shu(83.2780) also mentions a Yuan Xinggong as a confidant of the Qi Houzhu (565–577),the second to last emperor of the Northern Qi. If this Yuan Xinggong was the Northern Zhou courtofficial with the same name mentioned in Fazang’s Xu Gaoseng zhuan biography, he was, like YuwenYi, also a defector to the Northern Zhou after the downfall of the Northern Qi. Tang Yi is otherwiseunknown.

38T 2060, 50.581a4–b8; Shinohara, “Guanding’s Biography of Zhiyi,” 137–138.


Zhihusi. In view of a similar institution by the name of Tongdaoguan , whichEmperor Wu, forty-two days after ordering the abolishment of Buddhism and Daoism, set upin Chang’an to house some talented and prestigious Daoist and Buddhist priests as well, Isuspect that as far as it was promulgated in the 579 edict, Zhihusi might have functioned notunlike Tongdaoguan, as a state academy housing some Buddhist scholars.39

After discrediting the first two dates, I find that neither of the last two of the eight dates(11 August 580, and ca. 4 March 581) seems acceptable. On Daxiang 2.6.6 (3 July 580),eleven days after Emperor Xuan’s death, the eight-year-old Emperor Jing, apparently at theinstigation of Yang Jian, issued an edict to lift the proscription on Buddhism and Daoism, andexplicitly stated that those who were sincere and diligent practioners of Buddhism andDaoism should be “selected and ordered to enter the Way” [jianling rudao ]; thatis, their respective religious orders.40 This must have allowed the full ordination of monks.Thus, it is unlikely that on 11 August 580 or sometime around 4 March 581, over three orabout eight months after the promulgation of this Buddhism-restoring edict, efforts would stillhave been made to set up the pusaseng institution, which was, as was noted before, a far cryfrom the standard of full ordination.

This leaves us with four dates: sometime between (3) 9–22 June 580, (4) 2 February 580–20 January 581, (5) 22 June 578–22 June 580, (6) 22 June 580–4 March 581. One of them (9–22 June 580) is most specific and does not contradict the remaining three, which we have noevidence to disapprove. For this reason, I am inclined to accept this date (9–22 June 580) asthe most likely solution.

If the pusaseng institution was formally introduced no more than two weeks beforeEmperor Xuan’s death on 22 June 580, how long did it last?

Insofar as a “bodhisattva-monk” should be a “monk” with long hair and the clothing of“bodhisattva” (which indicated, in this case, a layman), one who was shaven and dressed witha set of dharma-robes could no longer be regarded as a “bodhisattva-monk.” In this sense,Yang Jian, who was then the actual ruler of the Northern Zhou state, had actually put an endto the pusaseng institution by having Fazang shaved and granting him a set of dharma-robes

39Emperor Wu issued the edict of abolishing Buddhism and Daoism on Jiande 3.5.17 (21

June 574), while he ordered the establishment of Tongdaoguan on the twenty-ninth of the next month (2August 574). Although determined to abolish Buddhism and Daoism for some political and economicconsiderations, Emperor Wu seemed to have maintained considerable esteem for a number of Buddhistand Daoist priests famed for learning and/or virtue. The decision to set up a national academy likeTongdaoguan probably can be understood as a compromise between his conflicting attitudes towards thetwo religions on the one hand and towards some accomplished Buddhist and Daoist priests on the other.

In Kaihuang 2 (9 February 582–28 January 583), Tongdaoguan was moved from Chang’an tothe new capital Daxing, where it was renamed “Xuanduguan” . This relocation of Tongdaoguanwas probably simultaneous with that of Daxingshansi, which was also moved from the old capitalChang’an to Daxing in the same year. In contrast to Daxingshansi, which acted as the center ofChang’an Buddhism under the Sui, Xuanduguan had been the Daoist center in the same period. SeeYamazaki, =XL�7À� EXNN\À�VKL� QR� NHQN\Ì, 65–89 (especially 68–75); and idem, &KÌJRNX� EXNN\À�VKLbunkashi no NHQN\Ì, 94–110.

40Zhou shu 8.132.


sometime in the sixth month of Daxiang 2 (28 June–27 July 580). Then, the pusasenginstitution was formally abolished on 11 August 580, when the one hundred and twentybodhisattva-monks, under the inspection of Fazang and Yang Zan, were re-ordained asmonks. Thus, officially, the pusaseng institution only existed for about two months, beginningsometime in the two-week period 8–22 June 580, and ending 11 August 580.

