Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


The Mañjuśrī cult in Khotan

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search






ABSTRACT

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 sub- stantiate 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 article I will show these and other proofs in Khotanese literature for the importance of Mañjuśrī in Khotanese Buddhism.


KEYWORDS; Wutai; Khotan; Mañjuśrī; Dunhuang; Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra


The Silk Road is primarily regarded as the principal route along which precious Chinese goods were transported to the West. However, foreign ideas also came to China along the Silk Road, and the arrival of these alien concepts changed the philosophical and religious orientation of this great empire. The greatest challenge, undoubtedly, was the appearance of Buddhism within the boundaries of China in the first century CE. The arrival of this new religion in China started a long process of mutual adaptation of Buddhist and Chinese cultures. It has been emphasized with relation of Buddhism, that this Indian religion took a different


shape from its original one. This aspect of the adaptation, which is usually called Sinification, resulted in the formation of special Chinese schools of Buddhism (Huayan, Tiantai, Chan, Pure Land) that later spread in East Asia. However, the other side of the influence, the influence of Buddhism on Chinese culture, was also very significant. Buddhist concepts and religious practices that had previously been unknown became deeply rooted in Chinese soil, and exercised an enormous influence on the development of Chinese thought and society.


Discussions on the introduction of Buddhism into China focus on the difficult process of adapting several new concepts (karma, rebirth, etc.) of Indian Buddhism and the translation of Indian Buddhist scriptures. However, we should bear in mind that in the early period most of the translators of Buddhist texts came from Central Asia. The Silk Road in that region served as a bridge between India and China, making it possible for China to interact with this foreign religion and thought. The original language of


Buddhist scriptures could be used for religious purposes in Central Asia because the language of the people inhabiting the region was closely related to it.1 Yet these cultures must have adopted and interpreted the original teachings of Buddhism, or simply – whether intentionally or not – must have had a certain predilection for some of the teachings of Buddhism. In terms of the transmission of Indian Buddhism by Central Asian monks, the background of the monks themselves should also be taken into consideration while reconstructing the process of the spread of Buddhism into China. Chinese Buddhism is a special and unique form that

cannot be understood only by reference to the earlier development of the religion in India. To understand the innova- tions of Chinese Buddhism in the field of Buddhist doctrine it is necessary to study the indigenous Chinese thought and religions that predated the arrival of Buddhism. In terms of the development of Chinese Buddhism these two aspects are usually empha- sised, but the third aspect, the role of the Central Asian scholar monks who acted transmitters, is often neglected.

It is well-known that most of the Mahāyāna sūtras, such as the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, Lotus sūtra, Vimalakīrti sūtra, etc., were very influential in East Asian Buddhism, but less important in the history of Indian Buddhism.2 What is the reason for this? Should we seek the explanation for the popularity of these scriptures in the Chinese predilection for certain questions that these works address, or rather in the deliberate propagation of these sūtras by the monks who took them from their homeland and translated them into Chinese with the help of Chinese assistants. In order to answer this question, the characteristic features of Central Asian

Buddhism and the interaction between Central Asian and Chinese Buddhism should be studied. In reconstructing the history and doctrines of Central Asian Buddhism we can rely on the scriptures that were translated into Central Asian languages, the Buddhist works that were originally composed in these languages, the various images that have been preserved on the walls of caves or as paintings, and finally on the activities of the Central Asian monks in China, which are well documented in the Buddhist histories.


In my ‘Khotan and Wutaishan’ I investigated the importance of Khotan, the oasis- state on the southern route of the Silk Road in terms of spreading the teachings of Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra to China. As I showed, although it cannot be proved that the sūtra was compiled in Khotan, even if some chapters existed and were circulated as independent scriptures in India, the Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra played an important role in Khotanese Buddhism. We might even suspect that it was in Khotan that Mañjuśrī’s name was interpolated in the text as the ruling bodhisattva of the mountain Clear-and-Cool (Qingliang 清涼) in the north-eastern direction,

in order to attract the attention of the Chinese audience. This passage was often cited later as scriptural evidence for Mañjuśrī’s cult on Wutaishan. The discovery of a new iconographic representation of Mañjuśrī in 1975, in a wall painting in cave 220 of Dunhuang, was an interesting development in the study of Mañjuśrī’s cult. In the painting Mañjuśrī is flanked by a young boy and a bearded Central Asian man who is actually leading the bodhisattva’s lion. This man is

