Click here to go to the main conference page.

1.  T. H. Barrett 巴瑞特 (SOAS, The University of London): “Wutaishan and the Northern Wei: An Explanatory Hypothesis”

The area of Wutaishan was no doubt always considered special by the local inhabitants from very early times, though details about this are hard to find.  The first foreign people that appear to have shown an interest in the place seem to have been the Northern Wei, as far as we can judge from Tang period sources.  Yet their traces at Wutaishan are not very obvious, unlike the massive works at Yungang 雲崗.  Why was this?  By using scholarship published in English it is at least possible to come up with an explanatory hypothesis that answers this question.

2. Ester Bianchi 黃曉星 (Università degli Studi di Perugia, Italy): “Bodhisattva Precepts in Modern China: The case of Nenghai 能海 (1886-1967) on Wutaishan”

Nenghai 能海 (1886-1967), a main representative of the Sino-Tibetan Buddhist tradition, was also a convinced advocate of monastic discipline. He not only focused on the so-called “hīnayāna vinaya” (xiaosheng jielü 小乘戒律), but he also aimed at reviving the Bodhisattva precepts (dasheng jielü 大乘戒律, *māhayāna vinaya). The study and practice of discipline was central throughout his monastic life, but it increased with the passing of time, as can be inferred by the choice to name his last monastery Jixiang lüyuan 吉祥律院 (Jixiang vinaya institute). Located on Mt Wutai, it soon became exemplary for its disciplinary rigour.

The main objective of this study is to investigate the role and nature of Bodhisattva precepts in Nenghai’s tradition. In spite of referring to the Bodhisattva precepts inspired by the *Brahmājalasūtra, which were followed by Chinese Buddhists and were conferred during ordinations in China, Nenghai and a few other prominent Buddhist masters of the time preferred the Yogācāra Bodhisattva precepts (yujie pusajie 瑜伽菩薩戒), as in the Tibetan and Japanese traditions. This was a new wave within Chinese Buddhism, revealing a trans-traditional and trans-national character and which, at least in the case of Nenghai, was also connected to the cult of Mañjuśrī.

3. Robert Borgen 包瀚德 (University of California in Davis): “The Wutai Mountains in Classical Japanese Literature”

China’s Wutai mountains make scattered appearances in classical Japanese literature.  The earliest reference to Wutai appears in a collection of Buddhist anecdotes, compiled ca. 822, and the greatest number of references to Wutai are found in similar didactic collections.  Only in modern times did this body of literature find a secure place in the classical Japanese literary canon.  In the past, “literary” implied poetic and elegant, so the prosaic language of these stories and sometimes vulgar episodes that sometimes appeared with them placed these collections, at best, on the margins of the canon.  In such collections, most of them compiled in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Wutai usually appeared as a place visited by Japanese pilgrims.  One such pilgrim became the subject of a sequence of interrelated dance-dramas, the first of which was staged ca. 1500, with later reinterpretations appearing intermittently through the late nineteenth century.  Most of these would have been considered more “popular” than “literary.”  References to Wutai can also be found in more traditionally “literary” works, but they are few.  For example, the mother of one pilgrim who went to Wutai mentions it in her poetic diary, and a distinguished monk, who was also known as a poet, wrote one poem on the subject of seeing Mañjuśrī at Wutai.  His collected poems number approximate 6,000, suggesting how uncommon was such a reference.  Although the greatest masterpieces of classical Japanese literature, both prose and poetry, are infused with Buddhist ideas, they are not didactic and make no mention of Wutai.  Its appearances are primarily in less “literary” works intended to spread Buddhist faith, and they in turn influenced popular theater.  Wutai thus occupies a modest place in the classical Japanese literary tradition, albeit mostly outside its mainstream.

4. Isabelle Charleux 沙怡然 (National Centre for Scientific Research): “Interactions between Chinese Buddhist and Tibeto-Mongol Buddhist Communities on Wutaishan: Monastic Architecture, Iconography, and Material Culture, 18th-19th Centuries”

In the Qing and early Republican period, Wutaishan had between 25 and 30 monasteries affiliated to Tibetan Buddhism. Their monastic architecture seemed to exclusively follow the Chinese-Buddhist style, except for the Tibetan-style bottle-shaped stupa. The Wutaishan built landscape seemed relatively homogeneous, and travellers such as missionary H. Hackmann (1864-1935) were sometimes confused about the blurred visual frontier between ‘blue’ (Chinese Buddhist) and ‘yellow’ (Tibeto-Mongol Buddhist) monasteries.

Were there buildings (other than stupas) typical of Tibetan and Mongol monasteries that have not been preserved on Wutaishan? The majority of the Tibeto-Mongol Buddhist communities settled in monastic buildings that previously belonged to Chinese communities, but at least eight Gelukpa monasteries were built anew. Why did they preserve the Chinese architectural heritage and build new monasteries following Chinese style? Was there local or imperial pressure to ‘keep things Chinese,’ or was it in their interest to entertain a visual confusion between ‘yellow’ and ‘blue’ monasteries? And how did Tibeto-Mongol Buddhist monks (lama), whose lifestyles and spatial practices of Buddhist architecture differ from Chinese Buddhist monks’ (heshang), adapt themselves to Chinese spatial arrangements?

With a closer look, we can observe that there were mutual borrowings between Chinese Buddhist and Tibeto-Mongol Buddhist monasteries on Wutaishan. Using various sources such as ancient picture-maps, old photographs, floor plans and travellers’ accounts, I will highlight interactions between Chinese and Tibeto-Mongol Buddhist monasteries from the point of view of architecture, iconography and material culture in the nineteenth and early twentieth century.