Now we come to another issue closely related to the pusaseng institution: the identity ofthe western Zhihusi in Chang’an, at which some of the bodhisattva-monks were housed. Afterquoting the 579 edict, Daoxuan makes the following observations:

41

[Following the issuance of this edict,] no hindrances existed any more forsitting meditation and reciting VÌWUDV�DPRQJ�WKH�FRPPRQ�SRSXODFH��>+RZHYHU�@

only one monastery was built in each of the cities of Chang’an and Luoyang.No establishment of any monastery was allowed in other prefectures.

Referring to the relevant record in Huiyuan’s Xu Gaoseng zhuan biography, we know that thetwo monasteries established in Chang’an and Luoyang were both named Zhihusi. Thispresents us with new questions. One monastery by the name of Great Zhihusi had alreadybeen established about three decades earlier by Emperor Xiaoming of the NorthernZhou (also known as Emperor Ming ) (r. 557–560) along with the Great Zhiqisi

:

42

One’s filial piety [enables one to] communicate with the deities, seeing that thesky is without extremes.43 At no time would We be [unwilling to] spread gold

41T 2103, 52.157a8–10.42T 2103, 52.327c29–328a4. Cf. Yamazaki, =XL�7À� EXNN\À�VKL� QR� NHQN\Ì, 63–64, n. 11; Forte,

“Daiji,” 689.43Wangji [without extremes] here refers to a poem (no. 202) in the Shijing, as a metaphor for

the profundity and broadness of the kindness of one’s parents and one’s gratitude to them for theirloving kindness:

(Ruan, Shisanjing zhushu, 459c–460a)

Oh father, you begat me, / oh mother, you nourished me; / you comforted me, youcherished me, / you brought me up, you reared me, / you looked after me, (reverted =)constantly attended to me, / abroad and at home you carried me in your bosom; / Iwished to requite you by goodness, / but great Heaven (has no limit:) goes to excess.(Karlgren, The Book of Odes, 153)


to build the Jetavanavihîra,44 to melt silver to construct the treasure-halls. Onlyby doing this will one realize that the Deer-garden45 is approachable and theCrane-forest46 is not far away. We are now so bold as to emulate the ideals setup in the ya and song 47 [of the Shijing] by building [lit. “relying on”] thesplendid [monasteries], in aspiration of accomplishment comparable with theheaven and earth, and bringing up the odes before long. It is proper that theGrand Preceptor [Taishi ] and Duke of Jinguo48 be ordered to supervisethe construction of the two monasteries Great Zhihusi and Great Zhiqisi.

The expressions zhihu and zhiqi , both deriving from the Shijing [Book ofodes], indicate one’s longing for one’s parents, especially one’s cherishing the memory ofone’s departed parents:

49

I ascend that tree-clad hill, / I gaze far away towards my father; / my fathersays: Alas, my son has gone out on war service; / morning and evening henever stops (working); / may he be careful, / may he still be able to come, andnot remain (there).

I ascend that bare hill, / I gaze far away towards my mother; / my mother says:Alas, my youngest son has gone out on war service; / morning and evening he

44A garden in .X�DOD�GRQDWHG�WR��N\DPXQL�DQG�KLV�GLVFLSOHV�E\�RQH�RI�KLV�ZHDOWK\�SDWURQV�45Luyuan , i.e., Luyeyuan , a Chinese translation of M

�JDG�YD�� WKH� SODFH� ZKHUH

��N\DPXQL�Buddha is believed to have delivered his first lecture after his own enlightenment.46Helin , i.e., shuanglin , the twin trees under which ��N\DPXQL�GLHG��$FFRUGLQJ� WR� D

Buddhist legend, the twin trees immediately turned white after the Buddha died, hence the name helin(the twin-trees becoming as white as the feathers of a crane).

47Ya and song are two of the three genres (the third being feng ) of the Shijing. Puttogether, ya and song refer to the whole of the Shijing.