identified as a Khotanese king, probably Li Shengtian 李聖天(912–966), who married the daughter of Cao Yijin 曹議金(?-935), the ruler of Dunhuang.3 This is attested by the Guang Qingliang zhuan 廣清涼傳, which tells a story about the manifestation of Mañjuśrī as a pregnant woman who goes to a Buddhist feast with her two children and a dog. She asks for too much food for herself and her company and in the end, she is


scolded and chased away by a monk. When Mañjuśrī resumes his bodhisattva appearance it turns out that the dog was his lion while the children were Sudhana and the Khotanese king.4 This new representation of Mañjuśrī along with the Wutaishan mountain is found together with a painting of Samantabhadra on the Niutou shan in cave 32 of Yulin 榆林. In my previous paper I argued that the new representation of Mañjuśrī and the identi- fication of Niutoushan 牛頭山 as Samantabhadra’s abode might reflect some Khotanese Buddhist ideas, as these paintings were probably commissioned by the Khotanese royal court. The Niutoshan located at Khotan has been

believed to be a sacred place of Buddhism, since Buddha is said to have preached the doctrine on the mountain. It is listed as one of the abodes of bodhisattvas in the Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra, although the 80-fascicle version of the sūtra locates it at the state of Shule 疏勒國, which is situated at near Kashgar, and is one of the 36 countries in the Western Region in Chinese histor- iography. In addition, this abode is not related to Samantabhadra, thus this idea must have been of Khotanese origin.


The inclusion of a Khotanese king in the Mañjuśrī iconography, and this new representation along with Samantabhadra, show that Khotan must have been an impor- tant place in the development of the Mañjuśrī cult. Although the Khotanese Buddhist culture was destroyed 1,000 years ago, and has long been buried beneath the sands, thanks to archaeological discoveries and the study of Tibetan and Chinese sources we are able to reconstruct some of the main features of Khotanese Buddhism. In this paper I attempt to find some clues for the existence of the Mañjuśrī cult in Khotan and to show what contribution it might have made to the development of the Mañjuśrī cult in East Asia.


It would seem sensible to look at the archaeological discoveries Auriel Stein made during his expeditions, as he found many images of different buddhas and bodhisattvas. However, the result is surprising – while there are images of Cosmic Vairocana, Maitreya, Avalokiteśvara, Ksitigarbha, Vaiśravaṇa, Sañjaya, Maheśvara, Gaṇeśa, Silk legend, and the rider with bow_l and bird from the Sudhana jātaka, there are no images of Mañjuśrī.5 The Khotanese collection in the Hermitage also includes only images of Maireya and Avalokiteśvara.6 It is important to note that the Cosmic Vairocana is the most common iconographic type in

Khotanese art.7 This seems to substantiate the claim that Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra was highly appreciated in Khotan, as this scripture is the main source for the veneration of Cosmic Vairocana. The frequent occurrence of Cosmic Vairocana also underlines the royal support of Buddhism in Khotan. The Cosmic Vairocana served as a symbol for the universal legitimisation of royal power, and this model had a great impact on East Asian Buddhism since the Huayan/Kegon school was often closely associated with the imperial courts in China and Japan. The royal family’s active participation in religious rituals is depicted by Faxian when he describes the procession of the Buddha.


When [the car] was a hundred paces from the gate, the king took off his crown of state, changed his dress for fresh garments, and with bare feet carrying in his hands flowers and incense, and with two rows of attending followers, went out at the gate to meet the image; and with his head and face [[[bowed]] to the ground], he did homage at its feet, and then scattered the flowers and burnt the incense. When the image was entering the gate, the queen and brilliant ladies with her in the gallery above scattered far and wide all kinds of flowers, which floated about and fell promiscuously to the ground. In this way everything


was done to promote the dignity of the occasion. The carriages of the monasteries were all different, and each one had its own day for the procession. [The ceremony] began on the first day of the fourth month, and ended on the fourteenth, after which the king and queen returned to the palace. 去門百步° 王脫天冠易著新衣° 徒跣持花香翼從出城° 迎像頭面禮