5. CHEN Huaiyu 陳懷宇 (Arizona State University): “A Study on the Bright-light Lamp Platform from the Guanyin Temple at Mount Wutai in Medieval China”

The lamp platform was one of the most interesting architectural designs in medieval Chinese Buddhism. Its history could be dated back to the late Northern dynasties and Shanxi area could be the place where it was invented. In the Tang dynasty, stone lamp platforms became flourishing in North China. As a Buddhist center in the medieval period, Mount Wutai attracted numerous pilgrims and it developed very rich and diverse Buddhist culture. Interestingly, one stone lamp platform from this area survived today. It was first commissioned in the Kaiyuan period in the early eighth century by a group of Buddhist adherents under the leadership of two Buddhist masters and renovated in the Song dynasty, in 997 by local Buddhist patrons. The inscription written by Zhang Chuzhen is mostly extant, which offers us an opportunity of understanding the historical context in which this platform was constructed. This paper aims to examine the significance of this lamp platform by looking into its position with a comparison with other lamp platforms discovered in Shanxi area. It will investigate the Buddhist connections between Mount Wutai and Taiyuan, as well as the Ye City by reading a group of lamp platforms in these areas as a monastic network. In the meantime, given that the Shanxi area was a stronghold of Zoroastrians from Central Asia in the medieval period as recent archeological findings demonstrate, this paper will attempt to analyze the rituals of lighting lamp platforms in Buddhism and worshipping fire temples in Zoroastrianism from cross-cultural and cross-religious perspectives.

6. Chen Jinhua 陳金華 (The University of British Columbia): “Buddhapālita and the Formation of the Wutai- Mañjuśrī Cult”

The Indian monk Buddhapālita (Fotuoboli 佛陀波利) was credited not only with the transmission of a Sanskrit version of the Uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī (one of its Chinese versions being named Foding zunsheng tuoluoni jing 佛 頂尊勝陀羅尼經) to China, but also with the promotion of the Wutai-Mañjuśrī cult in East Asia. The most important textual evidence for Buddhapālita’s reputed role in the Wutai cult comes from a preface to one of the Chinese versions prepared for the Uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī. According to this preface, it was urged by Mañjuśrī that Buddhapālita brought a copy of the Uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī to China. This story has become an essential source for the sacredness of Mount Wutai on the one hand and the Uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī on the other. However, another source related to Buddhapālita, a record of the meditation-related conversation between Buddhapālita and a major ideologue for Empress Wu (r. 690-705), Xiuchan yaojue 修禪要訣 (Essentials of Cultivating Meditation), casts doubt on Buddhapālita’s connections with the Uṣṇīṣavijayā-dhāraṇī and Mount Wutai. This article studies the background for the composition of this seminal but obscure/obscured text and the theories and practices of meditation represented therein. It also includes an annotated English translation for this fascinating text.

7. CHEN Long 陳龍 (Xinzhou Normal University/Center for the Study of the Wutai Culture): 從游記文學角度看《續清涼傳》

一直以來,《續清涼傳》與《古清涼傳》、《廣清涼傳》被認為是唐宋時期重要的三部五 臺山山志,合稱“清涼三傳”。對於“清涼三傳”的性質,學界一直沒有定論,不同的著錄文獻對其有不同的觀點,就“三傳”分開而言,各自的性質也不相同。總 而言之,從不同的角度出發研究,可以對“清涼三傳”有不同的定性。本文從文學的角度出發,認為《續清涼傳》是一篇游記文學作品,並且是我國第一篇五臺山游 記,具有獨特的藝術特色,主要體現在創作形式、表現手法、審美體驗的獨特性等三個方面。

8. DING Ming 定明 (北京佛教文化研究所): 清康熙帝的五臺山文殊信仰與蒙藏綏柔政策

清代“五臺山是國家權力的隱喻”,這一時期的五臺山佛教極其興盛,尤其是藏傳佛教, 這得益于清初康熙在五臺山作為綏柔蒙藏的政策,進而重塑滿清帝王、神權、天下與開拓邊疆版圖意識。清初康熙帝之所以在五臺山文殊菩薩道場推行藏傳佛教以實 現化導蒙藏歸屬滿清政權,因為清朝開國者被西藏喇嘛稱為“曼殊師利大皇帝”,對清初皇帝而言五臺山文殊菩薩道場與滿洲人的崛起有著特殊淵源。康熙在五臺山 推行藏傳佛教的格魯派,迎請西藏、內蒙喇嘛主持五臺山,以此實現綏柔蒙藏的目的。此一綏柔政策一直影響著乾隆、嘉慶等清初幾位皇帝對五臺山的大力扶持,因 此五臺山被營造成滿、漢、蒙、藏等各族共同尊奉的佛教聖地。

9. Yi DING丁一 (Department Religious Studies, Stanford University): “Translating” Wutai Shan to Ri bo Rtse lnga––Chögyal Pakpa’s (1235-1280) Introduction and Transformation of Five-Peak Mountain

With the appearances of many recent studies on the activities of Tibetan Buddhism on Mount Wutai (Tib. Ri bo Rtse lnga) in the late imperial period, one question still lingers. When and how did Tibetan sacred geography become overlapped with its Chinese counterpart in the first place? In other words, who first introduced the significance of Mt. Wutai to the Tibetans with a transcultural vision? In answering this complex question, this paper aims at critically re-examining the inception of a Sino-Tibetan mountain. Despite references to Mt. Wutai in Tibetan sources compiled or reworked at a much later time, the historical presence of Tibetan Buddhism on Mt. Wutai started with Chögyal Pakpa’s (Basiba 八思巴) pilgrimage in 1257 and his related writings. Beginning with his pilgrimage and efforts to culturally “translate” Wutai as Mañjuśrī’s abode, Tibetan Buddhism gradually took root on the mountain under imperial auspices in the ensuing years.

