Part III:
Chinese Reliquary Inscriptions and the San-chieh Movement[1]
Recent studies of Indian Buddhist inscriptions have shown how important these sources are for accurately understanding developments in Buddhist history, particularly indicating the need to reevaluate our understanding of the relation between literary, often polemicically motivated, history and the actual institutions that create those histories. Simply put, the doctrinal distinctions presented in literary sources often are not substantiated in the archaeological remains of the institutions.2
Chinese epigraphical remains are a similarly concrete rendering of Chinese Buddhist history whose importance has largely been ignored. These materials contain a vast trove of data concerning specific individuals (donors, artists, and officials as well as Buddhist clergy), temples, reliquaries, monastaries, monuments, and the like. They also served as primary sources for much of the hagiography collected in the various Biographies of Eminent Monks, thus passing on their judgements to contemporary scholarship as well.3 These two facets, i.e., "solid" evidence of names, dates, and institutional detail together with hagiographic intent, demand that these materials be handled judiciously, and the sheer number of insciptions and inscription catalogues makes their investigation all the more laborious; nonetheless, as with their Indian counterparts, the historical gleanings to be had can sometimes force a radical shift of established perspective. Such, I think, is the case with the epigraphical remains of the San-chieh-chiao.
The San-chieh-chiao has long been viewed as a movement of the masses, tied through doctrine and practice to the poor and impovershed of the land. As such, its doctrinal context is found primarily in the the teaching of the degeneracy of mo-fa, the Final Period of the Dharma (a "doctrinal leveler" reducing all sentient beings to the lowest common denominator of icchantika), and institutionally to the Inexhaustible Storehouse of the Hua-tu ssu, an organ of social welfare noted for its emphasis on unquestioned lending to the poor and sinfull as though they were actually Buddhas. Thus the movement is usually linked to the Pure Land movement as "of the masses" rather than the elite, and practice-oriented rather than theoretically sophisticated. Similarly it is suggested that such a stance is implicitly critical of state and ecclesiastic orthodoxy, hence the frequent suprressions of the movement as heretical.
It seems to me that such an inference relies on a number of assumptions about doctrine, practice, and institution that are not supported by historical records. Elsewhere I have argued that doctrinally the San-chieh-chiao stands in the mainstream of Sui-T'ang orthodoxy4 and is at least as closely related to the teachings of the Hua-yen as to the Pure Land. Here, I would like to show that a significant source of historical information concerning the sect, the chin shih lu (“records in bronze and stone”), also indicates that they were well-received at the highest levels of Sui-T'ang court life. Given the literary nature of epigraphical compositions, it is of course not the case that this proves they were solely a movement of the elite. Rather, is simply another caution against the blithe use of contemporary distinctions where there might have been no such distinction in historical fact. The rest of this paper is devoted to bringing to light the epigraphical data which, to date, supports this conclusion; to borrow a phrase from Gregory Schopen, those few readers who are not particularly interested in the minutiae of Chinese epigraphy might prefer to skip to the conclusion.5
A. The Founder's Memorials of 594
The various memorial inscriptions and epigraphs done in the memory of Hsin-hsing and his followers form one of the more interesting and important sources of information for the study of the San-chieh-chiao. Both Kanda Kiichirō, who did the original work on the San-chieh-chiao epigraphy, as well as Yabuki Keiki, whose monumental study of the San-chieh-chiao over sixty years ago first explored the movement, have suggested that the records extant today can be traced back as far as 594, the year of Hsin-hsing's death, thus putting them among the oldest records regarding the San-chieh-chiao.6 From among the various catalogs and collections of inscriptions, we may identify at least eight separate memorials dedicated to Hsin-hsing himself, and the circumstances of each of these memorials give important information about the San-chieh-chiao, particularly concerning its popularity, influence, and sources of support. In addition, the texts of two of the memorials, the Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei and the Hsin-hsing ch'an shih hsing chiao pei, have been preserved.7 Ascertaining the correct dates and circumstances of these memorials is particularly important because of the historical value usually ascribed to the former memorial, believed to have been composed in the year of Hsin-hsing's death.8
The earliest mention of a memorial for Hsin-hsing is found in his biography in the Hsü kao seng chuan, compiled approximately eighty years after Hsin-hsing's death. Therein it states (I) that three days after Hsin-hsing's death, on the fourth day of the first month of the K'ai-huang era (594), his remains were sent to Chung-nan shan, a reliquary was built, and a memorial composed by P'ei Hsüan-cheng.9
It is hard to say at this point exactly what became of this memorial stele, but there are many interesting points to be noted about the author, P'ei Hsüan-cheng. An important follower of Hsin-hsing who resided together with him at the Chen-chi ssu, P'ei evidentaly was a man of some learning, for in Hsin-hsing’s biography he is referred to several times as a retired official or gentleman, and is said to have “written all of Hsin-hsing's compositions.” Tao-hsüan also states that in addition to the memorial for Hsin-hsing, P'ei composed his own commemorative stele while still alive, and there is yet one more record of a memorial which he composed for Ching-ming (in 620), an important follower of Hsin-hsing.10 This led Tsukamoto Zenryū to consider that P'ei was of the great P'ei family of Ho-tung, which produced many literati and high officials during the T'ang dynasty (e.g., P'ei Chu, P'ei Chu-tao, etc.). Other members of the P'ei clan, such as the wife of P'ei Hsing-chien, one of the highest officials of the early T'ang, were also buried at the site of Hsin-hsing's memorial11 and there is a record to the effect that a P'ei-kung donated the land for the Pai-t'a ssu, the place where the steles were erectred for Hsin-hsing, Seng-yung, P'ei Hsüan-cheng, and other San-chieh-chiao followers.12 If it is true that P'ei Hsuan-cheng came from such a powerful family, it would help to explain both the early power of the San-chieh-chiao and their revival in the early T'ang dynasty. Unfortunately, there is no further mention of this memorial in any of the catalogues.