48Prince Jinguo was Yuwen Hu (?–572), a nephew of Yuwen Tai. He secured the titleseveral days after the foundation of the Northern Zhou in 557 (Zhou shu 3.47), partly as a reward for hisefforts to help one of Yuwen Tai’s sons Yuwen Jue (542–557) (to be known as EmperorXiaomin , r. 557) to establish the Northern Zhou dynasty as a replacement of the Western Wei in557, several months after Yuwen Tai’s death. In order to maintain his role as the actual ruler of theNorthern Zhou, Yuwen Hu successively poisoned Yuwen Jue and his brother Yuwen Yu (534–560) (i.e., Emperor Xiaoming), in 557 and 560 respectively. He then put another of Yuwen Tai’s sonsYuwen Yong (543–578) (i.e., Emperor Wu) on the throne and tried to control him as a puppetuntil 572, when Emperor Wu succeeded in removing him with the help of his trustees in the court.

49Ruan, Shisanjing zhushu, 358a–b.


never sleeps; / may he be careful, / may he still be able to come, and not be castaway (there).50

Thus, it is important to note that the two monasteries Great Zhihusi and Great Zhiqisi werededicated to Emperor Xiaoming’s parents, Yuwen Tai (507–556) and his wife. Thisestablishes that the Zhihusi, which was built at the order of Yuwen Tai, could not have beenthe Great Zhihusi, the construction of which was not conceived until sometime after his death.Indeed, another source establishes that a monastery by the name of Zhihusi had alreadyexisted before the construction of the Great Zhihusi.

The Xu Gaoseng zhuan biography of Daozhen (d. after 553) reports that he washighly respected by Emperor Wen of the Western Wei (r. 535–551), who built the GreatZhongxingsi in Chang’an for him. Afterwards, under the control of Yuwen Tai,the Western Wei government successively built Dachengsi , Zhihusi, and othermonasteries. Finally, a monastery, called Zhongxingsi , was built beside the Kunchi

lake in Chang’an.51 All this might suggest that under the Western Wei dynasty, whenYuwen Tai was still alive, a monastery called Zhihusi had already existed. This apparentlycontradicts what is clearly indicated in Emperor Xiaoming’s edict ordering the establishmentof the Great Zhihusi, if one understands Zhihusi and the Great Zhihusi to have been one andthe same monastery. Yamazaki Hiroshi, who considers Zhihusi and the Great Zhihusi to beidentical, tries to explain away the contradiction with a theory that the monastery, though firstplanned by Yuwen Tai, was not built until under the reign of Emperor Xiaoming.52 Thistheory does not seem plausible, as Daoxuan explicitly states that Zhihusi, followingDachengsi, had already been built, rather than merely planned, at the time of Yuwen Tai andDaozhen.53

The existence of Zhihusi under the Western Wei is also confirmed by the Xu Gaosengzhuan biography of Zhizang (541–625), according to which sometime under theWestern Wei dynasty (535–556) when Zhizang was thirteen years old, he became Jing’ai’sdisciple at Zhihusi.54 As Zhizang reached thirteen in 553 (Chengsheng 2), the last year

50Karlgren, The Book of Odes, 71, poem no. 110.51T 2060, 50.631b5ff.52Yamazaki, =XL�7À� EXNN\À�VKL� QR� NHQN\Ì, 63–64. In connection with Daozhen’s Xu Gaoseng

zhuan biography, Yamazaki also refers to a record in Falin’s (572–640) Bianzheng lun (T 2110,52.508a27–b1), according to which Yuwen Tai successively built six monasteries in Chang’an:Zhuiyuan , Zhiqi (Yamazaki quotes it as Zhihu ), Dacheng , Weiguo ,Anding and Zhongxing . Hence, either Falin had miswritten Zhihu[si] as Zhiqi[si], orZhiqisi, like Zhihusi, was also among the monasteries which Yuwen Tai built in Chang’an.