The first part of the paper will critically re-assess the accounts of pilgrimages to Wutai allegedly made by Indo-Tibetan masters prior to the Yüan period in Tibetan sources, such as the Testament of Ba (sBab bzhed), Blue Annals, and several hagiographies. It will be argued that these accounts are projecting a much later consciousness of Mt. Wutai’s presence into their narrative of earlier historical events, in contrast to the lack of genuine interest in Mt. Wutai in pre-13th Tibetan sources. The paper will argue that it is Pakpa who first made a historical trip to Mt. Wutai as a Tibetan master.

The second part of this paper will deal with three autograph eulogies concerning Pakpa’s pilgrimage preserved in the Collected Works of the Sakya Sect (Sa sky bkaḥ ḥbum), which are Garland of Jewels: Hymns to Mañjuśrī at Five-Peak Mountain (ḥJam dbyangs la ri bo rtse lngar bstod pa nor buḥi phreng ba), Hymns to Mañjuśrī by the Meaning of his Appellation (ḥJam dpal la mtshan don gyi sgo nas bstod pa), and Garland of Flowers: Eulogy to Mañjuśrī (ḥJam dpal la nye bar bsngags pa me tog gi phreng ba). As Regent of Tibet and Kublai Khan’s royal preceptor, Pakpa successfully redefined Mt. Wutai through a Tibetan lens both for the Yüan empire and Tibetan Buddhism, by mapping the mountain in starkly Tantric terms and expounding the manifestation of Mañjuśrī from a doctrinal perspective. The politico-religious context surrounding Pakpa’s visit and its representation in later Tibetan hagiographies will also be discussed.

The last part of the paper will be concerned with the subsequent development on the mountain in the Yüan period. Though Pakpa’s writing proposed the way in which Mt. Wutai could be incorporated into Tibetan religious imagination, it is the established of Tibetan monasteries that concretized this transcultural interpretation. Pakpa’s vision and the growing institutional connection made it possible for the Tibetans to receive the notion that Mañjuśrī resided on an exotic mountain far removed from central Tibet, which in turn encouraged later Tibetan pilgrims and prompted inspirited new imagination.

10. DUAN Yuming 段玉明 (Sichuan University): 金閣天成:一座五臺山寺的興建

金閣寺位於台懷鎮西南15公裡的金閣嶺上,始建於唐大歷五年 (770)。其建寺因緣來於道義和尚的一次神聖經驗,因其或有華嚴與淨土雙重信仰背景,神聖化現出來的寺院格局具有明顯的中土寺院特色——即樓閣式寺院風 格,屬於道宣所制寺院標准圖式的變形。同樣情形也見於竹林等寺的興建,証實通過“化寺”的方式為寺院空間祝聖以及格局定型或是唐時五臺山寺興建的普遍做 法。這是一種前此少見的新寺祝聖方式,不止寺名、地點借此確定,即連寺院的基本格局也都大體定型,在中國漢地寺院興建的祝聖方式上頗有典型意義。至代宗 時,不空請將此一神示變為現實,並由密教僧人含光、印度僧人純陀督造,格局仿照印度那爛陀寺,寺院格局由是轉成了印度寺院風格。密教影響也借此滲入了原本 屬於文殊聖地的五臺山,並長期在五臺山佔據影響。就像早期塔廟格局模擬印度支提一樣,金閣寺模擬那爛陀寺亦是借此與印度神聖發生連接,由此証實寺院空間的 神聖由來有自。這也是早期漢地寺院空間獲得神聖的一種方式。所以,在五臺山為自己建造一座密教寺院時,不空等人既借用了道義的神聖經驗,又接續了印度寺院 的神聖,從而為密教勢力順利進入五臺山建立了合法性。既是如此,落成之寺並不是完全的印度寺院格局,中土樓閣式寺院的成分仍很明顯,金閣寺事實上成了一座 中印合璧的寺院。晚唐五代寺院被毀,重建的寺院回到中土寺院風格,並演變成了淨土僧人修習的寺院。“化寺”作為金閣寺興建的一種祝聖方式,本在象征文殊 “金色世界”的以銅為閣建筑方式,以及模擬印度寺院形成的接續印度正宗,其后都成了寺院興建的幾種范式。“化寺”范式成為后期寺院空間挪用的一種技巧, “金閣”范式演化出了后期佛道並有的“金殿”建筑,接續印度正宗則是日本金閣寺(又稱鹿苑寺)的神聖獲得方式。

11. Bernard Faure 佛雷 (Columbia University): “De-centering Manjusri: Some aspects of Manjusri’s Cult in Medieval Japan”

The “true image” of Manjusri on Wutaishan was well known in Japan as “Manjusri Crossing the Sea” 渡海文殊. Another interesting image of Manjusri, found at Tōji Monastery in Kyoto, shows Manjusri at the center of an astral diagram similar to the star mandalas popular in Japanese esoteric Buddhism. In this function as lord of the Northern Dipper and origin of all stars, Manjusri was identified with the Bodhisattva Myōken 妙見, an esoteric Buddhist version of the Daoist god Zhenwu 真武. The fierce nature of Manjusri’s lion also linked the Bodhisattva of Wisdom to uncanny deities such as Dakiniten 茶吉尼天. These symbolic links reveal Manjusri quite different from the traditional image of the Bodhisattva of wisdom. These less well-known aspects of Manjusri, however, shed retrospectively some light on the esoteric Buddhist cult of Manjusri on Wutaishan.