The next mention of a 594 stele for Hsin-hsing dates from the Sung dynasty, in the famous Chin shih lu of Chao ming-ch'eng:
(II) “No.496. Sui Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei, first month of the fourteenth year of K'ai-huang.”13
A similar memorial with the date of 594 is also mentioned in several catalogues of the late 19th and early 20th centuries:
(III) Chin shih ts'ui pien pu mu: “Seng Hsin-hsing t'a ming. Fourteenth year of K'ai-huang, in Ch'ang-an.”14
(IV) Chun ku lu.15
(V) Pu huan yu fang pei lu: “Seng Hsin-hsing t'a ming, regular script, Fourteenth year of K'ai-huang. Shan-hsi Ch'ang-an.”16
(VI) Kuan chung chin shih wen tzu tzun i k'ao: “Hsin-hsing ch'an shih t'a
ming. Regular script, fourteenth year of K'ai-huang. Missing. Text not seen…the memorial is said to be in Shan-hsi Hsi-an [Ch'ang-an], but on investigation has long been lost.”17
(VII) Ku shih hui mu: “Seng Hsin-hsing ch'an shih t'a ming. Regular
script. Fourteenth year of K'ai-huang. Shan-hsi Ch'ang-an.”18
All of these records give the same year (K'ai-huang 14), and they give the location as Hsi-an, Shan-hsi, or Ch'ang-an, which would be accurate if they are referring to the memorial erected at Chung Nan-shan, Ch'ang-an prefecture. Again, all give the title as the “Hsin hsing t'a ming,” or “stūpa memorial.” Thus, Kanda19and Yabuki20 both felt that all refer to the same memorial, that composed by Pei Hsuan-cheng. Both further assert that they all are records of one of the extant memorials, the Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei. There is, however, another group of records concerning a stūpa-memorial for Hsin-hsing which, as Tsukamoto has pointed out, more clearly corresponds to the extant Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei memorial.21 This record is found in four places:
(VIII) Ho shou hsin pei mu: “Fa-lung ssu (east of Shih-lin ts'un, in NW [T'ang-yin] province, 20 li). Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an chih t'a ming pei. Regular script, the first month of K'ai-yüan 14. A note in regular script on the left side of the memorial says that in Chen-yuan 20 (804) the stūpa was re-worked.”22
(IX) Ho shou chin shih mu, in the section on T'ang-yin province: “Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei. Regular script, first month of K'ai-huang 14. On the left side of the stone in regular script is a note that the stūpa was re-worked in the 20th year of Chen-yuan of the T'ang (804)…West [T'ang-yin] province, 20 li to the west of Shih-lin ts'un, Ching-lung ssu.”23
(X) Chui hsueh t'ang ho shou pei k'e pa wei: “Sui Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei. The memorial was erected in the first month of the fourteenth year of K'ai-huang.”24
(XII) Hsun yuan chin shih wen tzu pa wei: “Sui Hsin hsing ch'an shih pei pa. Title in seal characters. Regular script, 29 lines, 47 characters per line. Although there is no date for when the stone was erected, the text states that the Master died in the first month of K'ai-huang 14 at the Chen-chi ssu…which establishes the date the memorial was erected. The stone is in the Fa-lung ssu, east of Shih-lin ts'un, 20 li to the west, in NW T'ang-yin province.”25
We can see that three of these records agree on the title and all give the year as K'ai-huang 14. (VIII), (IX), and (XI) give the location as the Fa-lung ssu (emend Ching to Fa in IX) near Shih-lin ts'un in the province of T'ang-yin (near modern An-yang in northern Hunan province), an area close to Hsin-hsing's birth place, not an unlikely spot for a memorial. Thus, there are at least two memorials for Hsin-hsing that have been recorded as erected in the first month of K'ai-huang 14, one at Chung Nan-shan, which possibly corresponds to the memorial composed by P'ei Hsuan-cheng, and one in T'ang-yin. This contention is supported by the fact that Ku Pien-kuang recorded both the Seng Hsin hsing t'a ming in Ch'ang-an (VII) and the Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei in T'ang-yin (VIII). If we admit of only one memorial, then we have to say either that Ku made a mistake in one of his entries (as Kanda feels, p. 357), or that possibly that his record of a stele in Ch'ang-an was simply “hearsay,” that is, based on records in previous catalogues rather than actual examination. There remains, however, confusion about which of these records refers to the extant stone, or the rubbing of this stone. Let us briefly review the opinions advanced by the four eminent scholars who have dealt with the issue.
Kanda wrote in 1922 that there was only one stele, erected in 594 and composed by P'ei Hsüan-cheng, that this is the stele referred to by records (I) through (VIII), and that it is the stone from which the Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei rubbing was made.26 Yabuki, in 1927, agreed with Kanda but felt that record (VIII) refered to a different stele than (I) through (VII).27 in their 1929 on-site study of Chinese Buddhist monuments, Tokiwa Daijō and Sekino Tadashi put this memorial under the Pai-t'a ssu, Chung-nan shan, Ch'ang-an prefecture, the site of Hsin-hsing's reliquary and those of many of his followers. Although this is reminiscent of the memorial composed by P'ei Hsüan-cheng, they concluded based on internal evidence (see below) that this memorial was composed after the persecution of the San-chieh-chiao but before Chung-nan shan became a popular burial site for Hsin-hsing's followers. This would put it sometime after 600, the date of the first suppression, and before the name of the site was changed to Pai-t'a ssu in 767.28 Tsukamoto added much to the discussion in a 1937 article which drew attention to records (IX), (X), and (XI); he feels that the extant rubbing is really from the stone in T'ang-yin province but ventures nothing about the date of the stele.29
In trying to sort out all of these conflicting records and theories, it quickly becomes evident that the only real problem is to determine the location of the original stone from which the Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei rubbing was made and when that memorial was composed. That is, unless Ku and the others who recorded a stele in Ch'ang-an were simply basing themselves on tradition and there actually was no memorial in Ch'ang-an or the stone was later carried to T'ang-yin, we must conclude that the stele recorded in (II) through (VII) and that referred to in (VIII) through (XI) are two different memorials, one at Chung Nan-shan, Ch'ang-an province (which probably corresponds to that recorded in the Hsü kao seng chuan), and another, the Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei, in T'ang-yin. Also, as the record in the Chin shih lu gives no location for the memorial (and simply calls it “pei”“ rather than “t'a ming“ or “ming t'a pei”“) we have no way of knowing which this record refers to.