53T 2060, 50.631b10–11: .54 (T 2060, 50.586c8–9). This senten-

ce can also be punctuated in another way: , which would mean: “At the age of thirteen, Zhizang became Jing’ai’s disciple. During the Western

Wei dynasty, he lived at the Zhihusi in Chang’an.” Even if read in this way, this sentence still proves theexistence of the Zhihusi during the Western Wei dynasty. Given that the Western Wei lasted until 556,the Zhihusi must have been built no later than that year.


of the short reign of Emperor Fei of the Western Wei (r. 551–553), Daoxuan is correct insaying that Zhizang’s novitiate started under the Western Wei dynasty. Thus, a monastery bythe name of Zhihusi had already existed by 553 or 556, definitely previous to the reign ofEmperor Xiaoming, which was not initiated until 557 (this year was also the earliest possibledate for Emperor Xiaoming to promulgate as an emperor the establishment of the GreatZhihusi and Great Zhiqisi). For this reason, I am inclined to believe that Zhihusi and the GreatZhihusi were two separate monasteries built under the Western Wei and Northern Zhourespectively: the former was built no later than 556, while the construction of the other couldnot have been proclaimed before 557. Given the size of the Great Zhihusi we have reason toassume that it might have taken a couple of years to build this monastery. In other words,Zhihusi must have preceded the Great Zhihusi by at least two to three years.

As a matter of fact, the simultaneous existence of two homonymous monasteries (withone qualified by the prefix “Da” [Great]) in the history from Western Wei to the Sui is wellattested to by historical sources. These pairs of monasteries include, at least, Chandingsi

vis-à-vis Great Chandingsi , Zhongxingsi vis-à-vis Great Zhongxingsi,Futiansi vis-à-vis Great Futiansi . We have just noted the construction ofZhongxingsi following that of the Great Zhongxingsi. The appearance of Futiansi and theGreat Futiansi seems also to have followed a similar pattern (that is, the construction of a“great” monastery was succeeded by another monastery by the same name but without thequalifier “Great”). When the famous meditation master Sengshi (476–563) died,Emperor Wu first built the Great Futiansi in his memory. Shortly afterwards, Sengshi’sdisciples built a separate temple beside his tomb and named it Futiansi.55 In comparison to theZhongxingsi/Great Zhongxingsi and Futiansi/Great Futiansi pairs, Chandingsi and GreatChandingsi, which were much more important in the history of medieval Chinese Buddhism,came into being in a different pattern—this time, a monastery with the qualifier “Great” waspreceded by a homonymous monastery without the qualifier. Chandingsi was constructed bySui Wendi in 603 in the Yongyang Ward (located in the southwest of the capital) inmemory of his newly deceased empress Wenxian (i.e., Dugu , 553–602). Twoyears later, in 605, right opposite to Chandingsi, Yangdi built a monastery with the samestructure of Chandingsi and named it Great Chandingsi, devoting it to the posthumous welfareof his emperor-father Wendi, who had died in the previous year. These twin monasteries,Chandingsi and Great Chandingsi, were then called the Eastern and Western Chandingsirespectively.56

Thus, the possibility of the co-existence of Zhihusi and the Great Zhihusi presents us withone more question: when the two monasteries, the Western Zhihusi in Chang’an and theEastern Zhihusi in Luoyang, were ordered to house the bodhisattva-monks, was the Western

55See Sengshi’s Xu Gaoseng zhuan biography at T 2060, 50.558a23–27; cf. Bianzheng lun, T 2110,

52.508b2–4; for the latest study of Sengshi, see Chen, Monks and Monarchs, chap. 4, sec. 2.1.56For the history and functions of these twin monasteries, see Furuda, “=HQMÀML�QR�hensen to sono

MÌVÀ�´� ��±�� 2QR�� &KÌJRNX� =XL�7À� &KÀDQ� jiin VKLU\À� VKÌVHL, 2:199–204; and Chen, Monks andMonarchs, chap. 5.


Zhihusi a third monastery different from both Zhihusi and the Great Zhihusi, or was it one ofthese two monasteries?

We note that the 579 edict does not mention the “establishment” of Zhihusi (WesternZhihusi), only ordering the one hundred and twenty former monks to be housed at the WesternZhihusi, suggesting that the monastery already existed at the time. Furthermore, given that theEastern Zhihusi (in Luoyang) was actually no more than a rebuilt Shaolinsi, which wasseriously damaged during the 574–578 persecution, the Western Zhihusi in Chang’an wasvery probably also based on Zhihusi or the Great Zhihusi, which might have also ceased tofunction, if they were not completely demolished, during the persecution.57 Thus, it seemsmore likely that the two Zhihusi monasteries, whose “establishment” was proclaimed in 579,were no more than a re-opened or rebuilt Great Zhihusi or Zhihusi in Chang’an, and Shaolinsiin Luoyang. After the Sui was founded in 581, the name of the Eastern Zhihusi was changedback to “Shaolinsi,” while the Western Zhihusi was renamed “Daxingshansi,”58 and moved tothe newly built Sui capital Daxing in 582. It is interesting to note that Yang Jian not onlyusurped the supreme power from the Northern Zhou rulers, but he also “appropriated” theirclan monastery, the Great Zhihusi, as his own dynastic monastery—Daxingshansi.