12. Imre HAMAR 郝清新 (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary): “Khotan and the Cult of Mañjuśrī”

The so-called new representation of Mañjuśrī that is found in Dunhuang and became quite popular in Wutaishan region and East Asian Buddhism includes a foreign looking person who became identified as the Khotanese king. This representation shows the close association of Khotan with Mañjuśrī and the Cult of Mañjuśrī on Wutaishan. The possible Khotanese compilation of the Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra, which is the main proof text for Mañjuśrī’s presence on Wutaishan and the Khotanese pilgrims to Wutaishan recorded by Dunhuang manuscripts also seem to substantiate the claim that Khotan was very important in terms of Mañjuśrī cult, and could have an important role in identifying Wutaishan as the abode of Mañjuśrī. In this paper I will show these and other proofs in Khotanese literature for the importance of Mañjuśrī in Khotanese Buddhism.

13. IWASAKI Hideo 岩崎日出男 (Sonoda Women’s University): “文殊師利菩薩院の文殊像について」(關於文殊師利菩薩院的文殊像)”

不空三蔵(704~774)は唐・永泰2年(766)の五臺山・金閣寺の建立請願以 降、五臺山文殊信仰の振興を積極的に朝廷へ働きかけ長安をはじめ全国的に展開していくのであるが、このような不空三蔵の振興・展開した五臺山文殊信仰にお ける文殊菩薩像については、その像容(姿形)が五臺山文殊像(騎獅文殊)の場合や六字文殊像の場合であるなど一様ではないことが指摘されている。今回の研 究では、その振興・展開の完成ともいえる大暦7年(772)に全国寺院への設置が勅許された文殊師利菩薩院(文殊院)の文殊菩薩像の像容(姿形)につい て、それがどのようなものであったかを考察する。

14. JI Yun 紀贇 (Buddhist College of Singapore): “五臺山國際化的關鍵性節點與要素”

在中國的佛教聖山之中,五臺山的地位是超然的,並且在歷史之中,其國際化程度也遠遠 超過了其他的佛教聖山。一個明顯的問題就出現了,為什麼會如此呢?本文試圖簡單討論在五臺山區域及國際影響擴張的歷史之中,所出現的幾個重要的關鍵性節點 與地理要素,並同時來探討伴隨中華帝國及其文化發展嬗變的大背景之下,尤其是漢語言文化圈內部與其他語言文化圈之間交錯發展並互動之中,所體現出來的佛教 歷史發展的一些規律性的東西。

15. KUAN Guang 寬廣 (King’s college, the University of London): “The Travels of a 15th Century Abbot of Bodh Gaya: the Chakma Monk Śāriputra’s Journey to Wutai Shan”

In 1413, on a mission to Nepal, the messenger of the Ming emperor, Hou Xian, brought back an Indian Buddhist monk. This Indian monk, who was born into a royal family of East India, was known as the abbot of Bodh Gaya. Upon meeting Emperor Yongle, he presented his Chinese host with a miniature of the Maha Bodhi pagoda.  In 15th century India, Islam had gained absolute dominance, so were his East Indian origin and royal background in contradiction to the belief that Buddhism had disappeared during 12th century India? This paper will trace which royal family he was born into, will investigate what caused him to leave India, what he then tried to achieve in China, and the impact he brought to Wutai Shan Buddhism.

16. KWAK Roe 郭磊 (Dongguk University): “新羅中古期(514-654)五臺山文殊信仰傳來說之探討”

新羅文殊信仰與五臺山文殊信仰的傳來時期不同。文殊信仰的傳來應該是早在638年慈 藏入唐以前就已經通過其他求法僧隨經典的傳入而傳播開來。五臺山文殊信仰由中古期(514-654)佛教界的代表慈藏傳來之見解是韓國學界的主流,但是迄 今流傳的各種慈藏相關史料中有很多互相矛盾之處,所以在復原慈藏的生平時有很多的制約。這在探討慈藏與文殊信仰的關系方面也是相同,有很多疑問需要解決。 參考中國五臺山文殊信仰的成立過程可知,慈藏入唐參拜五臺山之說並不成立。那麼史料中的慈藏與五臺山文殊信仰相關內容的出現背景及原因值得引起我們的註 意。它是何時出現的?為什麼會出現?本文將對其出現的社會思想背景做一番探討。

17. George KEYWORTH 紀強 (Linguistics and Religious Studies, University of Saskatchewan): “How the Mount Wutai Cult Stimulated the Development of Chinese Chan in Southern China at Qingliang monasteries”

Despite the legendary role ascribed to Shaolin monastery 少林寺, located near Mount Song 嵩山, it is probably not an exaggeration to say that it has been considered sacrosanct within Chinese Chan Buddhist discourse since at least the time of Heze Shenhui 菏澤神會 (670-762) that legitimacy comes from the south, and not the north. Since the 10th century, the rhetoric of the so-called “five schools” 五家 has perpetuated peculiarly southern lineages; in practice, both the Linji 臨濟宗 and Caodong 曹洞宗 lineages (in China and beyond) propagate stories of celebrated patriarchs against a distinctively southern Chinese backdrop. What are we to make, therefore, of Chan monasteries or cloisters in Ningbo  寧波, Fuzhou 福州, Jiangning 江寧, and of course, Hongzhou 洪州 (Jiangxi province 江西省), apparently named to reflect the enduring significance of Mount Wutai 五臺山, a notably northern sacred site? In the first part of this paper I outline the less than marginal—or peripheral—role Mount Wutai appears to have played in “core” Chinese Chan Buddhist sources (e.g., denglu 燈錄, yulu 語錄, and gazetteers 地方志). Then I proceed to explain how four Qingliang monasteries 清涼寺 (or cloisters 院) in southern China attest to the preservation and dissemination of a lineage of masters who supported what looks like a ‘Qingliang cult,’ with a set of distinctive teachings and practices that appears to collapse several longstanding assumptions about what separates Chan 禪 from the Teachings 教 in Chinese Buddhism. Finally, I address the implications of a Chan Buddhist ‘Qingliang cult’ within the context of the history of Wutaishan after the 13th and 14th centuries, when the site had become a destination where Tibetans, Tanguts, Mongolians, Manchurians, Koreans, and southern Chinese pilgrims sustained veneration of Mañjuśrī or Mañjughoṣa.