足散花燒香° 像入城時° 門樓上夫人婇女遙散眾花紛紛而下 如是莊嚴供具車車各異


一僧伽藍則一日行像

自月一日° 為始至十四日行像乃訖° 行像訖王及夫人乃還宮耳°


The king’s generosity is further emphasized when the breath-taking wealth of a great monastery is described:

Seven or eight li to the west of the city there is what is called the King’s New Monastery, the building of which took eighty years, and extended over three reigns. It may be 250 cubits in height, rich in elegant carving and inlaid work, covered above with gold and silver, and it is finished throughout with a combination of all the precious substances. Behind the tope there has been built a Hall of Buddha, of the utmost magnificence and beauty, the beams, pillars,

shuttered doors, and windows being all overlaid with gold leaf. Besides this, the apartments for the monks are imposingly and elegantly decorated, beyond the power of words to express. Of whatever things of highest value and preciousness the kings in the six countries on the east of the [Ts’ung] range of mountains are possessed, they contribute the greater portion [to the monastery], using but a small portion of them themselves. 其城西七八里有


僧伽藍 名王新寺

作來八十年經三王方成° 可高二十五丈

雕文刻鏤金銀覆上眾寶合


塔後作佛堂莊嚴妙好

梁柱戶扇窓牖皆以金薄

別作僧房亦嚴麗整飾° 非言可盡 嶺


東六國諸王所有上價寶物多作供養 人用者少


Faxian paints an idealised picture of the status of the Buddhist faith: the royal family bows before the image of Buddha and offers the most precious valuables to the monasteries, which seem to resemble baroque edifices covered with gold and silver. The reader has the impression that the sangha enjoys full autonomy from the secular authorities. However, we have to bear in mind that it was precisely in Faxian’s time that there were fierce disputes about the autonomy of the sangha in

China. The first dispute occurred in 340, when Yu Bing 庾氷 (296–344) and Yu Yi 庾翼 (died 345) seized political power. The question of whether the monk should bow before the ruler came to the fore, but He Chong 何充(292–346), a great supporter of Buddhism, was able to defend Buddhists and struck back at Yu Bing.10 The next conflict arose in 403/404 after Huan Xuan’s 桓玄 (369–404) coup d’état, for the same reason, and once again the Buddhist community was able to win the battle.11 On


the occasion of this controversy Huiyuan 慧遠(334–416), the eminent monk of the early period, wrote his essay The śramaṇa does not bow before the king (Shamen bu jing wangzhe lun 沙門不敬王者論), which argues that the autonomy of the sangha should be guaranteed and the ruler should support monksactivities as they have a mission for the benefit of all mankind.12 Faxian left China in 399, and returned to China in 413, a few years after the second debate.13 It is highly likely that

his description of the very favourable status of the sangha in Khotan was meant to substantiate the claims to autonomy made by the Chinese sangha and to encourage the ruler to support monasteries. In this case his reports of such lavish support for the Buddhist community seem to be exaggerated. Nonetheless, Xuanzang also reports the existence of about 100 monasteries with about 5,000 monks, who all followed the Mahāyāna.

Despite the lack of iconographic evidence for the existence of the Mañjuśrī cult in Khotan, we cannot rule out its possibility. First of all, due to the paucity of the objects that have survived we cannot be sure that images of Mañjuśrī never existed. Secondly, we have literary sources that confirm the importance of Mañjuśrī in Khotanese Buddhism.


To reconstruct the history of Khotan, scholars can rely on Chinese sources that record the history of the 36 countries of the western regions, especially in the periods when China exerted influence over this area. The Tibetan sources are much more legend-like and the rulers’ names are difficult to match in the Tibetan and Chinese sources. One of the important Tibetan documents, The Prophecy of Khotan (Li yul lung bstan pa) records the legend that Buddha used to come to Khotan, which

was a great lake at that time.14 Sitting on a lotus in the lake Buddha prophesied that there would be a country in the place of the lake. Buddha stayed on Niutoushan for seven days. His disciples Śāriputra and Vaiśravaṇa made the water disappear, and Buddha asked eight bodhisattvas, Mañjuśrī, Avalokiteśvara, Maitreya, Samantabhadra, Ākāśagarbha, Ksitigarbha, Mahāsthāma and Bhaisajyarāja, to protect this land.15


Here we find Mañjuśrī as one of the eight bodhisattvas who were asked to protect Khotan. This book also records that it was Mañjuśrī who assumed the form of Vairocana and taught the Li language to the Khotanese people.