Then, do we know which of the two monasteries, Zhihusi and Great Zhihusi, wasproclaimed as the Eastern Zhihusi? Unfortunately, no certain solution can be gleaned out ofthe materials available to us, although one statement in Huiyuan’s Xu Gaoseng zhuanbiography might suggest that it was the Great Zhihusi, rather than Zhihusi, which wasrenamed as the Western Zhihusi in Chang’an.59

Conclusion

This article leads to the following new understanding of the peculiar and short-livedinstitution generally known as “pusaseng.” On 8 June 579, one hundred and twenty formermonks were gathered at Zhihusi, which was very likely identical with the Great Zhihusi builtaround three decades earlier by the Northern Zhou emperor Xiaoming. At the time, none ofthese Buddhist practitioners had been granted the status of monks. Rather, they were treatedas talented scholars in the service of the state.60 Further, the Western Zhihusi at the time didnot function as a Buddhist monastery, but rather as a more neutral facility not unlike anational academy. It was no more than two weeks before the death of Emperor Xuan on 22June 580 that the pusaseng institution was formally established. It was probably on thisoccasion that a monastery, also named Zhihusi, was built at Songshan on the ruins of

57It is not clear how the persecution affected the two monasteries. However, given that the Great

Zhihusi was devoted to Yuwen Tai, it is highly likely that this monastery was preserved.58See note 22.59See the passage quoted and discussed in section 4 above.60In this sense, I agree with Michihata 5\ÀVKÌ��ZKR� FDOOV� WKHVH� RQH� KXQGUHG� DQG� WZHQW\� IRUPHU

Buddhist monks “civil servants” [kokka NÀPXLQ ] (Michihata, &KÌJRNX� EXNN\À�VKL� QRNHQN\Ì� 180).


Shaolinsi to house another one hundred and twenty bodhisattva-monks. This edict partlyrestored monastic status for the one hundred and twenty former monks (or more likely, twohundred and forty monks, who were equally divided into two groups posted at the Eastern andWestern Zhihusi61). This imperial edict allowed them to perform their duties as monks withthe appearance of laymen.

However, this institution proved short-lived. Only eleven days after Emperor Xuan’sdeath (and less than twenty-five days after the formal establishment of the pusasenginstitution), the new Northern Zhou government, nominally under the new emperor (EmperorJing) but actually manipulated by the powerful Yang Jian, issued an edict to formally reverseEmperor Wu’s policies of banning Buddhism and Daoism. This edict paved the way tojustifying Buddhist ordination, which, in turn, was to make the pusaseng institution obsolete.As we have seen over the course of this discussion, around one month following Fazang’s re-ordination sometime between 23 June and 28 July 580, the one hundred and twentybodhisattva-monks in Chang’an were also fully re-ordained as Buddhist monks on 11 August580. This formally marked the demise of the pusaseng institution, which lasted less than twomonths.

Although exceedingly short-lived, the pusaseng institution represented a uniqueexperiment highly revealing of some aspects of medieval Chinese people’s religiousmentality. Obviously, this institution was rendered possible by the considerable tolerance thatmedieval Chinese were willing to show to those who practiced a religion with somecompromises regarding some of its basic qualifications—at least when they perceived thatthese compromises were made necessary by some aspects of the contemporary socio-politicalsituation. This kind of religious tolerance seemed to have created an intellectual climatewhich allowed some of the greatest shapers of the landscape of medieval Chinese Buddhismnot to submit to full ordination and therefore not to be Buddhist monks in a real sense. Themost famous example of these “monks” might have been Huineng (638–713), whosepossible lack of status as a fully ordained monk had disturbed some Chan followers to theextent that a VWÌSD� ZDV� FUHDWHG� WR� ³HQVKULQH´� WKH� KDLU� VKDYHG� RII� GXULQJ� KLV� SXWDWLYHordination, which allegedly occurred sometime after he became a powerful meditation masterin a remote area.62 Recently, I have also broached the possibility that, not unlike hiscontemporary Huineng, Fazang (643–712), the de facto founder of the ChineseAvata