It is obvious, however, that the memorial in T'ang-yin—recorded in (VIII), (IX), (X), and (XI)—correspondes to the rubbing extant today. Not only do the titles of (VIII), (IX), and (X) match the title of the rubbing, the number of lines (29) and characters per line (47) of the rubbing are exactly as described by Fan Shou-ming in his discussion of the T'ang-yin memorial. Further, the details of the text described by Ch'en (X) and Fan (XI) match the extant inscription. Finally, although it is well-known that Tao-hsüan made good use of earlier sources in compiling his Hsü kao seng chuan, there is no evidence in Hsin-hsing's biography of any literary dependence on the Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei. This is particularly significant in view of the fact that Tao-hsüan resided on Chung-nan shan, the site of Hsin-hsing's reliquary, and would almost certainly have seen the P'ei Hsuan-cheng memorial.30 Indeed, true to form, Tao-hsüan based his biography of Seng-yung, a close follower of Hsin-hsing, very closely on Seng-yung's memorial stele, erected next to Hsin-hsing's stele on Chung-nan shan (see below). Thus it seems clear that the memorial described in (VIII), (IX), (X), and (XI) corresponds to the extant rubbing; it was in T'ang-yin, at least at the time it was recorded in the these catalogues; and it is most likely not the memorial composed by P'ei Hsüan-cheng.31 The fact that in their on-site study of Chinese temples, steles, and other Buddhist artifacts, Tokiwa Daijō and Sekino Tadashi have recorded the stele under the Pai-t'a ssu of Chung-nan shan in Ch'ang-an prefecture must be dismissed as a mistake, generated by following the opinions of Yabuki and Kanda too closely.32
As for the date of the T'ang-yin stone, although at least one record states that it was erected in K'ai-huang 14, this must have been extrapolated from the text of the memorial, following the same reasoning as Fan did in (XI)—since the date of the stone is not actually given. The following evidence suggests that the memorial was copied from an earlier stone, probably in Chen-yüan 20 (804):
1) Records (VIII) and (IX) state that the stūpa was re-worked in Chen-yüan 20, a period of San-chieh-chiao revival.33
2) As Tokiwa noted, the last few lines of the memorial definitely indicate that it was composed some time after the death of Hsin-hsing, after the San-chieh-chiao had undergone persecution: “The stūpa lay in the mud, like a grave overgrown and entangled with matted hair. Fearing that as the world changes and the years pass, when [Hsin-hsing's] body and name are gone, the old will spread lies and the young will not hear [of him], we have briefly recorded his virtues on this stele so that the future will know that his relics are here.”34 There are also, however, several points which indicate an early date of composition:
3) According to the memorial, Hsin-hsing is from Wei-chou rather than Wei-chün, as given in the Hsü kao seng chuan biography. One of the first administrative reforms carried out by the first Sui Emperor (in 583) was to change the administrative unit from chün to chou, a policy which was extended to Southern China in 589. Yang-ti, however, changed the unit back to chün in 607.35 Although not an absolute determiner, the fact that the memorial uses chou rather than chün indicates either that it was composed between 594 and 607, during the period in which chou was the official usage; if not that, then the author of the memorial looked back to the geographic names as used at the time of Hsin-hsing's death to describe his birth. It would also mean that the place names that they used were not those current when the stele was composed. On the other hand, Tao-hsüan used the then-current name of Wei-chün in his Hsü kao seng chuan.
4) When we compare the passages which describe Hsin-hsing's death in the memorial and the Hsü kao seng chuan, although the wording is similar, the former says he died at the Chen-chi ssu and the latter gives the Hua-tu ssu. Now, the Chen-chi ssu, established by the famous statesman Kao-chiung in 583, was the residence of Hsin-hsing from the time he arrived in the capital until his death in 594, and it later became the headquarters of the well-known Inexhaustible Storehouse of the San-chieh-chiao. At this later date, however, it was known as the Hua-tu ssu, the name having been changed in 619.36 Thus the memorial again uses terminology from the Sui where the Hsü kao seng chuan uses terminology current during the T'ang, suggesting the earlier composition of the memorial.
5) Although the memorial contains the above lines which suggest a later composition, it also contains much which, while hagiographic, betrays no feeling of persecution, e.g., “[After Hsin-hsing's death] the famous monks of India grieved from afar, while nearby the nobles in the palace lamented,” etc.37 The details and general tone of the memorial all reinforce the feeling that it was composed at a time not too distant from Hsin-hsing's death (compare the memorial of 706, the Hsin-hsing ch'an shih hsing chiao pei—discussed below—which is largely ceremonial and devoid of biographic detail).
6) Finally, the memorial lists the Tui ken chi hsing jeh fa in more than thirty chuan and the San chieh fo fa in four chuan as Hsin-hsing's compositions, a literary tradition predating the composition of the Ta chou lu in 695.
To sum up, the Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei rubbing is that of a stele in T'ang-yin province, probably composed in the 20th year of Chen-yüan, based on an earlier memorial or biography. Although Tokiwa recorded the memorial as though it is at the Pai-t'a ssu, this must be rejected. Finally, if the records of a stele in Ch'ang-an were based on actual examination rather than mere hearsay or previous records, than we may hope that this memorial will be made public and another source of information for the study of the San-chieh-chiao will surface.
There is one more memorial recorded as having been composed in K'ai-huang 14:
(XII) Pao k'e ts'ung pien: “Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ch'uan fa pei, composed by the monk Fa-ch'en, K'ai-huang 14.”38
Another record of the same stele gives Fa-lin, not Fa-ch'en, as the author:
(XIII) “During the past Chen-kuan era Yueh Wang-chen erected the Hsing chiao shuo fa pei and others. Shih Fa-lin also composed the Ch'uan fa pei.”39
To the best of my knowledge, there is no mention in any of the various biographies of eminent monks of a Fa-ch'en. Tsukamoto noted the record of Fa-ch'en but, not disturbed by the discrepancy between the names, confidently stated that the Fa-lin of the Chen-yüan lu record refers to the well-known Fa-lin who wrote the Pien cheng lun and several other works. He gives as one reason the fact that Fa-lin (572-640) resided at the Lung-t'ien ssu on Chung-nan shan.40 However, according to his biography in the Hsü kao seng chuan,41 it was only in 627 that Fa-lin established his temple on Chung-nan shan, and in 594 he was sequestered on Ch'ing-ch'i shan, thus making it difficult to assume that he is the author of XII and XIII.42 There is, however, a much more likely candidate for the author of this memorial, namely, Fa-lin of the Chih-hsiang ssu, a temple very close to the site of Hsin-hsing's memorial stele.