As for the common language of Li, originally the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī assumed the form of a disciple’s monk, and under the name of Vairocana introduced the Li language in the district called Tsar-ma to children such as the cattleherd-boys ‘Jos and Mu-le-‘ji.16


li’i ‘phral-skad ni thog-ma byang-chub sems-dpa’ ‘jam-dpal nyan-thos-kyi dge-slong-gi tshul-du sprul-te/mtshan bairotsana zhes bgyis-pa phyugs-rdzi khye’u ‘jos dang/mu-le-‘ji zhes bgyi-ba gnyis-la sogs-pa-la yul tsar-ma zhes bgyi-bar li skad phyung-ste/17

It is well-known that the Dalai Lama is regarded as the incarnation of Avalokiteśvara, which is a unique feature of Tibetan Buddhism. The Blue Annals recorded that the first king of Tibet who introduced Buddhism, Srong-btsan Sgam-po (605–649), was considered as Avalokiteśvara, and the fifth Dalai Lama (1617–1682) claimed that he too was the manifestation of Avalokiteśvara, in order to reinforce his authority.18 It is interesting to note that some of the Khotanese kings were also

identified as manifestations of Avalokiteśvara. The Khotanese language belongs to the Iranian family and the Khotanese must have had some connections with the Iranians, thus it seems natural that Khotanese kings were related to Avalokiteśvara as he is closely associated with the Iranian sun god, Mithra.19 The importance of Mañjuśrī in Khotan is attested by the fact that King Vijaya Kīrti was assisted by the manifestation of Mañjuśrī, an arhat called Spyi-pri.20


Afterwards King Vijaya Kīrti, for whom a manifestation of the Ārya Mañjuśrī, the Arhat called Spyi-pri who was propagating the religion [[[dharma]]] in Kam-sheng was acting as pious friend, built the vihāra of Sru-nyo because he was inspired with faith.

de-nas de’i ‘og-tu rgyal-po bijaya kīrtis ‘phags-pa ‘jam-dpal-gyi sprul-pa kam-seng-du chos spel-ba’i dgra-bcom-pa spyi-pri zhes bgyi-bas dge-ba’i bshes – gnyen bgyis-nas dad-pa skes- pa’i slad-du sru-nyo’i gtsug-lag-khang brtsigs-te/

With regard to the Mañjuśrī cult we also can survey those texts that have survived in Khotanese translation. The Mañjuśrīnairātmyāvatāra-sūtra (Sūtra for Mañjuśrī on the realisation of [the doctrine of] selflessness) is a late original Khotanese composition in verse that consists 445 manuscript lines. The colophon states that it was copied by Devendraśūrasiṃha during the reign of the Khotanese king Vīśa’ Śura (967–78). This scripture, which draws on many earlier Khotanese sources, elaborates on the Buddhist teaching of the non-existence of inherent self.21


The scripture includes a short introduction to the four infinitudes (apamāṇa): love (maitrī/maitrā), compassion (karuṇā), joy (muditā) and equanimity (upekśā). It says that all beings by their inherent nature should be known as non-being, and these four infinitudes should be practiced accordingly.22 Based on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra, the sūtra gives similes for non-existence, like things conjured by a magician, the moon reflected in water, an arhat with kleśa, birds’ footprints in space, the horns of a hare, etc. In the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra Mañjuśrī poses the questions of how living beings should be seen and how the four infinitudes should be practiced, and Vimalakīrti answers these questions.23


The scripture has a quite unique description of the three defilements (kleśa), attachment (rāga), aversion (dvesa) and delusion (moha) as the three kings of Rāksasas, the three doctrinal monsters. Emmerick briefly summarises the text as follows:

The first king is Moha, fierce and dark, with ten heads and twenty eyes. His ten mouths devour beings. He has neck, belly, eight arms and eight hands, and two feet. He has garments, equipment, and 20,000 followers. The second king is Rāga. He has head, ears, eyes, and feet, clothing and equipment, and likewise 20,000 followers. The third king is Dvesa. He has head eyes, mouth hands, feet, belly, equipment, and clothing. Harsh words com_e out of his mouth continually just as a flame of fire comes out. He has 20,000 followers. One of the three remains awake while the others sleep. All three are full of poison.24


If we read the text, we see that the physical appearance of the three monsters symbolises various erroneous views or bad deeds according to Buddhist doctrines. The belief in annihilation and permanence, for example, are the two feet of the King Folly.