�saka [Huayan ] tradition, might have never been fully ordained as a Buddhistmonk.63

The far-reaching influence of the pusaseng institution was not limited to China: it alsoextended to Japan. Active during the Nara period were some Buddhist practitioners who alsocalled themselves ERVDWVX�VÀ [bodhisattva-monks]. Like their Chinese counterparts,these Japanese “bodhisattva-monks” (some of whom were actually nuns) did not receive fullordination, although they acted as Buddhist monks, and were perceived and respected as such,

61See note 14.62The text of the epitaph dedicated to this VWÌSD�LV�UHSURGXFHG�DQG�FDUHIXOO\�DQQRWDWHG�LQ�Yanagida,

Shoki ]HQVKÌ�shisho no NHQN\Ì� 535–538.63Chen, History and His Stories, chap. 2.


adopting as they did some major monastic practices including begging and austerities. TheJapanese “bodhisattva-monk” par excellence was perforce *\ÀJL� (668–749), a +ÀVVÀmonk who probably studied with 'ÀVKÀ� (d. 700), a Japanese disciple of the greatChinese <RJ�F�UD�PDVWHU��WUDQVODWRU�DQG�SLOJULP�Xuanzang (602–664). It is interestingto note that in spite of his eminence as a Buddhist leader of his time, *\ÀJL��DFFRUGLQJ�WR�RQH

account, was never fully ordained.64 However, the questionable status of his ordainment didnot prevent him from achieving extraordinary success in the monastic world. Toward the endof his life, he was appointed to an extraordinary post which the government especially createdfor him, 'DLVÀMÀ� [Great Chief Executive Monk], the highest position in the 6ÀJÀ

[Office of Monastic Affairs].65

Similarly noteworthy in the bodhisattva-monk tradition in Japan is the fact the Tendaifounder 6DLFKÀ� (767–822), in the course of carrying out the movement aiming atsecuring Hieizan the privilege of ordaining Buddhist monks, also enthusiasticallyembraced the ideal of “bodhisattva-monks,” that is, monks who would be ordained by thebodhisattva-precepts, rather than by the “+¯QD\�QD�SUHFHSWV´� �WKRVH�RI� WKH�Sifen lü [Four-division vinaya; Skt. Dharmagupta-vinaya]). Although it remains controversial as towhether or not 6DLFKÀ¶V� bodhisattva-monk movement was ever inspired by the ERVDWVX�VÀ

ideas advocated by *\ÀJL�DQG�KLV� IROORZHUV�� WKH�SRVVLELOLW\�RI�6DLFKÀ¶V�EHLQJ� LQIOXHQFHG�E\the Northern Zhou pusaseng institution should not be completely excluded, given hisemphasis on the purely 0�KD\�QD�SUHFHSWV� �WKH� VR�FDOOHG� ³bodhisattva-precepts”) which heenvisioned on the basis of the Fanwang jing [6ÌWUD� RI� WKH� %UDKPD�QHW@� DV� D

replacement of, rather than merely a supplement to, the +¯QD\�QLVW�SUHFHSWV�

Bibliography

Primary SourcesTexts in the Buddhist canon are cited in the 7DLVKÀ�edition (T; see Takakusu, Watanabe, et al.,

1924–1932).

Bei Qi shu [History of the Northern Qi, 550–577]. Compiled in 636 by Li Baiyao (565–648). 50 juan. Beijing: Zhonghua, 1972.

Bei shi [History of the Northern Dynasties, 386–581]. Compiled in 659 by Li Yanshou (d. after 659) on the basis of the draft left by his father Li Dashi (?–

628). 100 juan. Beijing: Zhonghua, 1974.

Bianzheng lun [Treatise on deciding the rightful]. By Falin (572–640). 8 juan.T 2110, vol. 52.

64This story is recorded in the Nihon U\ÀLNL; see Izumoji, Nihon U\ÀLNL, 69–73, 233–235; cf.