According to the Hsü kao seng chuan, Ch'ing-yüan first built the Chih-hsiang ssu on Chung-nan shan.43 Now, Ch'ing-yuan is well known as the teacher of Chih-cheng (559-639), who was in turn the teacher of Chih-yen (602-668), the second Hua-yen patriarch and Fa-tsang's teacher. Although Ch'ing-yuan's biography only mentions Fa-lin briefly, it states that after Ch'ing-yuan died, Fa-lin erected a stūpa and an inscription. If we follow record XIII and emend Fa-ch'en found in record XII to Fa-lin, which seems not unreasonable, it would refer to Fa-lin of the Chih-hsiang ssu. This theory gains even more strength in light of the fact that Chih-yen was influenced by the teachings of the San-chieh-chiao and that the Chih-hsiang ssu is so close to the Pai-ta ssu (site of Hsin-hsing's stūpa and memorial) as to make both Yabuki and Tsukamoto wonder if they are not the same place.44 And, finally, Tokiwa Daijō has speculated on the possiblity that Hsin-hsing was influenced by Ling-yu, which would further strengthen the argument that the same Fa-lin wrote the memorial for Hsin-hsing and for Ch'ing-yüan.45 The lineage would then look like this:
Ling-yu (516-605)
↓ ↘
Hsin-hsing (540-594) Ch'ing-yuan (544-611)
↓ ↙ ↓
Fa-lin Chih-cheng (559-639)
↓ ↙
Chih-yen (602-668)
↓
Fa-tsang
Thus, if we assume that the Ch'ang-an memorial corresponds to that of P'ei Hsuan-cheng, we have three different memorials recorded as having been composed in 594, the year of Hsin-hsing's death. Of these, only the last, (XII), gives the author. Further, if it is true that the original of the extant Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei was in T'ang-yin rather than Ch'ang-an, then we still do not have the memorial composed by Hsin-hsing's disciple and mentioned in his biography.
B. T'ang Memorials for Hsin-hsing
The next group of records concerns the memorials erected by Li Chen, son of the Emperor Tai-tsung. Returning again to the Sung dynasty Chin shih lu, we find the following:
(XII) “No. 866. T'ang Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei, initial. Composed by Chen, Prince of Yueh. Regular script by Hsüeh-chi.”
“No. 867. T'ang Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei, final. [Written] in the 8th month of the 2nd year of Shen-lung (706). Both the stone and the back are in the district of Ch'ang-an, eight li north-west.”46
Li Chen was a rather insignificant son of T'ai-tsung, far overshadowed in history by his brother Kao-tsung. In 643 he was appointed governor of Hsiang-chou, a post he held until 653. After a period as military governor of An-chou, he again served as governor of Hsiang-chou from 670 to 674.47 One can easily surmise that it was here, in Hsin-hsing's homeland, that Li Chen encountered the teachings of the San-chieh-chiao. At any rate, apparently dissatisfied with the doings of Empress Wu, he raised the banner of revolt in 688 and died the same year. The man responsible for the calligraphy, Hsüeh-chi (649-713), was quite well-known, and, because of his involvement in the forging of the Fo shuo shih so fan che yu ch'ieh fa ching, can be tentatively considered a follower or at least sympathizer of the San-chieh-chiao.48 Interestingly, Hsüeh-chi was also forced to commit suicide in 713, following the failure of a plot to poison Hsuan-tsung.49 This memorial is also recorded in the following Sung dynasty catalogue:
(XIII) Chi ku lu mu: “T’ang li Sui Hsin-Hsing ch’an shih hsing chiao pei. Composed by Chen, Prince of Yueh…written by Hsueh-chi…erected in the second year of Shen-lung, eighth month.”50
Although these records give the date as 706, this is somewhat problematic as Li-cheng died eighteen years before, in 688. Yabuki (pp. 26-27, 32) felt that although Yueh wrote the memorial, because of the persecution of the San-chieh-chiao at the hands of Empress Wu as well as Li's own uprising against her, the memorial could not actually be erected until some time later, that is, in 706. The K'ai yüan lu lists a similar title, the San chieh hsing chiao pei, adding that it mentions forty chuan (of San-chieh-chiao works) without enumerating the titles.51 Since the extant text mentions none of Hsin-hsing's works, this record might have been included on the missing back of the memorial. Although we can see the continuing influence of the San-chieh-chiao in the fact that a member of the royal family took such an interest in Hsin-hsing, it is the calligraphy by Hsüeh-chi that has ignited the interest of scholars. Fortunately, a rubbing of this memorial has been preserved and through reprints is readily available today.52
In addition to this memorial, there is another memorial composed by Li Chen which, although not known to be extant, has been recorded in many catalogues, beginning yet again with the Chin shih lu:53
(XIV) No. 841. Chou Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei, 1. Composed by Chen, Prince of Yueh. Written in the pa-fen style by Chung T'ing-kuei.
No. 842. Chou Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei, 2.
No. 843. Chou Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei, 3.
No. 844. Chou Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei, 4.
No. 845. Chou Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei, 5.
No. 846. Chou Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei, 6.
That the “Chou” of the title refers to the reign of Empress Wu is supported by records in two other catalogues, the (XV) Pao k'e ts'ung pien and the (XVI) Pao k'e lui pien, which, in addition to specifying that this memorial was erected during Empress Wu's reign, give the location as Ch'ang-an.54 Yabuki (p.27) has reasoned that if the “Chou” is taken to mean Wu's reign in general, then it is possible that this memorial was erected during Li's lifetime, as he didn't die until 688. Otherwise, as “Chou” wasn't actually adopted as the dynastic title until 690, the memorial would probably have been erected between 690 and 695, the year in which she suppressed the teachings of the San-chieh-chiao. There are, however, records of Empress Wu's continued support of the San-chieh-chiao even after this suppression, which mitigates this explanation.55 Yabuki's reasoning also runs afoul of his explanation regarding the other memorial composed by Li and erected in 706. That is, why would Wu allow a memorial composed by a rebel to be erected at all? Or, if she did, why allow one to be erected and not the other? A Yüan dynasty record of a memorial by Li and written in the pa-fen style by Chung T'ing-kuei, further muddies the issue by giving a different location (in ancient Hsiang-chou), leading Tsukamoto to the conclusion that there were at least two different memorials with this title.56
At any rate, we can see that Li was most likely a follower of the teachings of Hsin-hsing. These various records also tell us that the teachings of the San-chieh-chiao were popular in what is modern-day Honan as well as the capital area of Ch'ang-an, in which Hsin-hsing spent his later days.
Two more records of memorials for Hsin-hsing are noteworthy because they link Yüan-chao, author of the Chen yüan lu, with the San-chieh-chiao.57 First is a record in the Ta t'ang chen yuan hsu k'ai yuan shih chiao lu, listed among Yüan-chao's own writings:
(XVIII) “Ta T'ang tsai hsiu Sui ku ch'uan fa kao seng Hsin-hsing ch'an shih t'a pei, five chuan.”58
The mention of a T'ang “re-working” of a stūpa memorial reminds one of (VIII) and (IX) above, as well as the Chin shih lu record listed below.