18. Youn-mi KIM 金延美 (Yale University): “Surrogate Body inside a Statue: Later Mañjuśrī Worship on Korea’s Wutaishan (Odaesan)”

The origin and the early history of Mount Odae, the Korean version of the sacred Mount Wutai, have drawn much scholarly interest. According to the well-known legend, the Silla monk Chajang (590-658) initiated the belief that Mount Odae is the abode of Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva. While the origin history of this sacred mountain from the Silla dynasty is important, the diverse practices and the rich visual culture that developed in later dynasties are also worthy of in-depth exploration. In fact, Mount Odae was a vital center of Buddhist practice even during the Chosŏn dynasty (1392-1897), a time when Buddhists were severely persecuted. Perhaps the most intriguing Buddhist relic from Mount Odae is the wooden statue of Mañjuśrī (1466) at Sangwonsa. In 1984, various materials were found enshrined inside this Mañjuśrī statue. Beyond the sacred objects and scriptures enshrined to enliven the images, such as a crystal jewel and printed book with dhāraṇī written in Korean script, there were articles of clothing smudged with blood and sweat stains. Tracing the medical and religious practices of Chosŏn Korea, this talk examines how the clothing stained with bodily fluids served as the surrogate body of a donor in Chosŏn, and how this surrogate body still engenders the modern myth about the king’s body and disease in contemporary Korea.

19. LIN Wei-cheng 林偉正 (University of Chicago): “Beyond Iconography: Mañjuśrī Riding a Lion and the Cult of Mount Mutai”

Few would disagree that the image of Mañjuśrī mounted on his lion is the most representative iconography associated with the cult of Mount Wutai throughout the history of the sacred mountain in northern China. Yet probably more than many have realized is just how pervasive and consistent the iconography had been, not just at Mount Wutai but elsewhere in regions to which the sacred mountain cult was transmitted. By no means did the significance, interpretation, or function of the image remain the same over the long history of the cult, but its visual form and features (more complicated than those of a usual seated Buddha or standing bodhisattva) seem to have been peculiarly enduring when considering how widespread the sacred mountain cult was practiced and how much the image was appropriated for different sectarian purposes or ritual functions. The ubiquity of the iconography unbound by the sacred site is all the more extraordinary should we be reminded that Mañjuśrī riding a lion, unlike other buddhas or bodhisattvas, is supposed to be seen only at Mount Wutai. Not taking the iconography’s longevity simply as part of the cultic popularity, this paper argues that Mañjuśrī riding a lion in fact provided a convenient, yet critical, visual device, or strategy, that helped negotiate the understanding of the sacred mountain cult, e.g., its divinity, sacrality, iconography, soteriology, etc., outside its place of origin. Beyond iconography, therefore, the legacy of Mañjuśrī riding a lion should reveal to us its iconographic mechanism and economy (i.e., its functions and meanings) developed vis-à-vis the history of the sacred mountain cult.

20. David Quinter 蒯恩特 (University of Alberta): “Moving Monks and Mountains: Chōgen and the Cults of Mañjuśrī, Wutai, and Gyōki”

The itinerant Shingon monk and Pure Land devotee Chōgen 重源 (1121–1206) presents many puzzles to researchers. In addition to his spearheading the restoration of Tōdaiji and its Great Buddha statue after their burning in 1180, Chōgen’s renown has rested greatly on his self-professed three pilgrimages to China. However, scholars have long questioned the reliability of Chōgen’s accounts, with some doubting that he ever went. The current majority view, based largely on pairing Chōgen’s own accounts with the material evidence for his links to Song artisans and construction techniques, is that he did make the trip. But doubts linger concerning many of the details Chōgen claims, not least of which is his professed veneration of Mañjuśrī at Mt. Wutai.

In one of the leading contemporary sources for Chōgen’s three journeys to China, an 1183 dialogue with the influential courtier Kujō Kanezane 九条兼実 (1149–1207), Chōgen is quoted as stating that his “original intention for crossing the seas had been in order to pay reverence at that mountain [Wutai].” However, he had to return to Japan without doing so, because “Mt. Wutai had been taken over by the Great Jin country 大金國.” This account fits the historical record in that, at the time, the Jin had taken control of northern China, including Mt. Wutai and the surrounding area. This made travel there from the Southern Song very difficult—and likely even more so for a Japanese pilgrim such as Chōgen. Yet Chōgen’s report to Kanezane is apparently contradicted by his own words a mere two and a half years later, in an 1185 vow he offered when relics were inserted in the restored Great Buddha statue. In the vow, Chōgen claims that he had in fact been able to make it to Wutai and “pay reverence to Mañjuśrī’s auspicious light.” But given that we have no records (self-reported or otherwise) of Chōgen traveling to China between 1183 and 1185, that the Wutai area remained under Jin control during that time, and that Chōgen’s intense involvement with the Tōdaiji restoration would have made a journey to the mountain then particularly unlikely, how are we to understand the incongruity between these two accounts?