Nakamura, Miraculous Stories from the Japanese Buddhist Tradition, 168, 170. Some scholars arereluctant to accept the historical veracity of this story; see, for examples, Inoue, *\ÀJL, 11–12; Groner,6DLFKÀ, 242.

65Groner, 6DLFKÀ, 236–238.


Fozu lidai tongzai [A chronological account of the Buddha and otherpatriarchs). Completed in 1341 by Nianchang (1282–after 1344). 22 juan. T 2036,vol. 49.

Fozu tongji [A general record of the Buddha and other patriarchs]. Compiled byZhipan (d.u.) between 1258 and 1269. 54 juan. T 2035, vol. 49.

Guang Hongmingji [An expansion of the Hongming ji]. Compiled in 664 byDaoxuan (596–667) and under continuous revision until at least 666. 30 juan. T2103, vol. 52.

Hongming ji [Collection of documents related to the glorification (of Buddhism)].Compiled by Sengyou (445–518). 14 juan. T 2102, vol. 52.

Lidai sanbao ji [Records of the Three Treasures through the ages]. Completedby Fei Zhangfang (d. after 598) and presented to the court at the beginning of598. 15 juan. T 2034, vol. 49.

Mouzi lihuo lun [Treatise on removing the perplexities by Master Mou]. InHongming ji. T 2102, 52:2c16ff.

Nihon U\ÀLNL [Accounts of the miraculous and extraordinary stories in Japan].Compiled by Keikai (d.u.) sometime between 810–823. 3 kan. (Reference is madeto Izumoji 1996.)

Shijing [The book of odes]. (Reference is made to Ruan, 1970 [reprint].)

Sui shu [History of the Sui, 581–618]. Compiled between 636 and 656 by Wei Zheng (580–643) and others. 85 juan. Beijing: Zhonghua, 1977.

Xiaojing [The scripture of filial piety]. (Reference is made to Ruan, 1970 [reprint].)

Xu gaoseng zhuan [Continuation of Biographies of eminent monks]. Initiallycompleted by Daoxuan in 645. 30 juan. T 2060, vol. 50.

Zhou shu [History of the Northern Zhou, 557–581]. Compiled in 635 by Linghu Defen (583–666) and others. 50 juan. Beijing: Zhonghua, 1971.

Modern WorksCHAI, Ch’u, and Winberg CHAI, trans. The Sacred Books of Confucius and Other Confucian

Classics. Hyde Park, N.Y.: University Books, 1965.

CHEN Jinhua . Fame and Obscurity: The Creation of the Legends and Ideologiesabout the "Third Chan Patriarch.” Forthcoming.

———. History and His Stories: A Biographical Study of Avata

�saka Master Fazang (643–712). Forthcoming.

———. “A Holy Alliance: The Court-appointed ‘Monks of Great Virtue’ and Their Religiousand Political Role under the Sui Dynasty (581–617).” Tang yanjiu [Journal ofTang studies] 7 (2001): 19–37.

———. Monks and Monarchs, Kinship and Kingship: Tanqian in Sui Buddhism and Politics.Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies, 2002.


FORTE, Antonino. “Daiji (Chine)” [Great monasteries in China]. In +ÀEÀJLULQ

: dictionnaire encyclopédique du bouddhisme d’après les sources chinoises etjaponaises, 6:682–704. Tokyo: Maison Franco-Japonaise, 1983.

FURUDA 6KÀNLQ� .“=HQMÀML� QR� hensen to sono MÌVÀ´�[The Chandingsi: Its transformation and residents]. Shina EXNN\À� shikaku

3.2 (1939): 77–85.

GIMELLO, Robert. Chih-yen (602–668) and the Foundations of Hua-yen Buddhism. Ph.D.diss., Columbia University, 1976. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms.

GRONER, Paul. 6DLFKÀ��7KH�(VWDEOLVKPHQW�RI�WKH�-DSDQHVH�Tendai School. Berkeley BuddhistStudies Series 7. Seoul: Po Chin Chai Ltd., 1984.

INOUE Kaoru . *\ÀJL . Jinbutsu VÀVKR� 24. Tokyo: YoshikawaNÀEXQNDQ��

IZUMOJI Osamu , ann. and trans. Nihon U\ÀLNL [Accounts of themiraculous and extraordinary stories in Japan]. Shin Nihon NÀGHQ� bungaku taikei

30. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1996.