The second mentions a three chuan memorial for Hsin-hsing, also listed among Yüan-chao's writings in his biography:
(XIX) “Sui ch'uan fa kao seng Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei. Three chuan.”59
If Yüan-chao was a follower of the San-chieh-chiao, it would help to clarify the literary history of the San-chieh-chiao as well as indicate, as so much else does, that the sect found support among the highest levels of Sui-T'ang orthodoxy.
One final record which bears noting is again from the Chin shih lu:
(XX) “No.1448. T'ang tsai hsiu Hsin-hsing ch'an shih t'a pei. Composed by Yü I, written by Chang Ch'u-chao in the hsing style. Intercalary third month, sixth year of Ta li (771).”60
As a “Temple of One-Hundred Stupas” was recorded as having been built in 767 (or 771) on the site of the Hsin-hsing t'a yüan, it would not be unlikely to have a re-working of a stūpa memorial at the same time.
C. Memorials for San-chieh-chiao Followers
1. Hua-tu ssu ku Seng-yung ch'an shih t'a ming
This commemorative stele for Seng-yung, one of Hsin-hsing's closest disciples, was erected in Chen-kuan 5 (631-2), to the right of Hsin-hsing's stūpa on Chung-nan shan. The memorial has received considerable scholarly attention because the writing was done by Ou Yang-hsun, a well known calligrapher.61 Unfortunately, neither the stone nor a complete rubbing of the stone remains today, although the text of the memorial has been preserved in the Chin shih ts'ui pien, and the Ch'uan t'ang wen.62 Although there are many missing characters and flaws in the various rubbings, as the text of this memorial served as the basis of Seng-yung's biography in the Hsü kao seng chuan, this can help in the correction of the stele text.
2. Kuang-ming ssu Hui-liao t'a ming
This memorial is the only source of information about this disciple of Hsin-hsing.63 According to a note in the Chin shih hsu pien, the stele is in Shan-hsi Hsi-an, Chung-nan shan, and is slightly damaged. This would place it with the stūpas and memorials of Hsin-hsing and other San-chieh-chiao followers, and corroborates the information given in the memorial itself. There is also a note which says that the memorial was lost until 1796. One other interesting point is that the text states that Hui-liao was chosen by Hsiao-yü (575-648: a trusted minister of T'ai-tsung) as one of three “monks of great virtue,” and summoned to court to discuss the Dharma. This indicates that the San-chieh-chiao was back in favor with the court at this point. One also wonders about the role of Hsiao-yü, an important noble (of the imperial family of the Ling dynasty) and well-known patron of Buddhism.
3. Tz'u-jun ssu ku ta Ling-ch'en ch'an shih t'a ming wen
Although the stone is no longer extant, the text has been preserved. According to the inscription, after meeting Hsin-hsing, Ling-ch'en (554-628) studied “the Buddha Dharma which accords with the capacity,” a clear reference to the teachings of the San-chieh-chiao.64
4. Seng-shun ch'an shih she li t'a ming
Although this memorial, erected in 639, does not specifically state that Seng-shun was a San-chieh-chiao follower, it does say that he followed the “buddha Dharma which accords with the capacity,” universal respect, recognizing evil in oneself, practiced the dhūtas, was buried according to the rules for “forest burial,” (i.e., his body was left as an offering for the beasts and the remains were later gathered and enshrined), etc., all of which are characteristics of the San-chieh-chiao.65
5. Hua-tu ssu Seng-hai ch'an shih fen chi
This is a very short (53 characters) memorial for the San-chieh-chiao monk Seng-hai. The memorial is mentioned in several catalogues and the text is included in the Yung chou chin shih chi.66 The stone is said to be located at the Pai-t'a ssu, site of many San-chieh-chiao steles, including that of Hsin-hsing. As Yabuki notes, given that the memorial records Seng-hai's age at 66 when he died in 654, he most likely was not a direct disciple of Hsin-hsing.
6. Tao-an ch'an shih t'a chi
This memorial for Tao-an has been recorded in many catalogues.67 According to these records, the stone is located at the Pai-t'a ssu, site of Hsin-hsing's stele. The memorial records that he died in 668 at 61 at the Chao-ching kung ssu, a San-chieh-chiao temple in Ch'ang-an. There are no other records of Tao-an, although a monk named Tao-an took part in the forging of the Fo shuo shih so fan che yu ch'ieh fa ching ching some 45 years later.
7. Ching-yü ssu ku ta te Fa-tsang ch'an shih t'a ming
Fa-tsang, of the Ching-yu ssu, a one-time temple of the San-chieh-chiao, is well-known for his activities as imperially-appointed controller of the Inexhaustible Storehouse. According to this memorial, Fa-tsang was appointed “controller” of a newly inaugurated Inexhaustible Storehouse at the Fu-hsien ssu (the “family temple” of Empress Wu) in the 1st year of Ju-i (April 22-October 22, 692); he was later appointed controller of the original Inexhaustible Storehouse at the Hua-tu ssu during the Ch'ang-an period (November 15, 701-January 29, 705).68 Fa-tsang appears to have been a relatively important monk of this period, for in addition to his appointments as controller of the Inexhaustible Storehouse, his memorial tells us that he was also declared “Bhadanta” (preceptor, director of the monastery) of the Chien-fu ssu during the same period. Although the tributes written in a memorial stele must always be received with a grain of salt, the mention of Fa-tsang's being “superior in the [ascetic practice] of the dhūtas,” “not eating food that was not [received] from begging,” etc., bespeak of a virtuous monk engaged in traditional San-chieh-chiao practices. This is also supported by Professor Forte's conclusion that “even in the case of the foundation of the…Fu-hsien ssu, which was called T'ai-yüan originally, founded in 675 by Wu Chao in honor of her mother who had died five years earlier, Wu Chao took care to choose monks for her monastery from amongst the most eminent of the time (emphasis added).”69 Although originally at the P'ai-ta-ssu, the stele is now at the Forest of Steles in Hsi-an.