This paper will explore the incongruity and scholarly attempts to address it by contextualizing it within Chōgen’s mountain pilgrimage practices and his participation in the linked—but distinguishable—cults of Mañjuśrī, Wutai, and Gyōki 行基 (668–749). In so doing, I will argue that questions of how Chōgen may have venerated Mañjuśrī “at Wutai” require more than tests of historical veracity to properly address. I suggest instead that the “fit” and “no-fit” of the moving cultic and historical puzzle pieces themselves are keys to understanding how Chōgen places Wutai and his itinerant practices within broader cultural imaginaries.

21. NENG Ren 能仁 (Chinese Research Institute for Buddhist Cultures):”元世祖忽必烈與五臺山佛教”

經歷宋、金的沉寂之後,元代五臺山佛教迎來一個新的發展時期,這與元初世祖忽必烈對 五臺山佛教的支持息息相關。忽必烈對漢、藏佛教皆有濃厚的興趣,其接受薩迦法王八思巴灌頂,尊奉八思巴為帝師,統領天下佛教,促成了藏傳佛教真正進入五臺 山的機緣。作為蒙古族皇帝,忽必烈措意調和聖地五臺山漢、藏佛教的發展,這也成為他融合漢藏佛教信仰和整合漢、藏、蒙等多民族關係的一個重要範本。

22. James ROBSON 羅柏松 (Harvard University):  “From the Purple Palace of Transcendents to the Abode of Mañjuśrī: What Can We Know About Wutaishan’s Pre-Buddhist Religious Landscape?”

It has become increasingly clear that the history of how Buddhists established a sacred geography in China—particularly in their selection of sacred mountains—is largely a story about how they incorporated pre-existing sacred sites.  Prior to Wutaishan’s rapid ascent as one of the most significant Buddhist sacred mountains throughout Chinese history it had already been a site connected with pre-Buddhist religious traditions (especially Daoism).  Indeed, before becoming the glorious abode of Mañjuśrī and an international pilgrimage center, it was the home to Daoist transcendents. We are already aware of some suggestive references to Daoism found in the Gu qingliang zhuan 古清涼傳 [Old Account of (Mt.) Qingliang], but in this paper I hope to be able to bring together further information about what we can know about the earliest strata of Wutaishan’s religious history. What significance can we draw from the history of Wutaishan’s pre-Buddhist history?  Was that earlier history overwritten or erased in later histories of the mountain?

23. SEOK Gil-Am 石吉巖 (Research Institute for Buddhist Cultures, Geumgang University): “韓國五臺山聖地的形成與中國五臺山”

本文就韓國五臺山聖地的形成過程中中國五臺山聖地信仰對其產生了怎樣的影響做了考 察。特別是新羅僧侶慈藏把中國五臺山信仰移植到新羅的過程中,考察古代國家佛教成立的一個過程。在慈藏以後所進行的聖地化過程中,新羅王室與之有著重要的 關聯,這說明新羅五臺山聖地的形成是以國家佛教為其背景的。中國五臺山文化的新羅傳播不但要考察佛教聖地信仰的東亞傳播之過程,還要對其社會思想背景做一 番探討。

24. SHENG Kai 聖凱 (Tsing-hua University): “地論學派與五臺山佛教”

五臺山在北魏、北齊時代形成第一個興盛時期,地論學派作為北朝佛教最為活躍的學派, 與五臺山佛教有密切的關聯。地論學派的律學傳承於五臺山的法聰、道覆,慧光、曇隱師事道覆;靈辨作為五臺山最早傳習《華嚴經》的高僧,著《華嚴論》一百 卷;地論師祥雲、曇義、曇訓等,皆修道、弘法於五臺山。五臺山既是地論學派律學傳承的發祥地,更是地論師修道、弘揚《華嚴經》的聖地。

25. Barend TER HAAR 田海 (Oxford University): “The Way of the Nine Palaces and the Mountain of the Five Platforms (Wutai shan): Thinking through Our Analytical Categories”

The movement that I will focus on in this paper is known as the Way of the Nine Palaces (jiugong dao 九宮道). It was founded, of that is the right word, in the early 20th century by a monk on the mountain of the Five Platforms. While largely unknown in Western scholarship, it is invariably studied today in Chinese scholarship in the context of secret societies (mimi jieshe 秘密結社, ironically a term first coined in the 19th century by a Dutch sinologist, G. Schlegel) or the “Gatherings, Ways and Gates” (huidangmen 會道門). In earlier research I have already argued that research on new religious movements in China has suffered from negative labelling, which has skewed our perspective on creative new religious developments. Since this particular movement has been relatively well-studied from an empirical point of view, I want to reinvestigate the appropriateness of traditional labels, but also and more importantly what we can learn on local religious creativity from this particular case.

26. SUN Yinggang 孫英剛 (Fudan University):”文殊信仰与王權觀念:從内亚到東海”

本文將討論文殊信仰從中亞傳入中土的演進過程中,在政治思想和政治實踐中扮演的角 色,尤其是跟密宗有關的護國思想。通過文殊及五臺山在政治起伏中的角色,討論文殊信仰在整個亞洲史圖景中的位置。除了討論外來宗教因素和本土政治運作的關 係之外,本文還將梳理文殊信仰在佛教在亞洲大陸興起傳播中的地位和作用。

27. Temur TEMULE 鐵木勒 (Nanjing University): “傳教士景雅各對五臺山的探訪”

景雅各(James Gilmour,1842-1890)是倫敦會傳教士,從1870年到1890年堅持在蒙古人中傳教,時間長達20年。在倫敦會歷史上,他應該是最著名的 傳教士之一。他之所以如此著名,首先是因為歐洲人關於蒙古高原嚴酷環境的想象,其次是由於景雅各失敗的傳教事業:20年的傳教工作沒能勸化一個蒙古人皈依 基督教。擋在景雅各面前的銅牆鐵壁就是蒙古人篤信的藏傳佛教。為了深入了解蒙古人的宗教信仰,他和艾約翰(John Edkins)一同探訪了蒙古人朝拜的佛教聖地五臺山。在此,景雅各對五臺山的寺廟、喇嘛和蒙古人的朝拜活動進行了細致描畫。這在同時期漢文和蒙古文材料 中都是難得一見的。