KARLGREN, Bernhard, trans. The Book of Odes. Stockholm: Museum of Far EasternAntiquities, 1950.

KEENAN, John P. How Master Mou Removes Our Doubts. Albany: State University of NewYork Press, 1994.

MICHIHATA 5\ÀVKÌ� . &KÌJRNX� EXNN\À�VKL� QR� NHQN\Ì [Study in Chinese Buddhism]. Kyoto: +À]ÀNDQ��

NAKAMURA , Kyoko Motomochi, trans. Miraculous Stories from the Japanese BuddhistTradition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.

NOMURA <ÀVKÀ� . 6KÌEX�KÀQDQ�QR NHQN\Ì [A study of ZhouEmperor Wu’s suppression of Buddhism]. Tokyo: Azimu shuppansha, 1968.

ONO Katsutoshi . &KÌJRNX�=XL�7À�&KÀDQ�jiin VKLU\À�VKÌVHL [Compilation of historical information about the temples in Chang’an]. 2

vols. Kyoto: +À]ÀNDQ��

RUAN Yuan (1764–1849), ed. and coll. Shisanjing zhushu [Commen-taries and sub-commentaries on the Thirteen (Confucian) Classics]. 416 juan (2 vols.).Reprint. Taipei: Wenhua tushu gongsi, 1970.

SHINOHARA, .ÀLFKL� . “Guanding’s Biography of Zhiyi, the Fourth ChinesePatriarch of the Tiantai Tradition.” In Speaking of Monks, edited by Phyllis Granoff and.ÀLFKL�6KLQRKDUD��±��Oakville, Ont.; New York; and London: Mosaic Press, 1992.

SOOTHILL, William Edward, and Lewis HODOUS. A Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms.1937. Reprint. Taipei: Dongrong yinshuaju, 1981.

TAKAKUSU -XQLMLUÀ� , WATANABE Kaigyoku , et al., eds. 7DLVKÀVKLQVKÌ� GDL]N\À [A new Buddhist Canon compiled in the 7DLVKÀ

reign-era (1912–1926)]. 100 vols. Tokyo: 7DLVKÀ�LVVDLN\À NDQNÀNDL��±��

TOKIWA 'DLMÀ� . “6KÌPDWVX� Zuisho ni okeru bosatsu EXNN\À� QR� \ÀN\Ì´� [Demands for Bodhisattva-ideal Buddhism at the


turn of the Northern Zhou and Sui dynasties]. In his Shina EXNN\À� QR� NHQN\Ì [Studies in Chinese Buddhism], 3 vols., 1:223–228. 1938–1943.

Reprint. Tokyo: 0HLVKÀ�fujitsukai, 1974.

TSUKAMOTO =HQU\Ì� . “+RNX�VKÌ�QR�VKÌN\À�haiki seisaku no KÀNHL´� [The collapse of the Northern Zhou policies of religious persecution].

In Tsukamoto =HQU\Ì�chosaku VKÌ [Collected works of Tsukamoto=HQU\Ì@��YROV��±��7RN\R��'DLWÀ�shuppansha, 1974–1976.

WRIGHT, Arthur, “The Formation of Sui Ideology.” In Chinese Thought and Institutions,edited by J. K. Fairbank, 71–104. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957.

———. The Sui Dynasty. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978.

YAMAZAKI Hiroshi . &KÌJRNX� EXNN\À�VKL� bunkashi no NHQN\Ì [Studies in the historical issues related to Chinese Buddhism and culture].

Kyoto: +À]ÀNDQ��

———. =XL�7À� EXNN\À�VKL� QR� NHQN\Ì [A study of the history ofBuddhism under the Sui and Tang dynasties]. Kyoto: +À]ÀNDQ��

YANAGIDA Seizan . Shoki ]HQVKÌ� shisho no NHQN\Ì [Astudy of early Chan historical texts]. Kyoto: +À]ÀNDQ��

Zhongyang yanjiu yuan jisuan zhongxin [Academia Sinica Comput-ing Centre (ASCC)] Liangqian nian Zhong-Xili zhuanhuan [2000-year converter for Chinese and Western calendars] <http://www.sinica.edu.tw/~tdbproj/sinocal/luso.html> (Accessed March, 2003).

pusaseng [bodhisattva-monks]

Documents