Other memorial steles for followers of the San-chieh-chiao have been recorded but no longer exist (e.g., the memorials for Ching-ming and P'ei Hsuan-cheng, see above); epigraphical records of monks of the Hua-tu ssu and other temples identified with the San-chieh-chiao have been found, but given the fact that at this time Chinese temples were not organized along sectarian lines we cannot positively identify these monks as San-chieh-chiao followers.70
D. Conclusion
Through this overview of the various steles and memorials, we can see that the San-chieh-chiao was not solely a movement of the masses, as their stress on mo-fa has led some scholars to conclude. There were at least seven memorial steles dedicated to Hsin-hsing, and another seven for other San-chieh-chiao followers. Given the literary nature of the enterprise and the means required to erect such a stele, this number alone tells us something of their resources. Further, of the memorials for Hsin-hsing, two were done by an imperial prince (XIII and XIV) and two by the author of the Chen yüan lu (XVIII and XIX). Record I indicates that a member of the highly placed P'ei family composed the memorial, and XII-XIII boast the work of a famous calligrapher, as does the memorial for Hsin-hsing's disciple, Seng-yung. Fa-tsang's stele clearly shows the the imperial favor granted the most important San-chieh-chiao institution (and Fa-tsang himself). We should also remember that the early patron of the movement was Kao-chiung, perhaps the most well-known and influential statesman of the Sui dynasty.
Given the nature and process of writing history, it is to be wondered what, outside of references in standard historical sources, would give evidence of peasant support or involvement. The only records which indicate involvement with other than the court elite are those relating to the charitable activities of the Inexhuastible Storehouse. Even these records, however, seem more concerned with the activities of the donors, who “vied with one another in their donations so that order could not be maintained. They left entire carts of money and silks, and after having donated their valuables and silks they would leave without even making their names known.”71 Given that the focus of activity was the merit-making of the donors this is not surprising. Thus, although the lack of evidence is not conclusive, we still must recognize that the epigraphical records of the San-chieh-chiao, one of the most significant bodies of source material for studying their history, supports the contention that they should not be construed solely as a mass or popular movement. Perhaps this indicates another way in which the elite/popular distinction simply is no longer adequate, and it is to be hoped that the many steles, inscription catalogues, and the like will come to be more widely used in Buddhist research in all fields.
1 This is a lightly edited version of my “Chinese Reliquary Inscriptions and the San-chieh-chiao” originally published in the Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 14/2 (1991): 253-280; an earlier version was presented at the VIth International Conference of the International Association for Buddhist Studies, Tokyo, Japan (1983). I am greateful to Prof. Antoninio Forte for his comments on both versions.
2 Gregory Schopen, "Mahāyāna in Indian Inscriptions," in Indo-Iranian Journal 21 (1979); "The Inscription on the Kuṣān Image of Amitābha and the Character of the Early Mahāyāna in India," in The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 10, no. 2 (1987).
3 Silvio Vita, "Tang Epigraphical Sources and Buddhist Hagiography: The Role of Literati," unpublished manuscript presented to the Ninth International Conference of the The International Association of Buddhist Studies (Taipei, 1989).
4 Jamie Hubbard. “Perfect Buddhahood, Absolute Delusion. The Universal Buddha of the San-chieh-chiao” in Griffiths & Keenan, ed., Buddha Nature: A Festschrift in Honor of Minoru Kiyota (Buddhist Books International: Reno, 1990).
5 Schopen, “The Amitabha Inscription,” p. 101.
6 The original study of the San-chieh-chiao memorials is that of Kanda Kiichirō “Sangaikyō ni Kansuru Zui-Tō no Kohi” in Bukkyō Kenkyū, vol. 3, nos. 3, 4, and vol. 4, no. 2. See also Yabuki Keiki, Sangaikyō no Kenkyū (Iwanami 1927, 1974 reprint), pp. 23-33.
7 Both of these are reprinted in Kanda, op.cit., vol. 3, no. 3 and vol. 3, no. 4, respectively.
8 For example, Kimura has written, “The Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei, which is thought to contain the inscription of Hsin-hsing's disciple P'ei Hsüan-cheng, is believed to be the most authoritative among the extant historical records [regarding the San-chieh-chiao].” “Shingyō no Jikikan to sono Igi,” Nippon Bukkyō Gakkai Nenpō, no. 49, p. 172.
9 T.50.560a.
10 T.50.560a-b; Ch'en-ssu, Pao k'e ts'ung pien (Sung dynasty, included in the Shih k'e shih liao), chuan 7, p. 19. Although we don't know when he died, there is a record of a P'ei Hsüan-cheng memorial erected in 634. Cf. the Chin shih lu, no. 570; Pao k’e ts’ung pien, chuan 7, p. 19.
11 Tsukamoto Zenryū “Zoku Sangaikyō Shiryō Zakki” in Shina bukkyō Shigaku, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 98-102.
12 Ibid, p. 99.
13 Chao Ming-cheng, Chin shih lu, chuan 3, p. 5 (included in the Chin shih ts'ung shu, Shanghai, 1888; see also the Shih k'e shih liao hsin pien, Taipei, 1978, p. 8814).
14 Fei Pen-chi, Chin shih ts'ui pien pu mu (1851, included in the Chü hsüeh hsuan ts'ung shu, 1897), chuan 1, p. 7.
15 Cf. Kanda, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 3, p. 352.
16 Chao Tzu-ch'ien, Pu huan yü fang pei lu (included in the Shih k'e shih liao hsin pien, p. 20216), chuan 2, p. 21.
17 Mao Feng-chih, Kuan chung chin shih wen tzu tz'un i k'ao (1901, included in the Shih k'e shih liao hsin pien, p. 10359), chuan 1, p. 7. The last comment is rather curious. If this is true, one wonders what records (II), (III), and (IV) were based on. Kanda, op.cit., feels that Mao simply hadn't known of the rediscovery of the stone.
18 Ku Hsieh-kuang, Ku shih hui mu, (1920), chuan 1, p. 12.
19 “Sangaikyō,” p. 353, p. 357.
20 P. 25, p. 31, note 4.
21 Tsukamoto Zenryū, “Sangaikyō Shiryō Zakki” in Shinabukkyō Shigaku, vol. 1, nos. 1-2, pp. 67-69.
22 Ku Hsieh-kuang, Ho shuo hsin pei mu, (1919, included in the Fei ju fei hsia tsai chin shih ts'ung cho, 1916-1927), chuan 2, p. 15. The entry in this catalogue has caused some confusion. Although this entry is contained in chronological catalogue (the second chuan), the 1st chuan, arranged by location, gives a slightly different entry for what must be the same memorial (p. 5): VIIIb: “Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei. Regular script, [erected in] the first month of Kai-huang 14. T'ang yin. A note in regular script, on the left side of the memorial, says that in T'ang Chen-yüan 20 (647) the stūpa was re-worked.” Now, between these two entries in the same catalogue we see that the name of the memorial is slightly different and one gives Kai-yüan 14 and the other K'ai-huang 14. Given the information in the extant rubbing, there can be no doubt that both the name and the date should be as given in the first chuan. I don't know why, but in their quote of this catalogue (from the record in the first chuan) Yabuki (p. 28) and Tsukamoto (p. 66) give Chen-kuan 20 (647), whereas my edition of the catalogue gives Chen-yüan 20 (804), as did the edition that Kanda used. Unfortunately, none of these scholars listed which edition of the catalogue they used.