28. USUI Junji 薄井 俊二 (Saitama University): 旅行日記における五臺山―円仁と徐霞客 (旅行日記中的五臺山——圓仁與徐霞客)

同じ山であっても、立場が異なる人が見ると、違うものが見える。本報告では、仏教者 であった唐時代の円仁と、山川自然の探索者であった明時代の徐霞客という立場の異なる人が書いた「旅行日記」を取り上げ、そこにどのようなことが記されて いるかを検討する。彼らは五臺山で何を見、どんな体験をしたのか。また、五臺山をどのようなものと捉え、どのように描いたのか、を明らかにする。

仏教者の円仁にとって五臺山は「聖地」であった。そこで円仁は「入唐求法巡礼行記」 の中で、五臺山山中を巡礼し、その聖地性に着目した記述をしている。一方山川自然の探索者であった徐霞客は、「遊五臺山日記」の中で五臺山の自然について 多く描写している。中でも山脈や水脈を描くことを重視しているが、それは彼が大地には「連続性を持つ」「脈」が走っていると捉えており、山や水はその 「脈」の現れだと考えていたことによる。

29. WANG Song 王頌 (北京大學哲學系): 舊跡新禮:”近代日本學者對五臺山佛教的考察”

作為東亞佛教圈的著名聖地,五臺山自古就受到日本佛教界的高度重視。中古時代圓仁、 成尋等人的巡禮已廣為人知,而近代日本學者、僧人對五臺山的考察卻並不為人所熟悉。事實上,在近代中日兩國國際地位逆轉、西方學術方法為日本學者所廣泛採 用的歷史大背景下,近代的考察與古代的巡禮有同有異,可謂之“舊跡新禮”。本文將重點介紹伊東忠太、小野玄妙、常盤大定(常盤本人的踏查並未涉足五臺山) 等人對五臺山的實地考察與文字著述,並結合其歷史背景予以分析。本文是筆者有關近代歐美日本學者考察中國佛教史跡系列研究的一環,其著眼點有三:一是瞭解 清末民初中國佛教史跡保存的狀況;二是借他人之眼發現中國佛教聖地的價值和意義;三是考察近代東西方文化與宗教的交流和碰撞。

30. Dorothy WONG 王靜芬 (University of Virginia): “Iconography of the Wonder-Working Mañjuśrī”

We are familiar with the East Asian depiction of Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva riding a lion, or of the other type depicting Mañjuśrī as a young prince holding his emblems of a sword and a book (the Prajñapāramitā Sūtra), usually found in South Asian and Himalayan traditions. The lores of Mañjuśrī include the bodhisattva manifesting as an old man, a wretch, and so on. This paper explores how the iconography of Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva emerged in early Buddhist art, both in Indian and East Asian traditions. It examines a number of early texts, including proto-Avataṃsaka sūtras, the Avataṃsaka sūtras as well as other relevant Mahāyāna texts in which Mañjuśrī makes his presence felt—texts that contributed to the development of the cult of Mañjuśrī. It also identify the ways with which Mañjuśrī is represented in early Buddhist art in order to achieve a visual identity distinct from (and often in competition with) other Great Bodhisattvas of the Mahāyāna, such as Maitreya and Avalokiteśvara.

31. WU Shaowei 武紹衛(首都師範大學歷史系):”唐五代五臺山文殊信仰傳播路線——以巡禮五臺山和“化現”故事為中心”

唐五代時期高僧巡禮五臺山,是中古時期五臺山文殊信仰傳播的重要路徑。而五臺山文殊 化現故事則是巡禮五臺山的信眾所要親見親聞的,也是五臺山文殊信仰的重要表現形式。通過對高僧巡禮和化現故事進行歷史學的分析,可以發現五臺山文殊信仰的 傳播可以分為三個階段,即唐前、唐初和中晚唐以後。三個階段呈現出不同的宗教面貌,這種面貌和文殊信仰的階段性特徵相符合的。第一階段五臺山文殊信仰局限 在五臺山及其周邊地區,更多的是一種地域性信仰;第二階段在官方主導下出現了一次巡禮高潮,高潮的起點正是長安;第三階段則呈現出巡禮者源自全國的特徵, 各宗元匠巡禮五臺山、營造化現故事,引導了這一時期信仰發展方向。對北朝以至五代時期五臺山文殊信仰進行總體上的把握,可以看出,在《華嚴經》的敘述下, 五臺山成為了與經典話語相一致的中華聖山,但影響有限;經過來自長安城的政治推動,遂成為了天下的信仰聖地。

32. YANG Xiaojun 楊效俊 (陝西省博物館副研究員): “五臺山地方唐代佛教造像和長安樣式的關係”

唐代五臺山的地理范圍包括今山西省五臺、繁峙、忻州、代縣、阜平等地區。從五臺山佛 光寺、古竹林寺、忻州等地出土石造像和南禪寺(782)、佛光寺(856)現存彩繪塑像可一窺唐代五臺山地方佛教造像的類型、圖像和風格。五臺山地方唐代 佛教造像的圖像和風格受到長安樣式的影響,但是具有獨特地域特色,顯示出和天龍山石窟造像及定州風格的相似性。推測其原因在於唐代五臺山與長安之間的佛教 網絡中長安高僧頻繁來往於兩地,長安高僧造像依據長安圖像和風格就地取材造像,因此五臺山的地域風格得以形成和延續。南禪寺和佛光寺彩繪塑像直接受到形成 於印度八、九世紀形成的巴洛克風格的影響,呈現出裝飾性、運動感和個性化的特征,形成了五臺山地方獨特的佛教殿堂視覺文化,表明九世紀五臺山已經成為國際 化的佛教中心和聖地。