‘Folly’ by name is first, chief of all, a great king. He is very fierce [and] dark as when one goes at night to count [the leaves in the forest]. With the ten falsehoods his heads are large, very terrifying. Monstrous are his twenty eyes equipped with the [twenty] false beliefs in personality. He has next ten mouths, all with the ten sins. He devours many masses of beings. In his neck they go among the gatis. In the snake-dwelling which is his belly are his sixteen attendant groups

in order, where they experience many harsh woes. Evil-doing are also his eight arms [and] hands, endowed with the eight akśaṇas. [[[Belief]] in] annihilation and permanence [are his two] feet, by which he goes everywhere here. Evil teaching is so much as his garments. His equipment is all due to the [four deceptions]. His numerous great attendant group is twenty thousand, all similar, following.25


This text must be classified as a visualisation scripture as it gives a very imaginative description of the personification of the three defilements.26 Emmerick even suspects that a painting of these three monsters must exist.

These kings are vividly described as doctrinal monsters. They and their settings are in fact so vividly and precisely described that it is difficult to believe that the description was not inspired by or did not inspire a painting. Yet despite an extensive search no such painting has come to my knowledge. Nevertheless, somewhere among the treasures of Central Asia there is likely to be a painting depicting a group of three monster kings with their numerous attendants.27


Another scripture, the Samantamukhaparivarta that is cited in the original Khotanese composition, Book of Zambasta, can be regarded as a meditation text.28 Two Chinese versions of this sūtra have survived: the Foshuo pumen pin jing 佛説普門品經 (T no. 315), translated by Dharmaraksa in 287 CE, and the Wenshushili pumen hui 文殊師利普 _

門會(T no 310.10), rendered by Bodhiruci (d. 527 CE) and contained in the Da baoji jing


大寶積經 (Skt. Mahāratnakūta) collection. At the request of Mañjuśrī, Buddha shows _


the non-existence of all mind-fabricated phenomena through meditation practice based on visualisation. With one exception all the Sanskrit manuscripts were found near Khotan, thus we might suspect that this collection was actually compiled in Khotan or at least played an important role in Khotanese Buddhism.29

Another chapter of the Mahāratnakūta, the prediction of Mañjuśrī’s attainment of _ Buddhahood (Wenshushili shouji hui 文殊師利授記會, T no. 315.15) was translated by _ the Khotanese monk, Śiksānanda, who also translated the Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra in 80 fascicles. This scripture was also translated as an independent sūtra, first by Dharmaraksa _ under the title of Wenshushili fotu yanjing jing 文殊師利佛土嚴淨經 (T no. 318) and later by Amoghavajra as Dasheng Wenshushili pusa fosha gongde zhuangyan jing 大聖文 殊師利菩薩佛剎功德莊嚴經 (T no. 319).


In this sūtra the Buddha is asked by the Bodhisattva Lion of Thundering Voice about the time when Mañjuśrī will attain supreme enlightenment. However, at first Buddha does not answer but tells the bodhisattva to ask Mañjuśrī himself, who is also in the huge crowd around the Buddha. Mañjuśrī’s answer is quite surprising as he says he does not even progress toward enlightenment, so how could he attain it? He gives the following reason:

Because sentient beings are inapprehensible. If there were sentient beings, I would progress toward enlightenment for their benefit. Since neither a sentient being, nor a life, nor a personal identity exists, I do not progress toward enlightenment, nor do I regress from

it. 眾生不可得故 若眾生是有可為利益趣向菩提 而眾生壽命及福伽羅皆無所有 是故

我今不趣菩提


亦不退轉 30


Mañjuśrī continues his dialogue in this manner, which closely resembles the teaching of the non-existence of living being as we saw above in the Mañjuśrīnairātmyāvatāra-sūtra and Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra. The Bodhisattva Lion of Thundering Voice is certainly perplexed by Mañjuśrī’s answer, and finally asks him how long ago he engendered bodhicitta. However, Mañjuśrī again gives a very sharp answer:


Stop! Good man, do not entertain any delusive thought! In regard to the Dharma, which does not arise, if a person says, ‘I engender bodhicitta. I perform the deeds of enlightenment,’ he holds a very wrong view. Good man, I do not see any mind which is engendered to seek enlightenment. Because I see neither mind nor enlightenment, I engender nothing. 止善男 ° 莫生妄念° 若有於無生法中° 說如是言° 我發菩提心 我行菩提行 為大邪見 善男


我都不見有心發向菩提° 以不見心及菩提故° 是故無發 31


The Bodhisattva Lion of Thundering Voice seems to be dissatisfied with Mañjuśrī’s answer, and once again asks the Buddha when Mañjuśrī engendered bodhicitta. Buddha finally tells him that a long time ago Mañjuśrī was a universal monarch named Universal Enfolding, who engendered the bodhicitta. In the next section Mañjuśrī goes on to explain emptiness and equality, which mean that all phenomena come from nowhere and go nowhere. The Bodhisattva Lion of Thundering Voice asks the name of

Mañjuśrī’s Buddha-land, but Mañjuśrī says enlightenment is unattainable, therefore he does not seek it, and cannot have Buddha-land. However, Buddha says that Mañjuśrī’s name will be Universal Sight (Pujian普見) when he becomes Buddha, and his Buddha-land situated in the southern direction will be named Wish-Fulfilling Accumulation of Perfect Purity (suiyuan jiji qingjing yuan- man 隨願積集清淨圓滿). The difference between the merit and magnificence of Mañjuśrī’s and Amitābha’s Buddha lands is explained:


Suppose a person splits a hair into one hundred parts and, with one part, takes a droplet of water from a vast ocean. If he compares the droplet of water to the magnificence of Amitābha’s Buddha-land, and the remaining water of the vast ocean to the magnificence of Universal Sight Tathāgata’s land, the contrast will still not suffice. Why? Because the magnificence of Universal Sight Tathāgata’s land is inconceivable. 譬如有人析一毛為百分° 以一分毛於大海中取一滴水° 此一滴水喻阿彌陀佛剎莊嚴° 彼大海水喻普見如來佛剎


莊嚴 復過於此

何以故° 普見如來佛剎莊嚴不思議故 32


This sūtra must have influenced the Mañjuśrī cult on Wutaishan as this last passage is cited in the Guang Qingliang zhuan.33

The following passage about the meaning of the name of Universal Sight Tathāgata is also cited in the Guang Qingliang zhuan.34

When Mañjuśrī becomes a Buddha, he will be named Universal Sight. Why? Because that Tathāgata will make himself visible to all sentient beings in innumerable hundreds of thousands of billions of myriads of Buddha-lands in the ten directions. The sentient beings who see that Buddha will certainly attain supreme enlightenment. Although the [the future] Universal Sight Tathāgata has not yet become a Buddha, all those who hear his name mentioned, either when I still live in the world or after or after I enter parinirvāṇa, will also attain supreme enlightenment. 此文殊師利成佛之時名為普見° 以何義故而名普見°

以彼如來於十方無量百千億那由他諸佛剎中普皆令見

若諸眾生見彼佛者° 必定當得

阿耨多羅三藐三菩提

普見如來雖未成佛


若我現在及滅度後有聞其名

亦皆必定當

得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提°


As we have seen, even if from the ninth century a new iconography of Mañjuśrī with the Khotanese king appeared in Dunhuang, early archaeological sources do not support the existence of the Mañjuśrī cult in Khotan in the early period. However, Mañjuśrī is mentioned several times in the Prophecy of Khotan in relation to the protection of Khotan, the writing of Khotan and the activity of Khotanese kings. The Mañjuśrīnairātmyāvatāra-sūtra and the Mahāratnakūta are both important meditation texts that must have been closely associated with Khotan. The chapter of the Mahāratnakūta on the prediction of Mañjuśrī’s attainment of Buddhahood, which was translated by the Khotanese monk Śikśānanda, had a direct influence on the Mañjuśrī cult on Wutaishan, as attested by the Guang Qingliang zhuan.