23 Ku Hsieh-kuang and Fan Shou-ming, Ho shuo chin shih mu, (Shanghai: T'ien hua yin wu kuan, 1930), chuan 3, p. 1.
24 Ch'en Han-cheng, Chui hsüeh T'ang ho shou pei k'e pa wei (1933, appended to the Hsun yüan chin shih wen tzu pa wei, which is included in the Shih k'e shih liao hsin pien, p. 14485), chuan 2, p. 6.
25 From the Hsun yüan chin shih wen tzu pa wei of Fan Shou-ming (1934, included in the Shih k'e shih liao hsin pien, p. 14477), chuan 2, p. 7.
26 Kanda, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 351-352, pp. 355-358.
27 Yabuki, p. 25 and p. 31, note 4.
28 Tokiwa Daijō and Sekino Tadashi, Shina Bukkyō Shiseki Hyōkai (Tokyo: Bukkyō Shiseki Kenkyūkai, 1931), vol. 1, p. 110.
29 Tsukamoto, “Zatsuki” 1, p. 68.
30 In his biography of Hsin-hsing, Tao-hsüan states that he went to the Chih-hsiang ssu, the site of the Pei Hsuan-cheng stele. T.50.560a.
31 Tsukamoto, “Zakki,”1, p. 68. Of course, the possibility remains that the T'ang-yin stele is a copy of the P'ei Hsuan-cheng memorial.
32 On close examination of their entry for this stele it can be seen that it is not based on actual examination of the stone, as with most other entries in the work, but rather on “projection.” That is, although the photo-copy, text, and description of the stele are all listed together with a photo of the Pai-t'a ssu, it is never explicitly stated that the stone is located there, neither the exact location within the Pai-t'a ssu nor the physical dimensions of the stone are recorded, and the photo is of the rubbing of the stele, not the actual stone. Given these facts and the rather detailed statements of the above records, I think that Tokiwa, having obtained a rubbing or copy of the rubbing, and based on Hsin-hsing's biography in the Hsü kao seng chuan (or, more likely, on Kanda's and Yabuki's conclusions), rather fancifully “projected” the location of the stele to be at the Pai-t'a ssu. A visit to the Chung-nan shan area in the summer of 1983 in search of Hsin-hsing's stūpa and memorial stone produced no results, although one local informant, who claimed to remember the reliquary, said that it was destroyed during the Cultural Revolution and the stones used to build a grain storehouse.
33 Tsukamoto, basing himself on an edition of VIII that gives Chen-kuan 20 as the date of the re-working has also shown a similar confusion between Chen-yüan and Chen-kuan with regard to the date of the founding of the Fa-lung ssu. Tsukamoto, pp. 66-67.
34 Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei, Yabuki, p. 9.
35 Sui shu, chuan 3, p. 8b, chuan 28, pp. 22b-23a, 32a.
36 Ch'ang an shih, chuan 10, p. 9.
37 Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei, Yabuki, pp. 8-9.
38 Ch'en-ssu, Pao k'e ts'ung pien, op. cit., chuan 7, p. 19.
39 This is contained in the Ryūkoku MS of the Chen yüan lu, chuan 30, included in Tsukamoto, “Zatsuki,” 1, p. 64.
40 Ibid.
41 T.50.636b-639a.
42 T.50.638a. Ch'ing-yüan's biography: T.50.511b-512a; Chih-cheng's biography: T.50.536b-c. See also Kimura Kiyotaka, Shoki Chūgoku Kegon Shisō no Kenkyū (Tokyo: Shunjū-sha, 1977), pp. 380-382. Chih-yen's biography in the Hua yen ching chuan chi lists a Lin Fa-shih as his teacher. Kimura (p. 380) believes that this is a mistake for Ch'ing-lin (565-640), and dismisses the notion that it could refer to Ching-yuan's disciple Fa-lin of the Chih-hsiang ssu simply because there is no direct link to Chih-yen in the brief notes on Fa-lin contained in Ch'ing-yuan's biography. Since Chih-yen lived at the Chih-hsiang ssu and supposedly studied with Chih-cheng, and since there is a record of a Fa-lin there as well, it seems much more probable to me that Lin Fa-shih refers to Fa-lin of the Chih-hsiang ssu.
43 T.50.511c.
44 Yabuki, p. 131; Tsukamoto, “Zoku Sangaikyō Shiryō Zakki,” in Shina Bukkyō Shigaku, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 99. Cf. Robert Gimello, Chih-yen and the Foundations of Hua-yen Buddhism (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1976), p. 58, where he refers to the location of Hsin-hsing's stūpa as the Chih-hsiang ssu.
45 Tokiwa Daijō, “Sangaikyō no Botai toshite no Hōzan-ji” in Shūkyō Kenkyū, vol. 4, no. 1, 1927.
46 Chin shih lu, chuan 5, p. 4 (Shih k'e shih liao hsin pien, p. 8826).
47 Yabuki, pp. 26-27, 32, 69.
48 Ibid.
49 Twitchett, Dennis. The Cambridge History of China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), vol. 3 (Sui and T'ang), p. 345.
50 Ou-yang Pei, Chi ku lu mu (Sung dynasty, included in the Chin shih ts'ung shu, op. cit.), chuan 2, pp. 5-6. The Pao k'e ts'ung pien (op. cit., chuan 7, p. 23) and the Pao k'e lui pien (1781, included in the Ssu k'u chin shu chen pen pieh chi, Shanghai, 1934, chuan 2, p. 21; also in the Shih k'e shih liao pien, p. 18427) also recorded the same memorial, and more recently, Lo Chen-yu recorded the rubbing of this memorial in his Hsüeh t'ang chin shih wen tzu pa wei (chuan 7, p. 23). He also states that although the Chin shih lüeh (included in the Hsin k'e shih liao hsin pien, p. 18055) records that this stele has a back (as does the Chin shih lu) this is now missing. A manuscript of the Chen yüan lu also mentions this memorial. Cf. Tsukamoto, “Zakki”, II, p. 110.