33. Mimi YIENGPRUKSAWAN 楊靡蕪 (Yale University): “Mañjuśrī’s Many Marvels: On the Wutaishan Phenomenon in Eleventh-Century Japan from a Regional Perspective”

It is often assumed that the Japanese monk Chōnen 奝然 (938-1016) traveled to China in 983 to obtain a statue replicating the Udayana Buddha. However contemporary sources make it clear that Chōnen’s stated goal was to make a pilgrimage to Wutaishan and, in so doing, to lay the groundwork for the foundation of a surrogate Wutaishan on Mount Atago 愛宕山 in Kyoto. On his return to Kyoto in 987 Chōnen filed a petition with the Council of State to establish Godaisan Seiryōji 五臺山清涼寺—Wutaishan Qingliangsi—on Mount Atago, with its own ordination platform, and a hall for the Udayana image that he had obtained in Taizhou. The center would house five monks titled Godaisan Ajari 五臺山阿闍梨, or Wutaishan Preceptors, whose duty was to pray to Mañjuśrī on behalf of the country. The petition was denied due to opposition from the Tendai establishment on Mount Hiei. In 988, while negotiations over Mount Atago continued, Chōnen sent his disciple Ka’in 嘉因 (act. late 10th-early 11th century) back to China to obtain a statue of Mañjuśrī along with newly translated texts. By the time that Ka’in returned with the statue of Mañjuśrī in 990, the old temple Seikaji 栖霞寺, on the eastern slope of Mount Atago, had been revamped to serve as the home for the Udayana image and to house the single monk who had been granted the title Godaisan Ajari, meaning that the temple now served as the head institution of a Japanese Wutaishan. The Chinese statue of Mañjuśrī was placed in the care of Fujiwara no Michitaka 藤原道隆 (953-995), one of the sponsors of Chōnen’s pilgrimage to Wutaishan, and ended up remaining in the private Mañjuśrī chapel of the Fujiwara family until 1053, when it was moved to the newly built Tripiṭaka Hall at Byōdōin 平等院. The efforts of Chōnen’s disciple Jōsan 盛算 (act. late 10th-early 11th century), in close affiliation with the Fujiwara leadership, vouchsafed the further development of Seikaji as a center for Mañjuśrī worship in Kyoto, including assignment of the full contingent of five Godaisan Ajari to the temple. In 1031 another statue of Mañjuśrī arrived with much fanfare in Kyoto, along with more texts and a number of xylographic prints. The statue had been obtained for Jōsan by the Mingzhou merchant Zhou Liangshi 周良史 (act. early 11th century). It was installed at Seikaji, and shortly afterward the temple’s name was changed to Seiryōji, or Qingliangsi.

Seiryōji has been understood almost exclusively in terms of the Udayana cult in Japan or as the function of a geomorphological “Wutaishan” space in this case mapped onto Mount Atago. Both approaches have great merit. However they do not address the underlying rationale, which points specifically to Mañjuśrī, and to the efflorescence of ritual and devotional activities directed toward Mañjuśrī in Kyoto in the first decades of the 11th century. So significant was this turn that the conceptual and iconographical program of Fujiwara no Yorimichi’s 藤原頼通 (992-1074) famous Amitābha Hall at Byōdōin—the Phoenix Hall—finds its impetus to some degree in visionary encounters with Mañjuśrī on Wutaishan, and thus is closely integrated with Ka’in’s Chinese statue of Mañjuśrī installed in the Tripiṭaka Hall built nearby. These complex interconnections point to a topic that has been little studied, and that is the nature of the acute interest in Mañjuśrī and Wutaishan evident in Kyoto at the turn of the 11th century. This paper seeks to integrate insights from three angles of approach. First, it looks at the expectation that the final demise of the Dharma was to commence during the 11th century, and at the exogenous environmental (specifically epidemiological) factors that might have prompted such thinking in Kyoto in the period 995-1025. Second, it considers the possibility that Tianxizai’s recent recension (ca. 983-1000) of 28 sections of the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa (T1191 文殊師利根本儀軌經)—with its emphasis on the transformative powers of spells associated with or taught by Mañjuśrī, and on identification of the geographical zones where such rituals “work”—was known in Kyoto despite its non-canonical status at the time. And third, it explores the role of Wutaishan, Mañjuśrī, and Tianxizai’s recension of the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa in contributing to the notion of Buddhist oikumene.

34. ZHANG Wenliang 張文良 (Renmin University of China): “古代日本人心目中的五臺山”

據史書記載,第一位參訪五臺山的日本僧人是隨最澄入唐但沒有歸國、最終客死五臺山的 靈仙三藏。之后入唐的圓仁(794-864)和入宋的成尋(1010-1081)都曾參訪五臺山,並在他們的游記《入唐求法巡禮行記》、《參天台五臺山 記》中,留下關於當時的五臺山的珍貴記載。那麼,在平安時代和鐮倉時代的日本僧人和普通日本人的心目中五臺山是怎樣的形象呢?透過上述游記資料和其他一些 史料,我們大體可以看出,五臺山在當時日本人的心目中既是一座文殊菩薩示現的道場,又是佛教學術研究的殿堂,還是通過聖跡巡禮而贖罪之地。五臺山作為中日 佛教文化交流的重要場所,在日本佛教思想和佛教信仰的發展過程中曾發揮了重要作用。