Notes

⦁ Nattier, “Church Language.”
⦁ Nattier, A Few Good Men.
⦁ Ning, Art, Religion, and Politics in Medieval China, 77–81.
⦁ Guang Qingliang zhuan 廣清涼傳, T no. 2099, 51: 2.1109 b26–c12.
Williams, “The Iconography of Khotanese Painting.”
⦁ Elikhina, “Buddhist monuments from Khotan in the collection of the Hermitage.”
Williams, “The Iconography of Khotanese Painting,” 120.
⦁ Gaoseng Faxian zhuan 高僧法顯傳. T no. 51, 2085: 857, b20–25; Legge, Fâ-Hien, 19. 9. T no. 51, 2085: 857, b25–c2;trans. Legge, Fâ-Hien, 20.
⦁ Zürcher, Buddhist Conquest, 104–106.
⦁ Zürcher, Buddhist Conquest, 156–157.
⦁ Zürcher, Buddhist Conquest, 232–239.
13. Mayer, “Faxian,” 282–283.

⦁ For an English translation, see Emmerick, Tibetan Texts Concerning Khotan, 1–77.
⦁ Emmerick, Tibetan Texts Concerning Khotan, 3–13.


⦁ Emmerick, Tibetan Texts Concerning Khotan, 21.
⦁ Emmerick, Tibetan Texts Concerning Khotan, 20.
⦁ Walter, “Kingship and Buddhism in Central Asia,” 124.
⦁ Walter, “Kingship and Buddhism in Central Asia,” 125.
Hill, “Notes on dating of Khotanese history.”
⦁ Maggi, “Khotanese literature,” 357.
⦁ Degener, “The Four Infinitudes (apramāṇas) in Khotanese.”
⦁ Luk, Ordinary Enlightenment, 70–72.
⦁ Emmerick, “Three Monsters in Khotan,” 68.
⦁ Emmerick, “Three Monsters in Khotan,” 69.
⦁ Martini, “Mahāmaitrī in a Mahāyāna Sūtra in Khotanese,” 127.
⦁ Emmerick, “Three Monsters in Khotan,” 66.
Dhammadinnā, “‘MahāratnakūtaScriptures in Khotan.”
⦁ Martini, “A Large Question in a_ Small Place,” 138.
⦁ T no. 11, 310: 344, b24–26; Chang (trans.), A Treasury of Mahāyāna Sūtras, 170.
⦁ T no. 11, 310: 345, a20–23; Chang (trans.), A Treasury of Mahāyāna Sūtras, 172.
⦁ T no. 11, no. 310: 348, b14–18; Chang (trans.), A Treasury of Mahāyāna Sūtras, 182–183. 33. T no. 51, 2099: 1101, c22–26.

34. T no. 51, 2099: 1101, c10–14.
35. T no. 11, 310: 347, b27–c3; Chang (trans.), A Treasury of Mahāyāna Sūtras, 180.


References Abbreviation

T Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō 大正新脩一切經(See Secondary Sources, Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次 郎 et al. 1923-1934)


Primary sources

Da bao ji jing 大寶積經 [Skt. Mahāratnakūta-sūtra]. 120 juan. Trans. Bodhiruci 菩提流志 (562-
_
727) between 706-713. T no. 310, vol. 11.
Dasheng Wenshushili pusa fosha gongde zhuangyan jing 大聖文殊師利菩薩佛剎功德莊嚴經 [The Sutra on the Adornments of the Merit of the Buddha Land of the Great Sage Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva]. 3 juan. Trans. Amoghavajra (Bukong Jingang 不空金剛; 705-774) in 773. T no. 319, vol. 11.
_
Fo shuo pumen pin jing 佛説普門品經 [[[Sutra]] on the Universal Gate Chapter Spoken by the Buddha]. 1 juan. Trans. Dharmaraksa (Zhu Fahu 竺法護[c. 233-310]) in 287. T no. 315, vol. 11.
Gaoseng Faxian zhuan 高僧法顯傳 [[[Wikipedia:Biography|Biography]] of the Eminent Monk Faxian]. 1 juan. By Faxian
法顯 (414-416). T no. 2085, vol. 51.

Guang Qingliang zhuan 廣清涼傳[Expanded Record of Mount Clear and Cold]. 3 juan. Compiled by Yanyi 延一 (1057-63). T no. 2099, vol. 51.
Li yul lung bstan pa. In Tibetan Texts Concerning Khotan, translated by Ronald Emmerick, 1–77.
London: Oxford University Press, 1967.