51 T.55.679a.
52 The most accessible version of this text is that included in Kanda's article, op.cit., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 562-564. According to Kanda, p. 561, the text is also recorded in the “Chi yu T'ang pei lu of Wei Hsi-hui,” and was published by the Yu cheng ts'ung chu of Shanghai as the “Hsüeh shao pao Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei.”
53 Chin shih lu, chuan 5. p. 3 (op. cit., p. 8826).
54 Pao k'e ts'ung pien, op.cit., chuan 7, p. 23; Pao k'e lui pien, op.cit., chuan 2, p. 26 (Shih k'e shih liao hsin pien, p. 18429).
55 Sometime during 701 and 703, for example, Wu appointed the San-chieh-chiao monk Fa-tsang controller of the Inexhaustible Storehouse at the Hua-tu ssu in Ch'ang-an.
56 XVII: Na-hsin, Ho shou fang ku chi (Yuan dynasty, included in the Chen i t'ang san chung, 1811), chuan 2, p. 16. Cf. Tsukamoto, “Sangaikyō Shiryō Zakki”, op. cit., pp. 62-65.
57 Although not included in the Taishō text, a manuscript fragment of the Chen yüan hsin ting shih chiao mu lu (800) in the Ryukoku University Library records 35 works of the San-chieh-chiao in 44 chuan, with a note that they were ordered back into the catalogue in on the 18th day of the 4th month of the 16th year of the Chen-yuan era (800). For more on this important catalogue see Jamie Hubbard, Salvation in the Final Period of the Dharma: the Inexhaustible Storehouse of the San-chieh-chiao (Ph.D dissertation, University of Wisconsin at Madison, 1986), pp. 180-188.
58 T.55.765a.
59 In the Sung kao seng chuan, T.50.805b. The Pao k'e ts'ung pien (chuan 7, p. 30) also contains a record of another stele which Yüan-chao composed for a monk of the Hua-tu ssu in 777. It hard to say without more evidence whether or not this monk was a follower of the San-chieh-chiao.
60 Chin shih lu, chuan 8 (op. cit., p. 8849); also recorded in the Pao k'e ts'ung pien, chuan 7, p. 29. Cf. the Fo tsu t'ung chi, T. 49.364a, T.49.473a.
61 The best summary of the scholarship surrounding this stele, including a comparison of the various extant rubbings, is found in two articles by Nakada Yūjirō: “Kedoji Sōyū Zenji Tōmei Kojiki” in Ōtani Gakuhō, vol. 31, no. 1 (1952), and “Ōtankeibon Sōtaku Kedojihi ni tsuite” in Ōtani Gakuhō, vol. 33, no. 4 (1954). Cf. Kanda Kiichirō, op. cit., vol. 3 no. 3, pp. 358-364; Kanda Kiichirō, “Kedoji Tōmei ni tsuite” in Shinagaku, vol. 2, no. 9, (Taishō 11), pp. 52-58; Yabuki, pp. 40-43. Kanda, “Sangaikyō,” and Yabuki both contain the text of the memorial.
62 Chin shih ts'ui pien, op. cit., chuan 43, pp. 15-19; Chuan t'ang wen, op. cit., chuan 143, pp. 5-8.
63 The text of the memorial is included in the Chin shih hsü pien, chuan 5, pp. 5-7 (included in the Shih k'e shih liao hsin pien); Kanda Kiichirō, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 364-366; Yabuki, pp. 50-52.
64 Tsukamoto, “Zakki” #1, pp. 69-71. Tsukamoto places Ling-ch'en in Hsiang-chou, thus it is not hard to imagine that he would have actually met Hsin-hsing.
65 Tsukamoto, ibid., pp. 71-75.
66 Chu, Feng. Yung chou chin shih chi, chuan 2, pp. 9-10; see also Kanda Kiichirō, “Sangaikyō”, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 366-377; Yabuki, pp. 54-55.
67 Chin shih ts'ui pien, chuan 57, pp. 18-20; Yung chou chin shih chi, chuan 3, etc. See also Kanda Kiichirō, “Sangaikyō,” vol. 3, no. 3, p. 368; Yabuki, pp. 56-57.
68 The text of the memorial can be found in the Chin shih ts'ui pien, chuan 71, pp. 1 ff. Cf. Kanda Kiichirō, “Sangaikyō”, vol.3, no. 4, pp. 559-560; Yabuki, pp. 69-71; Tokiwa Daijō and Sekino Tadashi, Shina Bukkyō Shiseki, vol 1, plate 61, and Shina Bukkyō Shiseki Hyōkai, volume 1, pp. 112-114.
69 Antonino Forte, Political Propaganda and Ideology in China at the End of the VII Century (Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1976), p. 113. In this section of his work Professor Forte examined the background of the various monks involved in the Commentary on the Meaning of the Prophecy about Shen-huang in the Ta yun ching (previously thought to be an apocryphal version of the Ta yun ching) in order to show that they represented the orthodoxy of the time. One of the thrusts of his study is to show that the Buddhism of Empress Wu's time cannot be considered the heretical impulses of a woman infatuated with a “false monk,” as has been the traditional interpretation. Although Forte has suggested (p. 166) that the suppression of the San-chieh-chiao during Wu's reign indicates her concern with orthodoxy (the San-chieh-chiao being heretical) it seems to me that her patronage of the Inexhaustible Storehouse and Fa-tsang indicate that the San-chieh-chiao was considered part of the orthodoxy and, as with the other suppressions, we must look elsewhere for the cause. For more on Empress Wu and the Three Stages, see also Antonio Forete, “Il <<Monastero Dei Grandi Chou>> A Lo-yang,” Annali dell'Istituto Orientale di Napoli, vol. 35; “The Relativity of the Concept of Orthodoxy in Chinese Buddhism: Chih-sheng's Indictment of Shih-li and the Proscription of the Dharma Mirror Sūtra"," in Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, ed. by Robert Buswell (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990).
70 Yüan-chao, for example, in addition to the memorial stele which he did for Hsin-hsing, composed a stele for another monk of the Hua-tu ssu in 777; there is no other evidence, however, to suggest that the monk in question was a follower of Hsin-hsing's teachings (Pao k'e ts'ung pien, chuan 7, p. 30).
71 Hubbard, Salvation, pp. 145-147.