Wenshu shili fotu yanjing jing 文殊師利佛土嚴淨經[The Sutra on Adornments and Purity of the Buddha-Land of Mañjuśrī]. 2 juan. Trans. Dharmaraksa (Zhu Fahu 竺法護[c. 233-310]). T no.
_
318, vol. 11.


Wenshushili shouji hui 文殊師利授記會[Meeting on Foretelling the Buddhahood of Mañjuśrī]. 3 juan. Tarns. Śiksānanda (Shichanantuo 實叉難陀 [652-710]), included in T no. 310.15, vol. 11.
_


Secondary sources


Chang, Garma C. C., trans. A Treasury of Mahāyāna Sūtras: Selections from the Mahāratnakūta Sūtra. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1983. _
Dhammadinnā. ‘“MahāratnakūtaScriptures in Khotan: A Quotation from the Samantamukhaparivarta in the_ Book of Zambasta’. Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology (ARIRIAB) at Soka University for the Academic Year 2013 Vol. XVII (2014): 337–348.
Degener, Almuth. ‘The Four Infinitudes (apramāṇas) in Khotanese’. Studia Iranica 15 (1986): 259–264.
Elikhina, Yu. I. ‘Buddhist Monuments from Khotan in the Collection of the Hermitage’. In Russian Expeditions to Central Asia at the turn of the 20th Century: Collected Articles, edited by

I. F. Popova, 75–81. St. Petersburg: Slavia Publishers, 2008.

Emmerick, Ronald E. ‘Three Monsters in Khotan’. Studia Iranica 6 (1977):65–74.
Emmerick, Ronald E.. ‘From the Manjuśrīnairātmyāvatārasūtra’. In Bauddhavidyāsudhākarah: Studies in Honour of Heinz Bechert on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by P. Kieffer_- Pülz et al., 81–90. Swisstal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1997.
Hill, John E. ‘Notes on Dating of Khotanese history’. Indo-Iranian Journal 31 (1988): 179–190. Legge, James, trans., ed. A record of Buddhistic kingdoms being an account by the Chinese monk Fâ-Hien of his travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399-414) in search of the Buddhist books of discipline. Translated and annotated with a Corean recension of the Chinese text by James Legge. Oxford: Claredon Press, 1886.

Luk, Charles. Ordinary Enlightenment. A Translation of the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra. Shambhala: Boston and London, 2002.
Maggi, Mauro. ‘Khotanese Literature’. In The Literature of Pre-Islamic Iran (Companion Volume 1 to A History of Persian Literature), edited by Emmerick et al., 330–417. London: Tauris, 2009. Mayer, A. ‘Faxian’. In Robert E. Buswell, Jr. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Buddhism, vol. 1., 282–283.
New York: Thompson-Gale, 2004.

Martini, Giuliana. ‘Mahāmaitrī in a Mahāyāna Sūtra in Khotanese―Continuity and Innovation in Buddhist Meditation’. Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 24 (2011): 121–194.
Martini, Giuliana.. ‘A Large Question in a Small Place: The Transmission of the Ratnakūta (Kāsyapaparivarta) in Khotan’. Annual Report of the International Research Institute fo_ r Advanced Buddhology (ARIRIAB) at Soka University for the Academic Year 2013 Vol. XIV (2011), 135–184.

Nattier, J. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to The Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. 2003.
Nattier, J.. ‘Church Language and Vernacular Language in Central Asian Buddhism’. Numen 37 (1990): 195–219.
Ning Qiang. Art, Religion, and Politics in Medieval China: The Duhuang Cave of the Zhai Family.
Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2004.

Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭, et al., eds. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新修大藏經 [[[Buddhist Canon]] Compiled under the Taishō Era (1912-26)]. 100 vols. Tokyo: Taishō issaikyō kankōkai, 1924–1932.

Walter, Mariko Namba. ‘Kingship and Buddhism in Central Asia’. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1997.
Williams, Joanna. ‘The Iconography of Khotanese Painting’. East and West 23, no. 1–2 (1973): 109–154.

Zürcher, E. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Leiden: Brill, 2007.


Source